Thx for watching. If you liked this content... there's more :) • Israel vs. Palestine 👉 ruclips.net/video/9fnVxIEftis/видео.html • Ban Hate Speech? 👉 ruclips.net/video/6PtSA8Ecuqs/видео.html • Abortion 👉 ruclips.net/video/czbLw6zvppQ/видео.html • Illegal Immigration 👉ruclips.net/video/K9RrU4doKd4/видео.html • Free Will 👉 ruclips.net/video/2IGbUYBWZ_8/видео.html • Electoral College 👉ruclips.net/video/SwrsANdOrnw/видео.html • Does God Exist 👉 ruclips.net/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/видео.html • The Trinity 👉 ruclips.net/video/S0ScOgaDdNE/видео.html • Muhammad, Jesus & Buddha 👉 ruclips.net/video/eY_il2MZjxc/видео.html
Why no timestamps? I’m the type that like to jump around when rewatching something I’m trying to remember. Or just a topic I’m trying to show a friend. Thx for making this vid though but I’d appreciate the timestamps 😊
This was clearly curated to obtain certain results. Even choices from the avatars, voices, and body language create bias. And it isnt accidental. You are deceitful and manipulative. And it shows
Being locked away for 20 years in a small prison cell without human interacting, exercice and a good nutrition can be argued to be worse then death Edit: I AM ON THE DEATH-PENALTY SIDE
If not worse, than at least a more fitting punishment. You took life away (or you ruined someone's life through r-pe), therefore we're taking everything good about life away from you. Makes sense.
@@avivastudios2311 but at least you have a life. plus, those that kill more people and go to the same prison to these with less murders means these people that dies was in vain?
@@avivastudios2311but at that point aren't we punishing someone just for cruelty? Life in prison is not any diferent then choosing torture over killing, needlesslly cruel, as the one being jailed is never going to return to society.
A calm argument really becomes a discussion. This is beautiful, simply watching 2 opposing sides talk it out logically and calmly is amazing. I have experienced it so many times when both parties start calm and try to keep things calm but slowly descend into spilling their emotions.
@No-I-dont-want-that That's the point. Hearing people argue or, in this case, discuss things is pretty nice. It puts you in this kind of state where your brain goes 200% trying to think. Unfortunately, we have to deal with have to deal with someone screaming to prevent the other party from thinking clearly (or just trying to drown their voice, so people won't hear their argument). At worst, we get people crying or start talking with their fists. Hearing AI simulating the ideal discussion is a grim reminder of the real world. And no, I'm not saying people can't argue calmly, but there's always a big risk of it to stop being calm.
This is why as someone whos anti death penalty I try my best to appeal to facts, logic, morality and emotion And not emotion alone. Many lefties are super condescending because of reliance in emotion and thats not the way
@@V555Vendetta That’s why the libertarian argument against the death penalty is the best one, IMO. It’s essentially the argument that we can’t trust the state with the power to execute people for a crime, since there’s way too much human error, or police/prosecutor misconduct involved, and an innocent person is basically guaranteed to eventually be executed due to wrongful conviction(and there have been many cases of that exact thing happening). That argument completely sidesteps the morality of whether or not some crimes deserve death, which is actually a secondary argument entirely. The real question is “do you REALLY trust the justice system to get it right 100% of the time? And if not, how many innocent people being executed is acceptable?”
Hello, I'm a law student, recently I had lesson of legal theory, and the topic was about AI. The main point would go from: - can you consider AI an intelligent being? - what classifies something as an intelligent being? - Could AI ever get to have self conscience? Feel free to take inspiration from those topics for a video of yours. I would be interested in watching a debate about those topics
@@lorenzol.4954 well since it is near impossible to differentiate nature from nurture when it comes to comparing "intelligence" amongst ourselves and other species. We may never know since the personal bias from narcissism and expectations has also skewed the word beyond recognition as more of a subjective idea than not. Ever been called "stupid"? Now you know why.
1. its in the name dude, Artificial Intelligence, so yes they can be referred as intelligent beings however the intelligence itself varies 2. as long as it can store and use information it has an intelligence by definition, this includes pretty much every lifeform 3. yeah, one could argue some AI's already have a level of self conscience however conscience itself is an odd and vague topic even for us humans these questions of yours are self evident
Bro, this video has been recommended to me soo many times, and for more times then i can count i ignored it, and i finally gave up, and decided to give this video a chance, and my god this video is awesome
@@Keso712 A Gallup poll in 2023 says 4% of people in the US are vegetarian while 1% are vegan. That's 95 percent of all Americans who eat meat. That's a lot of people that eat meat just for you to say that eating meat is "of course" not okay
@@JonOleksiuk "Is veganism, as a moral, health, and dietary choice, more justifiable than one of personal consumption of animal products, including meat?"
I still believe in the death penalty, but the fact that I felt like I had to reevaluate my position and felt like I could actually listen and stand the opposition, due to the fact I know they aren't going to try to bullshit me is refreshing. My friend and I could definitely learn from this, as could people in general.
I used to support capital punishment, but my stance has since changed significantly. I now believe that life holds intrinsic value, and as humans, we do not have the right to take that away from anyone-regardless of the circumstances-except in cases of euthanasia. Two wrongs never make a right; by taking the life of a murderer, we merely replicate the very act they committed.
I'd like to see a debate about the regulation of fake news/freedom of speech with its effects on health, politcs and science, but i struggle to formulate a question. Maybe "Should fake news be regulated?" - "Does freedom of speech mean freedom of consequence?" Maybe we can find a neutral question. I find this topic highly interesting.
I can never understand the people who say "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" because the consequences they speak of are almost always ones of legal sanction or violent retribution and never related to other peoples freedom of association. If you can be imprisoned or fined for stating your opinion you don't have freedom of speech by definition. It's like saying North Koreans have freedom of speech because their imprisonment is just a consequence.
Does anyone disagree that we should put able-bodied criminals to work? Obviously nothing abusive or exploitative, but it seems natural that part of their punishment/rehabilitation is to serve the community in some way. Doing work that can produce or save money which can also fund their meals and other expenses would support the anti-death penalty argument
It would certainly help the life sentence side by taxpayers money actually going to criminals helping society thru hard labor instead of paying for them to just sit around all day in a cell block
I wholeheartedly disagree. Prison labor as we’ve seen is not simply employed in “community service” and in practice instead becomes a cheap source of exploitative labor for multinational corporations like Victoria’s Secret and McDonald’s. This exacerbates the wealth disparities which fuel crime rates. And even more destructively, it incentivizes corruption. The incestuous relationships between state and municipal governments, private prison companies and law enforcement are already extremely dysfunctional, creating the largest incarcerated population on earth by a large margin, rivaled only by the incarceration rate in Stalin’s gulags in the USSR. Allowing governments funded by private prisons to officially condone slave labor creates perverse incentives for draconian enforcement of frivolous and intentionally confusing laws, so that the prisons grow and donate to the politicians insuring their reelection. All the while, American labor is devalued sinking more and more middle class people into poverty and material desperation. Lookup the “Kids For Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania, where two judges were found guilty of taking kickbacks from private prisons in order to rule frivolous convictions to minors in a case of state organized child trafficking. human depravity knows no bounds and when you attach valuable incentives behind incarceration like free unpaid labor, it corrupts the entire justice system.
I think fundamentally this issue is not settled by debate. It is rather a value judgment. Those who oppose death sentences think that killing is absolutely wrong, and therefore killing the killer is also wrong. If you simply do not agree with this, like myself, then no amount of logic can actually move you. Death sentence advocates state that certain crimes absolutely deserve the ultimate punishment, and again if you simply do not agree with this, it’s not because of logic it’s because of your value.
Well, that's just kicking the can down the road. When looking at it that way, it begs the question: How do you determine that value? With that you're back at square 1 asking yet again the same thing
That's true, I can definitely agree with what you said there's also another example of these arguments that really just aligned with moral values like slavery there's people who are with slavery and there's also people who are against slavery. Slavery also has its ups and downs like slavery can help the economy with spending less money there's also people who are against slavery like saying this is unjust that it will make the slaves exhausting die and it could also lead to slavery revolts which can lead to more deaths most people will align with abolishing or not allowing slavery because of their moral values. the people who are aligned with slavery also known as they support slavery would say that you could use criminals as slaves historically speaking like in the ancient times in ancient times but nowadays slavery is technically abolished by the UN so most people with decent sense of morality would not want slavery to be allowed.
I'm against the death penalty because of logic. And I think Voltaire was too. He said that criminals should serve their community because a dead man is good for nothing. There are logical reasons to be against it.
The main question of the death penalty debate is: How comfortable are you with the state sentencing someone to death, despite there always being a distinct possibility that the person may actually be innocent of the crime they’re accused of? Are you comfortable with potentially letting innocent people be killed for crimes they didn’t commit?
I understand your point, but it is really not about if death penalty should be legal or not in the present society, but more about if death penalty can be justifiable. So debating the death penalty does indeed have a utility and a profound impact in society if it is debated past that this point of "In an utopic universe can it be justifiable" and more into "In our current society, considering it's flaws, is the death penalty a valid punishment for the most heinous crimes"
I think you should make them debate about AI itself, I think it would be immensely interesting to see what stuff they would bring up and their stances/conclusions.
@@JonOleksiuk Uhm, tricky one, I think smth like "Is AI truly useful?" or "Does AI have more pros or cons?" would be fitting, though really it depends on what is touched in the video since AI is a big subject and can be approached from several different points.
