Exactly. The current message is basically you can get away with breaking the law if a large number of people are also breaking the same law. It’s going to lead to a lawless society (already showing symptoms of that)
@@DAWN001 immigrants are less likely to break the law than citizens based on statistics. Also violent and property crime rates have been trending downward since the 1990s. Illegal immigrants are a result of a lack of accessible pathways to citizenship
But what if those illegals are already blocks in our tower? I mean, this approach to deport all illegals will be all negatives yknow? Since families will be shattered, crime will surely increase. Economically we WILL suffer from this result, and that’s not even including the cost of doing such a task. There’s more nuance.
That seems to be the argument. The citizenship position advocates for abolishing or largely lessening the illegalization of crossings, thereby paving way for the destruction of basic societal structures and subsequent chaos on the basis of misguided emotional appeal over a complex matter. By squashing the punishment for breaking the fundamental structures of society, it paves direct way for overdrive that will eventually do more than simply suppress the lives of legal citizens, but destroy large swathes of society. We have seen this in Rome where immigration destroyed the core of society so much that legions and sectors stopped caring about the laws and structures so much and ceased fighting, leading to the destruction of Rome by Goths and others when law fell.
If the economic migrants are so useful to our country, why aren't they useful to their own country? Wouldn't their absence mean their country is worse off?
You are experiencing a migrant from all over the world in one country. It's the small fraction of migrant that left that one country that's why each individual country would not feel the effect.
A growing economy needs employees to make the conomy grow. A stagnant or receding economy struggles to feed the population and could use without the ones struggling the most. With less employees and population, it means lower inflation, higher salaries. And could help recover economies.
@@wissuya4138 guy you are severely I'll informed. Mass migration causes severe brain drain on the home country, especially smaller ones. It's one of the many reasons these countries stay under developed. My country has an unnatural shortage of doctors for this reason. Countries like the US intentionally did this in order to get the brightest minds, it's what made them number 1.
Because America has strong institutions in place that make our economy work better than most others in the world. People trust businesses because they trust the government to largely hold them accountable. People go to school and invest time and money in highly specialized degrees because they trust that our advanced economy will have jobs available for them when they graduate because we generally prioritize innovation and competition. People start businesses because we’re largely pro-entrepreneur. Yes, we have our issues with some corruption for sure, but compared to lots of other countries, our corruption might as well be non-existent. If people can trust the institutions then they’re more willing to take reasonable risks and try to create value for the economy via a specialized job, starting a business, etc. One of the biggest issues with recent developments in America has been actions taken by politicians and institutions themselves which have eroded some level of trust in the institutions. As trust in institutions drops, corruption increases and democracy falls into decline and disrepair. In relation to illegal immigration, our immigration system is broken and far outdated. We need to update it to make it easier for people to legally migrate to the U.S. since we are facing labor shortages and soon to be facing some demographic cliffs which will threaten social safety net programs like social security, Medicare, etc. Deporting illegals who have committed violent crimes is fine, but deporting illegals who have built productive lives in America for years and years makes no sense. It would cost an insane amount of money, hurt our economy, cause massive social outrage, and have many other negative externalities. We’re much better off making it easier for them to become legally documented and give them a clear pathway to citizenship.
"Saying we must accept unathorized entry just to allow economic migration makes as much sense as saying we must accept smuggling just to allow trade" Truer words have never been spoken
If we had a streamlined and actually usuable and working immigration system that enabled people to become citizens alongside public housing we probably wouldn’t even be talking about this problem at all lmao and we also probably wouldn’t be spending as much money as we do on it. Congrats on your echo chamber bro. Hopefully deporting 15 million people doesn’t turn into a trail of tears scenario.
@@terryshaw3377 no public housing. Everything the government touches becomes wastefully expensive. Your solution is what we are doing right now. Taxing Americans to give people breaking the law money, food, clothing, and housing. You are just stealing for political gain at that point.
@@terryshaw3377 Did you not listen to the entire video? Canada can't even afford to build 5 millions homes, Yet you want us to build 15 million homes for Aliens, while also dealing with homelessness already? That was the entire point of the AI argument, that it isn't just black and white. Maybe you both are in an echo chamber. Many jobless and homeless before we let in 15 million more illegal Aliens. Mass deportation doesn't look like the trail of tears. You most likely will be sent out if caught committing a crime and are found to be in America Illegally. And before you side with the Citizenship bot on this matter, mass deportation wasn't even a thing under Joe Biden and yet we have crimes not being reported on such as hit and runs, and rapes of teen girls. Done by Venezuelan gang members, let out of their prisons and told to come to America and not come back. Even if there was a legal path, they came thru trafficking areas and were bused deep into the USA. Wonder why many are flocking to New York rn looking to stay in the Sanctuary city. But like you mentioned before, Congrats on your echo chamber I guess?
@@terryshaw3377I agree that the current immigration system is not good, and fixing it is a much better solution than repeating mass deportations. However, they also aren’t mutually exclusive. We should deport people, fix the immigration system, and allow them back in legally, if they can make it. Laws need to be upheld
Smuggling often includes dangerous substances and weapons, actually a majority of it is dangerous. On the other hand a vast majority of undocumented people come here for sanctuary and to work. Horrible comparison lmao
Agreed. I love seeing new and interesting quality content being made. This channel is very underrated. I'm Surprised it hasn't blown up like crazy yet lol.
Honestly, I have not been this excited to click on all the videos of a channel ever. Ever! This is pretty pure brain food compared to most things available.
They both bring up valid points but given the current reality , western europe is facing I'm on the side of Pro deportation even though I don't live in europe
@ You mean the continent that is the size of our country. Dawg some of our states have bigger economies than most if not off of those countries. We can better handle immigration as well as illegal immigration we just don’t want to lmao.
@@terryshaw3377 A nation should prioritize its own citizens before all else which means not offering its resources and opportunities to those of other nations. Having requirements to become a citizen is different from considering anyone in the nation a citizen. The standard of living for your own matters more than that of others and we can't maintain or improve that standard when demand increases faster than supply
@@christopherjones4910 All the AIs are also scripted by the content creator they're both just "arguing" his points of views. These debates are for the most part one sided.
"Your position ignores the modern context of complex realities of things that have existed for millennia. We can no longer categorize people into strict groups." "So how should we triage resources?" "We could try categorizing people into strict groups."
Yes but you see we're not categorizing people in just two groups (legal or illegal) but three or four or however many we want! It's a spectrum of groups! The alphabet migrants!
You misrepresented what was said here. You are either mistaken or being dishonest. It said that this is not a BINARY distinction and a more nuanced and focused approach is better. You are providing a strawman. You are wrong.
@terryshaw3377 name one place that currently experiences climate change to a level it is inhospitable and creating mass exodus. If you cant do that, then name one illustration in which this same scenario could happen within 20 years. Believe what you want in climate change, but using it in an argument that is based on current immigration politics is ridiculous.
@@terryshaw3377 climate change is a hoax. It's not that climate is not changing or that humans don't have an impact. The problem is that every solution they have provided does NOTHING for climate change but does happen to give them a bunch of power and money to do nothing with. That makes it a hoax. And if we allow the climate hoaxers to win, not only will be not stop any problems associated with climate change.. it WILL make the problem worse. The government and everyone in power will also have a perverse incentive to connect everything to climate change in a desperate grab for power/money. They did it during pandemic... it's already something they are doing now.
@LMO1012 okay and? This world is so soft now. In the past you were lucky if you didn't get exterminated when you lost/were conquered and now you chuck sh*ts think "wahhh wahhhh you beat us now we get to live with you" Lol gtfoooo
A lot of the people who agree with the citizenship AI actively try to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigrants. They want to treat it as a race issue so anyone who disagrees with them can be dismissed as a racist.
The U.S. owns the U.S what are you on about. Every recognized country has sovereignty over its own state that's part of the requirement. In a country like the U.S. were people are supposed to own the government that translates to them having authority of its sovereignty.
A country is not the same as household. The country is a public thing, a household is a private one. There's no such thing as "invaders" and i am ok with them being allowed to work and become citizens here.
The US DO have a legal pathway for immigration, is a lengthy (it often last for years) and costly process, that hundreds of thousands of people undertake to be a us citizen or just to have the right to legally be / stay in the US. Giving citizenship or any benefits to illegal immigrants not only makes these processes useless, but spits on the faces of those who actually followed the rules.
The citizen argument falls apart in this way. Someone breaks into your home. They scrub floors, wash dishes, vaccum, and mow the lawn. That benefit is only made possible through the already unappreciated and illegal act of forced entry. I would come home very unhappy to see an unwelcome guest.
Doesn't fall apart at all if you look at Dem policies. Look at all the squatters who are given rights over the owners just because they broke in, set up a few bills, and stayed there for 7 days.... well at least as long as they aren't in a rich liberal neighborhood like Martha's Vineyard or DC....
And then someone from your own village comes in and does the same (internal migration) now, tell me, what is the difference asides from their skin color?
1) Jon Oleksiuk always gives the female AI the argument that he agrees with, although statistically the woman would be supporting illegal immigration. 2) No high-ranking politician supports illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration is so 2008. The real debate is *mass* *legal* immigration. This creates a distinction between the fake right (civic nationalists) and the real right (ethnic nationalists). 3) There are other things that matter than GDP. Big business supports mass immigration because it drives down wages. That's good for GDP. The real right cares about heritage and culture. America will become majority minority by 2045.
@@aesop14511) this has no effect whatsoever on anything in these videos 2)this makes no sense illegal immigration wether by mass or not is still ILLEGAL 3)driving down wages may be good for GDP but as literally every single article about this has said, this DOES NOT help the normal working class people and most (if not all) of the GDP gains are only felt by the rich 1%
@@aflack482 Also it litteraly strips away the rights of white people through ethnic voting. Aka Voting based on ethnicity. And we will face Oppression once we loose our majority. Same is happening in europe, so dont come at me with native american bullsh*t (not talking to you but to stupid readers reading this comment). Also it is not true that non whites face oppression right now. It is likely however that they will inflict harm upon us even then so. Racial Resentment based on old hisotry is what motivates their hatred, not current oppression. Also just simple tribalism. the natural state of the human group.
@@aesop1451”no high ranking official supports illegal immigration.” No. They won’t SAY they support illegal immigration. The policies that they promote are pro-illegal immigration.
Not emotional, but recognizing the catastrophic effects to the individuals and their families. Saying a systematic disruption to the family and communal fear impacting their interactions with society is a rational statement, despite the underlying emotional charge of the scenario.
@@txstateninja those points are just unrealistic, but above all, theyre not concerned with the actual native citizens. You are clearly more concerned with "muh poor immigrants" because you have critical opinions on race and class. Not our problem, send em back.
@@MrChoco409it's not really unrealistic. While the pro-deportation Ai had a stronger overall argument, anti-deportation said long time illegal immigrants are integrated into society that they and their children cannot "ethically" be removed without condemnation.
@ thats just not true. Id also counter that they arent american in any real sense. A mouse born in a stable isnt a horse. They are almost always raised in a foreign household and hold somewhat of an allegiance to their parent’s country
They aren't emotionally driven, they are ethically driven. There is a distinction. That said, blue AI was using far more rhetoric like, "you're dodging" or "you're avoiding."
