BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

First of, I never said anything about restricting a company's ability to hire a person. If they judge that green hair and piercings are a bad signal to send, they should be able to not hire them. But what I did say, is that if they hire someone, and if they turn out to be gay for example that should not change anything. Your sexual orientation is so private, and it would not matter for anyone. This might be extremely socialismish, but a lot of people have fought over many generations to be here where we are. They have fought for human rights. They have fought for people being able to get out of their social ranking. And being able to hire/fire someone is a privilege here in the modern societies. Firing someone based upon their personal stuff, is discrimination at its finest. People have fought against discrimination for a very long time. They have fought a very hard battle to get to where we are today, but we still have a long and tough battle ahead of us. And this would be a very big step back on the road of progress we have made. "So vote for con if you don't want less freedom for companies and if you don't want to see minorities get more benefits just because they are a minority." I just quoted you. You say you do not want to give more "benefits" to minorities just because they are a minority. I do not think it is a benefit to make sure transgender people can keep their home, or making sure that people can live their life as they desire without the fear of people jumping on you on, in the middle of the night just because you're "different". I think personal freedom is extremely important, and should not be compromised at all. An individual should have the ability to life live without the fear of losing their job or house, just because they are gay, transgender, a Muslim and etc. We need to make sure everyone feels safe in the country they are staying in, and we also have to make sure that you can be comfortable in your own skin. And yes, we might to make anti-discrimination laws, but those are great! I mean, making sure gay people can get into a partnership, is not something I see as a benefit, I see it as a right. Making sure all people can worship whatever they please is something I also see as a right, not a "benefit". Thank you for a nice debate where we had a nice and clean tone, and not getting angry at each other. I've had a few of those in the past. I wish everyone a lovely summer!
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

First of freedom of speech means freedom of speech, even though you do not like what is being said. By saying that the companies cant fire an employee because of who they are you ,are restricting the companies greatly and you might as well tell them to hire specific persons because they are part of the minority. Freedom is also letting the companies act as they want as long as they don't break any laws, it is the company who is getting represented by the specific person so it is also their choice, if you owned a company you would perhaps not want to have a person hired if said person had dyed his/her hair green and had lots off tattoos and piercing because that wouldn't be a signal I would send to the public, according to you companies shouldn't let a person like that go because people like that they are a part of a minority. If they where gay or perhaps Muslims companies should also be allowed to fire that person because that its their company and therefore their choice in the end, if we as a society ban that companies can fire an employee if they want to we move closer to a society with less freedom.
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

First of all i don't believe that in anyway the low crime rate have anything to do with inequality but rather the low amount of people in poverty in said country. Also i believe that some anti-discrimination laws like the law that forbid you saying anything racist or even hurtful is just plain stupid, mainly because it attacks one of out most valuable freedoms namely the freedom of speech. You also made an argument about helping minorities could prevent school shootings which isn't true since 79 % of school shooters are with, and white people are not a part of this infamous minority so that don't make any sense what so ever. If a company decides to let an employee go because of their background then that is none of our business since it's a a private company, we can think it's bad to do such things but in the end it all comes down to the company and who they want representing them. You can't compare USA and Denmark because they have such a different demographic where USA has a lot more minorities than Denmark.
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

First of all, I would never encourage inequality. I do not believe that the government should just provide jobs to someone, just because they are a minority. However, I believe that we should do some work to push them into jobs, or for example helping them out, with anti-discrimination laws. We need to make sure that people can pursue their dreams no matter their sexual orientation, religion or anything else that could make them a minority. We need to make sure that everyone in a society feels welcome and accepted, because otherwise that could lead to crime, school shootings etc. If everyone feels like they are contributing to a community, and working together no matter their background, people would also be better to accept people even if they are different. We could look at Scandinavia. They are a bunch of countries with a homogeneous community, and for example, the Danish crime rates are almost at zero, and the former government Denmark had, would make small steps for making sure all people would fit into the community. So in conclusion, we might to take some steps that creates "inequality" and those steps might lead us to even more equality. Equality is many things. One of the things that defines equality, is that everyone have the same chances in life. In some states in the Unites States of America, transgender people could lose their job and housing, because they are being who they are. That is actually inequality because they can not maintain their housing and job, but as you describe it, if we were to put laws in place that would ban employers from firing people based on who they are, that is inequality. We can not please everyone when doing politics.
Does the government have a special responsibility to help minorities