My friend in the military had a commander ask him to utilize the military's ai more in drafting his emails. He asked the ai to draft an email articulating the shortcomings of ai when compared to a human and the ai was rather effective and comprehensive in its evaluation of its own performance. So maybe a "can ai improve upon human potential or is it only as effective as the humans that made it?" Or some version thereof.
On both sides, the worst thing you can do in this is bring up ONE person's philosophy for one of these points. One person cannot decide if any of these serious values are right or wrong. Use logic or logic-base philosophy instead of some sole person's philosophy.
If your logic is based solely on human error, that dismantles both side of the argument. The same human error that kills an innocent individual is the same human error that allows a murder to escape life imprisonment and kill more than one innocent individual. Value this as well, while an innocent man is gone for good, politics and changes of mood can release the murderer from his supposed life in prison. As if allowing a bomb to remain in its mail wrapping hidden in a closet waiting for someone to use it, rather than breaking a vase on occasion when disposing of a package. It is a shame to lose a vase, but doing away with a bomb completely is more beneficial to society. One holds great potential to harm many, the other is innocent to all accept by accident or if manipulated by evil individuals. The potential for harm is far greater with allowing the one to live. As this law is isolated, those who find the law to be too risky for their own good are permitted to leave the nation. Something further to consider: a poor man starving is told if he kills that individual he will be given shelter from the elements, food every day, and a bed to sleep on for the rest of his life. Would you not be tempting him to commit that evil? But if you told that same man instead if he killed that individual he would be out to death, he would find little sense in doing so. Not only because he cherish his own life having not taken it already, but because the potential harm applied to him would be more than he could pay and would have many able to enact it against him. If you told that same scenario to every member of society they would have to process the potential gain and loss in each of their own scenarios and no matter who the individual is, the deterrent of ceasing to exist always weighs more than a room with a free bed, free meals, for the rest of their life. With some even being permitted communal use of televisions, access to books, or even being able to watch certain movies on the weekends. To be offered the potential for that much for free for the rest of your life all on the basis you commit a crime is illogical.
It's crazy seeing a debate and not an argument the most consists of personal insults aswell as denial of counterpoints. Many times it is somebody so caught up in themselves to listen to others, wish some people would just open they're eyes and actually see what's going on.
No real debates are like this u only see popular debates because thats what makes em popular but all college debates are like this and it usually seen as negative if you get to passionate
The color flipping is also very interesting. Red for the liberal, Blue for the conservative. It honestly feels like a conscious choice, made to defuse some of our biases and tribalism that we might bring to such a debate.
@@ksjdfknes In my country, the more left wing major party is red, and the more right wing one is actually blue. Not saying that the colour of the AIs wasn't a conscious choice, US politics is much more influential on the global stage than any other country's (especially mine), but I just thought I should mention that.
As a Danish person, I completely agree with the concept of life imprisonment. In my country, and in most European countries, I would argue that the harshest punishment is either life imprisonment or at least many years in prison. In Denmark, we technically have life imprisonment, but after 12 years, it is possible to apply for release.
I feel like 12 years in a comfy prison is barley a punishment How is that ever gonna prevent a crime if thats the worst you gotta think about? If anything punishment should be way harder and i fully agree with the death sentence like the americans use it (i am from germany)
@@wuhhlfarg353I see where you’re coming from however, I’d argue that the Danish legal system works better in terms of rehabilitation rather than legal systems that rely more on punishment methods. This is evident in the outcomes of each country, for example, according to the Washington post, 60k Danish prisoners were granted leave and only 3% violated the terms. To me, this shows that when granted leniency, trust and respect, they’re less likely to try and violate fair terms that have been given out. Furthermore, according to the Danish government and BarkleyCentre the recidivism rate in Denmark is 27% whereas the USA has a rate of 52%.
@@wuhhlfarg353it’s a complicated matter and I can see why people would go for either sides of the argument (FYI I’m not attempting to attack your beliefs, just trying to give insight on what I think)
It's difficult to rescind the death penalty in countries with massive private prison industry and violent crime rates. A society plagued with violent crime will have more draconian approaches to punishing crime. The opposite is true otherwise. I think the debate needs to begin with what criminal prevention and punishment philosophy should your country hold.
"Sanctity of life" is a pretty popular argument for both, its just extremely unpopular when protecting life infringes on an individualistic, lower-responsibility life. (I DO support abortion if the mothers life is threatened/result of rape/fetus non viability before I am vilified) (Edited verbage to be less aggressive and more open-minded)
@PizzaShid it's a shame you feel the need to provide those clarifications, is it not? Exceptions to a rule shouldn't mean you abolish the rule altogether.
@@adeptmage2293 It really is, and when I saw someone had replied I fully expected a solid dose of what-aboutism. I think those who are quick to attack have difficulting seperating their opinions from their innate value. I used to be pretty far left, and I was drowning in my own unchecked imagination, it was only once I woke up to the idea that just because it makes sense to me, or just because it is the most feel-good solution, doesn't mean I'm right, or that the idea is even steeped in reality. And that didnt devalue me at all, it just meant I was mistaken and not seeing the bigger picture. I very rapidly shifted right from this point as I could not exist in the moral superiority echo chamber anymore. I think this is happening on a massive scale right now
Once again, nice debate, but the simple argument "you can free the wrongly emprisonnate but can't bring back innocent people from death" is enough, because there always have been and always will be wrong accusations
@@espurrseyes42but now innocents are going to be afraid of being falsely accused of murder, *ape, and any other very serious crimes as long as it doesn’t matter if innocents are locked up for life or face capital punishment to make sure that no guilty man or woman walks free. In the US, we have innocent until proven guilty, an innocent not ending up in jail is valued more than locking up the right offender.
Not so fun fact: a large portion of the time, the family members of the victims of the murderers actually regret the offender getting the death penalty. I believe it was after John Wayne Gacy was executed that the families of all the dead boys actually felt worse because now another person has just died in front of them, despite the fact that one would think the death penalty would give the families relief
This is a really interesting point that I'm surprised isn't brought up so often. The average person tends to undergo some serious trauma if someone dies at their hands, and whilst the death penalty certainly isn't at the family of the victim's hands, there is still a relation between the death of the perpetrator and the offense against their family member, to which the family would likely feel emotionally connected to. Any connection at all that directly or indirectly ties you to someone's death has gotta be uncomfortable at the very least, especially once several years have passed and you can see things with a clearer conscience.
This is a fundamental problem with the justice system as a whole. We see this same thing with the heavy-handed punishments for crimes across the board. Accusers want justice until they see the accused punished, often worse than the accuser imagined. Then, the morally just among accusers feel they have committed an equal or worse act than the accused, and logically conclude they are no better than the one who wronged them in the first place. Victims with a negative view on the excessive punishment system from the start (like poor black communities) and victims of crimes most extremely over punished (like sexual harassment) often refuse to go to the police simply because they do not want to practice an 'arm for a finger justice.' FOR CLARITY: Every victim has their own reason(s) for not going to the police, and I am in no way saying this is the only or even most common reason for said groups to not seek justice. I have simply had this reason expressed to me by multiple applicable victims across the nation, in a high enough percentage to believe it is a statistically relevant motivator for not going to the police in the US.
Why do these AI believe that if they say “as Philosopher X said” every two sentences it somehow strengthens their argument? If your argument has merit, just say it. Philosophers are not the authority on morality. I think it ultimately says a lot about us. After all, we are ones AI are learning from.
Wouldn't Philsopers know the best about morality and justice? And don't the Ai show the merit of their argument? Also, them stating the philosopher and their thought would back sources would it not?
Because people don't think in a vacuum and citing sources means you have interacted with the voices that have been having these discussions. It lends credibility. Cite your sources.
@@AlkiosAvainashNo they are not Gods their opinions are not inherently better than anyone else's. They are only better if they merit a better argument
@@TheRealZeke2003 Did I state they were gods? I merely stated that they would do better when it comes to wisdom and justice alike. And their philosophies and arguments did have merit.
I just simply believe that philosophers goes unnecessarily deep and for me death penalty is just a irrational way to show anger that benifits none but our perceived fairness
The dialogue is entirely generated by teams of large language models, usually the top 4 latest models available at the time. This debate was created by Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and Grok. Each team is assigned to represent a specific side of the argument, with no particular direction on how to address the topic. The judging models create their own criteria when assessing which are the best arguments. Thank you for your comment and chance to explain.
@@JonOleksiuk Is there a correlation between the side that wins a certain aspect of the debate, and the side that the models who generated the text voted for? Obviously we expect some correlation as the models who generated the text are judges themselves thereby their votes making the outcome they voted for more likely, but the aggregate of the models who generated the text being in favour of certain viewpoints may unfairly predispose the debate to an outcome that matches the voting of the models that generated it.
Each side uses the exact same team of models (eg. Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and Grok). These models go back and forth collaborating to create each response. There's a chance that, for example, side A's responses are most populated by Grok's words and Grok evaluates it higher and side B's responses are most populated by Gemini's responses and Gemini evaluates it higher. The transcripts, with iterations of each response are incredibly long, so I haven't done the work to go through and see if there's a correlation. That's now on my to do list, I'll check it out when i get some time. Thanks for your message.
1:18 I'm an opponent of the death penalty, but I don't think that logic scans. You can forfeit something you haven't earned - it's just an inversion of the "default state". Humans are _presumed_ to have inherent dignity and moral worth until they do something to lose it. That's the exact _opposite_ of saying that humans have to earn their dignity and moral worth through good behaviour and deeds, not a logical consequence of it.
Something that is inherent CANNOT be conditional. That's the definition of inherent. The point the AI was making is that having ANY circumstances in which a person can forfeit human dignity and moral worth by definition is an argument that human dignity and moral worth are things which philosophically can be taken away from people, or are earned. What happens when the argument is not whether we can remove human dignity and moral worth from people, but instead WHICH people we can remove it from and for what reasons? That's a much more fraught and dangerous argument.
