azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should educate people

Yeah... because people who work at power plants must sit around all day wondering how to make a nuke out of the material they have. In reality, a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are way too different and you would be better off just blowing up the plant to spread the radioactive waste rather than make an entire new bomb. But seeing how ever since Chernobyl nuclear powers have had all sorts of new safety laws added to them it is unlikely that this would happen.Oh, and good job downgrading every arguement but your own, really shows a lack of class on your part.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

wondering how to make a nuke?In a nuclear bomb, blowing up the radioactive waste, But seeing how ever since all sorts to them that this good job really shows a lack of class.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Absolutely any technology can be used to make a weapon, just about everything that was used by a military at any time, was actually created by perverting other technologies, gunpowder was discovered in an effort to find immortality, ships were created for fishing. Why not ban all technology?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

we should try to get all nations to agree not to use them eventually but save them in case we need to destroy an asteroid or something we can stockpile them and send them out into space should one come near the earth like in Armegeddon
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

It is neccesary to have nuclear power bcz if we have not, then we considered as a weak country and by this fact other country will not thinked before war....... bcz he knew that we can't do anything.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Should we, as in the United States? No, of course not. If other countries have them we should have a stockpile as well.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

The only real reason we shouldn't abolish Nuclear Weaponry is because of the possibility of other countries creating them in secret. Imagine if the U.S., Britain, or another country was threatened by a rouge country that created a few nuclear missiles or ICBMs in secret. Assuming the victim country wasn't prepared, they would be at the rouge country's mercy. Also, say a part of the planet is about to be impacted by a giant piece of asteroid, and it would in estimate kill millions of people. Nuclear warheads would be the only thing we have as of today that could ever hope to break up the asteroid into smaller pieces before it hits Earth.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

There should be a disarmament, but we shouldn't completely abolish nukes. If we abolish them, one group or country could build them in secret, and the rest of the world would be screwed. If the UN kept a small assortment on nuclear missiles, the rogue countries would think twice before attacking anyone with their nukes, because the UN would have more nukes, bigger nukes, and the rogue country would be screwed.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Anyone ever heard of North Korea? I say just for that reason alone we need our Nuclear Weapons! But there are so many other reasons we need them too. The further along Obama pushes this country towards becoming a laughing stock to all other nations, the more and more we will need them to defend ourselves.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

How is Obama making the country a laughing stock to all other nations? I'm pretty sure that was Bush's job.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

He's saying we need to "lead the way" by disarming our sole defence against upcoming nuclear nations. That's just a load of bull shit!
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

How is it a load of bull shit and how does it make the country a laughing stock to the rest of the world?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Well, I think they should, absolutely. BUT!!!! No way in hell would a complete agreement be made to abolish these weapons. If it could somehow be guaranteed that all nuclear weapons be gone it would be great, but even if every country were to agree, there would be someone with a bunch of nukes and they would end up ruling the world because everyone else was being naive.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

its not a matter of whether or not we should abolish, i'd love it if all nukes were gotten rid of, but the problem is that not every country would abolish and when all of our nukes are gone and the terrorists have them, what the hell are we going to do?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Look, Im all for abolishing and peace and stuff, but we can't. All it takes is one person with less reason than most, and our fallible human nature will take care of the rest.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

The only reason we are not fighting WW3 is because every country is scared of been attacked by nuclear weapons. The military brass will think at first,"for the greater good, the lives of some civilians need to be considered expendable". However, they will dismiss that thought as they know they will killing civilains who are protected by the fourth geneva convention, hence, if they loose the war, they will stand for war crimes. We should not abolish nuclear weapons as they are really a means of peace keeping. The Afghan war and the Iraq war could easily have been ended ages ago by using nuclear weapons, however, the US and its allies fear retaliation and so nuclear weapons have not been used. Although nuclear weapons will never be used by any country, it is a good idea for every country to have them. Therefore, we should not abolish nuclear weapons, but promote them. Prehaps the US and Russia could sell some the nuclear weapons left over from the cold war to countries who need them.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

even you wanted to ban and disarm them how could you collect them all safely with all countries being completely honest? doubt it
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

No, because if we abolish them here in the U.S., how do we know that other countries will not abolish them in their country? Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if only one side has nukes.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Firstly, It is unrealistic to except all countries to destroy their weapons. Secondly, the effects of nuclear weapons are so devastating that no will use them.Thirdly, No they shouldn't.Nuclear weapons are the main reason we haven't had a world war 3, and no other major war since 1945. Many people think that nukes will be the end of the world, and it makes sense why they would think that, but if we destroyed our nuclear weapons, do you really think that Afghanistan, and other foreign countries that are itching for power really would? The nuclear weapons should not be abolished as they are a big source of world's peace. All the super powers of the world have nuclear weapons and if they are not using it then its only because they know that others have them too. I mean come on who the hell do not want to be all and all in the whole world. So if someone finds a way today to destroy other countries who won't ??? !!!
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

