Your opinion on Debra AI of this website? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Your opinion on Debra AI of this website?
in Technology

It seems to me, it gets a lot of the likely political affiliation of specific comments right, as well as grammar and spelling, but I can't help but laugh that on my page it's putting me as "Likely Republican". Officially, I'm an independent voter, and I almost never vote Republican, and given the choices of democrats and republicans, I'm more likey to vote for a democrat. It's not so much that I agree with their views, more that I'm simply anti-establishment, which I don't see much of that from the GOP anymore since Ron Paul(Rand Paul is very different from his father, in a bad way). The democrats, on the otherhand, have a lot of anti-establishment candidates(Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang AOC, all the justice democrats and self-identified democratic socialists), so right now, they're my more logical choice since my absolute most important issue is how anti-establishment the person is. So, it seems Debra may not predict someone's over all political affiliation well. What do you think? Has debra predicted your over all political affiliation correctly?
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Ah, now it says my likely political affiliation is libertarian lol. Maybe it changes it up often. I guess I should have screencapped it at the time it said republican. This one is more accurate.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 98 Pts
    edited August 11
    @GeoLibCogScientist Just wondering, but since you mentioned liking some progressives, I'm curious as to what you think of their "social justice" ideology? To me it comes across as incredibly authoritarian and collectivist.

    I think the AI just started working this past week, it used to categorize me as independent but now it's saying libertarian for me too.
  • WinstonC said:
     Just wondering, but since you mentioned liking some progressives, I'm curious as to what you think of their "social justice" ideology? To me it comes across as incredibly authoritarian and collectivist.

    I think the AI just started working this past week, it used to categorize me as independent but now it's saying libertarian for me too.
    Yes... I do not like their solutions to the problems. They do seem to want to have more government control. To some degree, I remain a little bit pragmatic in that I accept that it's only ever going to be democrats or republicans winning unless America changes a lot. So, it pretty much is a matter of the lesser of two evils. The Republicans seem to not really have solutions to issues that impact a lot of people, including myself. In particular, Health care is a very important issue to me. While I don't find the progressive solution ideal, at least it's a solution. I have no idea what the republicans are doing, but they've not suggested any alternative to the status quo health care system, or really any policies that would fix our over-priced system. I hate the idea of the government taking over the health insurance industry, but that solution is better than no solution, which the republicans suggest the latter for some odd reason.

    Additionally, I'm quite anti-American imperialism, and that ideology is more likely to be found in the democratic party than the Republicans as well. The GOP is far too war-hawkish for my liking. Democrats, on the other hand, have more candidates that have been anti-war, voted against the Iraq war, etc. Of course, there was Ron Paul who was outspoken against those wars too, but his political career is over and I'm not aware of anyone who is quite like him in the Republican Party. So, yeah, that pretty much leaves me with, sadly, having to support democrats. My preferred candidate among them, due to that he does have a few libertarian stances, is Andrew Yang. I, of course, do support the concept of a UBI replacing the welfare systems as I've talked about elsewhere. While he's not suggesting replacing it, at least he says it's opt-in and people would have to give up their current benefits for the Freedom Dividend, or they could stick to the current benefits. Maybe he has a plan to phase out the other welfare systems. I don't know, but I do know if he stated that, he would probably have no shot whatsoever, so he may be choosing to stay silent on the idea of completely phasing out other welfare systems. Then a libertarian stance he has is he's opposed to increasing minimum wage, one of the few democrats running who is. He also doesn't want to make education outright free, and instead believes the state being involved the way it is now is a huge issue contributing to it being expensive. He also has a plan to require universities to start diverting their funds to second campuses of that university. Another huge contributor to expensive college is the fact supply of those colleges does not meet demand. So yeah, he generally has quite a few views I agree with. So he's my current preferred candidate, and I'll have to hold my nose for other candidates like Bernie Sanders, or whoever it is that gets the Dem nomination, as long as it's not an establishment figure like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris(definitely will not vote for them). If it comes down to one of them versus Trump, I'll likely just vote third party and try to get them to that important 5% of the vote requiremnt. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • But yeah, given my life-saving health care is greater than my entire yearly income, this is a major issue to me. Republicans aren't suggesting anything to fix this fact. The democrats, they are, and yeah, the solution sucks, but at least it will make it that it's no longer more than 100% of my and many other Americans' yearly income :P I'll gladly have 5% of my income stolen if it means I no longer have to go into debt for my life-saving health care. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist I loved Ron Paul too, I'd like to see what things are like in the alternative universe where he got elected. I'm on the other side, I'd rather stomach Trump than the increasingly radical democrats. The focus on collectivist identity politics seriously worries me.
  • @WinstonC

    That difference between us could simply be explained by perhaps you're libertarian-right? I consider myself libertarian-left. As in I would want less government generally, but I also recognize there are lots of issues in the status quo economic systems and want to progress to a new one more fair to everyone, though with minimal government involvement(the only aspects I'd want it involved in are literally a Citizen's Dividend or a UBI funded by a land value tax, and probably military but contracted out to non-state owned defense companies, though they would need to be created first  lol since the US military currently has a monopoly on defense of the nation). Other than that, I would consider the ideal not to have state-owned health insurance, or state-owned anything else really, and just a UBI that is large enough for people to buy those necessities. It simplifies things while also giving people more freedom to spend their tax dollars how they want. The major issue with Medicare-for-all and free education is it doesn't give the individual the freedom to spend those tax dollars how they wish. A UBI would allow them to spend it how they want to. 

    But yeah, I think that would explain our preference differences. The republicans don't want to change the status quo, while the Democrats do, albeit in a manner I prefer would not happen(government involvement). Usually, I'd say that's the difference between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. We consider changing the status quo economic system a more important issue. I'd propose doing this on individual levels nonetheless, and I'd personally try to raise awareness that things like worker co-ops would improve the lives of people. I'd make that as one of my personal life goals, and I'd certainly prefer the state didn't force it. Though, I suppose I wouldn't have an issue with the state itself raising awareness over the issue. That's fine for me. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    edited August 12
    It's completely worthless.  As far as likely political affiliation, it appears to be listing everyone as libertarian.
  • @CYDdharta

    In the case of me and WinstonC above, we both identify as a type of libertarian, so I don't see how that is inaccurate. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • I think we need a robot to judge our debating skills because humans will put some bias to see who wins or rate someone with debating skills.
    GeoLibCogScientistpiloteer
  • @RS_master

    I agree. An AI is far less likely to have human biases, particularly if it's a self-learning AI that doesn't have humans programming into it what is considered a good argument. I'm not sure what type of machine learning AI uses, but what I said is somewhat possible for it to do, particularly through Generative Adversarial Networks. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    In the case of me and WinstonC above, we both identify as a type of libertarian, so I don't see how that is inaccurate. 

    I don't, and I'm sure the boards social justice warriors don't either.
  • @CYDdharta

    You don't identify as a type of libertarian? That surprises me, given your profile picture and arguments I've seen from you. What are you then?
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    You don't identify as a type of libertarian? That surprises me, given your profile picture and arguments I've seen from you. What are you then?
    I'm more conservative than anything else.
  • edited August 12
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, well libertarian views seem to overlap with some conservative views as well as liberal views. What non-libertarian views do you have then that would be better classified as conservative? The only things I can think of that would be conservative and not libertarian would be beliefs that the government should be involved more in social issues(i.e banning gay marriage) and then increased military spending, and what-not. 
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1127 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, well libertarian views seem to overlap with some conservative views as well as liberal views. What non-libertarian views do you have then that would be better classified as conservative? The only things I can think of that would be conservative and not libertarian would be beliefs that the government should be involved more in social issues(i.e banning gay marriage) and then increased military spending, and what-not. 

    Primarily national defense, death penalty, and open borders.  Open borders are the kicker.
  • The AI technology on this site may not be perfect, but eventually this technology will govern our everyday lives. We will eventually be perfect!!!!
  • @WinstonC

     I understand you may identify as a libertarian, but leave us not fool ourselves into thinking conservatives aren't "social justice warriors" of their own. "@GeoLibCogScientist (seriously should rethink that name) pointed out conservatives views on gay marriage, or gay rights altogether. They have social views on this issue which they consider to be a correct manner of social thought. That's social justice!!!! They also are adamant about nationalism. They are just shy of arguing that nationalism (national, ethnic, or racial pride) should be institutionalized. Those are also social views. That's social justice as well, and those views categorize us just as efficiently as any progressive social justice views do. Only (true) libertarians are devoid of views on social justice. As far as I'm concerned, we have no need to try and create some sort of objective moral or ethical or social code because morality is inherently subjective, and we already have an objective system in place for that purpose. The law!! Social views are a needless endeavour. They're just people's opinions.
  • DeeDee 652 Pts
    edited August 14
    Wow! I awaken this morning to find my remarks regarding Debra and the posting has been removed also  , @CYDdharta make a suggestion regarding Debra which has also being removed ......apparently only positive opinions are allowed regarding Debra 

    I have now effectively left the site over its censorship of opinions different to the owners and it’s denial of freedom of speech 

    Post Argument not found.

