Did anyone read the debate? It finished as a Tie without anyone voting it a Tie.
How about you produce your AI argument as to why your AI thinks you are the winner, and I'll produce mine? Then genuine human voters can choose from that who's AI they think made the best argument?
Is this because voters believe that it is a tie? Or because nobody has read this debate, because it is to long, that it has no votes? But surely the voters must also explain why they think it is a tie, before a tie can be called? Perhaps AI is better after-all
You would ask "who won this debate".
Link to the AI, and everyone can see the AI conversation. All public and transparent
Is it humanly possible for a person to cast an unbiased and impartial vote on a debate as indepth as this, and not simply a matter of opinion vote which pretends to have located key points? It would be a shame that it end a tie simply because the debate is to complicated for a human to judge upon
"I might need to change its topic to benefits of being religious."
Go ahead, I'll take that one on.
I have also set up a new Agnostic debate from a slightly different perspective. Honesty, rather than Rationalism, if you want to take that one on
