BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Robots could never be like us.

Aye, I shall begin now Yes, computers could simulate or resemble our feelings or consciousness. Its quite hard and complex, but our nervous system is complex as well, so its not a surprise. Everything is just physical, your mind is physical as well. We would have to simulate everything needed for thinking, chemicals (hormones, Ca2+, and other), simulate the working and way of thinking in the CNS. First, the most of the functions in the nervous system are working unconsciousness, so we"ve to talk about the thinking of the man. But the problem is that many thing we do. Happen because of instincts and hormones. Just like Estrogen and Testosterone make the sexual need, without it you wouldn"t "fell" the sexual part of love. And Dopamine, for instance. Without it you would lose you will of living or become extremely lazy. Also there are many but aba many molecules and substances in our body that help transferring the electrochemical data. Did you think that love is magical and special? Thinking is only a process were our Centre of our NS (usually a brain)and sometimes even a single neuron, gathers electrochemical data and processes it. Computers work in a similar way. Memory (data) is being processed. About experience and memory, you get it with interacting with the outside. HOWEVER this is very limited as you"ll need sensory organs, if you don"t you cant sense the outside. The bigger problem is of course, what the sensory organ is sensing. Ya eye can see only lambda= cca. 350nm-700nm (the colours of the rainbow). You cant see ultra-violet and radio-waves. The colour red you mentioned is only electromagnetic radiation on its unique wave-length of about 600nm. Electromagnetic radiation is only an energy, travelling by the tiny elementary particles called photons. Colours are only an illusion. What colour does a green leaf have? Every colour except green, because the leaf absorbs all the other colours. Green comes to our photoreceptor's, that convert an information and send it via the nervous system as electrochemical data to our brain, where we process the info and you aware that there is an object with the specific colour. The same goes for touching, hearing... So as our nervous system, its only a big puzzle with fundamental parts. But you could "emulate" the way how we think and fell to work the same way in a computer. But we"ve to discover the hidden secrets of the nervous system jet better, before this technology will exist. Good luck PRO.
Robots could never be like us.

It would be impossible to create a robot that shares human consciousness. What are the qualities of human consciousness you may ask. Well, lots of things but most strikingly I think, understanding. And also a sense of subjective experience, raw feeling and pure being. A sense of 'what it is like' to experience something. For instance, what it is like to be me, what is it like to hear bird song, what it it like to experience pain, and what it is like to experience all at the same time. Let me be clear, I am not disputing that computers could not be extremely intelligent, as evident in the chess match between the Deep Blue chess computer beating chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. However this computer, or any other, has no understanding. If given a stupid chess move, Deep Blue will make those stupid moves. Computers do well at the tasks they do well in because its human understanding being applied again and again and again. Furthermore, access match is only finite; it would be possible to enter in all the correct chess moves in each situation. Conversely a child has a grasp of natural numbers. Natural numbers are infinite so there is no possibility of giving a computer all the natural numbers. Humans also possess feeling, a 'what it is like' aspect of consciousness which robots could not have. If we take Frank Jackson's example of a woman called Mary brought up in a room where everything was black and white. She could not see the colour red. However, she learns everything the best scientists and philosophers can explain about what it is like to have the experience red. However, when she escapes into the real world and sees red for the first time I believe she learns something new, specifically, what it is like to see red. Now if scientists could create a robot that sees red they would enter all the information they knew about what it is like- the robot will gain what Mary learnt in her room about seeing red. However, I argue that this would not be enough to allow it to know what it is like to see red. If I can show that some things lie outside computation in one example means that computers cannot do everything.
Scar is the True Protagonist of "The Lion King"