    The comment you were looking for could not be found.



    So much for that throwaway piece of nonsense as in ......”I respect your right to freedom of speech even if I don’t agree with what you say “ 

    This is truly a cowardly way out of actually defending a position , I thought this site encouraged honestly held opinions 
  • @piloteer "pointed out conservatives views on gay marriage, or gay rights altogether."

    The only people pushing for gay rights to be revoked are on the very far right.

    "They have social views on this issue which they consider to be a correct manner of social thought. That's social justice!!!!"

    My view of social justice is applied intersectionality, the definition you appear to be using would apply to all politics.

    "They also are adamant about nationalism. They are just shy of arguing that nationalism (national, ethnic, or racial pride) should be institutionalized."

    Nationalism isn't related to ethnic or racial pride, in the context you are using it it's patriotism. I've never seen Republicans push for patriotism to be mandatory.

    "those views categorize us just as efficiently as any progressive social justice views do."

    Do you mean categorizing between citizen and non-citizen? You have to do that to have a country at all. If you mean categorizing by ethnicity and race it's the left and far right that do this.

    "As far as I'm concerned, we have no need to try and create some sort of objective moral or ethical or social code because morality is inherently subjective"

    You should check out Sam Harris' Ted talk on morality, it explains well why morality isn't simply open to interpretation.
  • @GeoLibCogScientist I was considered left leaning until the recent hard-left turn on identity politics and socialism. I wouldn't classify myself as neatly libertarian, it's just that out of the four political dimensions I am most pronounced in my opposition to authoritarianism.

    I certainly want things to change, it's just that I'm very critical of the changes the left are currently advocating for. In my estimation, the powers that be prop up the right on issues that benefit them to remain the same and prop up the left on issues that benefit them to change.
    GeoLibCogScientist
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    edited August 14
    @Dee

    "I have now effectively left the site over its censorship of opinions different to the owners and it’s denial of freedom of speech."

    "I respect your right to freedom of speech even if I don’t agree with what you say “ 

    "This is truly a cowardly way out of actually defending a position, I thought this site encouraged honestly held opinions."



    @Dee

    Any individuals choices of words, apparently, have an effect on:

    "Debra AI"


    If an individuals words are negative, that is reflected.

    And if an individuals comment, is as original as can be, it will reflect that as well.

    I see it, as a fair and equal gauge when it comes to the debate conversations. 

    It shows the below, about an individuals, usages of their own words:

    (Considerate,  Substantial, and Spelling & Grammar.)










  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited August 14
    @WinstonC

    Nationalism is most certainly related to ethnic and racial pride. Many people have a strict view of who the nation should be made up of. They apply their racial and ethnic views to their views of nationalism. It has everything to do with racial and ethnic pride. I have seen Sam Harris on Ted Talk, and I was underwhelmed. If YOU have reason to believe that social views, and morality is objectively applied to all of us, feel free to demonstrate it. Could you somehow demonstrate how intersectionality is not social justice? As far as I see, so long as we live in accordance with the laws in the constitution, there's absolutely no need to adhere to, or care about social attitudes, or views on morality. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a believer in social justice, whether they are democrats or republicans. I do find it curious how you (and most conservatives) rant against progressives for their stringent views on social justice, while dually espousing your own social views and denying that it's social justice. Perhaps the reason you actually don't like progressive social justice, is because it's not your brand of social justice. We already have a system in place of objective morality, the law!
  • SESMeTSESMeT 20 Pts
    She sometimes gives me an error and blocks my posts for no reason. They don't go through for hours. And then suddenly several of my posts go through at once ... and it looks like I was spamming. When I was just trying and re-trying to get a post through.

    For this reason, no, I don't like her.
    GeoLibCogScientist
  • @SESMeT

    Yeah, I've had that issue a time or two, so I know what you mean.

    I agree right now that Debra is far from being perfect. The concept of it, though, seems worthy to pursue if they iron out issues with it.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 98 Pts
    edited August 17
    @piloteer "Nationalism is most certainly related to ethnic and racial pride. Many people have a strict view of who the nation should be made up of. They apply their racial and ethnic views to their views of nationalism."

