A person without feelings or motivations cannot have rights
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Legally - This is true
- Philosophically - this is true
- The resolution says - can not have rights - this means in every single scenario or situation, but this is blatantly false from a legal setting.
"The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, guarantee essential rights and civil liberties"
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
- Essentially - personhood is the condition of being an individual person, there is no stipulation that one cannot be "programmed" and also be a person, them being a human with natural sentience is the other proof.
- There is a core difference between A.I and Humans, whereas humans naturally are capable of sentience, consciousness, etc, A.I's are only the study of having some of the characteristics of a human, they do not have this natural sentience. Therefore the comparison is false.
- Therefore, as Pro leaves all contentions uncontested, extend all arguments from r1
- Pro has conceded the debate - Vote Con
Concession
Con cess ion
Concession.
Concession
Concession.
Concession
Concession.
Argument: Pro's initial argument featured a flaw that Con identified and successfully refuted: that AI exhibits personhood. As it represented Pro's only argument, which Con successfully rebutted, both in terms of lack of personhood by AI, as well as demonstrating that the founding fathers recognized both the status of personhood, and that all persons are endowed with rights, Con successfully presented winning arguments.
Sources: Pro offered no sources to underpin the single argument. Con's sources fully supported the rebuttal, arguments offered, plus provide definitions for the debate not provided by pro. Con wins the points.
S&G: Although Pro offered complete nonsense in R4, Pro had already conceded in R2, so the gibberish, though completely within the definition of "incoherence" is excused, Tie.
Conduct: Both parties exhibited good conduct. Concession not withstanding, which, itself, demonstrates good, not bad conduct, the conduct is considered as sufficient by both participants.
It's mostly to artificially inflate our vote count than anything else. I'm going to try to vote on some of the other debates if Undefeatable doesn't respond within the day again lmao
Guys I really appreciate the vote, but I also have like two other debates with no votes, I-I won this at a Concession, guys there's no need, I just don't want the other ones to end up ties. lmao.
One is glad to be of service.
Is that debate open? I'd be fine with arguing either point. The problem with a lot of these resolution are:
A) The wording - they make it very easy to argue some extreme or exception
B) They often correlate to false equivalences, automatically making your arguments fallacious.
you know, I feel like you'd be the perfect person (or maybe MisterChris) to see try to refute the con side of pressing the button that revives your most loved one. Your insight makes me feel you could penetrate the complete BS argument and figure out what's wrong with it lol
I'd be more than happy to argue with your revised resolution, just have the opponent be me.
oops... "cannot"... I worded it wrong lol
Did this surprise you?
There's a third option, a person without feeling or motivation is not an ai
Either you’re really good at AI related research, or you failed to realize this is basically the equivalent of having sufficiently advanced AI
We're fighting now