The Instigator
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Free Will Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 957 times Debate No: 74746
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

Lexus

Con

I saw this debate and want to argue from the con side, since I have been thinking this over for almost 10 years now.
Resolved: Free will exists.

I am in the negation (con), and my opponent will stand in the affirmation (pro) of this resolution.
I set this debate up for anyone to accept if they are ranked as good or better than me, because I want a meaningful debate.

Rules:
1. We have 10.000 characters, you shouldn't use url shorteners or anything like that
2. Keep all text of debate within the debate.
3. Reliable sources are necessary
4. Both judges and my opponent should say 'cakeday' in their acceptance round/RFD so I know they read the rules. Judges that don't follow rules will have vote reported.
5. Keep good conduct at all times
6. Don't forfeit or else you forfeit the entire debate (I usually don't like this rule but this is meant to be a meaningful debate for me, so if you can't allocate the time don't bother accepting)

R1: Acceptance
R2: Constructive Case
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Defense/crystalization

thanks!
Lee001

Pro

I accept.

Thank you for instigating this debate, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Con

Before I begin, I would like pro to read the rules since they were missing something in their first round. I only put a specific rule in their so I knew if you read the rules or not, and it seems that you did not. Thanks

Contention I: Rules of the universe.
Everything that does currently exist, did exist, or will exist in the future has to operate under the rules of physics that set up the way that the Universe functions. For example, nothing that has mass may go above/at the speed of light, and this physical law may never change [1]. This is not to say, however, that current ideas are the only rules that govern the universe -- we may be wrong about some of our currently held theories and laws [2], because the things that we know are constantly evolving and will change as we progress through the experience that is mankind. What this thinking does is give us the very first premise of my conclusion:
  • P1: The laws of the universe are constant (though our knowledge of them may change)
Next, we must examine the idea of probability. People say that rolling a die will have a 1/6 chance of landing on a specific side, but is this really true? The weight of the die, the air colliding with it and bouncing off, how much force was directly applied to the side of the die, which side of the die, etc. all influence which side of the die will land on the top.
A way to see this is with the Janken, made by the University of Tokyo [3] (link to a video). This robot sees what is happening around it and decides which type of hand to play, based on all of the previous actions made by the player.
You can compare the player to be an external stimulus and the robot to be an observer (perhaps a human). If you look at the external stimulus, you are able to calculate what it will be within a moments notice, and you are able to calculate what will happen in the future.
Because the laws of the universe are never changing, we can use this idea to make my next conclusion.
If we had an infinite amount of data to compute and to see the future, then we could do this based on what this robot can do.
What this does is lead me to my second premise of my conclusion,:
  • P2/C1: Everything is calculable with enough data within the universe (which means that everything will happen in a particular way) [<-- just rephrasing]
Now, the definition of 'free will' is as follows: "the power of acting without the constraint of [...] fate", and 'fate' is defined as "be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way" [google definitions].
This leads me to my next logical conclusion:
  • P3: Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of fate
  • P4: Fate is something that is destined to happen in a particular way
  • P5/C2: The universe (and in turn, all of us) have fate bestowed upon us.
  • P6/C3: Nothing in the universe has free will (because everything is fated)
  • C4: Free will does not exist.

[1]. http://www.phys.vt.edu...
[2]. http://www.bbc.com...
[3]. https://www.youtube.com...

I thank my opponent and look forward to be able to read their reasoning, and having them read the rules again
Lee001

Pro

Thank you con for your argument.

Before I forget....
Cakeday!!
Okay...moving along!
Theoretically by providing a definition of "Free Will" that I have gave in R1 goes to show that "Free will" dose exist. I will argue my point though.
Rebuttal P2/C1

Probability in this case, really has nothing to do with "Free Will".
Con states ""the power of acting without the constraint of [...] fate",
In order to "act" out something. Your brain must process this through the brain to make a decision.
[1] "brain’s functions are very different but they both work together in helping to make decisions" You see in order to act out something you think about it first. Let me use an example, if a mother wont allow her son to drink soda at the age of 10 he wont be able to drink it because his mother tells him not too. By the age of 18, he's able to make his own decision to drink soda, thus that is free will. Making a choice without restraint. If If want to scratch my head, I can, because I want too.
Fate and Free will are completely different [2] According to the theory of forms, an individual can exhibit free will during his actions. He has a choice over his fate.


Free will dose exist.

