Artificial Intelligence is impossible

I will refute, at the very least, two of your statements, within a single point: 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. My Proof: "If you cannot prove existance, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything" "AI is impossible because we cannot be certain anything truly exists" Now, onto more quotes! "I have already said it is because I have made it a debatable point." However, I said it isn't. Thus, it's your opinion against mine. "You have attempted to prove that existence is obvious ergo, you tried to prove existence." However, I never said that I could prove existance, now did I? "An illusion is something that tricks the senses. If we think we are typing a debate, but are not, that is a trick to the senses. You cannot prove existence." Thank you! You did my job for me by proving illusions! "Yes but in your case, Gamecube or Debate.org is simply programming, not AI. There is a difference between simple programming and human-like AI." 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. My proof of this: "If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." - Your Original Statement Now, more quotes! "This is not learning. These devices are limited by their programming, they cannot learn." However, they can learn within the confines of their programming, as proved by presets and memory cards. "But again, that is not human-like intelligence it's man-made and man controlled." However, when I the statement I refuted with this example include the word 'anything'. This is your original statement, which I refuded with my radio example: "C) If you cannot prove existence, it will then be impossible to produce any notions of artificial anything." Now, although this is the original statement, here is the back-up statement you provided to refute my statement, which backs up the original statement, which I am refuting: "1) Those are mere programs, not AI." This was a statement made to refute a statement I made to refute the original statement displayed above. "But to think as a human being, you need emotion, understanding, logic, ect." 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. 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. "My opponent is conceding, not refuting, and simply dropping points. You can only logically vote PRO." Both of these points are false. I am refuting points, and I am not dropping points. And you can only logically vote CON. 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. My proof of this: 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. Now, my arguments: 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) References: 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...