A revolution by robots alone which overthrows the government is impossible.

You may call me Panda. If the definition 'An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose, manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications. ' is the definition you are giving for 'Robot' the I accept it. I would like to request my opponent show the links he is using to gather his information, or else all his facts have been pulled out of thin air. I will now rebut his points: Robot will be more intelligent than humans within our lifetimeL -In terms of Moore's law, my opponent states computers will be 73,786,976,294,838,206,464 times faster at current rate by the end of the century . However, the creator of the law, Gordon Moore, has stated that 'we're approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier' and 'law cannot be sustained indefinitely'. When we reach atomic sized transistors, within the next 10 or 20 years, this is our 'fundamental barrier' that Moore has stated. We cannot go past this barrier. - He also states computers will be 65,000 times faster than they are today in 24 years and they might have more processing power than humans. The Human brain doesn't have a definitive processing power. But by estimative calculations, we can guess the human brain has on average the power of 100 million MIPS (Million computer Instructions per Second) which equals 1,000,000,000,000 MIPS . A Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 0594550 has 59,455 MIPS. That multiplied by 65,000 gives us 3,864,575,000 MIPS. This means that humans will still have more processing power than computers 24 years later Visual: All of his visual facts are true enough, I shall not rebut them Aural: I have no points to rebut here, all are factual. Touch: No rebuttal Smell & Taste: Where is my opponent's proof we will have robotic sniffer dog's in the coming century? Other sense's: My opponent gave the example that aeroplanes know the coming weather. However this is false. Satellites are first used to gather information on cloud patterns and such. This weather information is gathered by Meteorologists. It is then given to the airport, The airport relays that information on the Aeroplane. Therefore, it does not detect the weather. Motor Co-ordination: The last time I checked Formula 1 cars were driven by drivers with minimal computer assistance, only gravity and the car itself. Where is the evidence Formula 1 is 'thoroughly computerized'? Programming: You state that the way to make robot's as intelligent as humans would take 'millions of programming man-years'. You then suggest we give computers the ability to learn. However this is a clear contradiction. Learning is one of the key components of animal intelligence. How do you suggest we give robot's the ability to learn without the 'millions of programming man-years'. As well, the basis of your argument is that we will give robots the ability to learn. Why would humans pull of a move so stupid? Humans would never, if given the chance, give robot's the ability to learn. It would lead to an overthrowing and removal of human power. The whole foundation of you're argument is an unlikely 'if'. Energy: Give me the schematics to solar panels or nuclear reactors that fit in a human-sized robot and I'll agree. As I mentioned, you're logic of the unlikely 'if' of giving robot's the ability to learn is frankly, against all human nature. The foreseeable future of doing this is summed up by you yourself : 'They will learn than humans are lazy, greedy and inefficient. In due course robots will routinely eliminate humans as unnecessary wasters of natural resources. Humans will not be able to prevent this. ' We will be able to prevent it as long as we limit the knowledge of the robot. I mention in my first argument robot's can only do their programmed role as long as Humans don't give them the ability to learn. You say 'Human error will accidentally pass the new designs. ' I cannot see how Human error can occur here, if you, a normal citizen, can foresee a revolution by Robots being inevitable with the learning technology. Scientists with multiple degrees would see this long before we would. 'Humans will not be able to defend themselves against robots. It will be very difficult to fight back against robots since they will control all means of communication and all modern human military: governments will long since have entrusted military operations to robots to avoid the risk of human life. ' This is one giant assumption. Yes, the military have implemented robot searchers for crash sites, and even a robotic remote controlled car, but replacing the whole army with robot's is unlikely. In terms of communication, it is quite plausible, but we don't know. We don't have a crystal ball to look into the future. As for the ' Grey goo' theory, grey goo is mere science fiction and futurism at it's best. I quote Wikipedia on saying : 'Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves' The word Hypothetical is important. It is a mere idea on what will happen. Me saying ' In 50 years China will start a war with the U. S. ' is no less probable than the 'Grey Goo' theory. To summarise, my opponent's theories and idea's rely heavily on science fiction on what 'could' happen. The best example is the 'Grey Goo' theory he mentioned. My opponent has very few facts to prove his case, I have even disproved his Moore's law argument, probably the best one he had. My opponent cannot prove many of his prediction's. My sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.webopedia.com... I'm afraid to say I can't recount for all of my links, but these are the ones I can.