[3] "There is no need to insist that free will is some kind of magical violation of causality. Free will is just another kind of cause. The causal process by which a person decides whether to marry is simply different from the processes that cause balls to roll downhill, ice to melt in the hot sun, a magnet to attract nails, or a stock price to rise and fall."


Another example: You *choose* to instigate this debate because you have free will.


Another argument people bring up is the "law". Saying that you can't do certain things, such as driving without a seat belt, or driving while on the phone. Nobody can stop you from doing this. You are your *own* person. The government isn't forcing you to *not* do these things. I bet you, if you are driving down the road, and you get an important phone call, you more then likely will pick-up the phone because you *can* and *want to*. Again, by providing a definition dose show that "free will" exists.


Back to Con!





Sources:

[1] http://www.1stpersonaldevelopment.com......

[2] http://www.differencebetween.net......

[3] http://io9.com......

Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Con

"Theoretically by providing a definition of "Free Will" that I have gave in R1 goes to show that "Free will" dose exist"
No.
Definitions don't mean that something exists.
I can define 'asjdkfhksajdf' as "a name that is given to a man on his 18th birthday in the continental US", but that doesn't mean it's a real thing.

"Rebuttal"
You weren't supposed to have any rebuttals in your constructive case, as highlighted in the debate outline.

"In order to "act" out something. Your brain must process this through the brain to make a decision."
I agree. But the constraints of fate guide and truly create these processes, not 'free will'.
Everything in your brain is made of subatomic particles that all react with each other in a very specific way. If we look at all of the universe, then we can calculate what effect this has on your brain and we can even calculate what will happen in the future within your brain.
Fate is controlling your brain, because you are not acting outside of fate.

"By the age of 18, he's able to make his own decision to drink soda, thus that is free will. Making a choice without restraint"
I feel as though you have ignored that reactions of subatomic particles and calculations are a restraint on choice.
I highlighted this in my constructive case, where everything that will happen can be calculated at the start of the universe.
The universe had an effect on his brain and actually made him do it himself. He did not do this outside of the constraints of fate, he did it 100% within the constraints of fate.

"[2]"
I don't feel as though your source is really one that we should be using in this debate.
I used definitions from google dictionaries, whereas you used a source that provides what free will and fate are through the philosophical aspect, not the objective one.
Even on this source that you provided, there was a 2.25/5 rating on this article. That means that 45% of people will have a strong liking for this source and think that it is reliable enough to use... it's simply not a strong enough source to use in this debate.

"According to the theory of forms, an individual can exhibit free will during his actions. He has a choice over his fate."
This was the exact wording of point 1 at the end of the article [1].
Not a rebuttal since I have already refuted that source's validity, but directly taking a quote from this source is a bit sketchy.

"[3]"
If you don't express what this quote even means, then why are you using it?
This is just a general debate thing, not a rebuttal, but you are supposed to use quotes to enhance your points, not to make up your points. You're meant to use them and elaborate on their meaning, not letting them just sit there and effectively rot due to lack of acknowledgement.

"Another example: You *choose* to instigate this debate because you have free will."
As my case proves, the universe was going to have this exact debate 100% since the big bang. The entire thing was calculable and it was sure to happen.
I was even meant to say 'chicken' at this exact moment in time. The universe is crazy and forces me to do these things along with it.

"Another argument people bring up is the "law""
Well that's not a good argument for those people.
I don't believe in this argument and it is effectively unrelated.
You are meant to have a constructive case, not one that is rebutalling against points that were made, or even were not made.
Pro automatically has the BoP (but I won't use it against you if you didn't notice), and it was implied that I had the BoP as well when I posted a constructive case. This is just making nonsensical claims against things that were not even brought up.

[1]. http://www.differencebetween.net...

Sorry for such the quick response, I noticed your reply less than 10 seconds after you posted it.
Back to you pro!
Lee001

Pro

Sorry, I miss-read the structure.

Rebuttals

*My opponent, Con claims that "Fate is controlling your brain, because you are not acting outside of fate."

Fate dose -not- control the brain, you also have no evidence to prove your point.

According to the medicaldaily [1] "The bulk of human decision making may occur in one of the smallest parts of the brain, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of British Columbia have discovered that the tiny lateral habenula plays a crucial role in calculated, cost-benefit decisions. The findings, published in Nature Neuroscience, shed additional light on the neurological processes whereby we make up our mind.

As you can see, fate is *not apart* of the brain whilst it makes a decision.