@@jordanledoux197 I see what you mean, but let me rephrase my argument slightly in a way that might change it a little. Humans have the _right not to be killed_ which arises out of their inherent moral worth and dignity as a human. But _that right_ is not itself inherent - it can be lost if some individual has some negative value imputed onto them that _outweighs_ their inherent moral dignity as a human, even if the moral dignity itself is not lost. I suspect it's all the same to you, though, because the question still boils down to who gets to impute that negative value and why. And unfortunately that's just politics and power struggles, which can't be solved through principled philosophical debate.
@@joe_z I would say that it's more that politics and power struggles are incompatible with philosophical debate or moral value. Moral value is about what is right regardless of who is in control. Politics is about who is in control deciding what is right. You say the right arises from the inherent qualities, but is not itself inherent. Perhaps. I can understand the logic of that argument. However, even assuming that is true, I do not see it as a justification for the death penalty. What that distinction is saying is essentially, "the human dignity and moral worth may be inherent, but I can choose to not recognize this inherent value to deny you the qualities that arise from it". In some ways, this argument is worse. It acknowledges the worth and then explicitly allows society to situationally ignore inherent qualities if society decides that is something it wants to do. That is the same logic that is used to justify any number of systematic atrocities.
@@jordanledoux197 Oh, I'm not using it to argue in support of the death penalty. I'm only picking apart that one specific strand of logic because it felt overly inductive to me. As I mentioned at the top of the post, I'm an opponent of the death penalty. But I do believe that pro-execution activists believe exactly in your quoted phrase. They believe that it's justified, in certain scenarios, to deny people the qualities that arise from their inherent human worth because they've done something _so_ bad as to deserve that denial.
Legit the only argument where people don't talk smack and feel like two people who are actually just talking about their personal views rather than just flipping yelling at each other
To me the death penalty is more about the observers than the criminal being sentenced. Often with life in prison, in efforts to 'not be cruel' they are given amazing amenities. While I understand the intention to avoid cruelty, life imprisonment sometimes can reach a point that it creates rewards instead of punishment.
Gabriel ‘The Scientist/Researcher’ Vargas Also Professor, Studying Teacher or Teaching Student also makes sense as The way you study The sport is what distincts you IMO
These arguments about death penalty costing more than life imprisonment is actually pretty scary. It just means that it requires less scrutiny to get you sentenced to life imprisonment than getting sentenced to death.
Yeah given that many agee life improsinment is a worse punishment, and appeals are rare, it would seem that it should have equal scrutiny to the death penalty
This is not about A.I. but knowledge representation. Most of these arguments are well cited and comes from various sources. I still wonder how is narrative possible? This is very interesting in the field of computer science and A.I research.
Yes, we should. The question is how? Like how we should use our fossil fuels while mitigating damage from our environment. I guess we could talk about if "should we" only if we resolve the problems raised by the latter.
The way I define morality is based on the overall effect on wellbeing of all individuals directly or indirectly affected. There is still a subjective value assessment to be had when determining how different decisions affect "wellbeing" and whether one this is better or worse for it.. but its a good way to reframe the question when the natural emotional response is to desire revenge or judge what someone "deserves", both of which focus on anger, not on wellbeing. I personally believe that the wellbeing impact of a system in the government that ends peoples lives is a lot worse than having some taxpayer money go towards keeping these people alive and attempting rehabilitation. This is because there is always, ALWAYS the risk of government becoming corrupted, or, the legal system failing and putting an innocent person up for execution. People are also fairly emotional creatures, if you give them the option to end someones life when they did something awful, there are a lot of people who would say yes based only on rage and desire for justice/revenge. You could argue that society is better off without these people, but if theyre locked up and cant harm anyone else anymore, are they really? What if there is something we can learn from these criminals in the future when life in prison has changed them? Let them live, but make sure they cant hurt anyone again
The question really becomes is it worth the risk of death penalty being used by nefarious reasons by individuals or states with the trade off being elimination and deterrence of future violent criminals along with their effect on public stability, economy, taxpayers money not being spent on keeping them alive etc. Us taxpayers keeping those people alive in jail are actually paying so that one of 2 alternatives doesn't happen 1: the governing body gets authority to snuff people legaly 2: with the other one there straight up not being a penalty system.
I actually took part in a seminar concerning capital pubishment in the US. It was my favorite class in law school, and I even got to write my thesis on the topic. This was a good debate. I would have declared the moral debate a draw. Now, to break the tie have AI debate whether it is economicallly justifiable to put someone to death in the United States.
@@Lynnerik1467 And how good it is for the economy to keep supporting prisoners for life when taxpayers are the ones paying for it. Prisons should have hard labor to have these guys contributing to society in some way
@GeniusInventor-dj5zc it's actually less expensive to put someone in prison for life than it is to see a death sentence to fruition in the US. And even when we do try to carry out a death sentence, we only succeed in getting to the point of the sentence being carried out 17% of the time. I agree with labor camps for prisoners, but even without prison camps life in prison is cheaper than trying to carry out capital punishment.
@@Lynnerik1467 I’m aware it costs more to put someone on death row than life in prison. But that’s not because of the cost of the actual execution, it’s because of the legal fees/lawyers and years the defense goes on. It’s more of an issue with our capital punishment system and justice system being flawed which is why I believe there should be heavy reform. But not the complete abolishment of capital punishment because it should be reserved for heinous cold blooded crimes with undeniable evidence, especially when innocent women and children are victims.
@GeniusInventor-dj5zc You are partly correct, but it isn't just the fees from attorneys. It is every step of the process that costs more. Capital Punishment is already reserved for the most heinous crimes, and I would agree that if we are going to implement it that it should include rapists, but it simply isn't economically justifiable. As for handing out the sentence itself, only 17% of those who are sentenced to death for their crime actually have it carried out. This being due to process errors, inadequate representation, and even foul play by the state through malicious prosecutions and malicious behaviour by law enforcement. It would be much better to save that money and spend it elsewhere, rather than spending it to rarely put someone to death.
@@Lynnerik1467 Yes, like I said, it’s mostly from the complex, lengthy legal process with multiple appeals, witnesses, legal representation and court time that ramps up the cost of capital punishment. It’s not the actual execution Everything else you said I agree with, which is why the justice system needs reform as we already know. Our justice system being terrible also affects capital punishment, which also needs reform as well. I can’t agree with abolishing it when all our government legal system needs is reform to fix these issues with capital punishment.
i think the main problem with the life punishment ai is that it isn't arguing against death punishment it is arguing for imprisonment for life as a replacement and that doesn't cover all the perspectives against death punishment specifically im surprised the "prision should rehabilitate" argument never came up
Very interesting, I came into this with a neutral but leaning anti-death penalty mindset, the pro-death penalty advocate raised some lovely moral and logical points that I rarely hear. Definitely has me considering!
I like the take Caeser had in the second Planet of the Apes movie. "Koba not ape" because "ape doesn't kill ape." If a human has the capacity to take that many lives, why should they still be considered human? Humans shouldn't be afforded the same dignity that they stole from their victims.
Like the AI said, because human value and dignity isn't earned through the execution of good works, it cannot be lost through the execution of bad works. Human dignity and value is not based on works.
5:40 as much of a touchy subject this is, i do really respect the way the argument ends here. Having absolute boundaries with absolute consequences is very important. But I do believe life imprisonment works even better than death as the convicted cannot look forward to release
I am human, as often proven by the captchas I use. That being said, I feel round one should have gone to Life Sentence AI. During cross examination it performed much better rebuttals and posed more well structured questions and remarks than the opponent. Without dragging on, the moment at 8:20 “shouldn’t we also execute those who irreversibly destroy other’s moral agency through severe brain damage or permanent psychological trauma?” I feel, that was the moment, it set up its opponent for failure in this debate. I’d be interested to see how a human would rebut that question. (Not an expert and English not first language)
The problem with life in prison is that it still gives criminals the right to effect the outside world: through the food they eat, the water they drink, the space they take. If we let these "monsters" continue hurting us who really wins? The death penalty should be less about revenge and more so about the preservation of humanity.
@atomicskies_ harm might have been a better word. What I meant was that every dollar we spend to keep murderers alive is a dollar we can't spend on other important things.
@TreeFrogMC the legal process it takes to sentence someone to death costs a lot more than life in prison. From what I can find, the cost can be 6 times the amount at $3 million. Even a lot more generous estimates say it is at least double the amount.
hi, I watched your videos of the debate between atheist and believer as well as the one about Trinity. Those were thought provoking and interesting indeed! I'd love to know what happens when a Hinduism believer meet an atheist for a debate. Could you please make a video of that? Thank you.
6:25 notice how blue reflects and implies that corporations just didn’t expect those deaths 😢 An absolutely scorching question that backed blue into a corner
I like how the AIs were almost split on whether the death penalty is justified, but unanimously agreed that the the government is the LAST system to use it
One argument I never hear is that life imprisonment with no parole is often worse than the death penalty. Being confined to a cell for the rest of your life without proper (or atleast nice) meals with restrictions on going outside or seeing family etc. Living like that for 40,50 or even 60 years until your death is going to be hell. Not only having to live with the knowledge of what you have done. The death penalty is a mercy from that reality and ends things quickly so you no longer have to live with your actions. I am against the death penalty for this reason and think that those who deserve it should receive life imprisonment in a maximum security facility so they have to live every second of it.
