BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

The way my opponent handled the above mentioned thought experiment shows that he essentially did not understand it. He puts most of his attack on the first and second step, which are preliminary points that set up the scenario, not the idea itself. I completely agree that Moore's Law has nothing to do with AI, and I did not say it did, i mentioned it as a necessary assumption for the thought experiment. He skims over 3&4, vaguely talking about them and treating them as one step. But 5 was completely skipped, and part 5 was the entire weight of the exercise. - It seems that I have made little mention of the Syntax/Semantics argument, a shortcoming I intend to rectify: It does not follow that the symbols manipulated by the computer program cannot have semantic properties -- all that is shown is that they cannot have these in virtue of the rules of the program. In other words, the semantics of any situation can pass through a syntactic function intact. The Mind,on the whole, is semantic, but it is important to note that parts of the mind can be said to be purely syntactic. The semantic properties we are interested in can be preserved during the appropriate syntactic manipulation. The computer I'm using works syntactically, it works with 1s and 0s to make lights flash in different colors. I can write an emotional passage and send it via email. Since the reader cannot see my body movements and hear my tone fluctuation, they must not be able to know the emotion involved. And yet, emotion can fully be conveyed through purely syntactical means to them. Furthermore, the use of syntax and semantics can be done for the same function with little discernible difference. A math problem, say: 3=4x-17 This can be solved in one of two ways, syntactically there is a set of rules by which this problem can be simplified. But semantically, we can think of this as in equilibrium and our operating must keep that balance. Often times one cannot know by which method they worked. Does this not shatter the matter-of-fact status of understanding, of the presence of Searle's semantic level? - All other points I feel I've covered at least to my satisfaction. - ::Conclusions:: When ascribing mental states (like understanding Chinese) to other people, one must do so based on their behavior. By analogy, one must be willing to ascribe mental states to computers on the basis of their behavior. When that behavior causes a human to feel Empathy (defined as the capacity to share the sadness or happiness of another sentient being through consciousness rather than physically), it is assumable that sentience exists both on the giving and receiving end. But a lack of empathy does not necessarily mean sentience is lacking (see autism) Just as the nematode is radically different from conscious beings, today's computers are radically different from possible conscious computers. And just as nematodes lead to conscious beings, computers may as well.
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

== Pro Case == 1. Moore's law demonstrates nothing about AI. Computers are already exponentially more powerful than they were in the 60's and 70's, yet they have hardly gotten any "smarter." Whatever advances have taken place are owing to better programming. Consider the Chinese room argument: would it make any difference if there were several men in the room speeding the process along? Processing power is not the issue. 2. Greater computing power only allows them to crunch numbers with greater efficiency. This is useful for things like finding prime numbers, or processing high-resolution MRI's. As I already pointed out, increases in computing speed have not been matched by corresponding advances in AI. The problems of Hubert Dreyfus's "things computers can't do" still apply. 3 & 4. Treating computers that perform certain human tasks as if they were human is not the same thing as believing the computers are conscious. The question of whether or not hypothetical smart machines would have moral value is a separate issue. == Con Case == 1. Again, the difference between minds and computers is not quantitative, but qualitative. In a more recent paper, John Searle has laid out his argument in formal terms: (P1) Programs are formal (syntactic). (P2) Minds have mental contents (semantics). (P3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics. (C1) Therefore, programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds. (P4) Brains cause minds. (C2) Therefore, any other system capable of causing minds would have to have causal powers (at least) equivalent to those of brains. (C3) Therefore, any artifact that produced mental phenomena, any artificial brain, would have to be able to duplicate the specific causal powers of brains, and it could not do that just by running a formal program. 2. The "other minds" reply still isn't substantive. Searle argues that this stems from a misunderstanding of the point. The issue is not how we know if something is conscious, but what it is that we are attributing when we attribute cognitive states to something. It can't be merely computational processing and output data, because the processing and the output data can, in theory, exist without any cognitive states. Further, if we take a completely functionalist approach to mind, we would have to accept that it's possible something could be "conscious" without having qualia, which is an unacceptable conclusion. :: Conclusion :: Yes, early life was instinctual, however, conscious beings operate in ways radically different than nematodes. This process is so incredible, we still don't understand how exactly it works. As of now, our progress toward achieving AI is roughly equivalent to the progress the first man to climb a tree made towards landing on the moon. The resolution is negated.
Cleverbot is a sign of Artificial Intelligence's eventual rise to sentience