Fate to some is fake, so there is no way to convince people that Fate makes decision's.

*Con then goes on to say that "I feel as though you have ignored that reactions of subatomic particles and calculations are a restraint on choice.

Well, I feel as if you just compleatly ignored my point here. You don't rebut this at all, instead you just tell me I'm wrong, but you don't actually yell me why.

*Con states "I don't feel as though your source is really one that we should be using in this debate.
I used definitions from Google dictionaries, whereas you used a source that provides what free will and fate are through the philosophical aspect, not the objective one."

I'm able to use this source because *I* wanted too, and I have free will. You never put limits on the sources just asked for them to be "reliable" I used this sources because it backed up my argument to show that it is correct. You used sources that you thought would benefit your argument, as well as I did.

*Con then goes on to claim that "This was the exact wording of point 1 at the end of the article [1].
Not a rebuttal since I have already refuted that source's validity, but directly taking a quote from this source is a bit sketchy."

How is this sketchy? Again this is a source I used for my benefit. And you don't approve of my sources.

* You then go on to say that "If you don't express what this quote even means, then why are you using it?
This is just a general debate thing, not a rebuttal, but you are supposed to use quotes to enhance your points"

This is kind of funny you say this because I used it to prove a point, yet you haven't rebutted any of my points what-so-ever.

*Con says "As my case proves, the universe was going to have this exact debate 100% since the big bang. The entire thing was

calculable and it was sure to happen.

No you chose to do so, you chose to be Con on this debate, you chose to have a 72 hour challenge time.

*Con states "Well that's not a good argument for those people.
I don't believe in this argument and it is effectively unrelated.
You are meant to have a constructive case, not one that is rebutalling against points that were made, or even were not made.

Again, you don't rebut my points at all. You are just saying how you don' like the way I present my arguments, and how they are incorrect to you.


Sources: [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Lexus

Con

I think you misread the debate structure. When I say rebuttals I mean you're supposed to rebut stuff from Round 2, not from round 3, which was all of what you were rebutting against. Oh well, I will continue with my defense from these rebuttals and crystalize my main points.

"Fate dose -not- control the brain, you also have no evidence to prove your point."
My evidence would be my logical reasoning in round one, which you have seemed to have dropped.
Fate is calculable and what your brain 'thinks' is calculable, which means that fate controls the brain.
I can't really put it into words but I hope you understand what I mean.

"As you can see, fate is *not apart* of the brain whilst it makes a decision."
That quote did literally nothing to disprove that fate exists within the brain and the universe at large.
All that it did was say that a small part of the brain is used to make decisions, which are made under the control of fate.

"Fate to some is fake, so there is no way to convince people that Fate makes decision's."
The Sun is fake to some people, does that mean that it does not exist? Maybe, but probably not.
The point of this debate is to convince people that fate makes decisions, not a nondeterministic human being and thought process.

"I'm able to use this source because *I* wanted too, and I have free will."
Because the big bang* forced you to plant that.
If we looked at all of the particles that were in formation after the big bang, then we could calculate that you would use that source, regardless of what you thought about free will.

"You used sources that you thought would benefit your argument, as well as I did."
Except mine were reliable.

"How is this sketchy?"
Undertones of plagiarism without source attribution.

"This is kind of funny you say this because I used it to prove a point, yet you haven't rebutted any of my points what-so-ever."
Rebuttal dropped

"No you chose to do so, you chose to be Con on this debate, you chose to have a 72 hour challenge time."
I haven't seen any affirmative proof that free will exists, so can you inform me of how you got to this conclusion of yours?

"Again, you don't rebut my points at all. You are just saying how you don' like the way I present my arguments, and how they are incorrect to you."
What I meant is that that argument is not an argument that is allowed to be made. You are refuting against things that don't even exist in this debate.
Imagine this scenario: someone starts a dogs v. cat debate on the basis of fur color. Pro says dogs are better since they have a richer fur color. Con says cats are better because they can hunt stuff. Wait, what? That's completely unrelated and not acceptable in the debate.
And I was only saying how I did not like your sources, which is a completely valid argument to make. The voters are able to vote on the most reputable sources, and I effectively proved that your source was not valid at all.