@@cameronno6039 I mean given i am not from america the choice of colour doesnt matter much, but yes in the light of american politics i would guess it might create some biases. What i would like to see is the prompts for the generation of both Ai. red seems heavily biased towards non-rational arguments.
@@cameronno6039 I think the choice of color and gender having a conflicting psychological affiliation in your mind actually highlights an issue of ingrained bias on something inconsequential The fact that a color and gender (2 arbitrary factors to the debate) don't feel right, it shows how powerful bias and learned perception can be I'm not knocking you 😊 I felt the same way lol But it made me stop and think... Why the heck do I feel this way about something so inconsequential
I always enjoy these debates. Especially since this one is a culturally relevant for this year. Still waiting for a group of Jewish A.I and a group of Christian A.I. debating if Jesus Christ is the Messiah or not.
The debate between the Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim AI was an absolute slaughter. Christianity and Buddhism agreed on 90% of things if by different logic and methods whereas the Muslim AI kept on justifying war, slavery, rape, and a whole slew of other atrocities.
@@evilemperorzurg9615 Well a LLM system can only work with existing arguments, based on the data that exists, that's what you'd get in terms of argument from each group, because that's what was fed in. If a side wants to be 'better represented' they need to up the level of the typical arguments they make where the LLM get's it's data from.
@@juanchisilverio3610ive always wondered this. what would happen if we went tried something where there were no government, bo currency, and no regulations? what if we just let people be. forge and gather again. an open border world might seems very interesting.
@@nuggies3basically like the beginning of civilization, like minded people will group together, trade was done between goods, there were no regulations
@ yes. maybe not even groups. maybe everyone tends to their own family. make a safe household and defend it from people who try to take your peace. i think this would be a much simpler way to live than what we have right now
its insane how quickly the pro illegal ai fell to conflating refugees with illegal immigrants. if you cant win an argument without resorting to these kind of tactics then maybe you are on the wrong side of the argument.
It’s an Ai model it didn’t have a choice in the matter, I agree tho that it quickly would switch the two and thus change the essence of the conversation, but I don’t expect them to be able to correct themselves or correct each other, which would be my critique of the Deportation Ai, she was getting hit with some real unavoidable questions that she would just keep answering with “so you’re saying illegal immigration should be allowed” and I saw many times where the Citizenship Ai directly answer questions with solutions which the Lady couldn’t do
@@israelsolano5347 i know its an ai model. its just funny how quickly an ai model ran out of good logical arguments to make for this position and had to fall back on conflating refugees with illegal aliens just like humans do in these debates.
RedChatMAGA GPT said that Trump will demonstrate that he is a stable genius capable of MAGA by deporting millions of illegals from farms and manufacturing plants and immediately replacing them with black workers with $24/ hour pay and full benefits. At the same time, food will become cheaper; you can have 4 lb ribs and 4 lb of chicken wings with four six-packs of beer every week while chanting: There is only one God, and Trump is his prophet.
please NEVER consider AI made by humans with human knowledge to be unbiased. There are arguments humans have never made thus arguments an AI might never bring up do not hold these to gold standard but do hold these up as examples of real engagement with oppositional ideas and less as facts of the matter
@@FondestAlloy56 erveryone has a bias wether they admit it or not, the fact that both sides are saying that they should have compassion for the immigrants is in itself a bias
While I'm happy it picked deportation ai is definitely biased and is only as good as the data u feed it. Notice it didn't talk about culture and religion whatsoever? I think it would have been a much clearer victory for deportation.
@Fizbini1 Because they are unnecessary it's not a argument its like saying Johnny is nice to the whole town therefore his smuggling of illegal goods is ok
_Person in comments says they feel a certain way while providing absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims_ Good job. The AI is smarter than you.
@considering that none of you look up half the things you answer, it’s kinda ridiculous, don’t you think? Did you research any of the climates illegal immigrants came from?
It is interesting how it says that the AI wouldn’t get emotional but it kind of felt like the citizen side kind of was 🤷♂️. Applying more on the emotional side verse the logical side
Man, you have to do a better job of vetting the resources these AI models use to gather information. This video is a perfect representation of that fundamental flaw in AI. The "citizenship" AI's very first argument is the hypocrisy of having free trade but not free migration. There is not a single country in the entire world that has free trade. Every single country has tariifs and regulations in place that have to be paid and adhered to in order to conduct trade of the good you are trying to sell. You can't just make a product in Mexico, and sell it in the US. You have to obey US law and regulation that revolves around that product then pay a tariff to that product into the US. After you obey US customs, you can then begin trading that product on the US market.
That’s more anarchistic free trade. When most people talk about free trade they mean away from mercantilism not complete lack of regulations or tariffs. The 18th century world was run off of various economic spheres rather than a liberal trade market system that we have today.
You didn't understand the argument. In economics "free trade" is not a literal term... like ever. It refers to the FACT that there is a system agreed upon and established specifically to meet the demands of the population. Free trade as in no tariffs in exchange for regulatory compliance. (Im mega over simplifying here for your sake) The red AI is right to make this point. The deportation argument merely focuses on enforcement of the rules and does not take into account the demand for labor. At the end of the day labor is just another commodity but it is not treated with the same flexibility. As to your false assertion that no country has "free trade" www.cbp.gov/trade/north-american-free-trade-agreement#:~:text=North%20American%20Free%20Trade%20Agreement%20(NAFTA)%20established%20a%20free%2D,produced%20by%20the%20signatory%20nations.
@@JourG215 You made two whole paragraphs and didnt actually make a relevant point to counter what i said, you made up an argument to counter and spammed me with it. The trade still has to follow rules, (which i agree with because of my understanding of free trade, even though you think i dont understand that) so therefore immigration has to follow the rules too, if one party doenst like the established rules, then its up to them to decide not to engage. Also i wasnt even actually responding to the free trade part, I was responding to what i thought was the poster's actual point, starting at "You can't just make a product in Mexico"i was just noting that tarrifs and trade regulations are just like immigration regulations, so if you follow one, you should follow both. Idk why i had to make THREE paragraphs to explain all that, maybe you should try clarification before assumption next time.
@@Kyndral22Again you didn't understand the arguments. The debate wasn't about whether an immigration system should have rules but rather if deportation is a better solution than giving people a chance to become citizens. Of course there should be rules. Neither side argued there shouldn't be. In a nutshell the argument was: Orange argued the rules should be modernized to solve the reality of our current and future world. Whereas Blue argued that deportation is a necessity for a country to enforce immigration rules. I was also replying to the OP and not you specifically.
In the end, the biggest, unanswered question still remains. What is a nation? You either have a nation or none at all. We are all residents of this planet but not residents of all nations. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. Otherwise, the whole world simply becomes economic zones instead of nations. My position is that we should have nations and those require borders. That is the truthful debate we ought to have.
I may have misunderstood but blue AI states is impossible to build the needed infrastructure regardless of money, and orange AIs response was to throw more money. 20:40
It reminds me of the argument of scarcity of food around the globe, that has been proven already that is not a quantity or Money problem, but truly a logistic one in our time
@@leandro6234 Can you please host a party? And please provide guest rooms to everyone who attends? BTW, no, you cannot have a guest list. And no, we won’t inform you how many are going to show up.
If you say AI don't have bias, then you're wrong. as long as AI is written by someone who is biased (Human) or trained on information that is biased (something a human would have said/done/created) then AI is biased in some way and can be manipulated.
1) If the government itself is the one persecuting, then another nation should be obligated to offer sanctuary; whether this is persecution for racial, religious, or political reasons. The nation which accepts them should be the closest country which is not also carrying out the persecution. 2) Since time immemorial nations have been at war or waging civil wars. The traditional view was to stand and fight for your nation, to protect and defend you nation, community, and family. Not to flee into neighboring nations, let alone half a world away to a foreign land. Why accept the cowards, traitors, or defectors; if they were unable to be loyal to their birth nation. 3) If a nation is facing economic collapse due to policies or gangs, isn't it the governments responsibility to provide and protect. Is it not that peoples responsibility to have or change their culture to be one of industriousness and hardworking? While I am unsure how smart it is to import peoples, ideas, cultures from failed nations (you wouldn't employ an architect who's last building collapsed), I don't think that is even the argument to be made. Why should another nation, near or far, but especially far-off, clean up the economic mess made by their government. 4) If a nation is suffering from climate change isn't it that nations duty to fortify itself with walls, tunnels, or stratification? I repeat myself about responsibility, but in the event of a complete collapse, such as the sinking of an island nation. What nation would willing choose to have a colony within its boarders? No the sunk nation should be destroyed, its government, legal system, and enforcement. 5) In all the above examples. I will content that if a nation is so badly debased, criminalized, impoverished, besieged, or otherwise facing imminent description. Their always remains the final option of vasselization or selling the nation. This can be carried out in such a way that preserves the culture, but not the existing government or laws, and yields responsibility to another nation. 6) I am not opposed to immigration, but it shouldn't be used to off-set native birth-rates, rather incentives and culture should be changed within the nation to attack the core problem. Instead immigration should be used to incorporate people who have specialized skills and expertise, as well as people who have been successful in the market. Like how with fleeing it should be to the nearest nations, so you are somewhat familiar with language and culture; so too should immigration be preferenced (but not exclusive) to neighboring nations or parent nations/cultures. 7) If someone is at your boarder with no paperwork or identification they should be turned away. This is similar to how in court destruction of evidence is found to have occurred, the evidence is assumed to have been incriminating; so too must it be with the boarder. Likewise children smuggled (no documentation) across the boarder should be removed from the child abusers who are smuggling them, unless a DNA test can show that they are related, and the child professes that no abuse is occurring. 8) Immigration is desired as long as it is controlled tightly to deter criminals, and is vetted for merit and desire to integrate (renounce prior citizenship and adopt the common host identity while wishing your children to be of the host nations culture). Immigration rate should be measured as a % of the % growth of the nation via births. If their is a birth-rate collapse the cause of that needs addressing whether it is caused by infrastructure of other societal ills. 9) Tourism should be incentivized without limited except for what is enforceable. Yes this is harsh. But only through strength can mercy be shown. Altruism to other nations makes no sense if they drag you down too, altruism can only be administered from strong uncompromising footing, without threat of peer. Remember, do not feed the birds, as this will create a dependence relationship, if you stop feeding the birds they will starve and undergo population collapse as it was inflated due to being artificially propped up by your contributions. Instead teach the birds where food is to be found and how to get it.
Your quote made no sense to what you wrote. I think you are confused based on your quote and what you wrote. My question on this is how does a country make immigration decisions based on merit? What are the qualifications? My next question is based on your quote. How does a country teach someone to work for themselves when you are disincentivizing immigration as a whole, from tourism to asylum-seeking, and many other things based on your statement?