No i the government don't have a SPECIAL responsibility to help minorities, i fear that if the government does so they will favor the minority over the majority which will lead to inequality. The government have a responsibility to help all of its citizens and if they were to favor a minority, like giving the better job opportunities because they are the minority, then i honestly think we have failed as a society because we are just favoring a certain kind of people just because the belong in a certain demographic.
Anything Ron Paul

This might comes as some surprise to you, but I am well aware of Bush and Company's plans to go into Iraq before 9-11, and before January 2001. I am keenly aware of the efforts of the Project for the New American Century as well. The issue is not whether or not Bush was planning on nation building in Iraq or not prior to 9-11, the question is whether or not 9-11 provided the vehicle necessary for the US to go into Iraq. This debate is not about Bush and his pre 9-11 plans for Iraq. It is about whether or not Paul was incorrect to leave 9-11 out of the discussion for why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Agree or disagree, when you are standing in a debate you just look foolish when you subtract 9-11 from the discussion of why were are in Afghanistan. It's really just silly. Paul asks "why" with this tone as if he is so baffled. I would definitely have more respect for him if he would at least concede a little that 9-11 changed foreign policy. Because: it did.
Anything Ron Paul

Greetings. During the last Republican debate, Mr. Paul argued that in 2000 Bush was against "nation building," yet in 2008 we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. He used this as an example of how Bush went against his word. Whereas, one could argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are "nation building" it is wholly unrealistic, irresponsible, and strange to omit the influence September 11, 2001 on a change in Bush's nation building policy. I contend in this exchange that Mr. Paul must concede that 9-11 greatly influenced and changed Mr. Bush's foreign policy pertaining to nation building, and it wasn't a simple "flip flip" as Paul suggested.
Nerd tv shows are taking over!!

Ok what I'm saying is nerd tv shows aren't having you become a nerd. What I'm saying is that tv shows that deal with syfy and fantasy shows that fall in that category are taking over!! I mean look at it this way we have many and many cable channels too many for people to count!! But the main tv channels most people hear about are NBC, FOX, CBS, CW, MTV these and a couple more like TNT, and AMC are all channels people have heard about. What my point is if you look at all the channels I just listed you can find some kind of nerd show. For example NBC- Grimm, ABC- Once Upon a Time, Agents of Shield, Fox-Gotham, Sleepy Hollow, CBS- Under the Dome, Big Bang Theory CW- Supernatural, Vampire Diares, Arrow, the Originals even TNT with Falling Skies and AMC with Walking Dead and even MTV has Teen Wolf and Lifetime has Witches of East End so what I'm saying again is nerd tv shows are taking over television that's what I'm arguing that nerd tv shows are becoming more and more popular by the year know why because all these shows last a long time. For example Supernatural been on 10 seasons, Walking Dead 5 seasons, Vampire Diares 5 seasons, Big Bang Theory just got renewed for 3 more seasons no tv show has ever renewed one show for three more seasons. You even got the rookies like Under the Dome and Witches of East End and Arrow and guess what you got more nerd shows coming like the Flash, Constatine, Agent Carter, Gotham and many more. And plus you got past nerd shows like Star Trek, Buffy, Stargate, Highlander, Lexx and many many more so nerd tv shows are the future!!
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

== Pro Case == 1a. I agree that the ability to communicate complex ideas is a *necessary* condition for intelligence and sentience, however, Pro has yet to demonstrate that it is a *sufficient* one. The way a computer syntactically processes language is not qualitatively different from the way it processes numbers. b. Although Holland's approach seemed promising at first, virtually nothing has come of it since then. Early on, it was expected that smart machines were just around the corner. In 1965, H. A. Simon wrote "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." I'm reminded of Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. c. Overly optimistic predictions like this have been going on for years. In 1970, Marvin Minsky claimed "in from three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being." AI has been a field of intense research and focus for over a half a century and so far all we have to show for it is the processing power of a single celled roundworm? This does not seem to bode well. == Con Case== 1. A careful re-reading of my points will reveal that it is not computing power that is at issue, but the nature of how computers function. To imitate human cognition requires incredible amounts of coding, leading many AI experts to conclude that it simply isn't possible. Moreover, processing speed is insufficient to endow a machine with human understanding, or even an imitation thereof. Computers can already process numbers trillions of times faster than we can, however, my pocket calculator clearly is not conscious. 2. Pro attempts to defend functionalism by bringing up Chalmers' philosophical zombies thought experiment and the problem of other minds. This is not substantive; essentially, he answers the hard problem of consciousness by pointing out other difficulties within his own theory! I'm skeptical of his reply to Chinese room argument as well. His response is a common one; Searle countered by asking "well what does the room add to it?" Ned Block offers an even stronger version of the same idea in his Chinese nation argument. Suppose the entire population of China was assembled, each person modeling a neuron and using phones and walkie-talkies to simulate axons and dendrites. The "mental state" of the entire project can be seen by satellite. The China Brain is connected to a body that provides sensory input and receives volitional output via radio. It seems implausible that the China Brain is somehow conscious. :: Conclusion :: Pro has not made it clear how semantic understanding can arise from syntactic understanding. The issue is not one of computing power, but a qualitative difference in processing methods. His answer to my attack on functionalism is essentially a concession -- even worse, he points out additional problems within theory. The resolution is negated.
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

