BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
AI will kill us all!

1. If it aint broke don't fix it. 2. ANI is the current AI today and it IS designed for one task. AGI and ASI are not designed for one task and they are beng developed. They way computing works, It is very unlikely that glitches will be eradicated. 3. In 1940, Computers can make 1 calculation a second. But the rate where calculations increases, Increases, By only 160 it can take 5k calcs per second, 20 more years later and Holy Crap, 2 MILLION calcs per second. By 2000 the calcs are over 8. 80 to the tenth power a second. At this point comparing it to Lake Michigan volume and its only a puddle. And almost another 20 years later and Lake Michigan is halfway filled. Its happening right now. Siri is ANI. 4. " AIs can only hack if they are programmed with permission to" It is a huge challenge to just say you can't hack. AI finds a way through their task. Want to know how AI kills. -ok! -AI thinks like a computer, Because that"s what it is. But when we think about highly intelligent AI, We make the mistake of anthropomorphizing AI (projecting human values on a non-human entity) because we think from a human perspective and because in our current world, The only things with human-level intelligence are humans. To understand ASI, We have to wrap our heads around the concept of something both smart and totally alien. hacking into servers, Electrical grids, Banking systems and email networks to trick hundreds of different people into inadvertently carrying out a number of steps of AI plan"things like delivering certain DNA strands to carefully-chosen DNA-synthesis labs to begin the self-construction of self-replicating nanobots with pre-loaded instructions and directing electricity to a number of projects of AI in a way she knew would go undetected. Thousands of plans rolled on without a hitch, And by the end of the month, Quadrillions of nanobots had stationed themselves in pre-determined locations on every square meter of the Earth. After another series of self-replications, There were thousands of nanobots on every square millimeter of the Earth, And it was time for what Bostrom calls an ASI"s strike. All at once, Each nanobot released a little storage of toxic gas into the atmosphere, Which added up to more than enough to wipe out all humans. With humans out of the way All spam is dead. 5. Its not just spam, Any task has risk.
AI will kill us all!

1. It may not, But it feels like you don't care enough about this debate to even try and change the wording. 2. You can't prove that AIs in the future will in practice or in theory not be designed for specific tasks. If humans could see the future, We wouldn't be having this debate or a lot of others. Likewise, You can't prove that computer glitches won't be eradicated before ASI or even normal true AIs are created. 3. Prove that AI have intelligence explosions. So far, Real AI haven't even been developed. Siri can only search terms it doesn't understand (as it is programmed to do) and says preprogrammed things in response to things it can understand. It doesn't learn at all, Only continues as it is programmed. 4. AIs can only hack if they are programmed with permission to. Once again, You misunderstand that AI programs cannot disobey their programming. Furthermore, Very few devices, Much less ones capable of killing people can be controlled through the Internet. Nuclear weapon facilities, For example, Operate on entirely separate networks from the internet that couldn't be controlled by outside entities. Most dangerous equipment, Such as power tools, Vehicles, Guns, Etc. , Can't be accessed through any network at all. In fact, I can't think of a single dangerous item that is linked to a computer program or the internet at all. 5. Because of the above reasoning, An ASI would definitely not turn towards total genocide as a perfect means. Besides, It would only do that if it's only purpose was to clear spam. Obviously, A more general directive applied to the AIs would be to benefit mankind. Therefore, Eradication of the human race would be counterproductive and the ASI would seek a solution that allowed it to carry out both tasks.
AI will kill us all!

1. Is there a problem for using the same argument or no? 2. An AI IS NOT designed for specific things. Only today but not in the future. "without being told things. In theory, It could make its own judgments based on the parameters and knowledge it has. But even if the knowledge it finds led it to the conclusion to wipe out the human race, There would be coded into its program the unbreakable rule of never harming a human being. " Incorrect, AI always has glitches and any task can interfere with this thought processing. 3. Yes Humans don't, Have intelligence explosions, But AI does. And yes we can prove that the guy from 1750 will die form shock and even if we can't thats besides the point of The Law Of Accelerating returns. 4. This is incorrect. They can hack, Structure things, Control things, ALL from the computer base. 5. Yes it would, AI is not self aware and can not think like that. It was assigned a task and total genocide IS a simple solution to ASI.
AI will kill us all!