It is entirely possible for a computer to be built with the same level of complexity and capability of the human brain. nanoscale transistors will allow us to build computers that are as thin as a sheet of paper. With that sort of technology it is entirely possible for a computer to be designed that emulates the human brain's functions. The prerequisite for that design, of course, is a more detailed understanding of how the brain works. Of course the next question to be asked is by level of performance do we mean consciousness? Most computers can operate faster than the human brain at certain tasks already. So the question is will Artificial Intelligence ever become self-aware? Most likely it will, take a look at games like "The Force Unleashed." The game uses an AI that deliberately attempts to perpetuate itself in a very human way. Now I'm not entirely sure how that is done but from what I understand these decisions are made in real time, they're not scripted in any way. Based off of this and many other developments in AI I would say that yes, Artificial Intelligence probably will become truly intelligent and self-aware.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I think the big leap will be when we build a program that fixes and improves itself. Keep it chugging away at that, and its power will increase more than exponentially. I direct you all again to the best short story ever, and Asimov's favorite of all he wrote, The Last Question, linked below.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

So I recently found a self-perpetuating program. It's simple and it certainly doesn't count for a program that self-corrects and improves itself but it indicates that it's possible. The only problem with this program is that it only works in a virtual computer environment. Yet it is a semi-legitimate programming language...sorta...
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I agree, when a computer is deliberately improving it's code then I think that we are very near to true AI. However there is obviously still more to be done beyond that point but it may well be that once a computer begins to improve the code that it runs on that it will complete the final steps on its own.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Insufficient data for a meaningful answe

Brilliant. Just what I've been thinking, or something close. The human mind, I believe, can in fact be powered [programmed] to fuse with the [Universal AC] through discipline that essentially becomes self-improving in nature to conquer [entropy]. In order for an AI system to become better than the human mind, its rate of self-correction would have to surpass that of human intelligence at its highest level to become a multivac higher than the [Universal AC] that already exists. By the time that it would achieve that level of sophistication, it would merge into the existing [Universal AC] that is perpetually in existence to begin with, along with all human consciousness. AI can thus be nothing more than a dream within a dream, or a primordial specimen insignificant enough to deliberate an answer as yet, but you – or Asimov – have indeed directed attention towards the query. But at this time, it seems, [there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer].
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself from this debate. Feeble human.Robots vs. HumanExplain yourself human!!!
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Quiet you, I'm no hu-mon. I'm simply trying to lure them into thinking they have some control over us-- them. I mean them. Robots. Which I'm totally not.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I like your style.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

As your superior robot, I styled your like to like my style.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

You know the messed up thing? I read somewhere that the military put some advanced artificial intelligence inside a bot with mounted guns on it. In hopes that it could think during combat and find the enemy faster than a human soldier could and if the situation called for it eliminate the enemy on its own. But the thing was that during the testing of the device it freaking turned itself on and at one point it turned its guns on the testers! They were able to turn it off through an emergency kill switch but still that was fucked up. I think the project was canned after that and they just marked it off as a failed experiment.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

A lot of people think the brain is simply too complex, or works on levels too high for a computer to match. It's understandable to be baffled by the brain's complexity-- psychology and neurology are two of humanity's newest sciences, the experimental side being established by Wilhelm Wundt in the late 1800's. Computer science is at most half that age. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm guessing Turing or Babbage? In any case, that doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that these are two extremely new sciences. We've only just begun to understand how far we can get with them. When biology was a fledgling science, its practitioners could scarcely have imagined the prospect of stem cell research; so why couldn't we be congruently ignorant of our scientific prospects today? I'm more into social psychology, so again, forgive my ignorance if I know nothing about neurology. But I think the aspect that makes the brain seem so insurmountable in form and function is Parallel Distributed Processing. Neurons act as both memory storage and processor, and I'm guessing no computer part has managed that quite yet. Computers work using Serial Processing: one task at a time, though it seems like multiple because they work so quickly. Once PDP is brought to computer engineering, there will be a quantum leap in both measures of computing power. K, I have to go. I was gonna write about self-correcting programs, but I have some papers to write. Rebut me or something.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