Pythagoras said, "Everything is number." - I will make a series of arguments which I will tie together at the end: A. My first point is that the communication of complex ideas is critical for Intelligence. This is the number one thing that sets us, as humans, apart from most all other animals. Many higher animals have the potential for higher intelligence, but lack the means by which to share complex thought, thus the wheel would have to be constantly reinvented. B. Humans arose to their current stance through random mutations in the form of evolution. In the 1960's John Henry Holland pioneered the field of genetic algorithms, a process by which computers solve problems through a similar process to natural evolution and natural selection. Holland showed that computers could evolve their programming to solve complex problems in ways that even their creators did not fully understand. when asked, Holland said, "Computer sentience is possible, But for a number of reasons, I don't believe that we are anywhere near that stage right now." C. Modern computers can compute at about the level of a nematode, stimulation and reaction. And yet, given more computing power, further species have gained consciousness. Super computers are expected to rival human processing power by sometime in the 2030's. If computers reach a point where they can communicate complex ideas (understand language, such as from data from programs like Cleverbot) then they can be made to learn anything. If human consciousness can come out of chaos, then through the evolutionary process described above this could lead to computer consciousness. Since everything is number, a computer may theoretically understand it. your points: 1. With current processing power, a computer has to filter through data to produce an answer. But as Processing power increases either the computer will be able to recognize patterns or be able to run brute force at a speed equal to or passing that of humans. And I would argue that something can be conscious even with brute force, if it can perceive. 2.The Chinese room is an interesting thought experiment. Here is another, the Problem of other Minds. It states that we cannot know if another person is sentient, or if they are a so called "Philosophical zombie." Naturally if this cannot prove or disprove human consciousness then it cannot prove or disprove computer consciousness. Also, I would argue that the problem with Searle's argument is it focuses on the person who doesn't know Chinese. But that man is a part of the man, the book, the room, and the cards system which collectively knows Chinese. Just as an individual synapse is not conscious of our thoughts this man, as only a part of the system, is not aware of the consciousness of the whole system. ::Conclusion:: Just as animals went from non-conscious to conscious, computers will follow. Cleverbot shows that a computer can learn, which is key to becoming self-aware
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

Thanks, Pro. Artificial intelligence is an idea that's been around for decades, yet we've made little tangible progress toward achieving it. I'll begin with evidential arguments against "weak" AI before moving on to a deeper critique of "strong" AI, or the possibility that computers could become conscious or sentient. 1. Things computers can't do Early on the framing problem was recognized as a significant barrier to the creation of a truly "smart" machine. Basically, it asks how it is possible for a computer to know which information affects other information. Computers lack common sense and defeasible reasoning capability. In order to understand a narrative, we take certain things for granted. To illustrate this, consider the following story: Max goes to a restaurant and orders a hamburger. An hour later, he is served a burnt hotdog. Angrily, he marches out without paying. Do you think Max ate the hotdog? Did he leave the waitress a tip? The story makes neither of these things explicit, yet the ability to draw out such implications is crucial to being able to truly understand it. In an influential paper, Hubert Dreyfus draws out four implications of the framing problem. Computers lack "fringe" consciousness, or the ability to focus on one task while having background knowledge of other things. They lack the ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information; for computers, all data has the same importance. Computers struggle with words that have multiple meanings (to bank an airplane, to sit by the river bank, to make a deposit at the bank). Lastly, computers have problems categorizing data according to defining attributes. The Cyc project is brute force attempt to systematize common sense knowledge. The database contains bits of information like "lettuce is not a tree," "a tree is a plant," "plants die eventually." Naturally, most AI experts are skeptical. 2. The Chinese room The philosopher John Searle argues that there is a qualitative difference between simulated machine "consciousness" produced by syntactical understanding and human understanding that results from semantic understanding. Imagine a computer that "understands" Chinese; it takes Chinese characters as input and following a program, produces other characters as output. Looking at a transcript of a conversation between the machine an an actual Chinese speaker, it would be impossible to distinguish them. Now imagine a book version of the program written in English. Suppose a person who doesn't know a word of Chinese is placed in a room with the book. Chinese characters are slipped in under the door, and, using the book, the man in the room slips other characters out. Does the man actually *know* Chinese? Of course not! He's just following a complex set of instructions. :: Conclusion :: Even in the unlikely event that a machine passes the Turing test, it's doubtful that they could ever become sentient. The resolution is negated.
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

