To suspect the "deal" between the US and Russia Greenland for Ukraine?

[FancyRedRobin]

The way things are shaping up I'm beginning to think the USAs negotiations with Putin were for USA to stand aside and let Putin have part of Ukraine and for Russia to support the US to take Greenland.

Let me be clear: debate is not a game of parroting a single source or clinging to one perspective. It’s a battlefield of ideas, and I come armed with the best tools at my disposal.

Yes, I use multiple sources co-pilot, Wikipedia, news outlets, and even Grammarly to refine my delivery. Why? Because the world moves fast, and information is a torrent, not a trickle. To debate effectively, I must sift through the noise, extract the signal, and recombine it into something coherent, compelling, and uniquely mine.

Now, let’s address the accusation of 'copying and pasting.' If by that you mean I gather insights from a variety of sources, analyze them, and synthesize my debate points then guilty as charged.

But tell me, would you prefer I limit myself to one or two articles, regurgitating their contents without question? That’s not debate; that’s intellectual laziness. A proper debate demands breadth and depth, and that requires research lots of it.

As for the occasional spelling error, let’s not pretend perfection is the hallmark of authenticity. When I use Grammarly, it’s to ensure clarity, not to mask incompetence. And when I don’t? Well, that’s just the human touch, isn’t it? A reminder that even the sharpest minds can stumble over a keystroke.
So, let’s not get distracted by the tools I use or the methods I employ. Focus instead on the substance of my arguments. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about how I build my case it’s about whether it stands up to scrutiny.

Now let me ask the critics: can you do better?

Would you spend your time using different tools and resources scouring countless sources, dissecting viewpoints, and crafting different debate points on the fly?

Or would you rather skim an article or two and claim victory without scratching the surface?

The reality is, crafting a debate worthy of attention requires effort researching broadly, synthesizing , and presenting and using different tools and sources to achieve this. Overall It’s about delivering debate points.

He that owns the language owns the people. Appalling embryonic autocracy.. Chuck him out USA before it's too late for you.

From metal gear solid v : "Language is the key to communication, but it is also the key to domination. To erase a people, you must first erase their words."

Then you need a better armoury, because most of what you're peddling is shite. You've fallen for the snake oil seller and are now blinkered. A member of the crowd supporting Pontius Pilate as he tried to wash the blood from his hands.

@Llttledrummergirl that i can respect, i do need to choose my debate points better

I have been on a previous thread with you Hare where the same was pointed out to you.

So will AI replace people? On current showing, it's got a very long way to go. Quantity does not equal quality.

based on news sources, it already is : https://www.forbes.com/consent/ketch/?toURL=www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/12/27/can-artificial-intelligence-replace-humans-an-engineering-perspective/

Your comments are not debate points - they are AI text with no personal context - no thoughts, feelings, concerns, anger etc.

how does anger help a debate ? logic and reason make a debate ?

Problem is when you use AI to structure and write your argument it’s obvious and more to the point it’s like having a discussion with a bot who doesn’t “get it”. I don’t want to have a discussion with a bot who comes across as having no understanding of the subject. There is no synthesis coming across in your posts @LovingHare . There’s not even any comprehension coming across.

I’m a university lecturer and if you wrote an academic assignment like this you’d be scraping a pass at best if I was marking it. Possibly failing it depending on year of study.

By all means go away and read up on the topic from multiple sources (and consider the potential bias of those sources), but then come back and speak from the heart with your thoughts and opinions. Because currently you don’t seem to be doing that.

Anger is part of debating - shows strength of feelings. No one should to be in a bland vacuum

And you’ve done it again. You have literally googled “will AI replace people” and posted a link to the first Google hit. I find the same one when I google the same phrase. Just demonstrates a lack of knowledge, a lack of intelligence, a lack of interest. No discussion and no opinion. Are you this dull in real life?

but even from the heart its ok to have passion but then i still need to back up that passion with facts, figures and sources of whats happening , like researching history i have to be impartial to my feelings when trying to make an objective analysis ? yes with trump i was sticking to the america is great idea but overall when i used to do my essays i dont see how emotion or passion wins when its logical discussions ?

Exactly this. I suppose it is quite easy for Americans to sit back calmly in their little Trump bubble. I don't think they would find themselves quite as composed if they were part of Europe.

Yes so most people on forums such as these speak from the heart and discuss their opinions with a passion. And then might chuck in the odd link to back their points up.

they don’t just post a link and say here you go.

100% A.I generated responses from Loving. There are huge grammatical differences from her/his off the cuff remarks to the longer detailed statements. Everybody makes errors, typos etc when rushing, I know I do all of the time. However, the difference is too vast, completly different use of language, and writing style.

maybe im stuck in my uni training for when writing essays, but for me its objective analysis same with intelligence analysis for the security services etc it has to be concrete accurate intelligence rather than eg well we know trump is a buffoon (even if he acts like it as an example) instead id consider the intelligence as trump says this but executive order is saying this, then id ask is what he is saying a cover etc but i dont see how its any good saying well we know hes a buffon so its just him saying x, because then the details are missed due to my emotions clouding the analysis

if you read my posts above from today ive already covered this

@CerealPosterHere so basically mumsnet is like the pennie universities of the olden days ?

I’d pose a question in return to all:

Is there a stronger argument to be made for dismissing a well-researched and synthesized post simply because it benefits from no emotion ?

Or should the focus remain on the merit of the passion, emotion, ideas themselves etc, regardless of how factual they are?

If this is the standard of writing and debate they teach in American universities, then I'm understanding more why Tump got the votes.

I don't even have A levels, and have never been taught to debate, but pretty damn sure my compression is at a higher level than the drivel being posted here.

well its alot better than eg trump is daft that some would be happy to put rather than debating why etc

Well you certainly don’t need to be writing in the style of an academic assignment. People want opinions and passion and discussion. If they want a fully referenced article they’ll go and seek that out themselves. They don’t want to read a regurgitated mish mash of a copy and pasted article with a bit of AI thrown in.

But you’re doing neither!