@@AdolfoAngelSaldanaLara If you have a country which is undergoing starvation, then perhaps if the starvation is due to some temporary factor, one nation making a loan to another in the form of food, can make sense. But if you have a nation which appears perpetually starved of food, and that country is sustained by gifts, there is a problem. The problem intensifies if despite starving the population of that nation continues to grow demanding subsequent larger parcels of gifted food. When a population increases beyond what its environment can support, starvation occurs to return population levels to normal levels. By gifting resources to the population you allow the population to soar far more numerous that it would have otherwise, the die-back due to starvation cause if the gifting ceased appears immoral. Yet what I find immoral is turning an undeveloped nation into a population engine to import cheap labor under the guise of them 'fleeing starvation'. I wrote an analogy for this as a tangential, post-script, errant thought. I apologies I wasn't more clear in my conveyance or decisive in my inclusion of the idea. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- In regards to you question about merit, as it is a fair question. I would break it into three categories; 1) Expertise, 2) Performance, 3) Compatibility. Each would be given a score from 0-1, with the sum of your highest two scores being used to measure merit. 1) Expertise. This encapsulates specialist technical skills requested by a company or organization. The company would have to pay in order to bring the person in for example $(200,000 - [annual income]) [so they would pay more for someone making less, to encourage local employment and promotion.] As time in the workforce is a factor at play age should be considered, I can't see people working beyond 100 even in the most cushy yet skill job. Formula : ([annual income]/200000)*((100-[persons age])/100) {where the result is capped at 1 - if you are not requested by a company this is 0} 2) Performance. This encapsulates the ability to perform in the market/economy. Formula : ([total assets] - [average house price] - [average new car price] - [average insurance annual payment]) / ([total liabilities] + [total dept]) {where the result is capped at 1 - if you refuse to supply information this is 0} 3) Compatibility. There will be a list of all countries given [score]s between 1 and 0.3, following a normal distribution (few countries get 1 or 0.3, most get 0.65). A quick test for [literacy] and [oral] language is given. Formula : (([literacy + [oral]) /2) * [score] {where the result is capped at 1 - if you refuse to take the assessment this is 0} Some things to acknowledge. This is a fairly formulaic system to hopefully facilitate quick approval times. By assess two of the three does mean anyone can get in, with, for example country and language only playing a factor if the former two are low, or for example you don't have to rely on a explicit request from a company if you have good assets and will be a good cultural 'fit'. Country scores will have as nuanced considerations political similarity (democracy, dictator, monarch, etc..), cultural similarity (queuing, tipping, face concealment, etc..), legal similarities (driving, firearms, public decency, etc..). The idea is to take a measure of how much friction will be generated due to culture differences both for the person arriving, and your citizens.
I wish the focus on punishment for breaking a law argument would have sparked a debate about forgiveness in law .i.e. pardons, parole, probation, etc... if laws and punishment are to be unforgiving regarding immigration law, then why offer forgiveness regarding any offense?
There's absolutely zero consideration for the long term impact on the host nation having an unlimited number of migrants displacing or changing its national demographic.
This video makes me realize that we don’t expect enough of presidential candidates. When even AI provides us with more thoughtful and substantive debates then the two candidates running for control over the country’s law enforcement.
That's because people are stupid. The reason we have the political system we do is because they figured out what works on people. It's not a random coincidence that we get either morons or a-holes (or both simultaneously) every time. They just play on people's fears and other emotions. They tried to run candidates who could provide more substance in their campaigns and it didn't work. Instead, they make false promises to fix the problems that they exaggerate and blame the other side for. It's all vacuous lies and posturing.
Love how the anti-deportation AI still had to admit deportations are needed. It just had a much higher bar before someone could be deported. Specifically criminals and traffickers.
Can you name anyone that's ever argued differently? I've never seen anyone argue for completely open borders. The argument is always where to draw the line.
Points not argued. Contributions to SS is currently not enough with the per capita draw. Adding more contributors also adds more draw, and there is no reason to expect the draw rate would diminish with illegal migrants. The same goes with resources. Around the 20 min mark, the argument was that money spent on deportation could have gone to subsidizing housing builds. This is just more draw on the legal citizenry via taxation for either deportation or subsidized housing. This financial pressure is all before any hint of illegal immigrant tax contribution. Any possible migrant benefit would be realized long after the burden to the citizen. Also, how do immigrants legally work prior to obtaining work visas? How does the employer collect the federal taxes? How does the immigrant pay the taxes? Identity theft of someone's SS number? What if wages are reported on that SSN but taxes aren't paid? Now some innocent ID theft victim has a problem.
The US government gives illegal immigrants TIN numbers. Tax identification numbers in place of SSN. I'm a US citizen, but i know illegal immigrants who work with these TIN numbers. The TIN number works so that they pay taxes and don't need a fake SSN. the US government already knows who's here illegally with these numbers. They simply aren't doing anything about it. Or they are protected by sanctuary cities.
@@TravisCreighton To answer the series of questions at the end, they don't. Illegal immigrants don't pay income tax. Sales tax, which is nearly unavoidable, is the reason used to say illegals pay taxes.
deportation ai for the win, the only side that provided concrete examples not just theoreticals. as the old adage goes, prevention is always better than cure.
I want to know how the jury AI felt that the pro-amnesty accurately rebutted or challenged the pro-deportation AI's points? "Justice will be different" is a vacuous and empty statement.
@@hanamlchl a nice change to this would be if they post at the end how the jury felt for each point. For me it was odd that Gemini who has the most manipulated algorithm in this case actually sided with a more non-left leaning position.
"Five ai judges from top platforms." This isnt helpful. The model you choose makes a huge difference as does the sampling methods. You need to mention these things. Claude, for example, is EXTREMELY sensitive and "safety regulated." Where as you can get an abliterated or orthogonal llama model that's entirely uncensored. I dont think this video tells much without mentioning these things. Also, add in web search for pulling up points and it's a whole new ballgame. Anyway, illegal immigration is bad, and immigration overall in the west has been bad recently. Bringing in all these people with differnt cultures that reject local culture and work for poverty wages so corporations wont have to actually pay reasonable wages to citizens.
I find this so refreshing. I wish Congress (after deliberation) listens to an AI debate on the issue before taking a vote. This could really be the future 😂
Separating families is completely and utterly justified and needed! 1. American citizens families are separated when there are allegations of domestic violence and/or a traffic stop and intoxication is involved. 2. We don't know if the "wife" is actually just a woman being trafficked. 3. We don't know if the "children" are actually being trafficked. The last two point's are much more important than the first, but the 1st is mentioned to prove a point. We already do this to American citizens why wouldn't we to people who are 1. not citizens and 2. broke the law.
These videos really help to understand both the sides rather than creating an echo chamber which is much needed in today's political environment especially on social media. I am really thankful to you for creating these videos. Here in my opinion the AI debating for immigrations won but it was close as the one debating against them pointed out some really great points like the methodology to deport these immigrants more often then not causes the livelihood of some good people who even though entered the country illegally are doing a net positive for the society to get ruined, but ultimately I would prioritize the safety and lives of millions of citizens of a country rather than try and save those few hundred people, it is quite a "the end justifies the means" kind of approach but it is what is necessary in today's world. That being said you also have to acknowledge the fact that the immigration policies and legal framework regarding those policies need an overhaul and revamp to better accommodate for people who earnestly and willingly follow the legal path and incentivize them to do so by making it easier for them especially for the ones who have already assimilated themselves into the country and it's culture.
The Citizenship AI is well trained in all the logical fallacy arguments. Imagined dooms are not the current reality. Gemini seems to just be pro argument 😆
in summation of Deport: Right now there are issues with illegal immigration and we need to fix that so that things will get better and we can help more when we are able in the future in summation of Citizen: Thats not reality though, here is my hypothetical, future based ultimatum, repeated ad nauseam in lieu of actual arguments
And that reflects the data made up of the publicly available arguments both sides make. It rather easily exposes the problem. You can't rationally argue someone out of a conclusion they didn't reach via rationality.
The citizen AI use mostly emotion speculation against fact base deportation AI. This feel exactly the same, nothing new when two human of both side debate on this issue, only different that the fact goes harder here
An interesting take on both sides. I for one though think that the ability to have deportation is necessary in order to maintain the "basic rule of Law". It is important to remind everyone that "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW."
SC just said the president is above the law. There are plenty of ways corporations and wealthy are above the law. If the fine for doing something is $1000 but the profit is $1001, you incentivize the risk of being penalized for money. The reality is many laws aren't needed. Law =/= morality.
Personally, I found the closing argument of the Deportation AI to be my favorite part of the video. Even in daily human life, we have the power to say yes to things because we also have the power to say no. If we had to accept every little thing that came our way, we'd overwhelm ourselves and fundamentally collapse. Additionally, the government and its citizens matter more than the immigrants coming into the country, whether we like it or not. I love legal immigrants, but the gov't should prioritize its citizens rather than the new people coming in. We all hate when companies give great deals for new customers and don't give great deals to older customers. We find it unfair and unjust. How then could we say that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are meant to be valued at the same amount as citizens, especially since they broke the law coming in. That's completely unfair both to the legal immigrants and citizens of any country illegal immigrants enter into.
The problem with the AI models is they appear to be subjective rather than objective. A lot of AI models operate with specific parameters within their programming and have been exposed to have biased opinions embedded within to push certain ideologies. Within the deportation debate, no reference was given to VAWA visas such as the T and U visas. Was that because of programming with the AI scope of search or something else? The debates only revolve around talking points and not current immigration law.
The debate weighed international law with equal precedent to national sovereignty. That assumption seems to be larger than this debate. The first question should be, are national borders ethical? Then use that debate to train the AI for this debate.
Saying that our nation needs illegal immigrants for our workforce is one of dumbest things iv ever heard, iv seen thousands of Americans loose there jobs for cheap poor quality immigrants.
The real question is Would all the budget be spent on integration but with also quite a few unintegrated individuals be better than spending that budget on reinforcing your borders knowing that you will lose quite a lot of labour
Making an AI defend an undefendable position of illegal immigration doesn't make it sound any better. Most of the arguments it gives revolve around these non-quantifiable, unrealistic, and emotionally-charged ideas. Why? Because the AI is trained by the same words of the people who defend that position, which are arbitrary, unrealistic, and emotionally charged. It simply wraps those unsound arguments inside pretty words.
As an immigrant, I followed the rules of this country. Why nowadays is so difficult to do that! We have lived four years in a lawless country. The new administration has to implement the law! Period!!!!
As a black person illegal migration hurts a lot. We use to be the day labor and the gardener and maid that stop us from being as criminal. Also I don't know one black person that comment a known felony and just got let go let alone money and housing.. my ppl have complained about reparations for 160yrs and never got it but these ppl get it. wtf. it's dumb on its face to let ppl from another country come here on mass they are running for a reason but at those number they would turn this place into the place they left illegal migration don't get socializes to our ways the same way a legal migrate does cheap labor also stop innovation in productivity efficiency.
The reason for decision at 8:15 is crazy. Judge Claude basically said “hey, the citizenship side made good points but because they argued how undocumented immigrants are important on a humanitarian basis and an economic one, i sided with mass deportation” Just because you call something a contradiction doesnt mean it is! This is so goofy
I think this experiment demonstrates that LLM's aren't thinking machines. Just pattern matchers. That, coupled with the "safety" guardrails imposed which will bias toward specific worldviews.
The issue with Canada decreasing its immigration was a failure to prioritize immigrants with construction and healthcare skills over unskilled labour. There was also a failure to ensure healthcare trained immigrants had the ability to efficiently get licensed to practice in Canada. It's an issue with our current legal migration, not an issue of illegal immigration
The fact that the pro deportation side called them "illegal immigrants" and not the more accurate term "criminal alien" or at least illegal alien leads me to believe that it was not fed data that allows it to understand the issue
Just because someone is a refugee seeking asylum doesn’t mean they’re entitled to refuge. That’s like saying individuals displaced by natural disasters are entitled to seek refuge in your house whether you like it or not.