My use of the other minds problem simply shows that arguments like that of the Chinese Room cannot prove or disprove something's consciousness. For all I know, Neg could be a philosophical zombie who was pre-programmed to respond. I cannot know for sure whether he is or isn't conscious, all I can know is that in my interaction with him I feel as if I am talking with an intelligent being. So I must assume he is conscious. If we were to look at this as a solipsist, then we can neither say something is conscious nor not conscious, thus this debate is moot, and we ought to call it a tie and go home. To avoid this such solipsist arguments ought to be thrown out. I don't see how the "China Brain" is a problem. This can be described as a collective consciousness, and as long as Abilene Paradox exists, I must assume an independent will exists. I don't know where Minsky and Simon got their notions from, but Moore's law suggests what I claim. Allow me to go through the following though process. 1. Computers are getting exponentially more powerful. 2. This growing power allows computers to accomplish tasks that were considered infeasible several years ago. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that many things we think of as infeasible will eventually be done by computers. 3. Now pick a set of abilities such that if a system had them we would deal with it as we would a person. The ability to carry on a conversation must be in the set, but we can imagine lots of other abilities as well: skill in chess, agility in motion, visual perspicacity, and so forth. If we had a talking robot that could play poker well, we would treat it the same way we treated any real human seated at the same table. 4. We would feel an overwhelming impulse to attribute consciousness to such a robot. If it acted sad at losing money, or made whimpering sounds when it was damaged, we would respond as we would to a human that was sad or in pain. 5. This kind of overwhelming impulse is our only evidence that a creature is conscious. In particular, it's the only real way we can tell that people are conscious. Therefore, our evidence that the robot was conscious would be as good as one could have. Therefore the robot would be conscious, or be conscious for all intents and purposes. Is it not selective of me to look at such a machine and say that it only imitated consciousness when I look at a person, who exhibits the same attributes, and say that they were? If I believe it exists, it very well may. Here I will point out that once many people believed that no other animal had consciousness, even today a small number still hold this belief, but animal consciousness is inferrable. We cannot assume that since something is currently not conscious then later versions of it will not be. As I pointed out, early life was not conscious, but merely instinctual. But this gave rise to consciousness.
The US should have a Elephant Polo league

I. Opponents Contention on CaptivityI think my opponent misunderstood what I meant about captivity. We are not going out in the wild, capturing elephants, and domesticating them. The WEPA uses Elephants that are already living in wildlife, or conserved in WEPA standard zoos. To register a elephant for the WEPA, you need to have suitable and healthy living conditions for that animal. We are hosting elephants in America, and my oppoenent has made 50% of her arguments regarding the assumption that we can transport 250,000 elephants from America to the wildlife.These elephants are here for a reason, and zoos are only allowed to host animals if they are also using them for beneficial purposed. Breeding, research, preservation. These are domesticated Elephants, and they can't be put back into the wildlife. It doesn't work like that. The WEPA defends Elephant polo, as a healthy source of exercise for Elephants.They are fed and watered every quarter, and are being given the best standards of life possible. The WEPA was founder by Elephant lovers. Wherever my opponent got the idea that I advocated taking Elephants from the wild is beyond me. I am simply arguing the economic potential of using one's alreeady in our possesion. II. Bull hook argumentThis whole contention is irrelevant. WEPA trainers and riders are not allowed to use bull hooks. These elephants are naturally domesticated for human use, and unlike the African elephant, they are much more timid. Which is why they were rode as weapons in Asia, back in the ancient ages. To clear up my opponents confusion, the Elephants are simply rode with a saddle and straps.This whole argument was silly, and my opponent obviously didn't read the rules and guidelines, I so gratefully provided.III. Discriminatory Rules Look, I'm not going to get in a political correctness or hyper feminist argument with my opponent. All sports have rules that differ between men and women, and considering the game is divided into leagues, rules don't apply across the board. For example, the European league and the East Asian League all have seperate rules and guidelines.This argument is silly and nill, given my opponents lack of understanding on the word "league".IV. Conclusion It is clear by now. My opponent has admitted to conceding 75% of my points. The entire crux of her argument was based on her disapproval of animal captivity, which should be given little weight, due to her lack of research or focus on the topic at hand. Therefore, any counter premise instigated by my opponent, should be more than negated by now. Cheers!
Having it both ways

