And finally -

Feeble minded humans as you call us designed the chess computer.

Humans are creative and computers are not.

Humans could therefore create ways to defeat the chess computer:

Sit down at a board with wooden pieces and make a move.  Could any existing chess computer complete even one opening move unaided?  This is simply a solution requiring robotics but at a real board with real wooden pieces could Deep Blue physically move the piece on its own?  Seems like it would run into a timing issue there.  Win for the Human.

Build a better computer to beat the previous computer and therefore beat the computer. Win for the Human

Team up as the humans did who made deep blue, to beat deep blue - it is widely known that Kasparov was not beaten by one person but by thousands - IBM had almost a world's worth of minds in Deep Blue so is it not appropriate for a team of humans to face the chess computer?  Win for the team and therefore the Humans

If a human were to die in the middle of a game, what would be the official result?  Power goes out all of the time - could the computer continue without electricity in the time given?  Draw.

And while playing chess is impressive for a machine, did you ever see a computer execute the Heimlich maneuver to save a life?  Or how about step in front of a bullet to save a fellow human being?

What is a super human chess computer?  A computer or a human?

Could a grain of sand turn itself into a silicon wafer and then form itself into a computer chip that is programmed to defeat a human?  That is the question you should defend.

If humans stopped building chess computers could chess computers improve themselves and build better chess computers?

Would a chess computer form a symbiotic relationship with a human as humans have with chess computers?

Impressive as Deep Blue was it was and always will be a tool conceived by a Human.  Our feeble minds give us the edge - we can create and we can direct our thoughts using our free will.  Can deep blue have a baby or buy a beer?  Not without some feeble minded human to make it happen -and then not likely.  Computers are indeed impressive but the Gloden Gate bridge was built before computers were used in construction projects and there it is.  The Pyramids etc.  I may not ever beat a computer, but I doubt I will see a computer walk up to me in a restaurant and hold the door for me just because it felt like being nice.

As far as Chess is concerned, for every strategy there is a counter strategy...that's just how the game works.

Another thing...It took three attempts for "The Deep Blue Team" (yes, a Team of Engineers and Chess players and Deep Blue itself) to beat Grand Master World Champion Gary Kasparov.  Even then Gary complained that the Engineers built Deep Blue to beat Gary Kasparov - not to play Chess as though the computer did everything unaided i.e. without Anti-Gary Kasparov tactics and strategy. 

Finally, it took a Human to design Deep Blue.  That includes hardware, software and Anti - Gary Kasporav Tactics and strategy...and Gary was not at all ultimately convinced of the win anyway (and he would know wouldn't he??).

The fact that even a human / computer combination did not beat him the first two times and in arguably cheating the third round I would have to say the computer is still not as good as a human.

P.S. How good is computer software in laying subtle traps or spotting the manipulative  weakness of one and thus avoiding it?  Answer: Only as good as the Chess-player who designed it!