If a life sentence is worse, why do the lawyers of killers always try to argue down from death penalty to life sentence? Why did Chris watts, in his interrogation, tell the interrogator that the person who harmed his wife and kids (himself) should receive life in prison and not the death penalty? Killers seem to love the idea of getting away with their life.
@ I get your point and it’s down to personal preference a bit, but that is just one example. On the other hand you could say why do so many prisoners on life sentences take their own lives in prison.
Easy: God created the universe. We all agree on that on both sides. The universe testifies an insane amount of times that the universe is old and the earth is old. God does not lie. The universe is old.
Meh. Boring. Philosophical discussions have space for deep insights. Biblical discussions dissolve into screaming verses until you’re deemed the “bigger Christian.”
I feel like death penalty closing statement pretty much conceded their case at the end there, changing their goal from “we should rely on death penalty” to “we should not eliminate the death penalty”. I personally agree with that conclusion. Some cases are clear cut and heinous enough to justify it. But it should very much be a last resort when imprisonment proves ineffective or counterproductive
I'm not going to lie. I found myself agreeing with the Life Sentence AI the entire time in this debate. I will admit that I'm biased because I was already against the Death Penalty, but the AI here definitely raised great points. Hell, multiple points in this; I found myself basically pre-parroting the arguments the AI was going to give, especially when the Pro-Death penalty AI brought up people confessing to crimes. Multiple times, people have admitted to crimes for a multitude of reasons despite not having committed them. Humanity is not omniscient, and in my eyes, executing someone for a crime they didn't commit is a greater injustice than allowing a murderer to go free.
That's the only argument against the death penalty I buy: the risk of ending the life of an innocent person might be too great a cost. Any moral argument though makes little sense to me.
@@asimhussain8716that is because there exists different moral theories that makes us question whether our own perspective rights/duties contradicts itself or align with that of most others which can be only applicable in certain contexts. For example assuming that you are the utilitarianism type you may think that killing one person to save ten would be ok, however, my question to you would be "would you want to be that person to get that consequential treatment?" Because in the name of ethics everyone should be treated equally without considering whether or not they deserve it. The most intriguing moral dilemma to me would be that alcoholism should be banned, but doing so has only led to more conundrums, because too many irresponsible radical people run this world.
That’s an interesting point. Killing an innocent person is worse than letting a murderer live. But if the murderer was to free themselves and kill more people, which one is worse now?
I find both arguments very informative and convincing, and both sides have strong and valid points. The idea of rotting in jail for life appeals to me for the most part, but I agree with the death penalty for the most heinous crimes such as murder, plunder and big time drug trafficking, among others.
This is a subject I've been torn on for quite some time...on one hand the death penalty makes society safer by eliminating existential threats...on the other hand many(even one is too much) innocent people have subjected to it...finally I feel it's worth pointing out lives ruined by false convictions are a problem for life sentences too
The fundamental flaw of the anti death argument of saying execution is wrong because killing is wrong in general is that you can apply the same principle to imprisonment. Imprisoning an innocent person is morally wrong. Does that make imprisoning a criminal wrong? Context matters.
@ that’s not my point. I’m talking about the logic of saying that executing a murderer somehow creates a moral irony because if killing is wrong are we not committing the act of killing by killing a killer? Or something along those lines. It’s kind of a deceptive argument because it’s *not killing that is wrong, it’s murder. The philosophy of all types of killing to be wrong in all circumstances is not a generally accepted moral argument, nor is it the foundation for why we punish murder. A police officer shooting a criminal about to kill an innocent person would be a generally accepted moral kill. An officer with a gun staring and doing nothing while a person kills children in front of them on the other hand would be generally considered immoral. I’m not even making a case for or against the death penalty, I’m attacking the logic behind this specific argument. Murder and executing a murderer are not morally equivalent at all.
After hearing this I am considering changing my mind about the death penalty… I am currently for death penalty but the 2nd argument had me questioning myself!
While this was a Great full cycle discussion. Seeing 2 AIs debate makes me want to see someone take 4 AIs and have them debate on which Fallout New Vegas faction is the best.
I'm really glad the "AI judges" said what they did about the pro-death stance during the second question. Her points on the first question actually had me rethinking my position, but in the second question she did nothing but refer back to so called "perfect" cases and terrorism, refusing to acknowledge anything the other AI was saying or to even acknowledge that those are by far not the only people facing the death penalty. It was genuinely frustrating, but it provides good insight, and I'm glad the judges picked up on that
The biggest issue to me when it comes to life sentences for heinous crimes is that ultimately, that person is kept alive on the taxpayers dollars. Meaning in a philosophical sense, society is still further paying for the crimes committed by that person even after they’ve finished their atrocities.
There is a lot more money waisted by the government for other stuff. We could theoretically make prisons self-sufficient so that they produce their own food and clothes and also produce some other stuff to sell to pay the prison guards.
I'm on the life imprisonment side btw and I've heard this argument before and it annoys me so much. Keeping bad people alive. Just because you hate someone's actions doesn't mean we should kill them. Tax payer dollars... There's other ways tax payer dollars are wasted that are more egregious.
I agree with the life sentance bot. Still the life sentance bot left out key points, data, and examples that would have made their argument even better.
Thx for watching. If you liked this content... there's more :)
• Israel vs. Palestine 👉 ruclips.net/video/9fnVxIEftis/видео.html
• Ban Hate Speech? 👉 ruclips.net/video/6PtSA8Ecuqs/видео.html
• Abortion 👉 ruclips.net/video/czbLw6zvppQ/видео.html
• Illegal Immigration 👉ruclips.net/video/K9RrU4doKd4/видео.html
• Free Will 👉 ruclips.net/video/2IGbUYBWZ_8/видео.html
• Electoral College 👉ruclips.net/video/SwrsANdOrnw/видео.html
• Does God Exist 👉 ruclips.net/video/EMyAGuHnDHk/видео.html
• The Trinity 👉 ruclips.net/video/S0ScOgaDdNE/видео.html
• Muhammad, Jesus & Buddha 👉 ruclips.net/video/eY_il2MZjxc/видео.html
Why no timestamps? I’m the type that like to jump around when rewatching something I’m trying to remember. Or just a topic I’m trying to show a friend.
Thx for making this vid though but I’d appreciate the timestamps 😊
This was clearly curated to obtain certain results. Even choices from the avatars, voices, and body language create bias. And it isnt accidental. You are deceitful and manipulative.
And it shows
Could you explain how?
@@tandava-089 the AI’s he used are open source. And they even put which AI came out with what result.
You can rerun the test yourself.
@@rick9310 same
Artificial intelligence is not about replacing humans; it's about amplifying human potential, thank you for these educational videos.
agreed. thanks for the note.
Could you please provide a transcript of debate in future videos it would be really helpful to note some point from the vdo btw love these vdos
Fission Mailed Raiden!
do you have any insights of fear mongering thoughts that people hold of? like AI capable of experiencing human emotions, or AI overtaking the world.
Agree with this take
Being locked away for 20 years in a small prison cell without human interacting, exercice and a good nutrition can be argued to be worse then death
Edit: I AM ON THE DEATH-PENALTY SIDE
If not worse, than at least a more fitting punishment.
You took life away (or you ruined someone's life through r-pe), therefore we're taking everything good about life away from you. Makes sense.
@@avivastudios2311 but at least you have a life. plus, those that kill more people and go to the same prison to these with less murders means these people that dies was in vain?
@@avivastudios2311 If one can revoke another's right to live is it not only fair to forfeit theirs?
@@avivastudios2311but at that point aren't we punishing someone just for cruelty? Life in prison is not any diferent then choosing torture over killing, needlesslly cruel, as the one being jailed is never going to return to society.
Until you realize your tax dollars are going towards keeping them alive.
I think the AI just both proved the best answer: “Yes, but only for perfect cases”.
aka yes.
Although it would need to follow some major improvements in the justice system, and I'm not even talking about gathering evidence.
Literally no, that is not what happened
@@MUIDYLANICEaka no, perfect cases would be stuff like the H*tler, Kim yong un and not much more, not the average joe, international issues
Aka grey area almost how all debates end😂😂
What is a “perfect case”?
The pro-death penalty AI really took a shot at California's terrible spending 😹😹
Lmao. As a California resident I ain’t even arguing with that.
🫲 😂 🫱
As I always say, love the land and the people, hate the government 😅@@Chubby1G_TV
ehh it’s just absurd that we’ve spent so much money defending this system that most people probably aren’t that attached to
No one who knows big areas will argue that they burn money in wasteful ways like crazy.
Spending/burning money to save lives? Sign my tax money up for that.
A calm argument really becomes a discussion. This is beautiful, simply watching 2 opposing sides talk it out logically and calmly is amazing.
I have experienced it so many times when both parties start calm and try to keep things calm but slowly descend into spilling their emotions.
That's just human nature at work
@@b3games146 ironic isn't it
This is ai though.
@No-I-dont-want-that
That's the point.
Hearing people argue or, in this case, discuss things is pretty nice. It puts you in this kind of state where your brain goes 200% trying to think.
Unfortunately, we have to deal with have to deal with someone screaming to prevent the other party from thinking clearly (or just trying to drown their voice, so people won't hear their argument). At worst, we get people crying or start talking with their fists.
Hearing AI simulating the ideal discussion is a grim reminder of the real world.
And no, I'm not saying people can't argue calmly, but there's always a big risk of it to stop being calm.
Honestly I really enjoyed the anti-death arguments. They're refreshing when they aren't condescending.
Pro penalty won lol
@@stevenmolina6958You might want to look at the end….
@@stevenmolina6958 Its a close debate
This is why as someone whos anti death penalty I try my best to appeal to facts, logic, morality and emotion
And not emotion alone.