Great speech; I look forward to the final round. Observation Rebuttal: I believe that there has been a mutual misunderstanding about my second observation. While I will accept that there is pre-film history (I apologize for my ignorance; the only pre-film evidence I could find was in a wiki, and I make it a point never to use wikis as sources), I am not saying that we do not require evidence. By solid logic, I mean making inferences and deductions based on logic. As Sherlock Holmes states in A Scandal in Bohemia, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." As such, I will modify my observation for increased clarity. Observation: All logical assumptions must be backed by evidence. E.g. one cannot say that if Scar had remained king longer, a meteor would have hit the Earth wiping out all life, as that assumption has no evidence, i.e. logic behind it. 1. Favoritism: First of all, I would like to remind my voters that Pro accepted the burden of proof. Unless he intends to back out of his word, it is his responsibility to prove that Mufasa was not intelligent. The only evidence he has provided is Scar's anecdotal claim and the fact that he is manipulative. While I will admit that he is manipulative, the fact that he is shows that he only cares about his own agenda. Scar's claim of intelligence should be disregarded as it is anecdotal. And, contrary to what Pro thinks, it can be proven that Mufasa takes the throne at age 9. According to the ages I presented in my last speech, we can figure that Mufasa was born when Ahadi was around 5. Since it is assumed Ahadi died of old age, and lions live to be 14, Mufasa would have taken the throne when he was 9. Therefore, it can be proven that Mufasa would have reigned longer than Scar. 2a. Overhunting: Even if there was a drought as my opponent claims, the fact remains that many animals died under Scar's rule, despite my opponent's claims that he was trying to save them. Also, my opponent has not addressed the fact that he blatantly denied the option of leaving the Pridelands. And so, while I am willing to accept that a drought occurred, the fact remains that Scar cares nothing for the life of the pride.2c. Elitism: Contrary to what my opponent claims, hyenas do hunt[1]. Because of this, bringing so many hyenas into the Pridelands unbalanced the ecosystem, again resulting in many deaths. The drought my opponent claims happened only exacerbated it, but didn't cause it. And it says in the movie that Kovu is Scar's handpicked heir. Scar wouldn't be able to handpick anyone if Kovu wasn't alive.I apologize, but I have been very busy over the past few days (I'm moving) and so was unable to get to the computer for any reasonable amount of time. As such, I will post the rest of my case in the comments. If Pro disagrees with this, he can PM me and we will decide if this round should count as forfeiture. [1] - http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

I have enjoyed this debate thoroughly and look forward to our next battle! To offer my final thoughts, I would firstly address MB17's point about what may happen in 10,000 years- well, the simple answer is we have no idea. It might be an evolution of democracy, since systems which allow for greater representation have greater freedoms and more stability than systems which deny people their voice. Democratic rule (as I defined in my previous post), is statistically better at producing good healthcare and education, and democratic nations are stronger economically and technologically than alternatives. MB17's final link is correct in that democracy tends to be watered down with other elements, but the key element I would return to, the one I defined via the Oxford Dictionary, is that democracy is a system of representation. It is also the strongest form of government we have available to us right now, and is clearly the most efficient one we have, based on almost every key performance indicator governments are measured by.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

darth_timon, in response to your example North Korea, technically a dictatorship/communism/monarchy where one person/ group of people are in total control could hypothetically be the best form of government, but of course having one person/party in control never actually works due to greed and untrustworthiness, as I mentioned in the previous rounds. As you said a democracy is not perfect form government, but it is the best for now. But ask your self "in 10,000 years when the most peaceful, free, and richest nation exists, will that nation have a democracy?" Probably not, but of course by then new and superior forms of government that we couldn't even begin to grasp their concepts today will exist. See, when I thought up the rules for this debate I specifically added the filters real & hypothetical so that I could open my opponent up to this view point. Also, throughout your debate you compared democracy to a few other well known government, but you realize there have been many other forms proposed and used. Below is a link to some of those. And also most democracies aren't really pure democracies at all, but rather a pinch of democracy mixed in with a pinch of just about every other government system. Therefore, a real democracy could never work by itself, only mixed in with other forms of government. http://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, I believe that democracy is not the most efficient and practical form of government, and that no country is a true democracy because that would never work.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

