The Instigator
Liam_Dunne
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
FlameofPrometheus
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Determinism is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
FlameofPrometheus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,180 times Debate No: 23948
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Liam_Dunne

Pro

I think the topic of this debate is self-explanatory. I will take the position to argue for determinism and against the idea that we have true free will.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

I presume this is an acceptance round, in the case that it is I would like to point out we only have 500 characters and believe that should be adjusted, also we have 3 rounds so minus this 1 we have 2 other rounds which leaves us little time to do anything other than just give two speeches never the less though I accept and since you gave no definition for determinism I will provide one. Determinism- the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
Debate Round No. 1
Liam_Dunne

Pro

It's clear that within human nature our genetics already predispose us towards some choices in life, for instance; "However, newly emerging genetic evidence may help to combat this debasing
stigma. Epidemiological studies show that around 40-60% of the risk of developing an
addiction to heroin is genetically determined (Kreek, M.J. et al. 2005)." Source: http://biochem118.stanford.edu...

Not only genetics but societal factors determine our behaviour to an extent.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

My opponent has accepted the pro side of determinism and I knowingly and consciously accepted the con. Since I have made a choice there must be within me the ability to create choice or free will.
Now to the Pro's case.
He states that at most 60% of people with addictions have addictive qualities in their genes. This is not 100% so 40% due in fact have free will so free will exists, and determinism states that in no way shape or form free will exists. Since free will does exist, Con wins the round
He provides no evidence on how society dictates actions so that is removed from the round.
Debate Round No. 2
Liam_Dunne

Pro

I assume that my opponent is not familiar with compatibilism. Although, for example, he may have chosen the con side of this argument and chosen to join this site it is clear that these actions were already determined based on his education, friendships, etc. No doubt some will exists but in essence we are all predetermined from birth to certain actions, as I illustrated above with heroin, and even though our actions may not be completely determined we are still prone to committing some actions.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Compatibilists define free will as the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without hindrance from other individuals. How ever this is incorrect since all man is endowed with imagination and reasoning. With these two, spontanous actions may occur from a person. Con also wins the round since pro cannot prove determinism true. His only evidence for it being true is the evidence I rebutted in the previous round. Since 40% of heroine addicts are not linked to genes they have free wil
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by anachronist 4 years ago
anachronist
Pro missed the best arguments for the non existence of free will ):
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
@Liam_Dunne I can understand that, being a LD debator, but you might want to consider raising the limit to 1,000 rather than 500. I posted a joke debate that you didn't have to put a big point over or make contentions, and it was hard to even make a simply statement in conformation or negation of the round. It would be much, much more difficult if you were trying to discuss a philosophy. I've actually used more room typing this comment than you guys have in writing your entire speech, so that should emphasize how difficult it is to make a point.
Posted by Liam_Dunne 4 years ago
Liam_Dunne
@The Orator To be concise with an argument is far more important than using superfluous information that does not support a point effectively. This was done solely for the purpose of avoiding intimidation of the opponents by either of us proposing fallacious evidence.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
500 characters to debate a recognized philosophy? You guys barely have enoguh time to state your own arguments let alone debate your opponent's
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Liam_DunneFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Spontaneous actions occur, and many things may be deterministic but this doesn't entail that determinism is true. Vote goes to Con
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
Liam_DunneFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: sources pro for the only one, spelling fine. Arguments go to the con for refuting pros arguments, though the pro mentioned soft determinism he did not expand on it much. The BOP was not reached by my opinion, The con was more persuasive in arguments hence why he gets those points. Even if soft determinism was brought into the debate it could be misleading because the pro was advocating for determinsim as in the title, but soft determinism is also apart of the title in the same accord.
Vote Placed by tyler90az 4 years ago
tyler90az
Liam_DunneFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Liam_Dunne was the only one who used a source. Therefore, he should get all the points for most reliable sources.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Liam_DunneFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The only evidence provided from the Pro was undecisive and negated by the Neg. A sufficient rebuttle was also not provided from the pro when regarding the Con's freedom of choice arguments, so his burden of proof is not upheld.
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
Liam_DunneFlameofPrometheusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro held an extremely demanding burden of proof not only as the instigator, but the proponent of a heretical philosophy. That said, Pro failed to provide any compelling arguments for his case, and the arguments he offered were successfully negated by Con. The debate was also too short and disorganized. The branch of determinism Pro supported should have been defined in Round 1.