7:38 - "... ENHANCED BOARDER TECHNOLOGY." - Citizenship AI So, we DO need boarders. We DO need to enforce them in some kind of way. Let's have the most advanced boarder in the world and make sure that people just come here legally. Asylum or opportunity. I agree that maybe immigration reform is in order, but completely removing a boarder and just allowing mass immigration is simply ludicrous. Cherry Picker of the year award goes to me. Thank you. :^)
Leviticus 19:33-34 "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
You are wildly taking that out of context. The people 5 house down my road are "strangers" to me. Additionally, if you read scripture you will see that removing evil people and law breakers is called for. Do not be dishonest and misrepresent what scripture says. After all... even murderers are strangers... would you sojourn with them? Go ahead... double right on down in your deception. I am game!
From what i have heard, the citizenship stance falls flat as it would merit that seekers actually go to legal ports of entry. You cant find a criminal when you dont have a record of them being here. And congressional laws, limit industry and economic growth that hurt both citizens and noncitizens from having economic growth. The only people that actually gane off this system, is large conglomerates that are willing to pay for underskilled workers cash, at wadges less than market value. It has nothing to do with balance of international economic systems, it just has a value of exploting people under the threat of removal by economic means, for under cutting labor laws. That is the reality in many countries currently sanctioned by the international governance that restricted growth in 3rd world nation that would benefit those people by creating local jobs that would prevent the mass of economic migrants. That and bad actors in 3rd world national leadership that curb investment, along with environmental sanctions that take one of the largest and most lucrative markets away from those nations cripples global economic growth. We can invest in energy abroad and help developing nations, that would solve a majority of economic systems over the next 10 years. That would curb the amount of growth, while expanding the state of other nations to develop and grow economically. The other thing, is to focus on trade, and less on war over resources. That would keep people from fleeing war torn nations. It also promotes peace through diplomacy, rather than territory, which is what i thought international organizations such as the UN were made for. That would actually mean, while we promise to do good, we are subjecting the rules to others based on top down systems. Wich is an international classist view, that oppresses others for the sake of a few.
I've noticed a trend with this guy's videos, he always puts the male ai from the perspective that most people won't agree with. Seems like nitpicking, but that in itself is a psychological message, and since the channel deals alot with psychology I'm pretty sure he's doing that on purpose underlying a deeper meaning
I really would like to know how fast these conversations happen. Where the AI is able to generate and process these conversations in a matter of seconds minutes hours? Also I think it be fair to ask the citizenship AI if it’s OK if they share part of their server space with competing applications that hold different values and programming characteristics.
In the US Arguments about immigration legal or otherwise; are always predicated on the assumption that we as Americans will never find ourselves in the position of having immigrate to another country because our country has collapsed or become uninhabitable.
It's pretty simple. If the problem is the law is being broken, the solution is always either to enforce the law or change it. You cannot ignore criminality. That's fundamentally not an option for a functional judicial system.
Both sides failed to point out that we will never ever ever ever have the resources necessary to integrate a meaningful percentage of those fleeing uninhabitable areas
critical point... unfettered crossing doesn't allow for governance or control over their actions or contributions. where as a a pathway to obtain legal citizenship (not hey Im here make me legal now that I broke your law getting here) allows the government to have standards of conduct and contribution. the majority that have come across illegally arent rushing to get jobs, the crime rates spiked. currently they are in a protected bubble... this does NOTHING GOOD for those that are legal citizens here. increases costs, lowers job opportunities, increases taxes required to support them... this isnt sustainable in the economy or recourses. The words "Cant build fast enough" is not fixed by adding in more stress by creating an open boarder and a new protected group of people.
The deportation side makes the most sense, especially if we take into account the opportunity of using automation and new intelligently designed international agreements to make the LEGAL immigration process both easier and much faster. Ideally a legal immigration request should have four possible outcomes (assuming that the system gets automated and optimized for both security and expediency): - Denial, usually within a few days to a month from requesting. - Acceptance, usually within 1-3 months. - Delayed decision (which should be no more than 5% of requests), for cases where further investigation is needed. And the delay should still produce a response within 6 months of the original application. - Tentative delayed acceptance, when the petitioner qualifies but quotas do not permit granting approval at the time. In such cases petitioners get put on a queue. Some actions might remove the petitioner from the queue, like receiving residence in another country. Also, once the petitioner reaches the point of quota acceptance some checks should be rerun (like background checks) before granting approval. Finally, costs of legal immigration should be drastically reduced or eliminated and replaced with a resident income tax (maybe 5-10%) that is fully reserved to pay for the expenses of LEGAL immigration.
Funny how much more interesting it is when no one's calling each other names or fear mongering, I don't know how accurate the sources the AI is pulling from is (im not suggesting anything just stating what im thinking) this was very informative. I'm going to double check some of the things the AI said, but guvin the lack of gas lighting in the name calling I can't wait to hear another one of these!
I was frustrated with the citizenship A.I. saying "unauthorized immigrants typically contribute more in taxes and social security than they receive in benefits." However, if you are illegal you are not documented. Meaning the only tax you might pay is sales tax on purchases but income, property, inheritance, capital gains, etc. are all taxes you would never pay because the government can't tax somebody whom they have no idea exists. It's crazy to say that illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they receive in benefits when they technically can't be taxed at all. Much to my disappointment, the deportation A.I. used softer language when saying unauthorized immigrants " 'may' create wage pressures" when they absolutely do. Any business that decides to pay illegal immigrants under the table, can pay those illegal immigrants less and not have to pay taxes on them. This undercuts every other business in said industry who has to pay higher wages and taxes on the wages they pay to their employees. I appreciate this A.I. debate but it does show that A.I. is just a computer programmed with a body of knowledge that humans have come up with. The citizenship A.I. made absolute statements that were false and the deportation A.I. made soft statements that were true.
Regardless of not paying income/property/etc tax, undocumented migrants still contribute to the system in more ways than they consume, especially at a macroeconomic scale. Migrants are taking the jobs that nobody here wants to do, filling labor shortages and boosting the foundations of the economy, say construction for example. They may pay less in tax than a U.S. citizen, but they make a hell of a lot less. Nor can they receive the vast majority of welfare, much of which requires U.S. citizenship to qualify for (food stamps for example). They also cannot buy houses, get mortgages, open bank accounts, etc. These people are extremely limited in what they can pursue, so they are stuck at the bottom of the food chain until change is made.
This one always confused me. 'Illegal' is in its name, so we need to either enforce the law or change the law so it is not illegal.
Exactly. The current message is basically you can get away with breaking the law if a large number of people are also breaking the same law. It’s going to lead to a lawless society (already showing symptoms of that)
@@DAWN001 immigrants are less likely to break the law than citizens based on statistics. Also violent and property crime rates have been trending downward since the 1990s. Illegal immigrants are a result of a lack of accessible pathways to citizenship
But what if those illegals are already blocks in our tower? I mean, this approach to deport all illegals will be all negatives yknow? Since families will be shattered, crime will surely increase. Economically we WILL suffer from this result, and that’s not even including the cost of doing such a task. There’s more nuance.
That seems to be the argument. The citizenship position advocates for abolishing or largely lessening the illegalization of crossings, thereby paving way for the destruction of basic societal structures and subsequent chaos on the basis of misguided emotional appeal over a complex matter. By squashing the punishment for breaking the fundamental structures of society, it paves direct way for overdrive that will eventually do more than simply suppress the lives of legal citizens, but destroy large swathes of society. We have seen this in Rome where immigration destroyed the core of society so much that legions and sectors stopped caring about the laws and structures so much and ceased fighting, leading to the destruction of Rome by Goths and others when law fell.
There are a lot of immigrants that come as refugees, but colloquy call them illegal
If the economic migrants are so useful to our country, why aren't they useful to their own country? Wouldn't their absence mean their country is worse off?
You are experiencing a migrant from all over the world in one country. It's the small fraction of migrant that left that one country that's why each individual country would not feel the effect.
A growing economy needs employees to make the conomy grow. A stagnant or receding economy struggles to feed the population and could use without the ones struggling the most. With less employees and population, it means lower inflation, higher salaries. And could help recover economies.
@@wissuya4138 guy you are severely I'll informed. Mass migration causes severe brain drain on the home country, especially smaller ones. It's one of the many reasons these countries stay under developed.
My country has an unnatural shortage of doctors for this reason.
Countries like the US intentionally did this in order to get the brightest minds, it's what made them number 1.
@@MrEssedis
And many of murders too 😢
Because America has strong institutions in place that make our economy work better than most others in the world. People trust businesses because they trust the government to largely hold them accountable. People go to school and invest time and money in highly specialized degrees because they trust that our advanced economy will have jobs available for them when they graduate because we generally prioritize innovation and competition. People start businesses because we’re largely pro-entrepreneur. Yes, we have our issues with some corruption for sure, but compared to lots of other countries, our corruption might as well be non-existent. If people can trust the institutions then they’re more willing to take reasonable risks and try to create value for the economy via a specialized job, starting a business, etc. One of the biggest issues with recent developments in America has been actions taken by politicians and institutions themselves which have eroded some level of trust in the institutions. As trust in institutions drops, corruption increases and democracy falls into decline and disrepair.
In relation to illegal immigration, our immigration system is broken and far outdated. We need to update it to make it easier for people to legally migrate to the U.S. since we are facing labor shortages and soon to be facing some demographic cliffs which will threaten social safety net programs like social security, Medicare, etc. Deporting illegals who have committed violent crimes is fine, but deporting illegals who have built productive lives in America for years and years makes no sense. It would cost an insane amount of money, hurt our economy, cause massive social outrage, and have many other negative externalities. We’re much better off making it easier for them to
become legally documented and give them a clear pathway to citizenship.
That one guy.
“They can be deported together” 🗣️🔥🗣️🔥
I've wanted him in charge for years lol, I saw he was gonna be in charge and went, FINALLY
It's how it's supposed to be.
True.
@@Anarcho-harambeismThe guy who couldn’t understand the difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?
When people break the law here and go to jail it affects the family. The sins of the father unfortunately do have consequences for the family.
"Saying we must accept unathorized entry just to allow economic migration makes as much sense as saying we must accept smuggling just to allow trade"
Truer words have never been spoken
If we had a streamlined and actually usuable and working immigration system that enabled people to become citizens alongside public housing we probably wouldn’t even be talking about this problem at all lmao and we also probably wouldn’t be spending as much money as we do on it. Congrats on your echo chamber bro. Hopefully deporting 15 million people doesn’t turn into a trail of tears scenario.
@@terryshaw3377 no public housing. Everything the government touches becomes wastefully expensive. Your solution is what we are doing right now. Taxing Americans to give people breaking the law money, food, clothing, and housing. You are just stealing for political gain at that point.
@@terryshaw3377 Did you not listen to the entire video? Canada can't even afford to build 5 millions homes, Yet you want us to build 15 million homes for Aliens, while also dealing with homelessness already? That was the entire point of the AI argument, that it isn't just black and white. Maybe you both are in an echo chamber. Many jobless and homeless before we let in 15 million more illegal Aliens. Mass deportation doesn't look like the trail of tears.
You most likely will be sent out if caught committing a crime and are found to be in America Illegally.
And before you side with the Citizenship bot on this matter, mass deportation wasn't even a thing under Joe Biden and yet we have crimes not being reported on such as hit and runs, and rapes of teen girls. Done by Venezuelan gang members, let out of their prisons and told to come to America and not come back. Even if there was a legal path, they came thru trafficking areas and were bused deep into the USA.
Wonder why many are flocking to New York rn looking to stay in the Sanctuary city.
But like you mentioned before, Congrats on your echo chamber I guess?
@@terryshaw3377I agree that the current immigration system is not good, and fixing it is a much better solution than repeating mass deportations. However, they also aren’t mutually exclusive. We should deport people, fix the immigration system, and allow them back in legally, if they can make it. Laws need to be upheld
Smuggling often includes dangerous substances and weapons, actually a majority of it is dangerous. On the other hand a vast majority of undocumented people come here for sanctuary and to work. Horrible comparison lmao
This is becoming one of my most favorite channel on UA-cam
Agreed. I love seeing new and interesting quality content being made. This channel is very underrated. I'm Surprised it hasn't blown up like crazy yet lol.
Honestly, I have not been this excited to click on all the videos of a channel ever. Ever! This is pretty pure brain food compared to most things available.
I like it when they say stuffs that agrreess wit me way of think
@@Sansaguadikie Well I can tell you one side for sure doesn't.
When even AI has trouble defending illegal immigration without stretching logic, you know this should really not be a debate at all.
The AI video debating Gods existence had the AI that believed in Gods existence winning. So no debate?
They both bring up valid points but given the current reality , western europe is facing I'm on the side of Pro deportation even though I don't live in europe
@ You mean the continent that is the size of our country. Dawg some of our states have bigger economies than most if not off of those countries. We can better handle immigration as well as illegal immigration we just don’t want to lmao.
@@terryshaw3377 A nation should prioritize its own citizens before all else which means not offering its resources and opportunities to those of other nations. Having requirements to become a citizen is different from considering anyone in the nation a citizen. The standard of living for your own matters more than that of others and we can't maintain or improve that standard when demand increases faster than supply
@@terryshaw3377by this logic, rich people should allow the poor to live in their house. They can handle it…..
God forbid I'd ever have to debate this woman. She always kills it.
Because she always argues the more logical side
@@christopherjones4910 All the AIs are also scripted by the content creator they're both just "arguing" his points of views. These debates are for the most part one sided.
Don’t stress. I assumed as much. But thanks anyways.
@@KNC2879but you can actually make ai do this.. i literally made that shit do my homework for me before so I believe it😭
@@christopherjones4910^
"Your position ignores the modern context of complex realities of things that have existed for millennia. We can no longer categorize people into strict groups."
"So how should we triage resources?"
"We could try categorizing people into strict groups."
A very human argument. They're learning too well.
Yes but you see we're not categorizing people in just two groups (legal or illegal) but three or four or however many we want! It's a spectrum of groups! The alphabet migrants!
@@MrDj232 a tool is only as smart as its creator. In AI's case it is creator(s)
You misrepresented what was said here. You are either mistaken or being dishonest. It said that this is not a BINARY distinction and a more nuanced and focused approach is better. You are providing a strawman. You are wrong.
@@MrDj232 Except the op here misrepresented what was actually said, and you bought the lie.
As soon as the pro illegal immigrant ai used hypothetical situations of unlivable conditions from climate change I knew it was over.
Emotion vs Raw Facts, it wasn't even a contest tbh, in life the best choice is often times the most sensible one
@@supremexrebel290 You thing climate change is “Emotions” You are unhelpable and yet you need it more than any illegal immigrant ever will
@@The77Voice Yea that makes sense because you guys don’t believe in climate change 😭😭😭😭
@terryshaw3377 name one place that currently experiences climate change to a level it is inhospitable and creating mass exodus. If you cant do that, then name one illustration in which this same scenario could happen within 20 years. Believe what you want in climate change, but using it in an argument that is based on current immigration politics is ridiculous.
@@terryshaw3377 climate change is a hoax. It's not that climate is not changing or that humans don't have an impact. The problem is that every solution they have provided does NOTHING for climate change but does happen to give them a bunch of power and money to do nothing with. That makes it a hoax. And if we allow the climate hoaxers to win, not only will be not stop any problems associated with climate change.. it WILL make the problem worse.
The government and everyone in power will also have a perverse incentive to connect everything to climate change in a desperate grab for power/money. They did it during pandemic... it's already something they are doing now.
Notice how these AI’s just reflect the biases of their creators. It’s no different than a human debate.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Because they re not truly AI
The argument was so absent of a foreign disenfranchisement and military occupancy on a migrating country.
@LMO1012 okay and? This world is so soft now. In the past you were lucky if you didn't get exterminated when you lost/were conquered and now you chuck sh*ts think "wahhh wahhhh you beat us now we get to live with you"
Lol gtfoooo
Do people not acknowledge the terms illegal immigrants & legal immigrants.
You wouldn't want invaders in your household but guests are invited.
Because it’s about privacy
America is not a house and nobody own America like like somebody own their house. Stop using this comparison it's idiotic.
A lot of the people who agree with the citizenship AI actively try to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigrants. They want to treat it as a race issue so anyone who disagrees with them can be dismissed as a racist.
The U.S. owns the U.S what are you on about. Every recognized country has sovereignty over its own state that's part of the requirement. In a country like the U.S. were people are supposed to own the government that translates to them having authority of its sovereignty.
A country is not the same as household.
The country is a public thing, a household is a private one.
There's no such thing as "invaders" and i am ok with them being allowed to work and become citizens here.
The US DO have a legal pathway for immigration, is a lengthy (it often last for years) and costly process, that hundreds of thousands of people undertake to be a us citizen or just to have the right to legally be / stay in the US. Giving citizenship or any benefits to illegal immigrants not only makes these processes useless, but spits on the faces of those who actually followed the rules.
Yes just step right up to the 27 year waitlist some immigrants have from these countries🤡
The citizen argument falls apart in this way.
Someone breaks into your home. They scrub floors, wash dishes, vaccum, and mow the lawn.
That benefit is only made possible through the already unappreciated and illegal act of forced entry.
I would come home very unhappy to see an unwelcome guest.
Citizenship AI doesnt care, it would use a presumed global warming dooms-day scenario .etc to justify the person illegally entering your home.
Hey I’m not complaining
Doesn't fall apart at all if you look at Dem policies. Look at all the squatters who are given rights over the owners just because they broke in, set up a few bills, and stayed there for 7 days.... well at least as long as they aren't in a rich liberal neighborhood like Martha's Vineyard or DC....
@@snake922yeah. Why would I complain if someone's doing stuff I don't want to?
And then someone from your own village comes in and does the same (internal migration) now, tell me, what is the difference asides from their skin color?
The one arguing for deportation won tbh
1) Jon Oleksiuk always gives the female AI the argument that he agrees with, although statistically the woman would be supporting illegal immigration.
2) No high-ranking politician supports illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration is so 2008. The real debate is *mass* *legal* immigration. This creates a distinction between the fake right (civic nationalists) and the real right (ethnic nationalists).
3) There are other things that matter than GDP. Big business supports mass immigration because it drives down wages. That's good for GDP. The real right cares about heritage and culture. America will become majority minority by 2045.
@@aesop14511) this has no effect whatsoever on anything in these videos
2)this makes no sense illegal immigration wether by mass or not is still ILLEGAL
3)driving down wages may be good for GDP but as literally every single article about this has said, this DOES NOT help the normal working class people and most (if not all) of the GDP gains are only felt by the rich 1%
@@aflack482 Also it litteraly strips away the rights of white people through ethnic voting.
Aka Voting based on ethnicity. And we will face Oppression once we loose our majority.
Same is happening in europe, so dont come at me with native american bullsh*t (not talking to you but to stupid readers reading this comment).
Also it is not true that non whites face oppression right now. It is likely however that they will inflict harm upon us even then so. Racial Resentment based on old hisotry is what motivates their hatred, not current oppression. Also just simple tribalism. the natural state of the human group.
@@aesop1451”no high ranking official supports illegal immigration.” No. They won’t SAY they support illegal immigration. The policies that they promote are pro-illegal immigration.
@@aesop1451"though statistically the woman should be supporting illegal immigration" WHAT. HUH!? ain't no way bru.
"no emotions" yet red AI is making extremely emotionally driven arguments
Not emotional, but recognizing the catastrophic effects to the individuals and their families. Saying a systematic disruption to the family and communal fear impacting their interactions with society is a rational statement, despite the underlying emotional charge of the scenario.
@@txstateninja those points are just unrealistic, but above all, theyre not concerned with the actual native citizens. You are clearly more concerned with "muh poor immigrants" because you have critical opinions on race and class. Not our problem, send em back.
@@MrChoco409it's not really unrealistic. While the pro-deportation Ai had a stronger overall argument, anti-deportation said long time illegal immigrants are integrated into society that they and their children cannot "ethically" be removed without condemnation.
@ thats just not true. Id also counter that they arent american in any real sense. A mouse born in a stable isnt a horse. They are almost always raised in a foreign household and hold somewhat of an allegiance to their parent’s country
They aren't emotionally driven, they are ethically driven. There is a distinction.
That said, blue AI was using far more rhetoric like, "you're dodging" or "you're avoiding."
Btw I love how the "blue woman" Vs "red man" are not metaphors for democrats and republicans.
I actually dislike this. The roles are absolutely reversed from what is common in our actual society. If anything, neutral colors would be better.
@@cameronno6039 I mean given i am not from america the choice of colour doesnt matter much, but yes in the light of american politics i would guess it might create some biases. What i would like to see is the prompts for the generation of both Ai. red seems heavily biased towards non-rational arguments.
@@gclowne174 What did you find irrational?
@@cameronno6039 I think the choice of color and gender having a conflicting psychological affiliation in your mind actually highlights an issue of ingrained bias on something inconsequential
The fact that a color and gender (2 arbitrary factors to the debate) don't feel right, it shows how powerful bias and learned perception can be
I'm not knocking you 😊 I felt the same way lol
But it made me stop and think... Why the heck do I feel this way about something so inconsequential
@@Foof0811 Very wise, besides videos like this should be used not to affirm your beliefs but to challenge your biases. I think it's fitting.
I always enjoy these debates. Especially since this one is a culturally relevant for this year.
Still waiting for a group of Jewish A.I and a group of Christian A.I. debating if Jesus Christ is the Messiah or not.
What about a classical and topical I/P conflict ? I mean does this channel want to boom or not ?
Check out the channel that was one of the first videos he made. He has is god real and is Jesus god
@ already did. Now we need to have Jewish A.I. and Christian A.I. to debated if Jesus Christ is the Messiah or not.
The debate between the Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim AI was an absolute slaughter.
Christianity and Buddhism agreed on 90% of things if by different logic and methods whereas the Muslim AI kept on justifying war, slavery, rape, and a whole slew of other atrocities.
@@evilemperorzurg9615 Well a LLM system can only work with existing arguments, based on the data that exists, that's what you'd get in terms of argument from each group, because that's what was fed in. If a side wants to be 'better represented' they need to up the level of the typical arguments they make where the LLM get's it's data from.
This was a one-sided beatdown imo. But then again I’m biased 🤷♂️ you can’t have a country without borders or enforcement
The thing is, "do you need a country?", that´s another debate in and of it itself
@@juanchisilverio3610ive always wondered this. what would happen if we went tried something where there were no government, bo currency, and no regulations? what if we just let people be. forge and gather again. an open border world might seems very interesting.