Ok, let us split my argument into sections... First of off, before I begin, Pro-lifers are also arguing against the Chinese draconian law. Argument A: The case against my opponent's proof. 1. My opponent has provided no proof as to if pro-choicers are really agreeing with this statement. 2. For arguments sake, let us pretend that he is right: So my next question here is, which pro-choicers is he talking about? Pro-choice ranges just as Pro-life does. There are Pro-lifers that agree a woman can have an abortion if the child birth will result in her death or if she is raped. There are also Pro-choicers that believe abortion is only right during first trimester. Then there are even those that believe a baby can be aborted during the final trimester. He must specify as it is extremely relevant to the situation. Argument B: Pro-Choice argument. 1. The babies that were being aborted weren't the only baby girls in China that were removed. They would even inject baby girls that were born well and healthy with poisons, leave some of them out in the woods, or rid them in many inhumane ways. This is smothering the name of Pro-Choicers, and of course they would be speaking out against this. 2. The ratio of male to female is off now in China, unlike the U.S. There has been a rise in crime, violence, and rape cases. A lot more Chinese women are now also being sold into prostitution. 3. There is also little pro-choice in the Chinese policies. They mandated that you have 0 or 1 child. This is a draconian way of thinking, and doesn't imply any real freedom of choice. Either you have a boy (which is very valuable in Chinese culture) or a girl. Just one. Of course, this gives you the choice of which you want, but this is where my points 1 and 2 in Argument B interject for the Pro-Choicers. Also, this issue starts to get into eugenics. This is more of a population modification problem. 4. A woman can have an abortion before the sex of the baby is known. 4-5 months are needed to determine if a baby is male or female. That is pro-choice and also random gender. My opponent must make his point clear that this is a debate against late term abortion pro-choicers (and give a source so I can see that they really are advocating against this, because, as we can clearly see, first trimester is perfectly ok in gender selection). Without proof that past late term abortion pro-choicers are actually arguing against anything, this debate is empty.
Having it both ways

I heard an interesting thing the other day that, to me, seemed hypocritical. I was listening to a radio program that was speaking about how a certain nation, (I believe it was China), aborted 5 times as many females than males. Here in the States some people have expressed disdain over this. But who was complaining? Was it Pro-Life advocates? Not to my knowledge. Actually the disdain was coming from the Pro-Choice camp. This is completely paradoxical to me for obvious reasons. How can anyone who is Pro-Choice speak out against the abortion of a fetus because one sex is being targeted? What difference does it make to them when they do not consider a fetus to be a human with basic rights in the first place? Logic would then dictate that the sex of a fetus is, at most, superfluous information for anyone that believes abortion is a viable option. So why the concern only when it seems that one sex is being targeted? I ask my antagonist: Is it wrong to abort more females than males?
Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

The opponent is making an existential claim and, as such, the burden of proof rests upon him. It is not my responsibility to prove that infinite dimensions do not exist, rather that the opponent claim lacks sufficient evidence to be considered true. Definitions and ClarificationsA dimension is generally defined as a property of space or extension in a given direction. We consider only so many dimensions existing as is required to adequately describe the "location" of any given thing in our universe. One dimension would not be enough, neither would two. With three mutually perpendicular dimensions, we are capable of describing the location of all objects in our universe. The opponent is suggesting that there are infinitely many dimensions, which seems to contradict the logic behind the definition of "dimension". However, I await his proof. EvidenceThe evidence that the opponent has provided thus far is insufficient. DreamsDreams are an ultimately anecdotal form of evidence that cannot be scientifically confirmed. While we certainly know people have dreams, it is impossible for these to be observed by anyone not having the dream. More importantly, we have no reason to believe that dreams are indicative of reality. In fact, dreams are often fantastical in nature and non-representative of the reality we experience. Dreams alone do not prove or even imply the existence of infinite dimensions in any scientifically or philosophically relevant way. ColorThe opponent reasons that color is "enough evidence to suggest that a higher dimension exists and that it's linked to the physical universe. "The actual reasons behind this are unclear. The opponent says, "We can sense color, but we know it by it's universe values. Depth on the other hand can pinpoint mathematically; we can hear around objects or plain ahead. " It is not obvious how this relates to higher dimensions. Color and depth are fully understood concepts from a three dimensional perspective. Color is the product of our eyes interpretting light of different wavelengths, while depth is a product of us having multiple eyes. Sound is a broad longitudinal wave that can easily be reflected. As such, it is not surprising that we can hear sound around corners/other objects/etc. There is no reason to consider color (or sound) to be something existing in a higher dimension, as it is completely explainable in our current, 3-Dimensional system. Beyond that, the opponent has no real evidence explaining why this apparently 3D phenomonenon may actually be more multidimensional than we think. ConclusionThe opponent's argument is seriously lacking in evidence. In order to move forward, the opponent will need to make significant strides in demonstrating that infinite dimensions exist. I look forward to his response.
Homosexuality