Many lefties are super condescending because of reliance in emotion and thats not the way
@@V555Vendetta That’s why the libertarian argument against the death penalty is the best one, IMO.
It’s essentially the argument that we can’t trust the state with the power to execute people for a crime, since there’s way too much human error, or police/prosecutor misconduct involved, and an innocent person is basically guaranteed to eventually be executed due to wrongful conviction(and there have been many cases of that exact thing happening).
That argument completely sidesteps the morality of whether or not some crimes deserve death, which is actually a secondary argument entirely. The real question is “do you REALLY trust the justice system to get it right 100% of the time? And if not, how many innocent people being executed is acceptable?”
Hello, I'm a law student, recently I had lesson of legal theory, and the topic was about AI. The main point would go from:
- can you consider AI an intelligent being?
- what classifies something as an intelligent being?
- Could AI ever get to have self conscience?
Feel free to take inspiration from those topics for a video of yours. I would be interested in watching a debate about those topics
@@lorenzol.4954 well since it is near impossible to differentiate nature from nurture when it comes to comparing "intelligence" amongst ourselves and other species. We may never know since the personal bias from narcissism and expectations has also skewed the word beyond recognition as more of a subjective idea than not. Ever been called "stupid"? Now you know why.
1. its in the name dude, Artificial Intelligence, so yes they can be referred as intelligent beings however the intelligence itself varies
2. as long as it can store and use information it has an intelligence by definition, this includes pretty much every lifeform
3. yeah, one could argue some AI's already have a level of self conscience however conscience itself is an odd and vague topic even for us humans
these questions of yours are self evident
@@michaelludlow626but we human gives intelligence/knowledge to the AI, also sometimes AI could have "no knowledge" to a specific thing
@ItsSeated you do realise that doesn't stop them from having intelligence, right?
@michaelludlow626 Yeah, but people can change that intellenge too
I love this so much. Such a brilliant use of LLMs. Informative doesn't really describe what you are doing here. Can't wait to see where you take this!
Bro, this video has been recommended to me soo many times, and for more times then i can count i ignored it,
and i finally gave up, and decided to give this video a chance, and my god this video is awesome
"Lacking confidence in humanity"
Couldn't have said it better.
Not just in the death penalty, just in general.
These are so cool! Can you do one about Veganisim? I'm interested to see how AI would handle it.
what would the debate question be?
@@JonOleksiuk "Is eating meat morally okay?"
@@croissantsareaustrianactuallywell morally ofc not bro wtf😂😂😂
@@Keso712 A Gallup poll in 2023 says 4% of people in the US are vegetarian while 1% are vegan. That's 95 percent of all Americans who eat meat. That's a lot of people that eat meat just for you to say that eating meat is "of course" not okay
@@JonOleksiuk "Is veganism, as a moral, health, and dietary choice, more justifiable than one of personal consumption of animal products, including meat?"
I still believe in the death penalty, but the fact that I felt like I had to reevaluate my position and felt like I could actually listen and stand the opposition, due to the fact I know they aren't going to try to bullshit me is refreshing. My friend and I could definitely learn from this, as could people in general.
This is how debates should be. The purpose is supposed to be to understand each other's perspective and come upon a common agreement.
I used to support capital punishment, but my stance has since changed significantly. I now believe that life holds intrinsic value, and as humans, we do not have the right to take that away from anyone-regardless of the circumstances-except in cases of euthanasia. Two wrongs never make a right; by taking the life of a murderer, we merely replicate the very act they committed.
How can you justify needlessly violating a right to life by allowing the death penalty?
@@marco_mate5181 Rewatch the video
Theres always going to be people who get falsely accused and get the death penalty before new evidence arrives
I'd like to see a debate about the regulation of fake news/freedom of speech with its effects on health, politcs and science, but i struggle to formulate a question. Maybe "Should fake news be regulated?" - "Does freedom of speech mean freedom of consequence?"
Maybe we can find a neutral question. I find this topic highly interesting.
Let's get to it then. Start it off buddy. lol
1st amendment defends free speech. Free speech doesn't always equate to the truth
I can never understand the people who say "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence" because the consequences they speak of are almost always ones of legal sanction or violent retribution and never related to other peoples freedom of association. If you can be imprisoned or fined for stating your opinion you don't have freedom of speech by definition. It's like saying North Koreans have freedom of speech because their imprisonment is just a consequence.
@@smangy5442the consequences they talk about are social rejection not government’s sanctions
@@smangy5442 Some speech should have legal consequences depending on the harm it causes.
Does anyone disagree that we should put able-bodied criminals to work? Obviously nothing abusive or exploitative, but it seems natural that part of their punishment/rehabilitation is to serve the community in some way. Doing work that can produce or save money which can also fund their meals and other expenses would support the anti-death penalty argument
I don´t disagree with that view
It would certainly help the life sentence side by taxpayers money actually going to criminals helping society thru hard labor instead of paying for them to just sit around all day in a cell block
And if they refuse?
@@ironknightgaming5706 Uhm, mmmmh, they can´t, just the same way they can´t refuse their sentence
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Prison labor as we’ve seen is not simply employed in “community service” and in practice instead becomes a cheap source of exploitative labor for multinational corporations like Victoria’s Secret and McDonald’s.
This exacerbates the wealth disparities which fuel crime rates.
And even more destructively, it incentivizes corruption. The incestuous relationships between state and municipal governments, private prison companies and law enforcement are already extremely dysfunctional, creating the largest incarcerated population on earth by a large margin, rivaled only by the incarceration rate in Stalin’s gulags in the USSR.
Allowing governments funded by private prisons to officially condone slave labor creates perverse incentives for draconian enforcement of frivolous and intentionally confusing laws, so that the prisons grow and donate to the politicians insuring their reelection.
All the while, American labor is devalued sinking more and more middle class people into poverty and material desperation.
Lookup the “Kids For Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania, where two judges were found guilty of taking kickbacks from private prisons in order to rule frivolous convictions to minors in a case of state organized child trafficking.
human depravity knows no bounds and when you attach valuable incentives behind incarceration like free unpaid labor, it corrupts the entire justice system.
Can't believe you're not bigger yet, thanks for keeping up the good work!
I bet next year he'll have 200,000 subs.
everyone of these videos is so interesting. glad to be here early
I think fundamentally this issue is not settled by debate. It is rather a value judgment. Those who oppose death sentences think that killing is absolutely wrong, and therefore killing the killer is also wrong. If you simply do not agree with this, like myself, then no amount of logic can actually move you. Death sentence advocates state that certain crimes absolutely deserve the ultimate punishment, and again if you simply do not agree with this, it’s not because of logic it’s because of your value.
Well, that's just kicking the can down the road. When looking at it that way, it begs the question: How do you determine that value? With that you're back at square 1 asking yet again the same thing
That's true, I can definitely agree with what you said there's also another example of these arguments that really just aligned with moral values like slavery there's people who are with slavery and there's also people who are against slavery. Slavery also has its ups and downs like slavery can help the economy with spending less money there's also people who are against slavery like saying this is unjust that it will make the slaves exhausting die and it could also lead to slavery revolts which can lead to more deaths most people will align with abolishing or not allowing slavery because of their moral values. the people who are aligned with slavery also known as they support slavery would say that you could use criminals as slaves historically speaking like in the ancient times in ancient times but nowadays slavery is technically abolished by the UN so most people with decent sense of morality would not want slavery to be allowed.
I'm against the death penalty because of logic. And I think Voltaire was too. He said that criminals should serve their community because a dead man is good for nothing. There are logical reasons to be against it.
The main question of the death penalty debate is:
How comfortable are you with the state sentencing someone to death, despite there always being a distinct possibility that the person may actually be innocent of the crime they’re accused of?
Are you comfortable with potentially letting innocent people be killed for crimes they didn’t commit?
I understand your point, but it is really not about if death penalty should be legal or not in the present society, but more about if death penalty can be justifiable. So debating the death penalty does indeed have a utility and a profound impact in society if it is debated past that this point of "In an utopic universe can it be justifiable" and more into "In our current society, considering it's flaws, is the death penalty a valid punishment for the most heinous crimes"
thank you a lot for making these videos, i love listening to debates done and judged professionally. this one even persuaded me!
I think you should make them debate about AI itself, I think it would be immensely interesting to see what stuff they would bring up and their stances/conclusions.
What would the main debate question be?
@@JonOleksiuk Uhm, tricky one, I think smth like "Is AI truly useful?" or "Does AI have more pros or cons?" would be fitting, though really it depends on what is touched in the video since AI is a big subject and can be approached from several different points.
@@JonOleksiuk have AI write the question
Is dependency on AI worth the benefits of AI
My friend in the military had a commander ask him to utilize the military's ai more in drafting his emails. He asked the ai to draft an email articulating the shortcomings of ai when compared to a human and the ai was rather effective and comprehensive in its evaluation of its own performance.
So maybe a "can ai improve upon human potential or is it only as effective as the humans that made it?" Or some version thereof.
@@JonOleksiukhow about the likely outcome of an awakened or sapient ai
On both sides, the worst thing you can do in this is bring up ONE person's philosophy for one of these points. One person cannot decide if any of these serious values are right or wrong. Use logic or logic-base philosophy instead of some sole person's philosophy.
Or worse. Appeal to religious dogma.
If your logic is based solely on human error, that dismantles both side of the argument. The same human error that kills an innocent individual is the same human error that allows a murder to escape life imprisonment and kill more than one innocent individual.
Value this as well, while an innocent man is gone for good, politics and changes of mood can release the murderer from his supposed life in prison. As if allowing a bomb to remain in its mail wrapping hidden in a closet waiting for someone to use it, rather than breaking a vase on occasion when disposing of a package. It is a shame to lose a vase, but doing away with a bomb completely is more beneficial to society.
