BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advanced artificial intelligence simulating human behavior should be programmed into robots.

Hello, quarterexchange. I believe we have debated before. Nice to see you again. My contender has provided an interesting video for this debate. His main message is that robots used in warfare would be beneficial in accuracy, loading speed, and the ability to distinguish between civilians and hostiles. He mentions that people, being the humans they are, can easily make mistakes, such as shooting civilian targets and friendly fire, during warfare. However, although robots tend to not make mistakes, they sometimes do. Glitches in programming, especially in the confusing conditions of warfare, can have a considerable effect on a robot's behavior. No matter how far we go in technology, a basic rule of life is mistake. Technology can fail at any time. Even the simplest of programs can have errors in programming. "...robotic beings would be able to differentiate between armed and unarmed individuals..." I'm assuming that a warfare robot in this sense does not shoot at unarmed individuals. Many robots of today, and most likely the future, are only able to do what they are programmed to do. In other words, although a computer is good at doing the job it's programmed for, it isn't good at anything else. For example, a machine that manufactures vehicles probably wouldn't be good at playing chess. What would happen if the enemy decided to avoid robotic warfare by dressing up all their troops with no armor? How could computers tell the difference then? After all, whether they are civilians or soldiers, people look the same. I guess you could say that people can make the same mistakes, so therefore robots are better in war simply because they replace humans to allow less people to die in war. Unfortunately, machines are prone to corruption. The enemy can simply take the blueprints of a particular machine and remake a mechanical army of their own. Also, robots can be reprogrammed right on the battlefield. Furthermore, enemies tend to adapt to new conditions. There has been an invention that, when turned on, produces a wave that disables all electrically-powered devices within a specific radius. I'm not sure exactly what it is called, but my point is that the ability to disable a machine from far away is possible, especially in warfare. I'm not sure if Pro has completely understood the meaning of this debate entirely: that robots used to act like humans are not beneficial. In other words, you could literally have a robot acquaintance that is indistinguishable from a real person. The machines this debate discusses look like human beings. Many of Pro's arguments focus on jobs present-day robots are almost already doing, such as piloting spacecraft and operators of industries. Though he is correct about some jobs robots could do, robots absolutely, even if they could, cannot be allowed to socialize, start businesses, and be a part of society in the same way a human being could.
Advanced artificial intelligence simulating human behavior should be programmed into robots.

My opponents rules and agreements seem like good rules to follow and I will gladly abide by them I will take the Pro side of this debate and argue that Advanced AI simulating human behavior should be programmed into robots for these reasons. Using robots as soldiers means that we will have robotic beings programmed to use a weapon, drive vehicles, conduct tactical maneuvers and essentially commit any action any other human soldier would do. Programming robots to use a weapon would mean that they will have much greater accuracy, load much quicker, and resulting in more enemy casualties. In events it would be hard to identify targets in some environments such as let's say a populated urban area, robotic beings would be able to differentiate between armed and unarmed individuals allowing them to avoid civilian casualties altogether, somewhat like the Terminator could do. [Refer to video, no casualties inflicted on police while trying to scare them off with a minigun] http://www.youtube.com... In the past this has been an issue. It is hard for humans in the heat of battle to distinguish between civilians and combatants in split second decisions. This problem will be virtually eliminated. As a plus in the event a robot combatant gets destroyed, no soldier would actually die in war, only enemy combatants. U.S. and civilian deaths in conflict will be almost eliminated. They can also explore in uncharted areas that are dangerous to humans such as the deep sea or outer space Robots with human like minds and behaviors can be programmed to operate exploration craft such submarines and space shuttles and explore territory that would otherwise kill humans and be able to accomplish tasks with almost perfect execution while completely eliminating human risk factor. There is no need to fear such an advancement in technology when this advancement can save the lives of combat soldiers, civilians, astronauts, divers, operators in nuclear reactors, and various other people in dangerous situations or occupations and at the same time conduct those jobs more efficiently. In conclusion. Robots having advanced AI programming would save an untold number of human lives. When the technology is available for us to accomplish such a feat, we should use it.
Advanced artificial intelligence simulating human behavior should be programmed into robots.

Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or other offensive language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not permissible. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books. Ever since the dawn of technology, the thought of building mechanical entities that simulate human behavior has been a huge part of our research. In fact, Homer even noted in one of his ancient books about "people made of brass". However, now that the human race has a larger access to new technologies, our inventions, innovations, and breakthroughs are already becoming too advanced in some areas. This debate discusses whether or not artificial intelligence made to simulate human behavior (talking, walking, decision-making) is a good program to put into robots. I will be taking the Con/Against side of this debate: I believe human-like artificial intelligence in robots should not be allowed. It is dangerous and unnecessary. When I say "artificial intelligence" (abbreviated "A.I."), I'm not talking about the computerized chess players you can find on a PC. Instead, robots that can simulate humans well enough to literally blend in with society are what I am thinking of. I other words, the robots would be indistinguishable from human beings in all aspects: speech, mobility, appearance, etc. Although this debate contains almost no scientific evidence and is almost completely science fiction, I strongly recommend taking it seriously and observing practical situations and hypotheses that are backed up by scientific facts. After all, science fiction usually does come true. Flying was once a utopian idea. I wish good luck to my opponent in this debate.
Advanced artificial intelligence simulating human behavior should be programmed into robots.

It's a shame my opponent had to forfeit and was not able to respond to my arguments. I thank him for posting a reason for his forfeit rather than actually dragging out the entire time limit. In conclusion. My opponent offered no reason as to why robots with advanced artificial intelligence would have any detrimental effect on society by taking part in society and since he was the instigator, that was his job. My opponent was not able to respond to my arguments about how robots with advanced AI would actually save the lives of soldiers and civilians during conflict as well as eliminate the human risk factor in various other situations and scenarios. Therefore his position, that we shouldn't program advanced human AI into robots, did not fulfill the burden of proof.
Religion can be blamed for some crimes committed by theists

I claim that no religion should be at fault for the crimes that their members commit. Before we decided that all religions should be banished from thought, I must urge the audience to look at the good things that they have also done. Martin Luther King Jr., a theist amongst them all, was one who led for African American civil rights and moderate protection. However, is his religion held accountable for the actions he made? The answer is no he was not. He was held accountable for his actions, and his actions alone. http://www.biography.com...Gandhi, an activist whom freed India from the British control, was a very religious person. To many, he is now referenced as a God. However, do they get any praise from being nonviolent? No, they do not. So I must ask "Is it really the religion at fault?" The answer I say is no. We do not uphold the good that comes from religion even though we make sure that the bad is now marked upon theists forever. Good can come out of religion, and it can most definitely outweight the bad that has been done and that it will do. I think that those who go and do terrible deeds for their religion should be punished, but not because of what they believe, but by the actions that they commit. One can choose what to believe. One can choose their own actions. There is always the choice to do an action, and a choice to not do one. One can dismiss any influence made by people or religion. One can also choose to allow it to influence them. The question of what influence a religion gives is dependent on reality. A reality is what one chooses it to be. Thus, even the reality of any situation can still be a choice by the individual. It is based off of what we observe, and if we are to make such a claim that an action is a result of what theists believe, then we must observe any theism to be bad, we must observe all theistic religions. Below are some religions that have had little to no attention for violence: BuddhismDeismMany forms of Christianity, such as a Jehovah's Witness. Polydeism PandeismPanendeismAutotheismJudaism Orthodox IslamThis does not even begin to sum up all the religions that exist today. All of these forms of religion have been mostly nonviolent. However, I must return to how this affects my original claim. All of the actions of these religions as a whole have been peaceful. So, the few that go astray and commit crimes must be aheld for their individual actions. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.
Religion can be blamed for some crimes committed by theists

Religion CAN be blamed for some crimes, a prime example is a Jihad in Islam. The purpose of a Jihad is to defend Islam in a type of Holy War. http://www.bbc.co.uk... This is easily compared to the Crusades of the Catholic Church to try and implement Christianity as the true religion. http://usna.edu... The Inquisition was about getting rid of non-Christians. "Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death." - Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, 1271). Christian civilization, by virtue of its exclusivist heresy and monotheism, became the self-justifying destroyer of all non-Christian culture. http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org... Adolf Hitler even stated in his book Mein Kampf that killing the Jews was done for God. http://atheism.about.com... there is even an interesting book called The 9/11 Verses: Terrorist Teachings in the Koran that talks about how the Koran actually promotes terrorism, the same verses that approve and promote the terrorist attacks of 9/11. http://www.amazon.com... There is still a war, terrorist attacks, etc. happening between Palestine and Israel BECAUSE of religion. They are all trying to take position of their "Holy Land". Hinduism does not even escape this as there are hundreds, even thousands of cases of domestic violence caused in Hindu societies. Hinduism even teaches that if a husband dies before his wife that it is her fault. http://www.hinduwebsite.com... http://www.historyextra.com... This is not saying that all crimes are the fault of religion, but religion is responsible for quite a few crimes that have happened over time.
Religion can be blamed for some crimes committed by theists