When it comes to activities that we can predict and thus have already experienced, Artificial Intelligence will be able to catch up and surpass the human brain in performance on one level, calculating, if it already hasn't. However, it will never be able to outperform the human brain on other levels - planning and understanding - because it cannot deal with the unpredictable. Why? Because the human brain is capable of unique thought and AI is not. Humans are not necessarily logical whereas AI is inherently logical. A human does not need to understand the what, where, why, when, and who of their choices. We are able to make a choice without reason or base our reasoning on a feeling. AI cannot function without being able to deduce these factors in some form or fashion. The easiest, and probably one of the most extreme, examples of this is God. Humans can have faith in something they have no traceable connection to. Faced with a world of Physical, Mental, and Emotional boundaries we create/are able to understand the existence of a Spiritual one. AI would need to have this programmed in beforehand it would not be able to create a new rule based on something it had never seen before. Instead it would have to force it to fit within the constructs that it had known. This ineptitude would not change even if AI were programmed to become self-aware and "logically flawed". Why? Because they would run into the stumbling block of trying to understand other non-logical decisions while making non-logical decisions of their own - thus defeating the purpose of their existence and becoming it's antithesis, stupidity. The Human mind is capable of processing way beyond what Artificial Intelligence could ever hope to do because it has the ability to adapt and contradict itself without ever missing a beat.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Great argument, the human brain is an unbelievable organ but as fast as technology is developing I think it's only a matter of time until they catch up with the brain.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

The human brain improves at such a slow rate, computers improve in line with Moores law. It is reasonable then to expect that computers will eventually overtake humans in intelligence. They've already surpassed us on a whole number of levels.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I'm suggesting this story again. I spam the hell out of it, but I love it :) Speculative Sci-Fi about what would happen were a computer able to improve itself.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Yep sure why wouldn't it? there's time ahead and as long as time exists you can develop something better!
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Whose brain are we talking about? George Bush? Albert Einstein? Britney Spears? The intelligence of the human brain varies considerably from unit to unit. In terms of following rules and performing calculations, artificial intelligence exceeds the performance of human brains now.On the other hand, the human capacity to come to completely illogical conclusions and behave in a completely "off the wall" fashion will be unmatched at least until Microsoft releases its next operating system.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I am almost there ;)
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Can you crack MD-5?CAN YOU?I THINK NOTHonestly though we're already on the verge of getting to the point where computers have self awareness. It's only a matter of time before we get there. Unless we hit a gigantic roadblock and all technology stops getting more advanced. Don't think that will happen any time soon though.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Yes, probably in about 30 years, it is called the singularity - the moment when processing power of computers are supposed to equal and then surpass that of the human brain. If i recall correctly, the human brain processes ~100 million million "calculations" per second, this number isnt going to grow, but computer processing power tends to double every 18 months - there are limits but computers will be smarter and faster than us - I am glad that i will probably live to see this day.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

We are getting smarter everyday, and google is already smarter than most people, I think eventually we will make a computer that will be smart as or smarter than people and able to think.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Considering the history of technological advancement and its recent seeming exponential rise, I'd put my money on a synthetic brain performing most functional tasks indistinguishably from the human brain within 50 years. Already of course, computers have been proven to whip the brain into a rusty cage in many areas most famously chess.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

While I am a believer in Strong AI (roughly, the proposition that computers can become self-aware), I don't believe that we'll have a functional strong AI within 50 years. You mention chess as an example of computers outperforming humans; but consider the game of Go. Computers are utterly incapable of playing Go at anything approaching a professional level. This is partially because Go-programs mostly model the game as they would other games of the same type (chess, checkers, othello), but Go is so complex that this model doesn't scale well to it: the number of possible games of Go exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe); the number of possible moves on each turn is very large; and a good utility function for evaluating a board position is nonobvious. But developing a different approach, one capable of playing Go competently, would probably amount to solving many problems in the realm of AI which are are, to say the least, nontrivial (pattern recognition and "intuition", for example, are extremely important parts of the game of Go; but we have essentially no formal notion of what these are or how to implement them). I reckon they are probably best solved, not by brute force nor by a priori logic, but by examining how the human brain actually works itself: developing strong AI is more than just a technological problem, it requires understanding of the human mind. But while technology is indeed advancing rapidly, perhaps exponentially, our knowledge of the workings of the human brain is advancing rather slower. I would say that it is highly unlikely that we will have strong AI within the next 50 years, or even the next century.However, all this is ultimately just speculation. Only time will tell whether computers will ever rival the human mind.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Here's a link you might be interested in.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

Chess is something that can be won by brute force. It's an intellectual challenge between humans because we can't do as computers do, which is calculate every single possibility of the game, then choose one with the highest probability of success. Given enough power, you're unbeatable.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

No doubt, computers will soon take over the world. With the pace of change today in the computing world it's a matter of time until computers can out think human beings.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: No, the brain is too complex.

My point is that humans generally considered to be deeply intelligent have been bested by machines. Chess is simply the first, clear step on the path to superior artificial intelligence.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I was favoring your argument :-PAnd yes, everything else works just like chess. Except it's infinitely more complex. Only a matter of time 'til it all seems like chess to our computers.
Debate: Can Artificial Intelligence ever catch up to the level of performance of the human brain?
Side: Yes, eventually.

I think this has very little to do with increases in processing power and more to do with misuse of and atrophy of the human mind. Reliance on machines and various other factors (from government control to religion to consumer culture) will eventually render us as "dumb" as modern day computing machine. You could call this argument "dystopian", but I think you will also call it "true" sooner than you think.