MB17, technically speaking not a single country on earth is classed as a democracy. However, countries that hold regular elections to vote in political parties and representatives are generally considered democracies.The Oxford Dictionary website defines democracy as 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives'. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Whilst your examples about the electorial process are valid, they are not answering the debate you yourself posed- that democracy is not an efficient form of government. There may well be problems with the electorial process in several countries; this is not necessarily indicative of how these countries are governed.The Oxford Dictionary defines government as 'the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office'. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Lets return to my example of the Koreas from round 3 to answer point 4 (What the best form of government is or would be).North Korea and South Korea are both planning to build railways. These are complicated projects, involving a lot of manpower, often tunnelling, bridge-building, and the demolition of buildings/structures in the way. They can also involve the displacement of people from their homes.South Korea, a flourishing, democratic nation, has access to better tools for the job, a skilled workforce, and would make better use of its time in the design stage to minimise the impact on the environment and peoples' lives. If homes needed to be demolished, no doubt compensation would be arranged for the families that had to relocate.North Korea is unlikely to offer such compensation to the families it would forcibly move, and even if it did, the effort would be a token one at best. The labour force in North Korea is not as well trained, not as well paid, and poor morale combined with poor training would almost certainly lead to more mistakes, injuries and fatalities during construction. So, for such construction projects, the democracy of South Korea would be better placed to complete this project with less loss of life, better management of the environment and of peoples' livelihoods. I'm of the opinion that democracy is the best form of government. It is not perfect, but no form of government is. What democracy affords us is a voice in the system, at a regional and national level, and the will of the people can be powerful enough to sway the government and change the course of history. It is no co-incidence that democracies tend to enjoy better standards of education and healthcare than other forms of government, and they are generally more developed as well.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

darth_timon, while you did compare democracy to some other forms government, you did forget some major ones. This brings me into my next argument. I believe there is a form of government better than democracy, it's used in The United States, and it is a republic. Yes, a republic. You must think I'm insane at this point to call The United States anything but a democracy, but it's true. The U.S. Isn't successful because of it's democratic government, but because of its republic government. My first reason for coming to this conclusion is that in a pure democracy 50.000...1% of the population could vote away the other 49.999...9%. This is because in a true democracy winner takes all, no exceptions. However, in a republic the voting process goes that if the vote is decided by a close percentage, another group (congress & electoral college) can provide a "tiebreaker" if needed. Possibly the best example in history of this scenario happened right here in The United States, when George W. Bush "defeated" Albert Gore. Al Gore had 50,999,897 or 48.4% of the vote, while George W. Bush had 50,456,002 or 47.9% of the vote. If The United States was truly a democracy than Al Gore would have won, hands down, no questions asked. But because The United States is a republic the decision was left up to the Supreme Court and Bush "stole" the election. Also, only a republic would have a constitution, which limits the powers of the state. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." In fact, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution does it say the word "democracy." The dictionary definition of a republic is "a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. " Is this not what the United States is? Where we elect representatives to vote for us? Therefore, according to the reasons above I believe that a Republic is the best and most practical form of government.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

MB17, your opening terms and conditions were that round 2 was to be about why or why not democracy is the most efficient and practical way to govern a nation. To that end, I compared democratic nations to ones practising other forms of government. Whilst this does not immediately address whether democracy is in itself efficient, it does address the purpose of round 2- and I believe I have shown that democracy is a more efficient form of government than the other options.We must also define efficiency in this case. Efficient in itself? Or efficient compared to other forms of government? Rounds 3 and 4 both look to compare democracy to other forms of government, so that is how I am weighing up democracy.Round 3 is of course, examples of what happens in a democracy vs other forms of government.You brought up the voting process. Whilst it can be argued that politicians are not elected on the basis of good policies but rather handouts, it can also be argued that not every democratic nation has such problems, and this is more the result of the country's cultural situation rather than the democratic system itself. In the US, the Republican party will play upon any prospect of socialist policies from the Democrats to create varying degrees of hysteria. The Democrats will offer handouts ad nauseam to win votes amonst minority groups. A lot of this is more to do with the specific situation in America (the Cold War fallout, the melting pot of cultures) than democracy itself.You could argue the voting process in North Korea is more efficient. However, only party can be voted for, regardless of history, policies or future plans. Actual governance of North Korea is clearly far worse than the US, as its record in feeding its people, maintenance of infrastructure, and political freedoms shows. Lets look at Qatar. Qatar is a hugely wealthy country (it has the highest per capita income in the world) and is an absolute monarchy. Despite their wealth, Qatar has the highest iliteracy rates of all Arab countries that took part in Literacy Arab Day (http://www.qsa.gov.qa...). England, recently rated 21st out of 24 countries evaluated for their literacy standards (http://www.bbc.com...), still ranks higher than Qatar overall.If you look at countries by life expectancy (one measure of the quality of health care), democractic countries dominate the top 40, with few other forms of government being represented in that list (http://en.wikipedia.org...)So, democracies score better at maintaining higher literacy and life expectancy than other forms of government. Typially, they have better freedom of expression too. The overall standard of a nation's infrastructure (power, roads, rail, and so forth) is usually better in a democracy (just look at South Korea and North Korea for a stark contrast in fortunes).So, hypothetically speaking, if both North Korea and South Korea declared tomorrow they were going to build 500 miles of new, high-speed railways, which country do you think would complete the work more quickly, more safely, and with better financial management? I know who I would bet on.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