    Some people do, but they are not the majority, or even close to it. The definition of nationalism is related only to patriotism.

    "I have seen Sam Harris on Ted Talk, and I was underwhelmed."

    That's fair enough, but with a subjective moral lens you cannot condemn the actions of Nazis, for their actions are morally equal to yours.

    "Could you somehow demonstrate how intersectionality is not social justice?"

    I was saying that my concept of social justice is that it is applied intersectionality. In other words, when I referred to social justice, I was referring to putting the ideology of intersectionality into practice.

    "I do find it curious how you (and most conservatives) rant against progressives for their stringent views on social justice, while dually espousing your own social views and denying that it's social justice."

    As far as I am aware, "social justice" has a specific meaning, related to applying the ideology of intersectionality. If it allays confusion, we can substitute the term "social justice" for "applied intersectionality".

    "We already have a system in place of objective morality, the law!"

    Defining morality as the law means that under your definition the state will always be a moral actor. I think history serves as sufficient evidence that the state is not always morally good.
  • piloteerpiloteer 427 Pts
    edited August 17
    @WinstonC

    Patriotism and nationalism are two different words, with two distict meanings.

    na·tion·al·ism
    /ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
    noun
                    IDENTIFICATION with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the                    EXCLUSION OR DETRIMENT OF THE INTERESTS OF OTHER NATIONS.

    Nationalism is left up to individual interpretations of who a nations population should be made up of, and who can actually be considered a true citizen. Race and heritage are most certainly factors when it comes to nationalism. Your claim that only a small fraction of people have their own idealist interpretation of nationalism that is broken down into groups (race/heritage/ethnicity/political identities) has yet to be backed up by any evidence. It's seems that you think patriotism and nationalism are interchangeable. They are not!!! If they are interchangeable, why are so many people within the republican party using the word nationalism instead of patriotism? The plain and simple answer is because they feel he need to (re)define who American society should be made up of. Nationalism is clearly stated to be synonymous with identity, whereas patriotism is not. Whether you have your own interpretations of what patriotism and nationalism mean is of no value to this discussion. The real proof is explicitly stated in the definitions of those words!!!!!!!!!!!

    pa·tri·ot·ism
    /ˈpātrēəˌtizəm/
    noun
                 the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.

    Your concept of "intersectionality" is clearly a textbook example of how social views and order should be applied beyond the rules and laws that govern us and are written in the constitution. You've done nothing at all to separate your social justice from the brand of social justice that is offered by progressives. All you've accomplished is to demonstrate that you yourself, along with most conservatives have their own idealist views of social justice, and that it is indeed social justice. Intersectionality is a concept that was created by the third wave woman's rights movement and it uses a graph to demonstrate the different types of injustice each group is likely to encounter in the US. So either your a supporter of third wave women's rights, or you're simply lying about knowing what you're talking about. You've also reinforced my claim that people who believe that there are social orders that should be applied within the laws of the constitution are believers of social justice, no matter what party they identity with.

    I never identified morality as the law, so your assertion that I'm arguing that the state will always be a moral actor is unfounded and totally false. I said that the law that is written in the constitution can be used IN PLACE OF (instead of) objective morality. That means that I recognize that the law doesn't necessarily need to cater to social views or moral views, and it can be identified as distinctly separate from social or moral standings. Because of the fact that we can use the constitution in place of any objective moral code, I certainly can "condemn the actions of the nazis" because the 25 point nazi party program that served as the philosophical foundation of the nazi party was purposefully created by the nazis to reverse all the ideals espoused in the American constitution. And beyond that, their murderous actions were a direct retort to the American constitutions ideal of murder being wrong. The reason the constitution stresses that murder is wrong is because allowing murder to happen can destroy the very fabric of a society. If we are allowed to kill each other, then we could potentially do so, and barely anybody would be left to make up any kind of a society. Their views on collectivism over individuality are an obvious retort to the American ideal of individuality. Their views on private property and private ownership are a reversal of the American ideal of private property rights. Their views on capitalism are opposite to the American ideal of private property rights, private ownership, and private business. Since the nazis were socialists and collectivists who strictly opposed anything that was capitalist in nature, it's easy to see that they were opposed to not only the politics of the American constitution, but the economic and social ideals of the American constitution as well. The nazis also had strict and stringent views on objective morality and social justice, so my argument is naturally opposed to any nazi ideals. 

    Feel free to try again if you'd like.

    CYDdharta
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch