Listening and taking someone's point of view has nothing to do with debating. When you're actually listening, you're not debating anymore. It's a life skill.
That might be your preferred way of learning. As for myself, I can't take someone's POV without understanding. And I can't understand without exposing my current model to be shaped by someone's counterarguments. For me there's no better way to learn (apart from explaining and being met with unexpected questions, which I enjoy even more).
Some comments higher up conveyed it better than I did myself.
I feel like losing a debate and understanding someone else's point of view/learning from them are separate things. In my own experience a debate is not the ideal means of communication if I want to empathize or understand someone better. But as groestl points out, this is a personal matter.
While it is a serious condition, most of your statements are simply not true. Life expectancy for Down syndrome is around 55 - 60 years old. I have a family member with Down's who is around 60 years old at the moment and despite his health issues, he is one of the happiest individuals I know. Not saying this goes for all afflicted people, but a blanket statement like 'not a life worth living' is just plain BS.
> it indicates the current technical capabilities on using and abusing personal information is still limited
Does it really though? I would expect a successfully manipulative algorithm to be much more subtle than this; just because we don't notice it, doesn't mean it's not there.
Since events like this famous case, where Walmart outed a teenage girl pregnancy, it's well-known they mix in some "weird" or irrelevant things to give a sense of plausible deniability. "oh, pregger testers, haha, how weird they can be <nervous laughter>".
This was Target not Walmart and I say that not to nitpick but rather highlight that arguably Walmart is somewhat an upper tier tech company.
If this is what Target does in 2012, Amazon in 2020 not only inserts plausible deniability to optimize for lack-of-creepiness factor. They're probably running AI bots on forums and social media injecting seamless product placement in commentary you see in your browser.
If we observe that the targeted advertising doesn't seem all that good, it's a bit of a leap to suspect there's actually a great algorithm that's so subtly manipulative we don't notice it. By Occam's razor, the algorithm is probably just showing too many vacuums because it's not that good.
I don't deny its existence (in conference papers, in labs, in black projects by government and corporations, or even in a tiny startup company). I'm just saying so far it's not mature enough to be widely deployed on large platforms, like Amazon's banner ads.