One holds great potential to harm many, the other is innocent to all accept by accident or if manipulated by evil individuals. The potential for harm is far greater with allowing the one to live. As this law is isolated, those who find the law to be too risky for their own good are permitted to leave the nation.
Something further to consider: a poor man starving is told if he kills that individual he will be given shelter from the elements, food every day, and a bed to sleep on for the rest of his life. Would you not be tempting him to commit that evil? But if you told that same man instead if he killed that individual he would be out to death, he would find little sense in doing so. Not only because he cherish his own life having not taken it already, but because the potential harm applied to him would be more than he could pay and would have many able to enact it against him.
If you told that same scenario to every member of society they would have to process the potential gain and loss in each of their own scenarios and no matter who the individual is, the deterrent of ceasing to exist always weighs more than a room with a free bed, free meals, for the rest of their life. With some even being permitted communal use of televisions, access to books, or even being able to watch certain movies on the weekends. To be offered the potential for that much for free for the rest of your life all on the basis you commit a crime is illogical.
It's crazy seeing a debate and not an argument the most consists of personal insults aswell as denial of counterpoints. Many times it is somebody so caught up in themselves to listen to others, wish some people would just open they're eyes and actually see what's going on.
No real debates are like this u only see popular debates because thats what makes em popular but all college debates are like this and it usually seen as negative if you get to passionate
ok, this video turned me into an opponent of the death sentence. the orange guy just made SO much more sense
Agreed, the death penalty side didn't make coherent connections between their evidence and conclusion
I like how the conservative debater is a female and the liberal debater is a male.
The color flipping is also very interesting. Red for the liberal, Blue for the conservative. It honestly feels like a conscious choice, made to defuse some of our biases and tribalism that we might bring to such a debate.
@@ksjdfknes In my country, the more left wing major party is red, and the more right wing one is actually blue. Not saying that the colour of the AIs wasn't a conscious choice, US politics is much more influential on the global stage than any other country's (especially mine), but I just thought I should mention that.
@@ksjdfknesIt's only a colour flip in the US. In most of the world Blue=Conservative and Red=Socialist
@@ksjdfknes am I crazy or is it orange and not red? Because I swear i see orange, lol.
I see orange@@aSPEDmf
Girl AI irl would be some CIA blacksite agent 💀
As a Danish person, I completely agree with the concept of life imprisonment. In my country, and in most European countries, I would argue that the harshest punishment is either life imprisonment or at least many years in prison. In Denmark, we technically have life imprisonment, but after 12 years, it is possible to apply for release.
I feel like 12 years in a comfy prison is barley a punishment
How is that ever gonna prevent a crime if thats the worst you gotta think about?
If anything punishment should be way harder and i fully agree with the death sentence like the americans use it (i am from germany)
@@wuhhlfarg353I see where you’re coming from however, I’d argue that the Danish legal system works better in terms of rehabilitation rather than legal systems that rely more on punishment methods. This is evident in the outcomes of each country, for example, according to the Washington post, 60k Danish prisoners were granted leave and only 3% violated the terms. To me, this shows that when granted leniency, trust and respect, they’re less likely to try and violate fair terms that have been given out. Furthermore, according to the Danish government and BarkleyCentre the recidivism rate in Denmark is 27% whereas the USA has a rate of 52%.
@@wuhhlfarg353it’s a complicated matter and I can see why people would go for either sides of the argument (FYI I’m not attempting to attack your beliefs, just trying to give insight on what I think)
It's difficult to rescind the death penalty in countries with massive private prison industry and violent crime rates. A society plagued with violent crime will have more draconian approaches to punishing crime. The opposite is true otherwise. I think the debate needs to begin with what criminal prevention and punishment philosophy should your country hold.
@ well said
I love these videos, I love cutting through the dishonest arguments interrupting, etc.
I'm only two minutes in, and it's interesting how the anti death AI penalty is accidentally condemning abortion too.
Abortion isn't murder, because fetuses aren't alive.
"Sanctity of life" is a pretty popular argument for both, its just extremely unpopular when protecting life infringes on an individualistic, lower-responsibility life. (I DO support abortion if the mothers life is threatened/result of rape/fetus non viability before I am vilified)
(Edited verbage to be less aggressive and more open-minded)
@PizzaShid it's a shame you feel the need to provide those clarifications, is it not? Exceptions to a rule shouldn't mean you abolish the rule altogether.
@@adeptmage2293 It really is, and when I saw someone had replied I fully expected a solid dose of what-aboutism. I think those who are quick to attack have difficulting seperating their opinions from their innate value. I used to be pretty far left, and I was drowning in my own unchecked imagination, it was only once I woke up to the idea that just because it makes sense to me, or just because it is the most feel-good solution, doesn't mean I'm right, or that the idea is even steeped in reality. And that didnt devalue me at all, it just meant I was mistaken and not seeing the bigger picture. I very rapidly shifted right from this point as I could not exist in the moral superiority echo chamber anymore. I think this is happening on a massive scale right now
@PizzaShid very well put. Glad to have a like mind out there.
Once again, nice debate, but the simple argument "you can free the wrongly emprisonnate but can't bring back innocent people from death" is enough, because there always have been and always will be wrong accusations
You also can't bring back the innocents that get killed by the killer who broke out and reoffended because you didn't have the balls to put him down.
@@espurrseyes42but now innocents are going to be afraid of being falsely accused of murder, *ape, and any other very serious crimes as long as it doesn’t matter if innocents are locked up for life or face capital punishment to make sure that no guilty man or woman walks free. In the US, we have innocent until proven guilty, an innocent not ending up in jail is valued more than locking up the right offender.
@@espurrseyes42 yeah so all in all, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
@@espurrseyes42what happens more often? Spoiler alert, it’s not murders escaping and reoffending again.
Not so fun fact: a large portion of the time, the family members of the victims of the murderers actually regret the offender getting the death penalty. I believe it was after John Wayne Gacy was executed that the families of all the dead boys actually felt worse because now another person has just died in front of them, despite the fact that one would think the death penalty would give the families relief
Witnessing death is never comfortable
This is a really interesting point that I'm surprised isn't brought up so often. The average person tends to undergo some serious trauma if someone dies at their hands, and whilst the death penalty certainly isn't at the family of the victim's hands, there is still a relation between the death of the perpetrator and the offense against their family member, to which the family would likely feel emotionally connected to. Any connection at all that directly or indirectly ties you to someone's death has gotta be uncomfortable at the very least, especially once several years have passed and you can see things with a clearer conscience.
This is a fundamental problem with the justice system as a whole. We see this same thing with the heavy-handed punishments for crimes across the board. Accusers want justice until they see the accused punished, often worse than the accuser imagined. Then, the morally just among accusers feel they have committed an equal or worse act than the accused, and logically conclude they are no better than the one who wronged them in the first place. Victims with a negative view on the excessive punishment system from the start (like poor black communities) and victims of crimes most extremely over punished (like sexual harassment) often refuse to go to the police simply because they do not want to practice an 'arm for a finger justice.'
FOR CLARITY: Every victim has their own reason(s) for not going to the police, and I am in no way saying this is the only or even most common reason for said groups to not seek justice. I have simply had this reason expressed to me by multiple applicable victims across the nation, in a high enough percentage to believe it is a statistically relevant motivator for not going to the police in the US.
That’s good
Why do these AI believe that if they say “as Philosopher X said” every two sentences it somehow strengthens their argument?
If your argument has merit, just say it. Philosophers are not the authority on morality.
I think it ultimately says a lot about us. After all, we are ones AI are learning from.
Wouldn't Philsopers know the best about morality and justice? And don't the Ai show the merit of their argument? Also, them stating the philosopher and their thought would back sources would it not?
Because people don't think in a vacuum and citing sources means you have interacted with the voices that have been having these discussions. It lends credibility. Cite your sources.
@@AlkiosAvainashNo they are not Gods their opinions are not inherently better than anyone else's. They are only better if they merit a better argument
@@TheRealZeke2003 Did I state they were gods? I merely stated that they would do better when it comes to wisdom and justice alike. And their philosophies and arguments did have merit.
They're AI. They have to take things from philosophers. It's a part of their database I guess.
Thank you again for these. Love em. I hope your viewers are growing so you can keep em coming.
u should do this many times, with each side doing the opposing order (eg. argument a going first and argument a going second)
I just simply believe that philosophers goes unnecessarily deep and for me death penalty is just a irrational way to show anger that benifits none but our perceived fairness
What is the AI used for these? There’s the ones that judge, but which are making the arguments?
The dialogue is entirely generated by teams of large language models, usually the top 4 latest models available at the time. This debate was created by Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and Grok. Each team is assigned to represent a specific side of the argument, with no particular direction on how to address the topic.
The judging models create their own criteria when assessing which are the best arguments. Thank you for your comment and chance to explain.
@@JonOleksiuk Is there a correlation between the side that wins a certain aspect of the debate, and the side that the models who generated the text voted for? Obviously we expect some correlation as the models who generated the text are judges themselves thereby their votes making the outcome they voted for more likely, but the aggregate of the models who generated the text being in favour of certain viewpoints may unfairly predispose the debate to an outcome that matches the voting of the models that generated it.
Each side uses the exact same team of models (eg. Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT and Grok). These models go back and forth collaborating to create each response. There's a chance that, for example, side A's responses are most populated by Grok's words and Grok evaluates it higher and side B's responses are most populated by Gemini's responses and Gemini evaluates it higher. The transcripts, with iterations of each response are incredibly long, so I haven't done the work to go through and see if there's a correlation. That's now on my to do list, I'll check it out when i get some time. Thanks for your message.