First off I don't think you'll win this debate, now here is my point, yes you have a right to your opinion but that doesn't mean that your opinion is right. Why should one have a reason to hate homosexuals, I mean do you hate me just because I like someone different than the norm? And it's sad what your friend did to you with the website but why let one incident when you are younger define how you feel about a whole group of people in your future? Simply Homosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction to the same sex. Over all am I that different of a person than my straight friends? No, i'm not. We all have similar interests and like, we are people too, we have feelings, the only difference is we don't like boobs and V@ginas we like pen!s and well yeah. To base unbiased hatred against a single group based on a single instance is wrong, That is where your opinion is incorrect, you should not hate Homosexuals, we are just the same as you with one difference, we are attracted to the same sex, not the opposite, is that really that big of a deal? [1] www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
Homosexuality

I've always found gay people to be revolting. I first came into contact at age 11 when my friend jokingly gave me the web address to a site that supposedly had an engine for making games. It was just a porn site, and it featured two women doing some of the most disgusting things I've ever seen. It made me want to retch. Now every time I think about gay people, I feel sick. It's just so disgusting.Now many people have been telling me that feeling disgusted by homosexuals is wrong. They then come up with all these reasons for why gay people should be allowed to be gay. So here's my point: I don't dispute that gay people should have rights. I'm only disputing my right to think the way I do about gay people. Just as some people dislike rich people, I am entitled to dislike gay people. It's my free opinion, and it doesn't hurt anyone (ironic because that's what you people say to me when you're arguing with me).What I'm feeling is that there is some kind of Gay Rights Double Standard going on here.
Debating while being 100% sure or your point is useless.

Hi, JFCody, oftentimes I find myself asking the same question, this will be a good opportunity to review this question. (1) Definitions By definition, a debate is a deliberate argument on opposing points, or different viewpoints. This is comparable with a battle but only a battle of evidence and rhetoric, thus a debate does not always mean that there are a definite winner like a game of rock, paper, and scissors, it hardly ever is. In a debate, you must hold your ground whether you think you are wrong or not, at my school, I am told to argue for the Gulf war, which I disagree with, for a teacher-student debate. However, unlike a sports competition, no winner is chosen by the judge, but the audience chooses the debate side in which they prefer. Debate is heavy on rhetoric, the better your argument pleases the audience, the more likely they will prefer your argument and become convinced. In other words you are not convincing the debater, you are goal should be to convince the reader. (2) Presidential Election Debate Presidential candidates will obviously not abandon their stance and you will never hear one say, “you know what? You’re right, I should cancel this policy,” on a presidential debate unless pigs can suddenly fly and fish can drown. Presidential debates are there to help the voters decide who they should vote for, it is basically an indicator of what grounds each candidate. (3) Difference Between: Debate, Argument, and Discussion To summarize, a debate is to convince the audience using rhetoric, an argument is plain ranting between two people with no specific audience to convince but rather to defend their opinion or build their ego, a discussion is a peaceful talk, this is done to clarify, like you said, and convince which idea is better, discussions are done in business meetings to improve their company or other similar purposes. This topic is an example of a discussion and should really be posted on the forums. These terms are used interchangeably in society but there are definitions that distinguish them from each other.
Debating while being 100% sure or your point is useless.

Debates as I see them are just people trying to either prove their point or bashing the opponent without thinking one second that they might be wrong. If you are facing someone that will not reconsider his point, there is no reason to debate with him, that would be a waste of time. A debate should be used for better understanding of both sides, not trying to make your point king. I mostly despice debating about religion, as most that I got was people assuming things and you could see that they would never change their mind over anything. I would like someone to prove me wrong.
The images offered by debate.org are sexist.

Since the person arguing the con side didn't post anything, I can't reply. However, in the comments, it was brought up that many of them are non-gender-specific, such as group ones, or iconic ones. As I said in my first post, not counting the group or iconic images, there were about 94 images of which only 11 were women. As for whoever said it's not sexist if it accurately projects women occupations as a whole, my point is that it DOES NOT- women are no more likely to be waitresses or nurses than they are to be lawyers, doctors, prisoners, students, sculptors, writers, or most of the other icons available.