darth_timon, you realize you never said why democracy was the most practical and efficient form of government right? You just gave examples of other governments worse than a democracy. Plus you never even responded to my arguments from round #2. Regardless of that I will continue on to round #3 and show you some examples of what happens in a democracy. Democracy politics are based on populism, where the politicians are elected not because they have the best morals or policies, but because they have the most "handouts" to offer. Most voters think about it like this, if politician A offers free ice cream for everyone, and politician B offers free ice cream to only those can pass a test, then politician A must be better, right? Switch some words out like ice cream=welfare, everyone=all voters, those who can pass a test=smart voters and you are left with a democracy. Haven't you ever heard of "pamen et circenses" which translates to "bread and circuses". It comes from Rome, which happens to be almost a "past life" of the United States, and the origin comes from Roman politics where the politicians would give out free food and entertainment in exchange for the peoples votes. We see this in The United States today as government welfare. What the voters want to know is which candidate has the most "free" stuff, not who has the best policies. Of course a democracy could work like this if citizens decided to sacrifice their selfish interests for common good, but the problem is they never do and they never will, it's human nature to be selfish.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

Right, on to the question of why (or why not) democracy is the most efficient and practical way to govern.Consider the alternatives to democracy. We have absolute monarchies. All power invested in one person or family. In theory, with only one group controlling all articles of legisature and government, things should be quite straight-forward. However, in many current and historical cases, such countries are often gripped by poverty, as the majority of wealth and power rests in the hands of a very small minority. For example, take my own country, Britain. During the undisputed rule of Kings and Queens, religious persecution (such as the tit-for-tat persecution of Catholics by Protestants and visa-versa) was commonplace, often stemming directly from the mindset of the ruling monarch (in fact, this was a problem that gripped Europe during the Middle Ages). In a democracy, greater protection is afforded to religious minorities than under absolute monarchies. There is the theocracy, in which the system of government is based on the state religion and the head of state is selected by a religious hierarchy. One such nation is Iran, and Iran's track record on human rights and religious freedom is not a glowing one. Given the choice between living in a democratic nation such as Britain, or France, or Germany, or living in Iran, the choice is simple.Likewise, consider the efficiency (or otherwise) of the communist, single-party state of North Korea, where once again poverty is rampant and freedom of expression is completely muted.Democracies are not perfect but consider the general standard of living in democracies compared to other forms of government.
Democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government

dath_timon thank you for accepting my debate, I hope to show you why your opinion on a democratic government has many flaws. I believe that one of the biggest problems in a democracy is that democracy is based on the principles of equality. Today in the world many minority groups are trying to obtain equality, but they will never get it. Why? Because because equality never works. And since democracy is based off of equality, it never works. What I'm saying is that not all voters are created equal. The problem with democracy is not that citizens are able to vote, but that almost every citizen is allowed to vote. This means that as long as I'm 18 or older (in the U.S. at least.) I could ignore all things having to do with politics, and then show up to the voting booth on Election Day and practically draw sticks to see who gets my vote! Lately I've heard that many people want to enforce a civics test that voters must pass to vote. The only argument that the challengers of these tests is that it would mean that the voting system wouldn't be equal, but tell me is the system really fair? Now let's say that in a "perfect nation" which has a democracy, and all of the citizen actually do pay attention to politics and vote with their brain and not their heart, democracy still wouldn't work because just as in the U.S. and Rome and all the other "great" democracies the politicians almost always lied to the people in order to get elected. Of course the politicians have to lie, because if they told the voters what was really going to happen they would never get elected! A prime example of this is the affordable care act, a.k.a "Obamacare ". Americans were told they would be able to keep their current health care without any changes but is Obama had told the truth about how the citizens would be forced into the government health care system he would've never been elected. Therefore I believe that democracy is not an efficient and practical form of government due it's founding principles and the lying nature of politics.