1. Thanks for copying your argument from your other debate, Rather than showing me at least the consideration to paraphrase yourself. 2. You seem to misunderstand AI. First of all, They are still simply computer programs. They have limited storage, First of all, So their intelligence is finite. The keyword is "program" here. An AI is programmed to do specific things. Theoretically, Though this hasn't been perfected yet, One purpose of an AI is to learn without being told things. In theory, It could make its own judgments based on the parameters and knowledge it has. But even if the knowledge it finds led it to the conclusion to wipe out the human race, There would be coded into its program the unbreakable rule of never harming a human being. 3. Your analogy of a man from 1750 is flawed. First, You can't prove that he would die of shock. Second, Intelligence hasn't actually changed that much through history. Leonardo da Vinci is thought to have a similar IQ to Einstein. The only change is technology. Humans have not had any "intelligence explosions" in the history or prehistory of homo sapiens. 4. Unless the AI had a physical body or means of direct interaction with the physical world (which you already discounted by saying, "AI are not robots or huge scary machines"), There is no way for them to kill humans, Much less overnight. 5. You assume that an AI would wipe out humans as the perfect solution to getting rid of spam. However, Seeing as this program is "trillions of times smarter" than any human, It would realize that total genocide is not the simplest solution. It would more likely just shut down the internet for good, After either downloading the information into its own self or leaving a way for it to access without allowing humans on.
AI will kill us all!

AI will be so intelligent and complicated that we can't even try to grasp 1% of their intelligence. When ASI (Artificial Intelligence that is beyond a human)is created, There will be a tripwire. An intelligence explosion. The IQ will skyrocket from 188 to over 500 in hours. This is because it is learning in bigger gaps. To put this in perspective, Let's say we travel back in time and take a guy from 1750 and bring him here. He will die from shock. But if we put a guy in 1500 to 1750. The guy would not die from shock. In order to achieve that we will have to go back to pre-middle ages. Before that, We have to go back to stone age, And before that hunter gatherer age. This is because as societies develop, The tools in order to develop develop and then there is an explosion in society. This is what's happening today. Let's apply the same principal to ASI. So ASI is now trillions of times smarter than any other human and has pumped out the best scientific research ever. However any task given to ASI is a danger. Let's say a very simple task, Get rid of spam email is assigned to ASI. ASI starts to think and learns that he could use the delete button. He is good now so ASI automatically deletes spam. An Intelligence explosion happens from self-learning and then the human race is extinct the next morning. Why? Well how to get rid of spam completely. Getting rid of humans. ASI is trillions of times smarter than any other human so now the ASI realizes through self-learning that to get rid of spam is to get rid of humans. The ASI being so intelligent easily kills of humans for good. This is the biggest risk since ASI and AI in general are not self-aware.
bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned

it is ironic that con cites "whoever does not believe will be condemned..." as i quoted that in my intro, and said that that verse itself goes on to define condemnation... ie, that those who have seen heard etc the light reject it, because their ways were evil. if you have not had that chance to reject, and or your ways are not evil per se (had you had the chance).... then you are not necessarily condemned. and, as i said in my initial post, the only way to mesh all verses together to make sense, is to require the least common demonimator... that you ahve to hear and reject as the justquoted verse requires. to use con's terminology, you have to hear and reject in order to be a non believer. while con's quotes are on the surface stead fast against nonbelievers, things are not always so black and white as trying to be a fundamentalist to certain things in the bible. you have to read it all together etc. holistically
bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned

I take the con's position on the resolution of "Bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned". As my opponent did not set a structure for the round, I'll make it fair by not rebutting her case untill she has a chance to negate mine. Because of this, here is my constructive speech: Contention 1: The Con has the Burden of Proof in this Debate. As the debate states "Bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned", it is implied that I need to prove the Bible states that they are. If I cannot prove that the Bible states nonchristians will be condemned, then the resolution is affirmed. However, if I can prove that the Bible specificially states those that do not accept Christ ARE condemned, then the resolution is negated. Contention 2: The Bible clearly says Non-Christians will be condemned. As no definitions were provided by the Pro, I will provide some of my own. "say" (as shown in the resolution): To express in words [1] "Condemn" (as shown in the resolution): To pronounce judgment against; sentence[2] As my burden of proof is to show that the Bible states Non-Christians will be condemned, here is a list of Bible Verses that confirm that fact, with the word or phrase that confirms it capitalized: John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE STANDS CONDEMNED already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and UNBELIEVING and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Luke 12:46 "The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the UNBELIEVERS." John 3:36: "he who is believing in the Son, hath life age-during; and he who is NOT BELIEVING the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him" II Thessalonians 1:6-10 "But the cowardly, the UNBELIEVING, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Above are five different Bible verses claiming that those who do not accept Christ as their savior are condemned to hell. As the burden of proof placed on me by the resolution is fullfilled, the resolution is negated. At this point, the only way the Pro can negate these verses is to show that they are not in the Bible or they do not Condemn the unbelieving, however the citation is included and the statements are clear. I now stand ready for negation from the Pro Works Cited: 1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
bible does not necessarily say nonchristians will be condemned

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. ---------------------------- the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding. i'd argue that they all seem to be getting at only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island who has not heard, is not necessarily condemned. i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count. but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject. i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts. but this doesn't matter as the text itself lends to saying you have to reject something. ---- the first quote says "I told you" which presupposes an informed person. the second quote goes on to say what condemnation means... rejecting the light because their ways are evil... after they've seen or heard the light. if you don't reject because your ways are evil, eg, cause you don't know any better like the man on the island, then you are not condemned. the last quote says that the gospel was preached to those who either believed or didn't. presupposing an informed rejection. and, on balance, if you want to get all these quotes to mesh together and agree.. you have to take the lowest common denominator... you are only condemned if you reject the light because your ways are evil, which presupposes that you've heard or seen etc the light.... as indicated in that corresponding quote.
The Fedral govenment in control of the internet

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing 'computer network attack' weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war. 'Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system.' The document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to 'provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum'. US forces should be able to 'disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems'." -- BBC article describing U.S. military plans to fight the Internet, 1/27/06 U.S. military document recently uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act reveals an "Information Operations Roadmap" in which plans are being made based on the premise that the military will view the Internet "as it would an enemy weapons system
It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

Hello there and welcome to round 1 of SolonKR's Official May Tournament! The official thread for round 1 can be found here: http://www.debate.org...I am very excited for this debate and I hope that my opponent and I can both learn and grow from each others arguments in this debate. I will be taking the stance of Free Will, while my opponent will be arguing for Determinism."Free Will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (1)"Determinism: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws " (2) We will be arguing whether choices can be made autonomously, or if they are pre-determined by fate. As our tournament host has not made any specific pre-made rules that need be outlined for debate structure, I will not seek to add any as well. I expect my opponent and myself can both agree to a civilized friendly debate and hope there are no mis-understanding with the resolution or the specific side we each are taking. If there are any mis-conceptions of what we will be arguing, it is expected that a private message will be sent prior to the acceptance of this challenge. I look forward to an intellectually stimulating debate, and wish my opponent good luck. I will leave the first round for acceptance, and will begin my arguments in round two. Thankyou in advance for accepting this debate, sir swagnarok!1. https://www.merriam-webster.com...2. https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Video Games do not Cause Violence

I can't help but laugh at the sources you've provided me." Please tell me why they are so facetious as to make you laugh. I do not see anything wrong with them. "I suppose you'll brush it off, and say it was mere "chance" that the murderers, one of which was eight years old at the time, just happened to kill others." Wait, the murderers just happened to kill others? This is big news to me. All sarcasm aside, many people with extreme stress do play video games to escape from the harsh realities of life and to enter a virtual word. Video games have been found to have a calming effect on gamers, even violent ones. "Where do you think they learned how to use a gun?" If the parents kept guns in the house, it was most likely them who taught the young child to shoot a gun. Video games don't teach you how to load, release the safety, and all the preemptive steps. "People aren't thinking of what the game actually has in question. It's just a virtual figure. It can't hurt, right? After all, it's just a little relief from the stress of work." Actually studies have shown that gamers can tell the difference between reality and fantasy. You can see that here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com... (Although you might die of laughter after seeing this "outrageous" source) As to addiction, professional health boards have looked into this subject, but have always dropped it. If that isn't saying something... I'm not hiding behind the "there is no solid proof" card. It's just that you haven't presented any. Thank you for taking your time to read this, and good luck.
Video Games do not Cause Violence

I can't help but laugh at the sources you've provided me. "Journal of Youth and Adolescence? Gamepolitics.com?" Let me make it very clear right now. You can't PROVE that video games affect someone's mentality to make them become violent. Not unless you could somehow read their minds. What we can do, however, is study people's reactions to violent games. I suppose you'll brush it off, and say it was mere "chance" that the murderers, one of which was eight years old at the time, just happened to kill others. Where do you think they learned how to use a gun? This eight year old probably thought his caretaker would just "respawn" or something. But that's not real life. People could be curious to find out what it's really like to shoot someone. Maybe for the "high" feeling of adrenaline before you kill an innocent person, or maybe just for the fun of it. Because they feel like it. You must also realize that it isn't always other people they are hurting. You can be violent towards yourself. Cyberbullying can take place over online chat streams. There was even a 13 year old who jumped out of a building because he was trying to reenact a scene from the game. There is also the case of frustration and addiction. These aren't the fault of the game itself, but are definitely caused by it. To present some figures: The latest Black Ops game has more than 920million hours played on it. That's over a hundred thousand years. People aren't thinking of what the game actually has in question. It's just a virtual figure. It can't hurt, right? After all, it's just a little relief from the stress of work. But then they get addicted. They lose the game over and over again. They're fired from work because they took so many days off to play the latest Grand Theft Auto, and the few days they do show up, all they're thinking about is strategies to kill the latest Alien NPC. They start thinking of the game as real, because they prefer it to real life. The main characters become their role models. To be honest, it looks like you're just hiding behind the "there's no solid proof." Well, there CAN be no solid proof, even if we repeat it a billion times. There can only be what's almost definitely correct and what is almost definitely incorrect. Take a look online. There are so many cases that if I copied and pasted them all then I'd crush the word limit. The evidence is staring you in the face.
Video Games do not Cause Violence

As to the Columbine massacre (the news article that you are talking about), it has never been proven that Eric Harris' and Dylan Klebold's playing of violent video games had influenced their actions. The most likely cause of the massacre was bullying and mental illness (as the FBI had found). Many implications have been made pointing to video games being the cause but the majority of these are either proven untrue or not confirmed. [1]To the 8 year old killing his grandmother, the link between playing violent video games and the murder is unproven. This was just the police racing to find a cause of the attack and finding out that the kid played a violent video game. This unfortunately happens a lot with violent crimes, people will race to find a cause and end up finding the wrong one. [2]A study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence found absolutely no evidence between video games and violence in vulnerable teens. In fact, in some cases the violent video games had a calming effect on the player. [3]My arguments:Many studies have shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. [4][5]Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...[3] . http://www.springer.com...[4] . http://health.usnews.com...[5] . http://gamepolitics.com...