Can AI decide who won a debate?

[historia]

Aside from this, you definitely have not refuted my other given point(s). Please actually address them.

Whether I have refuted you or you have refuted me is up to each person to decide, whoever is ultimately right.

So, one of the things I've been thinking about lately is using AI to judge who 'won' a debate on this forum. Instead of letting each reader decide that for themselves, can we turn to bots to give us a more neutral judgement as to who at least made the better arguments?

Question for debate

Can artificial intelligence accurately and fairly judge who won a debate on this forum?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #80]

Your later prompts also contain evaluative language (did they clearly state their main point, provide logic, evidence, experience to support their view, provide a score, etc.). So I'm not seeing why you think my prompt biased the evaluation, while yours didn't.

I never argued that. WE are using AI in this way.
My argument was and still is WHEN to bring in the bias.

As far as differences between our methods:

(1) You simply chose specific evaluative things you wanted it to focus on, while I didn't limit what the AI could share about strengths and mistakes.

And you did this in the first prompt.

(2) I asked it to evaluate the whole posts as we went along, while you asked it to evaluate its one sentence summaries of our posts all at once.

Those describe different methods which is not my argument. Clearly our methods are different. My argument is/remains that introducing bias to begin with has a flow on effect which my METHOD doesn't use. The bias (asking AI to provide a score) came AFTER the AI had all the information - not BEFORE.

If you want to argue early bias doesn't matter, present your case.

If you disagree that early bias affects later outputs, please explain why — and please share your full chat transcript so we can see whether your AI's summaries of early posts were neutral or already tilted.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #81]

Why am I the one that has to present my case, but you don’t? Present your case and share your full chat transcript and I’ll do the same.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #81]

Why am I the one that has to present my case, but you don’t? Present your case and share your full chat transcript and I’ll do the same.

Are you saying you won't share yours until I share mine?

[William]

Prompt: Which is true:

The Heart follows the Mind
or
The Mind follows the Heart
?


AI: This is more of a philosophical or poetic question than a factual one, since the “heart” and “mind” are often used metaphorically.

“The heart follows the mind” suggests that emotions are guided by reason — your values, beliefs, and logic determine what you feel.

“The mind follows the heart” suggests that your reasoning is shaped by your emotions, desires, or passions — you rationalize what you already feel.

Neither is objectively true for all people in all situations. Many cognitive science and psychology perspectives suggest it’s a two-way interaction: emotions influence reasoning (the mind often follows the heart), but conscious thought can also regulate emotions (the heart can follow the mind).

If you’re looking for a common saying, “The mind follows the heart” aligns with phrases like “follow your heart” and the idea that passion drives reason. But the most accurate short answer is: it depends on context and the person.

Prompt: Or - the question itself produces bias which effects any answer given when the bias is not recognised...

AI: That’s a sharp observation — and you’re absolutely right.

By posing the question as “Heart follows Mind” or “Mind follows Heart,” the structure itself forces a unidirectional causal relationship. That framing introduces a bias: it assumes one must dominate or lead the other, when in reality, they likely co-arise and influence each other reciprocally.

Once that either/or framing is accepted, any answer will be skewed — because the act of choosing one reinforces the very premise that they are separable in a hierarchical way. The bias is in the question, not just in the answer.

In systems thinking or phenomenology, one might say:

The question presumes a linear cause-effect that doesn't match the lived, circular reality.

So perhaps the truest response isn’t “A” or “B,” but to step back and note:
The question itself creates a false dichotomy, and answering within that frame merely perpetuates the bias.

[The Tanager]

Are you saying you won't share yours until I share mine?

Earlier, I made the claim that I thought having AI evaluate the whole transcript all at once could cause it to do a worse job and I explained exactly why I thought that, namely, that AI is designed to give a speedy answer, especially when on instant vs. expert mode with DeepThink turned off, but even with those things on, I think it may have thought for 15 seconds or so before giving a response (and yes, that is not the same as a human thinking for 12 seconds, but it's still not long when there is so much info).

When you don't engage with that, then make a positive claim that telling it in the first prompt to evaluate the claims will bias the evaluation without explaining why you think that and then shift the burden to me proving that claim wrong as well as ask me to share the transcript when I've asked you already to share yours and you refused, I'm going to doubt your approach and push back.

I'll share mine regardless, but if you don't present your case for your claim and share your transcript first, then I will not engage with you any further on this topic because it feels like you are playing games.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #85]

...because it feels like you are playing games.

This is similar to my saying it feels like you are being wilfully ignorant...

LLS are designed to handle large amounts of data quickly - just like computers do. That is why we use them.

And I agree that they can make mistakes and miss things, just like you have done with me here.

That is why the onus is on the user to cross-check and correct where/when necessary - something I have never argued against doing but have always maintained is the correct practice when engaging with AI.

When you don't engage with that, ...

I did - in post #73

then make a positive claim that telling it in the first prompt to evaluate the claims will bias the evaluation without explaining why you think that...

I did - in post #81

...and then shift the burden to me proving that claim wrong

I did ask you to "present your case" if you disagreed. That's normal in a debate.

I've asked you already to share yours and you refused

I never refused. I simply chose to remain silent, wondering about why you failed to observe that I had already shared the link and decided just to be silent until you answered my question.

This was mainly due to the irony I saw in your argument that AI misses things...as it serves as a living example of human frailty...and helps explain that what I thought of as the appearance of wilful ignorance on your part is more a case of lack of observation and comprehension due to that, which signifies that no matter how much you ask for re clarification nor how much I give in reply to that, it does nothing practical in overcoming this and only ever results in impasse.

So now: will you share your transcript?
Not after I do something else. Not if I meet some new condition. Just share it."

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #86]

I said it feels like you are playing games instead of saying you are playing games because I know I could be misunderstanding things. I absolutely think that we can overcome our lack of observation/comprehension with the help of the other person’s clarifications. It doesn’t have to result in an impasse.

In posts 73 and 81, you talked about where you think I am negatively affecting the outcome (evaluative language in first prompt). That’s not what I’m asking about, though. I’m asking you how/why you think that affects the outcome negatively.

Here is the form I’m working off of: I think having AI (a) element of method will negatively affect the outcome because (b)

(1) I think having AI (a) try to analyze the whole, lengthy transcript all at once (b) provides it too much information, causing it to pick and choose, providing an incomplete assessment

(2) I think having AI (a) evaluate its one sentence summaries of the material rather than the material itself (b) will cause it to miss important details, effectively judging its own summaries rather than the posters’ thoughts.

(3) I think having AI (a) evaluate posts one by one (b) will still be incomplete because of my doubts about the quality of AI to do such a thing.

I’m asking you to fill this out:

(4) I think having AI (a) evaluate and summarize post by post at the same time (b) …. What do you put in B? I honestly missed your (b), if you have put it. This is a chance for you to clarify. Not get defensive, not imply I must be stupid or disingenuous, etc., but make sure we are truly understanding each other.

I also honestly missed your link for your chat transcript that produced what you shared in post 28. Where is it? Or could you simply post it again?

I would love to move forward with you on this. That's the only reason I brought up my feeling that you could be playing games. I don't think you are and I'm not trying to either. But we are misunderstanding each other somewhere, so let's work together to understand.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #87]

I said it feels like you are playing games instead of saying you are playing games because I know I could be misunderstanding things.

We are all playing games Tanager. POI, Me You - everyone. Even God.

I absolutely think that we can overcome our lack of observation/comprehension with the help of the other person’s clarifications. It doesn’t have to result in an impasse.

Given our past, I do not see why your are absolutely thinking this can be accomplished. Rather, I think that if something proves constituently the opposite of what you are saying here, then other ways must be found or abandoning even trying becomes the only option.

In posts 73 and 81, you talked about where you think I am negatively affecting the outcome (evaluative language in first prompt). That’s not what I’m asking about, though. I’m asking you how/why you think that affects the outcome negatively.

Did you read P#84? We can discuss that...

(1) I think having AI (a) try to analyze the whole, lengthy transcript all at once (b) provides it too much information, causing it to pick and choose, providing an incomplete assessment

That was not the method I used.

(2) I think having AI (a) evaluate its one sentence summaries of the material rather than the material itself (b) will cause it to miss important details, effectively judging its own summaries rather than the posters’ thoughts.

That is not the entirely method I used. There was more to it than that.

(3) I think having AI (a) evaluate posts one by one (b) will still be incomplete because of my doubts about the quality of AI to do such a thing.

Quantify your doubts. The "I think" and "my doubts" in of of themselves are here nor there.

I’m asking you to fill this out:

(4) I think having AI (a) evaluate and summarize post by post at the same time (b) …. What do you put in B? I honestly missed your (b), if you have put it. This is a chance for you to clarify. Not get defensive, not imply I must be stupid or disingenuous, etc., but make sure we are truly understanding each other.

WE haven't reached that stage yet. I gave my results of my test and a link where the reader could read the whole transcript. You yourself offered something less - and rather muddled at that and didn't provide any links to those transcripts.

So before we can "discuss" that step needs to be done by you.

I also honestly missed your link for your chat transcript that produced what you shared in post 28. Where is it? Or could you simply post it again?

It is there where any reader can access it. It is part of my "game" to provide and to see how genuine another is when they say they are interested in discussion aimed at resolution. Such a one - upon being informed - would of course go back and take a look...

I would love to move forward with you on this.

Then do your part of the work...

That's the only reason I brought up my feeling that you could be playing games. I don't think you are and I'm not trying to either. But we are misunderstanding each other somewhere, so let's work together to understand.

The game is reflected in the work being or not being done. What is asked for must be reciprocated in the one doing the asking. I have provided what was asked for. I await the same from you.

[Avoice]

Sure. Let's let AI decide. It needs to say why one lost and the other won

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #88]

I'm not going to play these games, William. I will no longer be discussing with you on this thread. Here is the chat transcript, as promised: https://chat.deepseek.com/share/26kq5h1bbtlyu75ac8.