Now onto my crystalization:
  • P1: The laws of the universe are constant (thought our knowledge of them may change)
  • P2/C1: Everything is calculable with enough data within the universe (which means that everything will happen in a particular way)
  • P3: Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of fate
  • P4: Fate is something that is destined to happen in a particular way
  • P5/C2: The universe (and in turn, all of us) have fate bestowed upon us.
  • P6/C3: Nothing in the universe has free will (because everything is fated)
  • C4: Free will does not exist
None of these premises or conclusions were refuted against validly, so all of my constructive case is intact.

I thank my opponent, though I have not been persuaded that free will exists, which is why I instigated this debate.
I ask the gentle voter to go over my case and then my opponent's case, and compare these against the debate structure and see where the points eventually fall. Remember, voter, to read the rules and figure out the secret voting clue.

Thanks again
Lee001

Pro

*Con states "My evidence would be my logical reasoning in round one, which you have seemed to have dropped."

I didn't drop any of her argument's. She simply "dropped" mine. She never rebutted my points. She only judged them based on her opinion.

* She then says "That quote did literally nothing to disprove that fate exists within the brain and the universe at large.
All that it did was say that a small part of the brain is used to make decisions, which are made under the control of fate."

*She tells us that "fate" makes our decisions before we proceed with them. Not it seems as if she has changed her mind. My quote did help, sorry that you didn't approve. My quote simply goes through the process of the brain making a simple decision.

*Con says "The Sun is fake to some people, does that mean that it does not exist? Maybe, but probably not.
The point of this debate is to convince people that fate makes decisions, not a nondeterministic human being and thought process.

People are more likely to believe that there is a sun because it is a object, it is a object, you can see it. Fate, you can't see.

*Con then goes on to lecture me on my sources by saying "Because the big bang* forced you to plant that.
If we looked at all of the particles that were in formation after the big bang, then we could calculate that you would use that source, regardless of what you thought about free will."

The Big Bang didn't do anything. I searched many websites and found two websites that would back up my argument. I made a decision on website I wanted to use. Fate didn't make me choose.

*Again she goes onto critique my sources by saying "her sources were more reliable"

So were mine. My sources came from Medical articles. Is that no reliable to you?

* She then goes onto to say that "Undertones of plagiarism without source attribution."

How did I plagiarize? I put all my quotes in quotation marks, meaning they are not my words, I also numbered my sources and copied and pasted the link to show you where they came from.

The rest of the stuff that she says in the last round is basically the same stuff I have explained up there^^ I don't feel like repeating myself multiple times.

I did prove free-will existed by giving you a quote that shows that the brain makes decisions by it's self. You can't say fate dose this, you can't see fate. Fate is something spiritual in which some people don't believe in.

*Note that Con dropped all of my cases. She never rebutted any of them, instead she stuck to saying its all about fate, yet she never proves this. She then tells me that I had plagiarized which I didn't, I used the correct formatting and I numbered my sources.

crystallization:

*Free will exist
*Evidence and Proof of Free will
*Why fate can't be true
*Due to the evidence of the brain making a decision, Free will exist.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
============================================================================
-------------------------------------------- End-Note ----------------------------------------------------------------

Confession - I was asked to vote on this debate by Con.

============================================================================
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
==================================================================================

------------ Post-Script -------------

If you have any questions/concerns regarding this RFD, feel free to contact me via. PM/message ONLY. I shall not address objections in this debate's comments section or the comments section of my profile.

===================================================================================
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
--------------- RFD - Reasons for Voting Decision - Part 2 -----------------

=== Spelling & Grammar ===

Pro had many major grammatical errors. "Dose" instead of "does" was particularly painful to read, and it really hurt readability. She keeps on saying "dose" instead of "does", indicating that it isn't a typo. Pro's overall debate structure was also very poor. Thus, S&G to Con.

=== Conduct ===

Pro made a severe violation of debate structure by also refuting Con's arguments in Round 2 instead of merely presenting her case, and this severely constrained Con's ability to rebut and greatly increased the Contender advantage. Thus, conduct to Con.

~~~ CONCLUSION ~~~

Ultimately, Pro's arguments were far more convincing because of the shared onus and the usage of much more viable studies than Con. Con had much better S&G, and conduct also goes to Con.

A 3-2 victory to Pro.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
--------- RFD - Reasons for Voting Decision - Part 1 -------------

Both sides made deeply flawed arguments. Overall, I found this to be a very close, albeit poor, debate, though it in itself was interesting. I shall now provide analyses of each of the side's cases.

~~ Pro's Case ~~

'Free will' was not clearly defined in this debate. Pro's case relies on the fact that even restricted free will may be considered 'free'. What *is* freedom? Neither side was very clear on that, and both seemed to follow a different definition of freedom. Pro's case relied on the strong assumption that any *decision* is influenced by the will, and even restricted decisions are ultimately strengthened by oneself via. basic biology. Pro demonstrated that *individual* decisions are not predetermined, only influenced by further aspects of the universe.

~~ Con's Case ~~

Con's case was based on determinism and physical laws. Her first proposition was well-defended in that physical laws of nature *directly* influence all events, thus one is not free to exercise any action. But due to lack of proper definition, even if SOME actions may be exercised "freely", one may have freedom according to Pro's refutation of this.

Con then attempted to demonstrate determinism. While Con manages to awkwardly refute Pro's refutation of this by saying the brain "thinks" it can exercise control over itself, Con actually fails to prove otherwise. Pro, on the other hand, cites a valid medical study that shows the brain can likely control itself. Con struggles to refute this, dismissing Pro's source as 'unreliable'.

Con manages a strong case, but it seems that under a shared onus probandi (burden of proof), Con failed to accurately demonstrate her claims whereas Pro did via. medical studies and resources against determinism. Con says "EVERYTHING is calculable with enough data", but an example or analogy is not enough to illustrate this in any manner.

Therefore, arguments to aff.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Free will "dose" exist?
Posted by Bogcha 1 year ago
Bogcha
Ok, if you are willing to look at it from that perspective and disregard everything i have said consider this. The interaction of those matter building components cannot give rise to preservation. Self preservation is something that differs from person to animal to critter so on. In the end none of these enumerated will want to loose their life. If those components are part of us then you will know that they will have no input into the fact of the matter since they will always exist just under a different form (or same form).

Makes sense?
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Everything is made up of quarks and guons and god-knows-what.
All of these things have a very specific impact on each other and from the big bang, everything has been calculable.
You don't choose for yourself, everything is predetermined by the laws of physics and the universe
Posted by Bogcha 1 year ago
Bogcha
@Lexus
It is not forcing Lexus since there are a multitude of roads. It is up to the conscious/unconscious being to decide(be led) which road to go down. In order for events to happen a catalyst (not the chemistry one) needs to exist (these roads) instigating that change to occur. The outcomes (fated) are clear to the creator since the intent of that catalyst is predetermined but the usage (or the way they are being used) of those catalysts are determined by us. Here i will give you another example. A 3way wiring of switches. There is a input power and a load that needs powered. But see you have two choices (switches). Both of them (switches) do the same thing (turn on or off the light) and are not determined by the position of the other switch. It is done like this due to convenience. I am closer to this switch so i will use this rather than walk to the other. Use this analogy regarding free will and fate. Fate is represented the light. Free will is represented by the switches. You have two choices and both choices give you the same outcome but you can choose. This is a very elementary example. Real life is far more complex.

Answer if it makes sense
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Your reasoning makes sense but it is flawed in #2.
It is more like you are a god specifically making that road. You will force everyone to go down that road in an exactly precise way, whether they want to or not.
Posted by Bogcha 1 year ago
Bogcha
@Lexus
I have some things to add regarding your "logical" analogies:

"P3: Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of fate
P4: Fate is something that is destined to happen in a particular way
P5/C2: The universe (and in turn, all of us) have fate bestowed upon us.
P6/C3: Nothing in the universe has free will (because everything is fated)
C4: Free will does not exist"

1. Use the Multiverse Theory perspective (this can similarly be applied to the free will) where it is theorized that there is an infinite amount of universes, where some come go out of existence. Same can be applied to fate. There are many ways to get from A (birth) to B (death) but it is up to you to choose them. Choices/highways can pop into existence based on the decisions you make. You can say that if you wouldn't have gotten up this morning then you would not have gotten that speed ticket.

2. If indeed as you say everything is already pre-written somewhere by someone or something and we are just deemed to follow or travel those roads then let me ask you this. I am using a higher mentality point of view in hopes that you will see what i mean.
If I, the designer, create a road with a certain intention in mind, (people to travel on) it will only serve the purpose of guidance. It is up to that person if he/she/it wants to go down that road. I offer you the ways you choose if you want to go down them. (Helping a toddler to walk is the same thing, you are guiding him/her/it but if he/she/it does not want to walk then you will only drag him/her/it across the floor)

Answer me if it makes sense
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
LexusLee001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.