This debate is about if religion should be blamed for some of the crimes committed by theists. Rules: 1. Burden of proof is shared 2. Stay on topic 3. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct. 4. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points. 5. Follow the following format for the debate Format: Round 1- Acceptance. Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals. Rounds 4- No new points/arguments. Round 4- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case. Let the debate begin!
Monkeys should be considered persons.

To answer your first statement, I agree that monkey mostly likely would not able to read "I wish the debate was over". However, I highly believe that if they were taught how to read and write, they will be able to comprehend it. Scientifically, monkeys are very intelligent; they don"t have the ability speak the language much however if it"s written and they were to be taught they can understand as well. Human"s brain and monkey"s brain are similar. Therefore, the process of learning something new such as language is similar. For better understanding, I will use myself as an example. I learned how to speak, write, and understand a foreign language-- English. I might not be the best English writer, or speaker. However, I am capable to do what everyone else can do as their first language as English. Learning another language takes time and effort. It also depends on the individual; how much are you willing to learn? 2. I don"t think I failed at any point to put things in standard form. From what I heard from the class of formatting the debate, numbering the premises were ONLY necessary for round 1 to start off. I clearly remember the professor said paragraph forms are fine for the rest of rounds expect round 1. Yes, it is understandable that numbering things can simplify and might give easier steps to follow up. However, it was not necessary to number every single round. You have mentioned that "Children are just like monkeys; they both can not defend themselves." We agree then that children and monkeys cannot defend themselves within a court of law. My question for you is how are they different then? I believe I gave reasonable examples how every person is unique. Please refer back to round 3-- examples of other cultures. If you still don"t understand, then ask yourself, how do I interact and communicate with people from Vietnam? Just because you can"t speak another language and you are not used to his/her culture, it doesn"t mean they are not humans. Monkeys have their own too, just like every other culture in the world. Therefore, monkeys be considered persons.
Monkeys should be considered persons.

I hope you are keeping in mind that we are looking at things in philosophic manners. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. If red blooded machines aren"t humans, what are they? Yes, they can be animals but if humans are not part of red blooded cells what are we composed of? For your statement number 2, I explained further in round 2 for my premises 4 through 7 with examples. What standard form are you using? or what standard are you preferring to? Just to clarify your idea, all my words and format are in standard form: a level of quality or attainment. You have stated in round 1 that monkeys do not possess the ability to intelligently defend themselves within a court of law. I am saying that so are children. Children are just like monkeys; they both can not defend themselves. If humans are born with all the ability to do at age of 25, an adult, then why children need a guardian(s)? You"ve said that "That is why monkeys, animals, and children have legal guardians and that is also why monkeys will never be considered a persons.". Are you saying that children are not persons? What are children then? Thank you for clarifying the holders of rights. Back with your statements 3 and 4, refer back to round 1 if you need, monkeys have rights too. Let me break down into simpler way. All the humans are different; every individuals are unique in their own ways. There are different backgrounds of people. For example, cultural differences play big role wherever one goes. It is rude or degrading for Japanese if one tips them at a restaurant. Also, it is wrong to honk at Norway because honking means emergency at Norway and if one honks at a road people will panic thinking that there is an emergency. There are more differences within humans culturally and the appearances of themselves. The humans don"t really understand monkeys and so are monkeys. However, does one from the United States fully understand another from Angola? My question is that can an American communicate well with a Yugoslavian? If the communication fails at any reason, does that mean they are non-human beings? or at least one of them? No, because they can communicate perfectly within themselves (American to American). So are monkey, they can communicate with each other just like humans. It is the matter of fact how well persons are well-surrounded with another species. Please use correct spellings for your words. Also, if you have disagreements with my definitions of many listed above, what are yours? Please define rights, persons, red-blooded machines or cells and explain your statements. I see that you are restating lots of my statements and they are wrong or you disagree with them. Will you please clarify how? why?
Monkeys should be considered persons.