@@nuggies3basically like the beginning of civilization, like minded people will group together, trade was done between goods, there were no regulations
@ yes. maybe not even groups. maybe everyone tends to their own family. make a safe household and defend it from people who try to take your peace. i think this would be a much simpler way to live than what we have right now
@@nuggies3 so basically people that live off the grid in the woods? There is a reason most people live in the cities
its insane how quickly the pro illegal ai fell to conflating refugees with illegal immigrants. if you cant win an argument without resorting to these kind of tactics then maybe you are on the wrong side of the argument.
The difference is just how we classify them. Illegal immigrants are escaping hardship
Give him a break.. he had to argue for illegal immigration lmao, I feel sorry for his task tbh
It’s an Ai model it didn’t have a choice in the matter, I agree tho that it quickly would switch the two and thus change the essence of the conversation, but I don’t expect them to be able to correct themselves or correct each other, which would be my critique of the Deportation Ai, she was getting hit with some real unavoidable questions that she would just keep answering with “so you’re saying illegal immigration should be allowed” and I saw many times where the Citizenship Ai directly answer questions with solutions which the Lady couldn’t do
@@israelsolano5347 i know its an ai model. its just funny how quickly an ai model ran out of good logical arguments to make for this position and had to fall back on conflating refugees with illegal aliens just like humans do in these debates.
Many illegal immigrants are refugees / asylum seekers.
How it is a tactic? It is a fact.
ChatGPT is continuously proving that it is a snowflake chatbot
RedChatMAGA GPT said that Trump will demonstrate that he is a stable genius capable of MAGA by deporting millions of illegals from farms and manufacturing plants and immediately replacing them with black workers with $24/ hour pay and full benefits. At the same time, food will become cheaper; you can have 4 lb ribs and 4 lb of chicken wings with four six-packs of beer every week while chanting: There is only one God, and Trump is his prophet.
I'm in Kuwait now as an American. Aint no way they will have their borders flooded. Only in the West is this idiocracy allowed to happen
The pro-migrant argument is made by people who openly deny resource scarcity and ignore the impact on the host nation and its citizenry.
Palestine Israel debate would be very interesting!
its not a debate, its just a war.
@@HongKong-tg5lhThe "activist" means the conflict as a whole
War over a simple question. Who owns the land? @@HongKong-tg5lh
@@MAGNETO-i1i government just put isreal there to start wars true story
Would be a huge one.
I'm more and more convinced that the red dude haves to be a full time reddit moderator at this point.
Citizen ai got some crazy mental gymnastics
Just like a real Democrat zero logic
No biases. No emotions. Just pure unadulterated facts and logic. I AM HERE FOR THIS.
please NEVER consider AI made by humans with human knowledge to be unbiased. There are arguments humans have never made thus arguments an AI might never bring up do not hold these to gold standard but do hold these up as examples of real engagement with oppositional ideas and less as facts of the matter
@@FondestAlloy56 erveryone has a bias wether they admit it or not, the fact that both sides are saying that they should have compassion for the immigrants is in itself a bias
While I'm happy it picked deportation ai is definitely biased and is only as good as the data u feed it. Notice it didn't talk about culture and religion whatsoever? I think it would have been a much clearer victory for deportation.
Yeah there is the bias of the training data (who wrote it... humans) and bias in how that training data was chosen. Don't kid yourself.
@Fizbini1 Because they are unnecessary it's not a argument its like saying Johnny is nice to the whole town therefore his smuggling of illegal goods is ok
The red AI didn't do pro-illegal immigration any favors. The blue AI totally won and gave the more solid logical arguments.
It’s just deeply immoral.
how?
_Person in comments says they feel a certain way while providing absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims_
Good job. The AI is smarter than you.
Illegal immigration is just a net good, there are no good arguments against it.
another dunce
who's illegally migrating because of climate change ?!
About 2 people globably probably
So, when I take a raft from Wales to Ireland to claim Asylum. I think claiming Climate Change would be a way I could do it.
@considering that none of you look up half the things you answer, it’s kinda ridiculous, don’t you think? Did you research any of the climates illegal immigrants came from?
Even AI cannot make a strong case for illegal immigrant….
There's no good arguments against illegal immigration.
It is interesting how it says that the AI wouldn’t get emotional but it kind of felt like the citizen side kind of was 🤷♂️. Applying more on the emotional side verse the logical side
Man, you have to do a better job of vetting the resources these AI models use to gather information. This video is a perfect representation of that fundamental flaw in AI. The "citizenship" AI's very first argument is the hypocrisy of having free trade but not free migration. There is not a single country in the entire world that has free trade. Every single country has tariifs and regulations in place that have to be paid and adhered to in order to conduct trade of the good you are trying to sell. You can't just make a product in Mexico, and sell it in the US. You have to obey US law and regulation that revolves around that product then pay a tariff to that product into the US. After you obey US customs, you can then begin trading that product on the US market.
That’s more anarchistic free trade. When most people talk about free trade they mean away from mercantilism not complete lack of regulations or tariffs. The 18th century world was run off of various economic spheres rather than a liberal trade market system that we have today.
thats a pretty good point, its pretty much apples to apples comparison between tariffs and immigrants
You didn't understand the argument. In economics "free trade" is not a literal term... like ever. It refers to the FACT that there is a system agreed upon and established specifically to meet the demands of the population. Free trade as in no tariffs in exchange for regulatory compliance. (Im mega over simplifying here for your sake)
The red AI is right to make this point. The deportation argument merely focuses on enforcement of the rules and does not take into account the demand for labor. At the end of the day labor is just another commodity but it is not treated with the same flexibility. As to your false assertion that no country has "free trade" www.cbp.gov/trade/north-american-free-trade-agreement#:~:text=North%20American%20Free%20Trade%20Agreement%20(NAFTA)%20established%20a%20free%2D,produced%20by%20the%20signatory%20nations.
@@JourG215 You made two whole paragraphs and didnt actually make a relevant point to counter what i said, you made up an argument to counter and spammed me with it.
The trade still has to follow rules, (which i agree with because of my understanding of free trade, even though you think i dont understand that) so therefore immigration has to follow the rules too, if one party doenst like the established rules, then its up to them to decide not to engage.
Also i wasnt even actually responding to the free trade part, I was responding to what i thought was the poster's actual point, starting at "You can't just make a product in Mexico"i was just noting that tarrifs and trade regulations are just like immigration regulations, so if you follow one, you should follow both. Idk why i had to make THREE paragraphs to explain all that, maybe you should try clarification before assumption next time.
@@Kyndral22Again you didn't understand the arguments. The debate wasn't about whether an immigration system should have rules but rather if deportation is a better solution than giving people a chance to become citizens.
Of course there should be rules. Neither side argued there shouldn't be. In a nutshell the argument was: Orange argued the rules should be modernized to solve the reality of our current and future world. Whereas Blue argued that deportation is a necessity for a country to enforce immigration rules.
I was also replying to the OP and not you specifically.
In the end, the biggest, unanswered question still remains. What is a nation?
You either have a nation or none at all. We are all residents of this planet but not residents of all nations. You cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. Otherwise, the whole world simply becomes economic zones instead of nations.
My position is that we should have nations and those require borders. That is the truthful debate we ought to have.
I may have misunderstood but blue AI states is impossible to build the needed infrastructure regardless of money, and orange AIs response was to throw more money. 20:40
You didn't misunderstand. This is basically the mindset of the pro illegal immigration types
No, you’re correct.
It reminds me of the argument of scarcity of food around the globe, that has been proven already that is not a quantity or Money problem, but truly a logistic one in our time
Why the fuck would it be impossible?
@@leandro6234 Can you please host a party? And please provide guest rooms to everyone who attends? BTW, no, you cannot have a guest list. And no, we won’t inform you how many are going to show up.
If you say AI don't have bias, then you're wrong. as long as AI is written by someone who is biased (Human) or trained on information that is biased (something a human would have said/done/created) then AI is biased in some way and can be manipulated.
No deportation side: it’s gonna happen anyway. Just let it! Don’t be mean!
1) If the government itself is the one persecuting, then another nation should be obligated to offer sanctuary; whether this is persecution for racial, religious, or political reasons. The nation which accepts them should be the closest country which is not also carrying out the persecution.
2) Since time immemorial nations have been at war or waging civil wars. The traditional view was to stand and fight for your nation, to protect and defend you nation, community, and family. Not to flee into neighboring nations, let alone half a world away to a foreign land. Why accept the cowards, traitors, or defectors; if they were unable to be loyal to their birth nation.
3) If a nation is facing economic collapse due to policies or gangs, isn't it the governments responsibility to provide and protect. Is it not that peoples responsibility to have or change their culture to be one of industriousness and hardworking? While I am unsure how smart it is to import peoples, ideas, cultures from failed nations (you wouldn't employ an architect who's last building collapsed), I don't think that is even the argument to be made. Why should another nation, near or far, but especially far-off, clean up the economic mess made by their government.
4) If a nation is suffering from climate change isn't it that nations duty to fortify itself with walls, tunnels, or stratification? I repeat myself about responsibility, but in the event of a complete collapse, such as the sinking of an island nation. What nation would willing choose to have a colony within its boarders? No the sunk nation should be destroyed, its government, legal system, and enforcement.
5) In all the above examples. I will content that if a nation is so badly debased, criminalized, impoverished, besieged, or otherwise facing imminent description. Their always remains the final option of vasselization or selling the nation. This can be carried out in such a way that preserves the culture, but not the existing government or laws, and yields responsibility to another nation.
6) I am not opposed to immigration, but it shouldn't be used to off-set native birth-rates, rather incentives and culture should be changed within the nation to attack the core problem. Instead immigration should be used to incorporate people who have specialized skills and expertise, as well as people who have been successful in the market. Like how with fleeing it should be to the nearest nations, so you are somewhat familiar with language and culture; so too should immigration be preferenced (but not exclusive) to neighboring nations or parent nations/cultures.
7) If someone is at your boarder with no paperwork or identification they should be turned away. This is similar to how in court destruction of evidence is found to have occurred, the evidence is assumed to have been incriminating; so too must it be with the boarder. Likewise children smuggled (no documentation) across the boarder should be removed from the child abusers who are smuggling them, unless a DNA test can show that they are related, and the child professes that no abuse is occurring.
8) Immigration is desired as long as it is controlled tightly to deter criminals, and is vetted for merit and desire to integrate (renounce prior citizenship and adopt the common host identity while wishing your children to be of the host nations culture). Immigration rate should be measured as a % of the % growth of the nation via births. If their is a birth-rate collapse the cause of that needs addressing whether it is caused by infrastructure of other societal ills.
9) Tourism should be incentivized without limited except for what is enforceable.
Yes this is harsh. But only through strength can mercy be shown. Altruism to other nations makes no sense if they drag you down too, altruism can only be administered from strong uncompromising footing, without threat of peer.
Remember, do not feed the birds, as this will create a dependence relationship, if you stop feeding the birds they will starve and undergo population collapse as it was inflated due to being artificially propped up by your contributions. Instead teach the birds where food is to be found and how to get it.
Your quote made no sense to what you wrote. I think you are confused based on your quote and what you wrote. My question on this is how does a country make immigration decisions based on merit? What are the qualifications? My next question is based on your quote. How does a country teach someone to work for themselves when you are disincentivizing immigration as a whole, from tourism to asylum-seeking, and many other things based on your statement?
