Humans fail the basic Turing Test, as Alan M Turing usually described it, all the time, in our modern, Western World.
Ask anyone in customer service, who communicates with their clients via a device... usually a keyboard or phone, how many times, in the average day they are mistaken for a chatbot. The stereotype for this is "helpline" workers.
Old Alan would say that this is over reliance on a "script" of somekind... that the helpline staff has been drilled in a set of approved responses to the point where they might as well be a very sophisticated "subject recognizing" program which has been programmed or trained to recognize what sort of thing the "tester" is talking about, and generate a response that seems like they understand. Alan Turing would say that this is the script failing the test, not the help-line staff; that the script is a program, whether it is being run by a computer, or by a guy with a keyboard and a stack of "choose-your-own-adventure" style cue cards. What people forget, is that it was also pointed out, that you needn't be aware you are following a script, for your script to fail the test!
Society and our individual cultures are made of rulesets, you have had people mention how someone can fail to pass as human by not understanding the conventions of society... by being a foreigner, a child, or someone considered societally "unfit" (usually labelled "crazy," or "criminal" and locked up... in Philip K. Dick's famous book "Do Androids Dream of Ellectric Sheep?", which was what Blade Runner is based on, they tested the human seeming replicants for involuntary empathic response-in otherwords, "does this supposed human show a subconscious physiological response to imagining SOMEONE ELSE suffering?" Famously, androids more than a few years old would pass... and "sociopaths" always failed!), what your responders haven't mentioned so far, is that the original envisioner of the "Test" talked about the fact that "passing" meant convincing the judge that you were human...and therefore capable of conforming to one set of norms and FAILING to conform to another.
Famously, the original ELIZA program: an MIT computer simulation of a Rogerian psychologist had many chat-buddies who flatly refused to believe that they were NOT a human... because we expect a Rogerian-style therapist to behave in a very specific manner that was well within a comuter's ability to learn and imitate ("Well, how does that make you feel?" "Earlier, you said something very similar about your mother... is it at all possible that your feeling about her are actually some unresolved issue with your mother that you are transferring on to her?" Other people were very upset to learn that the records ELIZA kept to personalize its responses were available to the Computer Science department-they had been treating it like real therapy.) but psychology is human behavior. If a psychologist is predictable, to the degree that an early chatbot can be viewed as an effective psychologist by its clients, then on some level, the clients are predictable.
If the day comes, when someone has to judge which voice on the other end of an intercom is the human, and which is the machine, the human might fail by being too predictable... or too polite (say, for instance, by refusing to lose their temper) whereas the machine might have learned (and remember, ELIZA learned, it wasn't programmed with responses, it constructed them and rated how well they were received) when to get angry, when to misunderstand or say something inappropriate. What happens when the "judge" decides that that voice making the innuendo is the human, and the actual human has been so conditioned that they would never, ever, pick up on the most "obvious" opening "that any real human would?" It gets much more potentially subtle... we don't need to actually be conscious of our patterns, to be trapped in them.
Humans also have an inborn prejudice as to what is "human," we often think either better, or worse, of our own kind. It is worth pointing out that "King Chim," a famous ape, was often described by researchers as "more humaine than you would believe if I were to record it," for his kind treatment of researchers and other apes..."humaine" from the word "human" but referring to a degree of civility beyond what was considered the "human norm." We also ascribe "vengeance" only to sentience, but the basic moral question of "the Prisoner's Dilemma" is not actually all that hard to program for... so what happens when a machine understands "tit for tat," but the human "does the right thing," or would the judge expect that? At what point is the judge trapped in a Princess Bride-Iocaine Powder situation, and expecting a subject to do something contrary?