Definitions: Cleverbot-a computer program that learns to mimic speech (see cleverbot.com) Artificial Intelligence-A man made machine which can imitate intelligence Sentience-The ability to feel or perceive. (for this debate, Sapience will be assumed to be synonymous) First I must dispel a common myth. Cleverbot is not a hoax, many believe that Cleverbot simply hooks you up with another anonymous user and the two of you communicate, thinking the other is the computer. This is not the case, but many times can appear to be so. The reason for this confusion is as follows; As Cleverbot 'talks' with humans, it keeps track of the trends in the user's responses and when it determines the moment right, it will spit back out an edited version of the original response that was originally written by a human. I am not arguing that Cleverbot is sentient, nor that it will become sentient. My argument is that giving computers such as Cleverbot the ability to learn speech will enable them to evolve sentience. This debate may likely come down to whether a computer can become sentient. I will await my opponent's approval of these definitions and their addition of any other points before I construct my argument.
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

== Pro Case == I placed my emphasis on on the first two steps of Pro's argument because they effectively form the foundation of his case. Without the ability to create a computer that simulates intelligence, the question of whether or not the machine is actually sentient is completely irrelevant. I'd like to point out that Pro has largely ignored these points, which I laid out in the first round. He's been forced to retreat to the possible: we *might* be able to make a smart machine sometime in the distant future. I think I've made a strong case that this is, at the very least, unlikely. Although I didn't address step 5 together with the other points, I did cover it in the "Con Case" of my rebuttal. Pro's math analogy, if I understand it correctly, creates more problems than it solves. He implies that functional output can be arrived at via different methods. This is the very reason why behavioral theories of mind have been largely rejected. An incorrect formula may yield the correct answer by chance. Behavioral states tells us nothing about intentional states. For example, suppose Joe loves Mary. He can be heard dreamily repeating her name and staring at her whenever she is present. He even sends her flowers. However, his behavior is equally compatible with the possibility that Joe *hates* Mary. He repeats her name over and over again, thinking about how much better the world would be without her. He stares at her trying to make her feel uncomfortable. He sends her flowers because she is allergic to them and he wants her to die. Philosophers and psychologists have been unable to formulate complete behavioral explanations for mental concepts. Indeed, there is good reason to tihnk that such a task is not even logically possible. Thus, Pro's behavioral account of consciousness should be disregarded. == Con Case == Pro claims that semantic meaning can be "preserved" through syntactic processing. However, this does not resolve the issue. An emotional email only has semantic content to the reader. The computer is just as blind to the semantics it conveys as a telephone line, a telegraph cable, or the pen, paper, and envelope I use to write and mail a letter. The issue Searle raises in his formal syntax/semantics argument is twofold: (1) semantics cannot arise from syntax, and (2) we know mental contents arise from brains, yet we still don't understand *how* this occurs. Thus, it absurd to discuss machine consciousness when we still don't understand our own consciousness. :: Conclusion :: It's important to note that Pro has made a very weak case for the overall plausibility of his case. He has focused largely on defending against my attacks on "strong" AI while neglecting to support even a "weak" AI thesis. Without the possibility of even "weak" AI, the "strong" AI issue is irrelevant. Pro also ignored the point I made about qualia in R3. The resolution is negated.