Check out the Tournament Ladder
@metant3 @enzilag Great debate guys!Please note that winner will be determined based on the best of 5 votes i.e. community + 2 judge or 3 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @lupita @arielle_3558
Hi, my name is arielle and I’m a residential judge here on Qallout. Today I’m going to be giving you feedback about your debate performances, and discuss why I️ think the winner’s argument made a better case. To begin, I’ll describe my interpretations of your respective sides:The pro side began by defining AI and stating his goal throughout to debate to prove that while AI is not a determinant of a country’s ascendancy, it is an indicator of a country’s relative leading. The three countries he stated as most powerful today were Russia, China, and the US. Using civilization theory, he showed that the US for instance has a low number of field workers and a higher percentage of the employed population working to produce intelligence than sustenance. The Con side stated that she believed AI may be of benefit to certain minor interests, yet overall she believes it poses greater security threats and risks to countries obtaining its power. She cites national complications implicit in the assumption of AI prowess- namely algorithmic driven inaccuracies with pertinence to racial discrimination, or the loss of intellectual property due to hacking. However, she also undermines her own argument by suggesting that AI could help predict the military intent of competitors, or that predictive data could help reduce poverty. Her suggestion that AI has made no advances within half a century was easily refuted through her opponents citation of google’s deep mind and the proven potential for technology to increase its level of consciousness. Ultimately, the PRO side brought the debate back to its main discussion topic, which was intended to revolve not around whether AI posed beneficial or destructive prospects for humanity, but whether it is a leading characteristic in a country’s strength. His example of Chernobyl, given that we would not exemplify this loss of technological control in a discussion on whether nuclear development is predictor of a rising great power, was successful in expelling his opponents claim that AI could lead to a country’s demise- losing control of AI would mean that this particular country is no longer an industry leader or well safeguarded innovator. This is why my vote goes for PRO. Granted, the CON side had a more difficult task at hand proving that AI is not relevant to a country’s preeminence. However, the crux of her argument got off topic and wasn’t as summarily persuasive. Congratulations to the PRO side, and good luck to both of you in future debates.
@metant3 Congrats for advancing to the semi-finals! Please expect details on your next debate later today.@enzilag Great job reaching so far in the tournament and qualifying for Dec'$5,000 Championship! Looking forward to having you as an RJ in case you don't participate in Nov