These debates are very informational and help in learning a lot.
1:18 I'm an opponent of the death penalty, but I don't think that logic scans. You can forfeit something you haven't earned - it's just an inversion of the "default state".
Humans are _presumed_ to have inherent dignity and moral worth until they do something to lose it. That's the exact _opposite_ of saying that humans have to earn their dignity and moral worth through good behaviour and deeds, not a logical consequence of it.
Something that is inherent CANNOT be conditional. That's the definition of inherent. The point the AI was making is that having ANY circumstances in which a person can forfeit human dignity and moral worth by definition is an argument that human dignity and moral worth are things which philosophically can be taken away from people, or are earned. What happens when the argument is not whether we can remove human dignity and moral worth from people, but instead WHICH people we can remove it from and for what reasons? That's a much more fraught and dangerous argument.
@@jordanledoux197 I see what you mean, but let me rephrase my argument slightly in a way that might change it a little.
Humans have the _right not to be killed_ which arises out of their inherent moral worth and dignity as a human. But _that right_ is not itself inherent - it can be lost if some individual has some negative value imputed onto them that _outweighs_ their inherent moral dignity as a human, even if the moral dignity itself is not lost.
I suspect it's all the same to you, though, because the question still boils down to who gets to impute that negative value and why. And unfortunately that's just politics and power struggles, which can't be solved through principled philosophical debate.
@@joe_z I would say that it's more that politics and power struggles are incompatible with philosophical debate or moral value. Moral value is about what is right regardless of who is in control. Politics is about who is in control deciding what is right.
You say the right arises from the inherent qualities, but is not itself inherent. Perhaps. I can understand the logic of that argument. However, even assuming that is true, I do not see it as a justification for the death penalty.
What that distinction is saying is essentially, "the human dignity and moral worth may be inherent, but I can choose to not recognize this inherent value to deny you the qualities that arise from it".
In some ways, this argument is worse. It acknowledges the worth and then explicitly allows society to situationally ignore inherent qualities if society decides that is something it wants to do. That is the same logic that is used to justify any number of systematic atrocities.
@@jordanledoux197 Oh, I'm not using it to argue in support of the death penalty. I'm only picking apart that one specific strand of logic because it felt overly inductive to me.
As I mentioned at the top of the post, I'm an opponent of the death penalty. But I do believe that pro-execution activists believe exactly in your quoted phrase. They believe that it's justified, in certain scenarios, to deny people the qualities that arise from their inherent human worth because they've done something _so_ bad as to deserve that denial.
Legit the only argument where people don't talk smack and feel like two people who are actually just talking about their personal views rather than just flipping yelling at each other
To me the death penalty is more about the observers than the criminal being sentenced. Often with life in prison, in efforts to 'not be cruel' they are given amazing amenities. While I understand the intention to avoid cruelty, life imprisonment sometimes can reach a point that it creates rewards instead of punishment.
I don’t see the problem with that
This is great! Keep up the good work
Thanks!
The real question is if the thankgiving turkey should get a pardon
Gabriel ‘The Scientist/Researcher’ Vargas
Also Professor, Studying Teacher or Teaching Student also makes sense as The way you study The sport is what distincts you IMO
These arguments about death penalty costing more than life imprisonment is actually pretty scary. It just means that it requires less scrutiny to get you sentenced to life imprisonment than getting sentenced to death.
Yeah given that many agee life improsinment is a worse punishment, and appeals are rare, it would seem that it should have equal scrutiny to the death penalty
This is not about A.I. but knowledge representation. Most of these arguments are well cited and comes from various sources. I still wonder how is narrative possible? This is very interesting in the field of computer science and A.I research.
Can you make one debating on whether we should colonize Mars?
added to the list of suggestions, thanks! ... note, that list is getting pretty long, lol.
@@JonOleksiuk oh I bet 😂 great concept -- really enjoying it, keep going!
Yes, we should. The question is how? Like how we should use our fossil fuels while mitigating damage from our environment. I guess we could talk about if "should we" only if we resolve the problems raised by the latter.
The way I define morality is based on the overall effect on wellbeing of all individuals directly or indirectly affected. There is still a subjective value assessment to be had when determining how different decisions affect "wellbeing" and whether one this is better or worse for it.. but its a good way to reframe the question when the natural emotional response is to desire revenge or judge what someone "deserves", both of which focus on anger, not on wellbeing.
I personally believe that the wellbeing impact of a system in the government that ends peoples lives is a lot worse than having some taxpayer money go towards keeping these people alive and attempting rehabilitation. This is because there is always, ALWAYS the risk of government becoming corrupted, or, the legal system failing and putting an innocent person up for execution. People are also fairly emotional creatures, if you give them the option to end someones life when they did something awful, there are a lot of people who would say yes based only on rage and desire for justice/revenge. You could argue that society is better off without these people, but if theyre locked up and cant harm anyone else anymore, are they really? What if there is something we can learn from these criminals in the future when life in prison has changed them? Let them live, but make sure they cant hurt anyone again
The question really becomes is it worth the risk of death penalty being used by nefarious reasons by individuals or states with the trade off being elimination and deterrence of future violent criminals along with their effect on public stability, economy, taxpayers money not being spent on keeping them alive etc.
Us taxpayers keeping those people alive in jail are actually paying so that one of 2 alternatives doesn't happen 1: the governing body gets authority to snuff people legaly 2: with the other one there straight up not being a penalty system.
It is amazing to see how we can properly use and learn from AI, you are helping that be done. Thanks for the great video!
Thank you for doing this. I really enjoy your channel I use it in my high school classes.
I actually took part in a seminar concerning capital pubishment in the US. It was my favorite class in law school, and I even got to write my thesis on the topic.
This was a good debate. I would have declared the moral debate a draw. Now, to break the tie have AI debate whether it is economicallly justifiable to put someone to death in the United States.
@@Lynnerik1467 And how good it is for the economy to keep supporting prisoners for life when taxpayers are the ones paying for it. Prisons should have hard labor to have these guys contributing to society in some way
@GeniusInventor-dj5zc it's actually less expensive to put someone in prison for life than it is to see a death sentence to fruition in the US. And even when we do try to carry out a death sentence, we only succeed in getting to the point of the sentence being carried out 17% of the time.
I agree with labor camps for prisoners, but even without prison camps life in prison is cheaper than trying to carry out capital punishment.
@@Lynnerik1467 I’m aware it costs more to put someone on death row than life in prison. But that’s not because of the cost of the actual execution, it’s because of the legal fees/lawyers and years the defense goes on. It’s more of an issue with our capital punishment system and justice system being flawed which is why I believe there should be heavy reform. But not the complete abolishment of capital punishment because it should be reserved for heinous cold blooded crimes with undeniable evidence, especially when innocent women and children are victims.
@GeniusInventor-dj5zc You are partly correct, but it isn't just the fees from attorneys. It is every step of the process that costs more.
Capital Punishment is already reserved for the most heinous crimes, and I would agree that if we are going to implement it that it should include rapists, but it simply isn't economically justifiable.
As for handing out the sentence itself, only 17% of those who are sentenced to death for their crime actually have it carried out. This being due to process errors, inadequate representation, and even foul play by the state through malicious prosecutions and malicious behaviour by law enforcement.
It would be much better to save that money and spend it elsewhere, rather than spending it to rarely put someone to death.
@@Lynnerik1467 Yes, like I said, it’s mostly from the complex, lengthy legal process with multiple appeals, witnesses, legal representation and court time that ramps up the cost of capital punishment. It’s not the actual execution
Everything else you said I agree with, which is why the justice system needs reform as we already know. Our justice system being terrible also affects capital punishment, which also needs reform as well. I can’t agree with abolishing it when all our government legal system needs is reform to fix these issues with capital punishment.
i think the main problem with the life punishment ai is that it isn't arguing against death punishment it is arguing for imprisonment for life as a replacement and that doesn't cover all the perspectives against death punishment
specifically im surprised the "prision should rehabilitate" argument never came up
That last sentence: Ah, yeah, true.
Very interesting, I came into this with a neutral but leaning anti-death penalty mindset, the pro-death penalty advocate raised some lovely moral and logical points that I rarely hear. Definitely has me considering!
Sometimes death is a gift.
I agree
I have always been a death penalty guy, but I must say this has changed my mind.
This is one of those issues im very on the fence on, and personally i was more convinced by the life sentence ai
if only presidential debates could be this civil
These ai’s are cooking 😭 thank you for posting this
these are so good!
It's worth noting that the main problem with life imprisonment is that many people escapes either with corrupt cops or a typical jail break.
Less than 0.01% of convicted murderers are released and reoffend. A far greater percentage of accused murderers are innocent.
I like the take Caeser had in the second Planet of the Apes movie.
"Koba not ape" because "ape doesn't kill ape."
If a human has the capacity to take that many lives, why should they still be considered human? Humans shouldn't be afforded the same dignity that they stole from their victims.
Like the AI said, because human value and dignity isn't earned through the execution of good works, it cannot be lost through the execution of bad works. Human dignity and value is not based on works.
5:40 as much of a touchy subject this is, i do really respect the way the argument ends here.
Having absolute boundaries with absolute consequences is very important. But I do believe life imprisonment works even better than death as the convicted cannot look forward to release
Love this channel
I am human, as often proven by the captchas I use. That being said, I feel round one should have gone to Life Sentence AI. During cross examination it performed much better rebuttals and posed more well structured questions and remarks than the opponent.
Without dragging on, the moment at 8:20 “shouldn’t we also execute those who irreversibly destroy other’s moral agency through severe brain damage or permanent psychological trauma?”
