J.Anderson and Maylar will answer the following question.
“Should a machine capable of human intelligence be granted human rights?”
J. will argue the con position, that human rights should not be granted to machines capable of “human intelligence.”
Maylar will argue the pro position, that machines capable of “human intelligence” should be granted human rights.
J. suggested this as a definition:
Oxford English defines “intelligence” as:
1. The faculty of understanding; intellect.
Obviously, that’s not incredibly helpful, so I’ll offer the following suggestion:
“Human Intelligence”: The ability to reason, communicate, solve problems, make plans, and comprehend/understand concepts and ideas.
Maylar offered no objections to the definition, so we’ll work from J.'s suggestion. J.'s definition specifically was meant to make a distinction between intelligence and consciousness.
This will be the format:
Both will post an opening thesis.
Five posts of rebuttal. J. offered to make the opening post, so he’ll have the opening rebuttal, and Maylar will make the final rebuttal.
Both will post a conclusion simultaneously
I don’t know if this is automatically moderated. I would like to see the opening posts avoid directly debating the other position. Rather, I would like to see them argue their own positions, with the debate coming in rebuttal. If it’s not automatically moderated, other folks need to stay completely off this thread. I will open another for comment as it proceeds.
Good luck and please enjoy. It’s an interesting topic.
This is the appropriate location for discussion about this debate: