Artificial Intelligence is impossible

Okay, thank you again for requesting I debate you on this topic. " When you asked for evidence of AI, you used the word 'always' in your plea for evidence. Not in all of them, of course, but in the ones you are debating." Never once did the word "always" come up in my debate until now. I defy you to prove otherwise. "However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine." No. It became a debatable point therefore you either had to refute it or concede. "However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I?" I said that since you provided evidence for things you considered existant, you tried to prove existance. "Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions!" 1) I did not prove illusions, I merely said we may be illusory. 2) If you were to try and prove illusions, you would be conceding my point. "However, once again, when I used the Gamecube and Debate.org examples to refute your statement, your statement included the word anything, which allows me to stray from 'true AI', as I call it." No. I said human-like. When you create "human-like" as a rule, you automatically assume that all points consisting of AI will go by the rule of "human-like." "However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards." Yes but humans are not limited by a certain amount of knowledge. Also, they may only learn certain things that correspond with their programming. They may not manipulate it in any way without human interaction, therefore they cannot think as a human does. "However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'." Again, you go by the preset rules. "Deep Blue has understanding and logic, as it needs those things in order to match the skill of Garry Kasparov, considered to be the greatest chess player in the world." It has understanding of chess and nothing more. "Now you could simply say that Deep Blue was programmed to play against Kasparov's style of playing, however, a true chess master would able to change his style of play mid-game, and onlookers of his past games would easily be able to defeat him by playing against his style of game." Yes but try talking philosophically witht he machine and it would probably produce a rebuttal along the lines of "Bishop to queen's four." This is in no way "human-like" intelligence. "By the way, there are many things wrong with my above statement, as well as my opponents. Because my opponent gets to debate last, and he keeps stating that people can only vote PRO, people will believe him, no matter how false it is, and no matter how logically you must vote CON." If they are stupid. If they only go by the final demand, they haven't been paying attention. Saying "You can only logical vote XXX" Is a statement generally used to say "And this is why you should vote XXX" If they do not read the debate aside from commands, it is useless debating. We may as well spend all of our rounds saying "Vote XXX" "The last thing said sticks in your memory the best as it is the most recent statement out of all, and as such you will be able to recall it the best, and as an added effect you will not be able to recall many, if any, older statements. This does, however, only apply to this debate because of the number of statements said before the last statement. It can apply to other debates, although." If that were the case, every last round debater would win and that is not the case. Most logical people go by logical victors, not formal requests. "Scientists have created a very humun looking robot, and that robot has the possibility to do more than simply sit or walk, however, at present, it can only sit. (1) Scientists also one day think that robots will be able to make us believe that they are human. (1)" However relevant that is is beyond me. It still does not have the capacities of a true human. It cannot love, feel, philosophically debate by opinion. It can only do what is within it's limitations that make it lesser than a human. My opponent has made no sense this debate except to bring up a sitting robot that looks like a human. This in no way represents true AI as my opponent made the rule by. He has also dropped my existence contention and therefore, has already dropped half of the debate. For the reason and refutation above, you vote PRO. Thanks, -EG