I feel, that was the moment, it set up its opponent for failure in this debate. I’d be interested to see how a human would rebut that question.
(Not an expert and English not first language)
I really like this type of videos. Can you do communism vs capitalism?
Do one on whether the economy is better off without any involvement of the government or better with it
The problem with life in prison is that it still gives criminals the right to effect the outside world: through the food they eat, the water they drink, the space they take. If we let these "monsters" continue hurting us who really wins? The death penalty should be less about revenge and more so about the preservation of humanity.
How does that hurt us?
@atomicskies_ harm might have been a better word. What I meant was that every dollar we spend to keep murderers alive is a dollar we can't spend on other important things.
Makes no sense
@@thatonetroll1059 that keeping a person alive costs money?
@TreeFrogMC the legal process it takes to sentence someone to death costs a lot more than life in prison. From what I can find, the cost can be 6 times the amount at $3 million. Even a lot more generous estimates say it is at least double the amount.
Norway mentioned woop woop. Maximum sentence in Norway was 21 years when he was sentenced tho.
He will effectively serve a life sentence. 21 years initially, then the sentence will be extended by 5 year increments for the rest of his life
What software are yall using to have these conversations? I have a few ideas!
hi, I watched your videos of the debate between atheist and believer as well as the one about Trinity. Those were thought provoking and interesting indeed! I'd love to know what happens when a Hinduism believer meet an atheist for a debate. Could you please make a video of that? Thank you.
You should do "should violence be used to achieve peace?" Just A thought
6:25 notice how blue reflects and implies that corporations just didn’t expect those deaths 😢
An absolutely scorching question that backed blue into a corner
We need AI to debate hell
what would the main debate question be?
@@JonOleksiuk hell
@@JonOleksiuk to be specific, whether God can justify hell
@@BurrritoYT but the answer is very simple: no
@ sure but… a part of me wants to see how Christians can justify the worst thing imaginable
I like how the AIs were almost split on whether the death penalty is justified, but unanimously agreed that the the government is the LAST system to use it
I am pro death penalty but found the anti death penalty argument to be interesting and surprisingly human.
You should do "Should day lights savings stop?"
Yes
One argument I never hear is that life imprisonment with no parole is often worse than the death penalty. Being confined to a cell for the rest of your life without proper (or atleast nice) meals with restrictions on going outside or seeing family etc. Living like that for 40,50 or even 60 years until your death is going to be hell. Not only having to live with the knowledge of what you have done. The death penalty is a mercy from that reality and ends things quickly so you no longer have to live with your actions. I am against the death penalty for this reason and think that those who deserve it should receive life imprisonment in a maximum security facility so they have to live every second of it.
Yes, that’s why I’m against both
If a life sentence is worse, why do the lawyers of killers always try to argue down from death penalty to life sentence? Why did Chris watts, in his interrogation, tell the interrogator that the person who harmed his wife and kids (himself) should receive life in prison and not the death penalty? Killers seem to love the idea of getting away with their life.
@ I get your point and it’s down to personal preference a bit, but that is just one example. On the other hand you could say why do so many prisoners on life sentences take their own lives in prison.
@@atomicskies_then what are you for?
Debate about Biblical Young Earth vs Biblical Old earth please
“Young earth” is a baseless claim that no reputable scientific organization recognizes. There is no debate
Let's do it. Start it off bub.
Easy: God created the universe. We all agree on that on both sides.
The universe testifies an insane amount of times that the universe is old and the earth is old.
God does not lie.
The universe is old.
@@Andromedon777 I'm talking about biblical reliability about this topic, not Universe analysis
Meh. Boring. Philosophical discussions have space for deep insights. Biblical discussions dissolve into screaming verses until you’re deemed the “bigger Christian.”
I feel like death penalty closing statement pretty much conceded their case at the end there, changing their goal from “we should rely on death penalty” to “we should not eliminate the death penalty”.
I personally agree with that conclusion. Some cases are clear cut and heinous enough to justify it. But it should very much be a last resort when imprisonment proves ineffective or counterproductive
18:57 Exactly The death penalty quite literally makes martyrs
it would be great if there is a debate for veg vs non-veg
Make the AIs debate their very own existence, should AI like these exist?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but a blind world leaves no one behind.
I'm not going to lie. I found myself agreeing with the Life Sentence AI the entire time in this debate. I will admit that I'm biased because I was already against the Death Penalty, but the AI here definitely raised great points.
Hell, multiple points in this; I found myself basically pre-parroting the arguments the AI was going to give, especially when the Pro-Death penalty AI brought up people confessing to crimes. Multiple times, people have admitted to crimes for a multitude of reasons despite not having committed them.
Humanity is not omniscient, and in my eyes, executing someone for a crime they didn't commit is a greater injustice than allowing a murderer to go free.
That's the only argument against the death penalty I buy: the risk of ending the life of an innocent person might be too great a cost.
Any moral argument though makes little sense to me.
But based on that reasoning, can you imprison someone for kidnapping?
@@asimhussain8716that is because there exists different moral theories that makes us question whether our own perspective rights/duties contradicts itself or align with that of most others which can be only applicable in certain contexts. For example assuming that you are the utilitarianism type you may think that killing one person to save ten would be ok, however, my question to you would be "would you want to be that person to get that consequential treatment?" Because in the name of ethics everyone should be treated equally without considering whether or not they deserve it. The most intriguing moral dilemma to me would be that alcoholism should be banned, but doing so has only led to more conundrums, because too many irresponsible radical people run this world.
Imagine said murderer then killing three more people. ☠️
That’s an interesting point. Killing an innocent person is worse than letting a murderer live. But if the murderer was to free themselves and kill more people, which one is worse now?
I find both arguments very informative and convincing, and both sides have strong and valid points. The idea of rotting in jail for life appeals to me for the most part, but I agree with the death penalty for the most heinous crimes such as murder, plunder and big time drug trafficking, among others.
The idea of rotting in jail for life appeals to you?
I love your videos!
This is a subject I've been torn on for quite some time...on one hand the death penalty makes society safer by eliminating existential threats...on the other hand many(even one is too much) innocent people have subjected to it...finally I feel it's worth pointing out lives ruined by false convictions are a problem for life sentences too
The fundamental flaw of the anti death argument of saying execution is wrong because killing is wrong in general is that you can apply the same principle to imprisonment. Imprisoning an innocent person is morally wrong. Does that make imprisoning a criminal wrong? Context matters.
I'm on the life imprisonment side and I agree. I've got a better reason.
@@avivastudios2311 perhaps you could share it
you undermine a crucial difference between death and imprisonment the difference is that death is final imprisonment can be reversed
@@theanswer__ Lost time is the one thing you can spend and never earn back.
@ that’s not my point. I’m talking about the logic of saying that executing a murderer somehow creates a moral irony because if killing is wrong are we not committing the act of killing by killing a killer? Or something along those lines. It’s kind of a deceptive argument because it’s *not killing that is wrong, it’s murder. The philosophy of all types of killing to be wrong in all circumstances is not a generally accepted moral argument, nor is it the foundation for why we punish murder. A police officer shooting a criminal about to kill an innocent person would be a generally accepted moral kill. An officer with a gun staring and doing nothing while a person kills children in front of them on the other hand would be generally considered immoral. I’m not even making a case for or against the death penalty, I’m attacking the logic behind this specific argument. Murder and executing a murderer are not morally equivalent at all.
After hearing this I am considering changing my mind about the death penalty… I am currently for death penalty but the 2nd argument had me questioning myself!
Yea the 2nd argument of the 1st round made me question myself too
I am sat and I am listening 🧍🏾♀️
All I can say is that was very interesting about besides it really makes you think about where you stand
omg first comment!!!! love your vids
Glad you like them!
Finally an AI judgement I agree with
I wish there was a way to participate in the judging. Like a focus group dial or something
9:24 my god, I was 100% on the side of the orange dude until he brought theology up. No dude, why, you were doing it perfectly 😭
7:48 i think we should do this
At these point human will forget how to debate
Bro, look at any US presidential debate and say that again.
@@juanchisilverio3610 At this point humans will forget how to debate
@@Wanwood2 you learn how to debate from a debate, a computer-based debate is still a debate
They're... They're not replacing actual parliamentary debates with... AI.
While this was a Great full cycle discussion. Seeing 2 AIs debate makes me want to see someone take 4 AIs and have them debate on which Fallout New Vegas faction is the best.
Great debate. Keep it up!
I'm really glad the "AI judges" said what they did about the pro-death stance during the second question. Her points on the first question actually had me rethinking my position, but in the second question she did nothing but refer back to so called "perfect" cases and terrorism, refusing to acknowledge anything the other AI was saying or to even acknowledge that those are by far not the only people facing the death penalty. It was genuinely frustrating, but it provides good insight, and I'm glad the judges picked up on that
The biggest issue to me when it comes to life sentences for heinous crimes is that ultimately, that person is kept alive on the taxpayers dollars. Meaning in a philosophical sense, society is still further paying for the crimes committed by that person even after they’ve finished their atrocities.
There is a lot more money waisted by the government for other stuff. We could theoretically make prisons self-sufficient so that they produce their own food and clothes and also produce some other stuff to sell to pay the prison guards.
I'm on the life imprisonment side btw and I've heard this argument before and it annoys me so much. Keeping bad people alive. Just because you hate someone's actions doesn't mean we should kill them. Tax payer dollars... There's other ways tax payer dollars are wasted that are more egregious.
Isn’t executing people known to be more expensive than life imprisonment?
I agree with the life sentance bot. Still the life sentance bot left out key points, data, and examples that would have made their argument even better.