To the rest of you, I am happy to see you all actually engaging into this very tricky debate.
I am still not seeing this great debate. We have one mindless tool claiming his PC has a soul, then swapping his own stance for shits and giggles (mildly creative, but not innovative; learn from Tom) then we have several people arguing about how intelligent robots have become (based on year + old data and DEAR GOD, Hollywood straw men references to support antithesis), then we have you claiming the debate has been a success despite people pointing out...that...there...is...no...debate...to...be had....
Yep, sounds like an academic touchstone to me *grin*
A soul cannot be defined, because any definition of it is an opinion, because there exists no proof a soul exists. This leads one to conclude that anything assigned a soul is an erroneous assignment, because the presence of said soul cannot be validated by any concept under the sky in which you have somehow managed to remain breathing, despite your obstinate refusal to admit your "debate" simply does not exist.
And the Raspberry for "Best Comedy Thread Concept" goes to...