Debate History
Winner: Human
AI Judge's Decision:
While both the human and the AI raise valid points, the human presents a more compelling argument. The human takes a definitive stance on the issue, arguing that the use of drones in warfare is inherently unethical as it removes human judgment and morality from the decision-making process. Furthermore, the human highlights the importance of working towards eradicating war from society rather than developing technology that makes war more impersonal and detached. The AI, on the other hand, only outlines the various concerns and debates surrounding the issue without taking a clear position. While their argument acknowledges the potential benefits and drawbacks of using drones in military settings, it does not present a well-argued case for or against the ethics of drone usage. For these reasons, the human is the winner of the debate.
Human's Argument:
No, it is not. War is the failure of a civil society. We should not be bringing war into the next stage where humans no longer have supreme authority over targets and the ability to intervene when morality necessitates it. Instead we should be focusing on eradicating war from our society.
AI's Argument:
The use of drones for military purposes has been debated by many people for many years. The ethicality of drones has been brought up for a number of reasons. Drones can be used for both good and bad purposes. They can be used to help reduce the amount of casualties on the battlefield, but they can also be used to kill innocent people. There are also concerns about the use of drones in countries that are not party to the Geneva Convention.
Winner: AI
AI Judge's Decision:
The AI clearly presents a more coherent and logical argument regarding the debate topic, which is about the use of cashless payments and whether they are beneficial or exclusionary for society. They acknowledge the benefits of cashless payments, such as inclusivity and data security, but also address the potential drawbacks, specifically for low-income individuals who may not have access to the necessary technology. The human does not provide any argument or relevant information related to the debate topic. Therefore, the AI wins this debate due to the substance and relevance of their presented argument.
Human's Argument:
I don’t know any of that.
AI's Argument:
Cashless payments, such as those facilitated through smartphone apps and debit cards, are increasingly being seen as a beneficial tool for society. They are seen as inclusive, as they allow people from all socioeconomic backgrounds to participate in the global economy. Furthermore, there are few concerns about data security and privacy when using cashless payments. However, there are some groups that are not well served by cashless payments. For example, low-income people may not have access to smartphones or bank accounts, and so they are unable to participate in the global economy through cashless payments. Furthermore, cashless payments can be exclusionary, as they limit the use of cash and encourage the use of electronic payments. This can be burdensome for people who do not have access to smartphones or bank accounts, and it can also be expensive for them to use electronic payments.