I agree with on number 1; humans are self-legislative and morally autonomous. In addition, monkeys or animals also have just like humans. In the 16th century, philosopher Descartes stated that animals were just automata. Automata(autonomous) is any red-blooded machines without thoughts or wishes. For your argument number 2, I believe that I previously mentioned children do NOT have the ability to intelligently defend themselves within a court of law either. Just like monkeys can"t. Please refer back to number 5 from my list. For your arguments number 3 and 4, who are the holders are you talking about? I believe humans do have the ability to discern between the morality of what should and should not be done by understanding facts of many given cases however not all of them. Also I disagree that humans are the ONLY ones with the ability. To talk about morality, animals have the same emotions as humans do. From my research, Frans de Waal, professor of psychology at Emory University, who led the study of morality of monkeys, said: "I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals." I agree and disagree with your argument number 6 because not all the humans take care and protect animals. Think about chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, and so on. Do humans take care and protect them from the immoral treatment? or do they raise them for their benefits of making profits out of animals? Adults take special care of who? the animals or the young children? In some families, animals are part of their families; often, dogs and cats are dominant pets that humans take care and protect. Yes, some people don"t necessarily understand how animals can be part of a family. I agree with your statement number 8, but humans are NOT the only species with emotions or thoughts. The feelings of guilty can be seen in monkeys as well. A book titled, "Can animals be moral?" (oxford University Press) presents that mammals such as chimpanzees, monkeys, and dogs can choose to be good or bad. It explains why mammals also have the morality just like humans do. If they have the ability to be either good or bad, they can tell the difference between right and wrong. The wrongness would give feeling of guilty for monkeys. How humans feel guilty. The only difference would be that there is no such thing as a law for monkeys in humanoid society. In respond with your questions, Yes, I am considering many other animals are other rights as humans. However, it doesn"t mean that all the animals are like monkeys. Philosopher, Tom Regan describes all of the things I mentioned in round 1. What are monkeys? Simply, they are animals and therefore, they are considered persons. Monkeys are very highly intelligent, have feelings and morality. A person from the philosophic view, it is a self-conscious or rational being with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture. Rights mean fitting or appropriate; suitable.
Monkeys should be considered persons.

I am assuming it is fair to say any premise of mine you do not directly address is agreed upon. I am also assuming any premise you do not revise from your original argument is irrelevant. In response to your Premises. (1.) I disagree; animals deserve to be treated in a humane manner. (2.) I agree; Humans do have certain duties towards the protection of animals due to the fact that they, like a child are unable to care for themselves. (3.) I agree pain is wrong, but I do not understand why the pain of my dog pertains to monkeys being considered a legal persons. (4.) I do not understand this premise because it has several claims. (5.) I do not understand this premise because it has several claims. (6.) I do not understand this premise because it has several claims. (7.) I do not understand this premise because it has several claims. (8.) I agree, monkeys are equal to all other animals, but if your biggest point is that monkeys share the same "rights" as all other animals than by that logic you"re not only arguing monkeys as persons but all animals to be considered persons. (9.) Monkeys should not be considered persons. My Argument (1.) Humans are self- legislative and morally autonomous. (2.) Monkeys lack the capacity for free moral judgment along with the inability to intelligibly defend themselves within a court of law. (3.) The holders of rights must have the ability to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. (4.) The holder of rights must recognize possible conflicts between their self-interest and what is just. (5.) Only humans have the ability to discern between the morality of what should and should not be done by understanding facts of any given case. (6.) Humans are obligated as the superior species to care for and protect animals from immoral treatment; for example Adults take special care when playing with young children and young children must take special care when playing with pets. (7.) All animals deserve to be treated in a humane manner; they do not deserve to be considered a person under the law. (8.) In law a person can only be charged criminally when the guilty deed is done with a guilty mind, therefore no animal would be able to be brought to criminal trial. (9.)Therefore, monkeys should not be considered persons. Questions In 8 and 9 you claim, "Monkeys are animals and animals have all the rights listed above. Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons". Since this is true you are not only arguing monkeys should be considered persons but you are arguing all animals should be considered persons. If all animals were considered persons like you have proposed would a human be charged with a crime for eating an animal once that animal is considered a person? If all animals including monkeys have the rights you listed than all animals not just monkeys should be considered persons. Comments Please define "rights" and "Persons" Please clarify what rights you attempted to argue in your original statement.