The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Do we really have free will?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 74742
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate so I will just start with an introduction to what I believe and why I believe it.

I believe that nobody really has free will and that all of their actions are predetermined.

Everything in life abides the laws of physics and of science. Any experiment could theoretically be replicated if it had identical environments and the outcome could be predicted as it would have to be identical. Assuming the big bang is the correct theory for the origin of everything, then if the big bang (or alternative universe creating theory) reoccurred with the exact environments of the original event could everything that has ever happened, happen yet again in the exact same way. If this is theoretically possible, then every choice any human will ever make would be made again. This would mean that noone really has free will and in their mind they only believe that they control the choices that they are making.

That is my introduction. Thank you.


Let me begin with the central piece of evidence in this case.

The central piece of evidence regarding free will is: Free will. We have it. If you want to know if you have free will then you are demonstrating that you free will just by asking the question. If Con responds to this post then he is demonstrating his free will.

Arguing against free will is like sitting on top of a giant boulder and trying to argue that the boulder isn't there. It is like saying, "Sure, this looks like a boulder, it feels like a boulder, it has all the properties of a boulder, but maybe it"s not a boulder."

While anything is possible, all available evidence says that we have free will. Without strong evidence to the contrary it makes sense to conclude that we have free will.

Con"s introduction was that if there could be another big bang (or whatever it was that caused the universe), then that would result in a new universe in which people all made the same choices that they did in this universe.

The problem with this theory is that there is no way to know if people would indeed make the same choices in that new universe. They might make the same choices, or they might make entirely different choices. The only way to conclude that they would make the same choices would be to start with the assumption that free will does not exist and therefore people would make the same choices in this new universe.

In logic this is called begging the question.* It is assuming the conclusion of an argument as part of the premise of the argument. In this case, we would have to assume that free will does not exist in order to prove that free will do not exist. We have no reason to do so, and so this theoretical second big bang provides no evidence against free will

Debate Round No. 1


990OliRox990 forfeited this round.


Con forfeited. He demonstrated his free will not to respond in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


990OliRox990 forfeited this round.


Con forfeited. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
belief=mentally enslaved
knowledge=free will
for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast

if i can be mentally enslaved free will must exist
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
The problem with this type of argument, is falsifiability.

Anyway, good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Numidious 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I disagree with his stance, and although he didn't respond to the assertion that the laws of physics and science entirely rule the universe, there were no specifics provided by con either and, more importantly, he forfeited, so vote goes to pro.