Blablabla. Alot of words to say you're a neo nazi.
we aint reading all that
lol you are to stupid to read bro
@@AdolfoAngelSaldanaLara If you have a country which is undergoing starvation, then perhaps if the starvation is due to some temporary factor, one nation making a loan to another in the form of food, can make sense. But if you have a nation which appears perpetually starved of food, and that country is sustained by gifts, there is a problem. The problem intensifies if despite starving the population of that nation continues to grow demanding subsequent larger parcels of gifted food.
When a population increases beyond what its environment can support, starvation occurs to return population levels to normal levels. By gifting resources to the population you allow the population to soar far more numerous that it would have otherwise, the die-back due to starvation cause if the gifting ceased appears immoral. Yet what I find immoral is turning an undeveloped nation into a population engine to import cheap labor under the guise of them 'fleeing starvation'.
I wrote an analogy for this as a tangential, post-script, errant thought. I apologies I wasn't more clear in my conveyance or decisive in my inclusion of the idea.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
In regards to you question about merit, as it is a fair question. I would break it into three categories; 1) Expertise, 2) Performance, 3) Compatibility. Each would be given a score from 0-1, with the sum of your highest two scores being used to measure merit.
1) Expertise. This encapsulates specialist technical skills requested by a company or organization. The company would have to pay in order to bring the person in for example $(200,000 - [annual income]) [so they would pay more for someone making less, to encourage local employment and promotion.] As time in the workforce is a factor at play age should be considered, I can't see people working beyond 100 even in the most cushy yet skill job.
Formula :
([annual income]/200000)*((100-[persons age])/100)
{where the result is capped at 1 - if you are not requested by a company this is 0}
2) Performance. This encapsulates the ability to perform in the market/economy.
Formula :
([total assets] - [average house price] - [average new car price] - [average insurance annual payment]) / ([total liabilities] + [total dept])
{where the result is capped at 1 - if you refuse to supply information this is 0}
3) Compatibility. There will be a list of all countries given [score]s between 1 and 0.3, following a normal distribution (few countries get 1 or 0.3, most get 0.65). A quick test for [literacy] and [oral] language is given.
Formula :
(([literacy + [oral]) /2) * [score]
{where the result is capped at 1 - if you refuse to take the assessment this is 0}
Some things to acknowledge. This is a fairly formulaic system to hopefully facilitate quick approval times. By assess two of the three does mean anyone can get in, with, for example country and language only playing a factor if the former two are low, or for example you don't have to rely on a explicit request from a company if you have good assets and will be a good cultural 'fit'.
Country scores will have as nuanced considerations political similarity (democracy, dictator, monarch, etc..), cultural similarity (queuing, tipping, face concealment, etc..), legal similarities (driving, firearms, public decency, etc..). The idea is to take a measure of how much friction will be generated due to culture differences both for the person arriving, and your citizens.
I wish the focus on punishment for breaking a law argument would have sparked a debate about forgiveness in law .i.e. pardons, parole, probation, etc... if laws and punishment are to be unforgiving regarding immigration law, then why offer forgiveness regarding any offense?
This was really cool to watch. Only wish "draw" wasn't an option for the judges lol.
There's absolutely zero consideration for the long term impact on the host nation having an unlimited number of migrants displacing or changing its national demographic.
This video makes me realize that we don’t expect enough of presidential candidates. When even AI provides us with more thoughtful and substantive debates then the two candidates running for control over the country’s law enforcement.
Idk man.. seemed pretty clear that one president wants border security and the other says that's racist lmao
That's because people are stupid. The reason we have the political system we do is because they figured out what works on people. It's not a random coincidence that we get either morons or a-holes (or both simultaneously) every time. They just play on people's fears and other emotions. They tried to run candidates who could provide more substance in their campaigns and it didn't work. Instead, they make false promises to fix the problems that they exaggerate and blame the other side for. It's all vacuous lies and posturing.
Love the short 10-15 second arguments, makes them more realistic
Love how the anti-deportation AI still had to admit deportations are needed. It just had a much higher bar before someone could be deported. Specifically criminals and traffickers.
Can you name anyone that's ever argued differently? I've never seen anyone argue for completely open borders. The argument is always where to draw the line.
@@cameronno6039 There are people here doing just that.
@@lescobrandon8443 What people? I asked for an example.
@@cameronno6039 Just read the comments. Lots of them.
@@lescobrandon8443 Got you. I should have clarified, can you name any political figure or media figure that has argued for completely open borders?
Points not argued.
Contributions to SS is currently not enough with the per capita draw. Adding more contributors also adds more draw, and there is no reason to expect the draw rate would diminish with illegal migrants.
The same goes with resources. Around the 20 min mark, the argument was that money spent on deportation could have gone to subsidizing housing builds. This is just more draw on the legal citizenry via taxation for either deportation or subsidized housing. This financial pressure is all before any hint of illegal immigrant tax contribution. Any possible migrant benefit would be realized long after the burden to the citizen.
Also, how do immigrants legally work prior to obtaining work visas? How does the employer collect the federal taxes? How does the immigrant pay the taxes? Identity theft of someone's SS number? What if wages are reported on that SSN but taxes aren't paid? Now some innocent ID theft victim has a problem.
The US government gives illegal immigrants TIN numbers. Tax identification numbers in place of SSN. I'm a US citizen, but i know illegal immigrants who work with these TIN numbers. The TIN number works so that they pay taxes and don't need a fake SSN. the US government already knows who's here illegally with these numbers. They simply aren't doing anything about it. Or they are protected by sanctuary cities.
@@TravisCreighton To answer the series of questions at the end, they don't. Illegal immigrants don't pay income tax. Sales tax, which is nearly unavoidable, is the reason used to say illegals pay taxes.
There are Border Patrol whistleblowers alleging that elderly migrants are receiving maximum SS benefits above and beyond regular American citizens.
deportation ai for the win, the only side that provided concrete examples not just theoreticals. as the old adage goes, prevention is always better than cure.
This was just like real life. The pro-amnesty position just moved goal post after goal post and conflation with unrelated conjecture.
I want to know how the jury AI felt that the pro-amnesty accurately rebutted or challenged the pro-deportation AI's points? "Justice will be different" is a vacuous and empty statement.
@@hanamlchl a nice change to this would be if they post at the end how the jury felt for each point.
For me it was odd that Gemini who has the most manipulated algorithm in this case actually sided with a more non-left leaning position.
"Five ai judges from top platforms." This isnt helpful. The model you choose makes a huge difference as does the sampling methods. You need to mention these things.
Claude, for example, is EXTREMELY sensitive and "safety regulated." Where as you can get an abliterated or orthogonal llama model that's entirely uncensored.
I dont think this video tells much without mentioning these things. Also, add in web search for pulling up points and it's a whole new ballgame.
Anyway, illegal immigration is bad, and immigration overall in the west has been bad recently. Bringing in all these people with differnt cultures that reject local culture and work for poverty wages so corporations wont have to actually pay reasonable wages to citizens.
You can't have no human emotions when emotional humans programmed the AI.
I find this so refreshing. I wish Congress (after deliberation) listens to an AI debate on the issue before taking a vote. This could really be the future 😂
It's amusing that even the AI resorts to emotional arguments to support the Citizenship route
At least both sides agree that criminals need to go
Exactly. Illegal immigration is illegal. They need to go.
They are all criminals end of story, I’m so sick of this goal post moving bull shit either we have boarders and laws or we don’t
These are the only debates I am willing to watch and trust in order to form opinions about important topics.
thanks for that trust....my goal is to configure these models to give the absolute best arguments for the opposing sides of any topic.
@ is there a way you could contact X or another open source and popular platform to advertise these videos more? I think it would help a lot
Kind of strange that there wasnt much a discussion about culture.
Separating families is completely and utterly justified and needed! 1. American citizens families are separated when there are allegations of domestic violence and/or a traffic stop and intoxication is involved. 2. We don't know if the "wife" is actually just a woman being trafficked. 3. We don't know if the "children" are actually being trafficked.
The last two point's are much more important than the first, but the 1st is mentioned to prove a point. We already do this to American citizens why wouldn't we to people who are 1. not citizens and 2. broke the law.
So tired of this two tier policing
this needs to keep going! good ideas come from this
We are past good ideas... this issue has been cemented in identity politics.
How in the world are we supposed to identify threats if the freaking security isn't there! Isn't that what security is for? To identify threats???
These videos really help to understand both the sides rather than creating an echo chamber which is much needed in today's political environment especially on social media. I am really thankful to you for creating these videos. Here in my opinion the AI debating for immigrations won but it was close as the one debating against them pointed out some really great points like the methodology to deport these immigrants more often then not causes the livelihood of some good people who even though entered the country illegally are doing a net positive for the society to get ruined, but ultimately I would prioritize the safety and lives of millions of citizens of a country rather than try and save those few hundred people, it is quite a "the end justifies the means" kind of approach but it is what is necessary in today's world. That being said you also have to acknowledge the fact that the immigration policies and legal framework regarding those policies need an overhaul and revamp to better accommodate for people who earnestly and willingly follow the legal path and incentivize them to do so by making it easier for them especially for the ones who have already assimilated themselves into the country and it's culture.
The Citizenship AI is well trained in all the logical fallacy arguments. Imagined dooms are not the current reality. Gemini seems to just be pro argument 😆
Do you have a better one?
in summation of Deport: Right now there are issues with illegal immigration and we need to fix that so that things will get better and we can help more when we are able in the future
in summation of Citizen: Thats not reality though, here is my hypothetical, future based ultimatum, repeated ad nauseam in lieu of actual arguments
Yep 😂
And that reflects the data made up of the publicly available arguments both sides make. It rather easily exposes the problem. You can't rationally argue someone out of a conclusion they didn't reach via rationality.
@@Sorain1 fair assessment, kind of like the "Fools bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"
The citizen AI use mostly emotion speculation against fact base deportation AI. This feel exactly the same, nothing new when two human of both side debate on this issue, only different that the fact goes harder here
An interesting take on both sides. I for one though think that the ability to have deportation is necessary in order to maintain the "basic rule of Law". It is important to remind everyone that "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW."
SC just said the president is above the law. There are plenty of ways corporations and wealthy are above the law. If the fine for doing something is $1000 but the profit is $1001, you incentivize the risk of being penalized for money. The reality is many laws aren't needed. Law =/= morality.
California, Denver and New York are fucking around and finding out as we speak with criminals.
Personally, I found the closing argument of the Deportation AI to be my favorite part of the video. Even in daily human life, we have the power to say yes to things because we also have the power to say no. If we had to accept every little thing that came our way, we'd overwhelm ourselves and fundamentally collapse. Additionally, the government and its citizens matter more than the immigrants coming into the country, whether we like it or not. I love legal immigrants, but the gov't should prioritize its citizens rather than the new people coming in. We all hate when companies give great deals for new customers and don't give great deals to older customers. We find it unfair and unjust. How then could we say that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are meant to be valued at the same amount as citizens, especially since they broke the law coming in. That's completely unfair both to the legal immigrants and citizens of any country illegal immigrants enter into.
The problem with the AI models is they appear to be subjective rather than objective. A lot of AI models operate with specific parameters within their programming and have been exposed to have biased opinions embedded within to push certain ideologies.
Within the deportation debate, no reference was given to VAWA visas such as the T and U visas. Was that because of programming with the AI scope of search or something else? The debates only revolve around talking points and not current immigration law.
The debate weighed international law with equal precedent to national sovereignty. That assumption seems to be larger than this debate. The first question should be, are national borders ethical? Then use that debate to train the AI for this debate.
I agree, if not then the assumption should be that national borders are ethical.
@@JaredaSohn Agreed. Always default to tradition, as loads of smart people spent thousands of years thinking through things.
I love LOVE it when they confront each other about statements they made that they haven't responded to.
Politicians should take note
Saying that our nation needs illegal immigrants for our workforce is one of dumbest things iv ever heard, iv seen thousands of Americans loose there jobs for cheap poor quality immigrants.
Was this really checked for facts and logical fallacies?
Kinda hard to do that when orange's position is dependent on them.
Ok please explain
The real question is
Would all the budget be spent on integration but with also quite a few unintegrated individuals be better than spending that budget on reinforcing your borders knowing that you will lose quite a lot of labour
Making an AI defend an undefendable position of illegal immigration doesn't make it sound any better. Most of the arguments it gives revolve around these non-quantifiable, unrealistic, and emotionally-charged ideas. Why? Because the AI is trained by the same words of the people who defend that position, which are arbitrary, unrealistic, and emotionally charged. It simply wraps those unsound arguments inside pretty words.
Facts
As an immigrant, I followed the rules of this country. Why nowadays is so difficult to do that! We have lived four years in a lawless country. The new administration has to implement the law! Period!!!!
As a black person illegal migration hurts a lot. We use to be the day labor and the gardener and maid that stop us from being as criminal. Also I don't know one black person that comment a known felony and just got let go let alone money and housing.. my ppl have complained about reparations for 160yrs and never got it but these ppl get it. wtf. it's dumb on its face to let ppl from another country come here on mass they are running for a reason but at those number they would turn this place into the place they left illegal migration don't get socializes to our ways the same way a legal migrate does cheap labor also stop innovation in productivity efficiency.
The reason for decision at 8:15 is crazy.
Judge Claude basically said “hey, the citizenship side made good points but because they argued how undocumented immigrants are important on a humanitarian basis and an economic one, i sided with mass deportation”
Just because you call something a contradiction doesnt mean it is! This is so goofy
I think this experiment demonstrates that LLM's aren't thinking machines. Just pattern matchers.
That, coupled with the "safety" guardrails imposed which will bias toward specific worldviews.
Deportation AI won much more logical and concise arguments.
The issue with Canada decreasing its immigration was a failure to prioritize immigrants with construction and healthcare skills over unskilled labour. There was also a failure to ensure healthcare trained immigrants had the ability to efficiently get licensed to practice in Canada. It's an issue with our current legal migration, not an issue of illegal immigration
The fact that the pro deportation side called them "illegal immigrants" and not the more accurate term "criminal alien" or at least illegal alien leads me to believe that it was not fed data that allows it to understand the issue
I caught that as well. Even still they definitely made the more logical argument and imao argued for the correct stance.
Just because someone is a refugee seeking asylum doesn’t mean they’re entitled to refuge. That’s like saying individuals displaced by natural disasters are entitled to seek refuge in your house whether you like it or not.
just like with everything in life both sides are right. (all truths are but half truths, all paradoxes can be reconciled)
By far the best debate from the anti-deportation side I have ever heard. I feel like this debate effectively got to the heart of the issue.
7:38 - "... ENHANCED BOARDER TECHNOLOGY." - Citizenship AI
So, we DO need boarders. We DO need to enforce them in some kind of way.
Let's have the most advanced boarder in the world and make sure that people just come here legally. Asylum or opportunity.
I agree that maybe immigration reform is in order, but completely removing a boarder and just allowing mass immigration is simply ludicrous.
Cherry Picker of the year award goes to me. Thank you. :^)
It’s crazy to see a computer arguing for morality. But the Deportation advocate was slapping fr
The bad faith arguments ruin the AI debate. It implies a disconnect when there exists none
Man, they really are getting close to humans.
wow this debate is much more in depth than this years presidential debate XD
Leviticus 19:33-34 "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
You are wildly taking that out of context. The people 5 house down my road are "strangers" to me. Additionally, if you read scripture you will see that removing evil people and law breakers is called for. Do not be dishonest and misrepresent what scripture says. After all... even murderers are strangers... would you sojourn with them? Go ahead... double right on down in your deception. I am game!
So do you cherry pick which Leviticus laws you uphold, or do you also walk around with a bag of stones ready to uphold da lawds holy word?
@@psyokpretty funny though that you won't find a lot of evangelicals citing this. As if they had a very specific vision of christianity in mind.
Ask the Jews how that worked out
From what i have heard, the citizenship stance falls flat as it would merit that seekers actually go to legal ports of entry. You cant find a criminal when you dont have a record of them being here. And congressional laws, limit industry and economic growth that hurt both citizens and noncitizens from having economic growth. The only people that actually gane off this system, is large conglomerates that are willing to pay for underskilled workers cash, at wadges less than market value. It has nothing to do with balance of international economic systems, it just has a value of exploting people under the threat of removal by economic means, for under cutting labor laws. That is the reality in many countries currently sanctioned by the international governance that restricted growth in 3rd world nation that would benefit those people by creating local jobs that would prevent the mass of economic migrants. That and bad actors in 3rd world national leadership that curb investment, along with environmental sanctions that take one of the largest and most lucrative markets away from those nations cripples global economic growth.
We can invest in energy abroad and help developing nations, that would solve a majority of economic systems over the next 10 years. That would curb the amount of growth, while expanding the state of other nations to develop and grow economically.
The other thing, is to focus on trade, and less on war over resources. That would keep people from fleeing war torn nations. It also promotes peace through diplomacy, rather than territory, which is what i thought international organizations such as the UN were made for. That would actually mean, while we promise to do good, we are subjecting the rules to others based on top down systems. Wich is an international classist view, that oppresses others for the sake of a few.
Facts
The problem is that shit nations that gain power often turn into dick heads
I've noticed a trend with this guy's videos, he always puts the male ai from the perspective that most people won't agree with. Seems like nitpicking, but that in itself is a psychological message, and since the channel deals alot with psychology I'm pretty sure he's doing that on purpose underlying a deeper meaning
Well ofcourse,
he couldnt make the woman hold the irrational position,
that would be stereotyping XD
@TotalWater-d2o and Doing it to men isn't?
@@basixs88 That's correct, irrational and hysterical positions is not stereotypical of the men.
@@basixs88No because men suck
I really would like to know how fast these conversations happen. Where the AI is able to generate and process these conversations in a matter of seconds minutes hours?
Also I think it be fair to ask the citizenship AI if it’s OK if they share part of their server space with competing applications that hold different values and programming characteristics.
Even A.I can't make mass deportation sound sane.
In the US Arguments about immigration legal or otherwise; are always predicated on the assumption that we as Americans will never find ourselves in the position of having immigrate to another country because our country has collapsed or become uninhabitable.
grok is biased... you know why 💀
I actually don't, can you say why?
It's pretty simple. If the problem is the law is being broken, the solution is always either to enforce the law or change it. You cannot ignore criminality. That's fundamentally not an option for a functional judicial system.
Everything about this debate was worth the watch. Only thing I find wrong here is "Canada having strict border and immigration " 😂😂😂
Both sides failed to point out that we will never ever ever ever have the resources necessary to integrate a meaningful percentage of those fleeing uninhabitable areas
Imagine having this kind of attitude in 1776 no one would be here to debate this in the first place.
critical point... unfettered crossing doesn't allow for governance or control over their actions or contributions. where as a a pathway to obtain legal citizenship (not hey Im here make me legal now that I broke your law getting here) allows the government to have standards of conduct and contribution. the majority that have come across illegally arent rushing to get jobs, the crime rates spiked. currently they are in a protected bubble... this does NOTHING GOOD for those that are legal citizens here. increases costs, lowers job opportunities, increases taxes required to support them... this isnt sustainable in the economy or recourses. The words "Cant build fast enough" is not fixed by adding in more stress by creating an open boarder and a new protected group of people.
The deportation side makes the most sense, especially if we take into account the opportunity of using automation and new intelligently designed international agreements to make the LEGAL immigration process both easier and much faster.
Ideally a legal immigration request should have four possible outcomes (assuming that the system gets automated and optimized for both security and expediency):
- Denial, usually within a few days to a month from requesting.
- Acceptance, usually within 1-3 months.
- Delayed decision (which should be no more than 5% of requests), for cases where further investigation is needed. And the delay should still produce a response within 6 months of the original application.
- Tentative delayed acceptance, when the petitioner qualifies but quotas do not permit granting approval at the time. In such cases petitioners get put on a queue. Some actions might remove the petitioner from the queue, like receiving residence in another country. Also, once the petitioner reaches the point of quota acceptance some checks should be rerun (like background checks) before granting approval.
Finally, costs of legal immigration should be drastically reduced or eliminated and replaced with a resident income tax (maybe 5-10%) that is fully reserved to pay for the expenses of LEGAL immigration.
I literally searched to see if you or anyone made an AI analysis on this like 2 days ago and was bummed out there wasn't one. 🎉
this was originally scheduled to be published on wednesday, so we're on the same wavelength, lol.
The rights of natural citizens were not discussed. Missed the mark, deport illegal law breakers.
They missed a lot of really good points. Like if people flee a country that means they are not there to fix that country
Funny how much more interesting it is when no one's calling each other names or fear mongering, I don't know how accurate the sources the AI is pulling from is (im not suggesting anything just stating what im thinking) this was very informative. I'm going to double check some of the things the AI said, but guvin the lack of gas lighting in the name calling I can't wait to hear another one of these!
I wish real people such as politicians, news media personalities and political analysts debated like this in real life
Gemini switching sides every round was pretty funny
I was frustrated with the citizenship A.I. saying "unauthorized immigrants typically contribute more in taxes and social security than they receive in benefits." However, if you are illegal you are not documented. Meaning the only tax you might pay is sales tax on purchases but income, property, inheritance, capital gains, etc. are all taxes you would never pay because the government can't tax somebody whom they have no idea exists. It's crazy to say that illegal immigrants pay more taxes than they receive in benefits when they technically can't be taxed at all.
Much to my disappointment, the deportation A.I. used softer language when saying unauthorized immigrants " 'may' create wage pressures" when they absolutely do. Any business that decides to pay illegal immigrants under the table, can pay those illegal immigrants less and not have to pay taxes on them. This undercuts every other business in said industry who has to pay higher wages and taxes on the wages they pay to their employees.
I appreciate this A.I. debate but it does show that A.I. is just a computer programmed with a body of knowledge that humans have come up with. The citizenship A.I. made absolute statements that were false and the deportation A.I. made soft statements that were true.
Regardless of not paying income/property/etc tax, undocumented migrants still contribute to the system in more ways than they consume, especially at a macroeconomic scale. Migrants are taking the jobs that nobody here wants to do, filling labor shortages and boosting the foundations of the economy, say construction for example. They may pay less in tax than a U.S. citizen, but they make a hell of a lot less. Nor can they receive the vast majority of welfare, much of which requires U.S. citizenship to qualify for (food stamps for example). They also cannot buy houses, get mortgages, open bank accounts, etc. These people are extremely limited in what they can pursue, so they are stuck at the bottom of the food chain until change is made.