The Instigator
ASB
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
askbob
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points

Free Will is better than forced will

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,446 times Debate No: 14487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (67)
Votes (13)

 

ASB

Con

Introduction:
My debate friend ASKBOB belongs to a Christian sect just like I do.
As a Christian, my opponent believes in free will.
In my opponent's last debate, my opponent claimed that without free will one cannot repent. If one cannot repent then one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I claimed that one does not have to repent to enter in to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not repent. If everyone had forced will, then all can make it to the kingdom of heaven.
My opponent will argue that free will is better than forced will.
While I argue that forced will is better than free will.
Rules:
Round 1: Introduction
- I lay out conditions. Like what I'm doing.
- I say hello, my opponent says the same.
Round 2: Argument (1)
- I state my views and arguments
- My opponent states his views and arguments without yet contending any of my views and arguments.
Round 3:
- I contend arguments from first round only.
- My opponent will contend arguments from my first round only.
Round 4: Argument (2)
- Answer contended arguments from round 3. Saved rounds round. Bring up new found information if necessary.
-Person who goes second, there is no contention of information from this round. The person who goes second answers contended arguments from round 3 instead. Bring up new information if necessary.
Round 5: Conclusion
Contend last arguments from previous round only.
This is conditional for both debaters.
Conclusion statements are for both debaters.
askbob

Pro

A. If someone forced you to kill yourself it would be worse both from a societal viewpoint as well as a self viewpoint than if you were allowed to choose whether to kill yourself or not (most people would choose no)

---> Because a majority of people do not kill themselves today and are presented a choice via free will.

B. Therefore free will is better than forced will.
Debate Round No. 1
ASB

Con

Force is better than free will.

If the right people were in charge, there would not be any suffering. God has allowed free will so that there would be suffering on this planet.

"Free will is true anarchy." If all men could be trusted to act upon their own tutelage to operate as a sophisticated and civilized human beings, then anarchy would not be frowned upon. God had trusted men to act sophisticated and civilized on our own free will. Ultimately we have failed God and there ought to be a new change.

With nobody steering the wheel of the car, the car is not in control. With free will there is nobody driving the car. Free will for one person can be detrimental to someone else. "It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt."

I can kill someone saying that I' am purely exercising my free will. Or someone can force me to do the right thing so I would never kill anyone. Nobody would harm me. I would not harm anyone.

An all powerful being should be in charge of controlling us so that utopia would have already been reached. Should life be such an ultimate test to do what is right?

One cannot simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous.

Example:
1)One cannot kill as long as it is for religion. Christian crusaders abused this rule by massacring countless people under the Christian Church.
2)Manifest Destiny justified the murder of countless Native Americans under Christian beliefs for the colonization of the United States.
3)We state opinions and set conditions to justify our judgment.

We today see humans controlling things like robots to work for us through programming. Nobody sees any harm in that. It would be just like programming a human to do the right thing. Nobody is complaining for the countless robots in human control. The robots are not complaining either.

Throughout our world history with people that were in power whether by birthright, voting, or any other method have tried to control the governed. This is natural. Even though they were not completely successful, opening people to the idea of total control can help to ease tension between the two extremes.

There is no hope for humanity.

Without control there would not be any order. With nobody in control who would enforce order. Order needs to be enforced through total control.
askbob

Pro

My opponent has made 8 points in favor of his resolution. As my opponent made the resolution and as the resolution is a blanket statement, my opponent must defeat my logical syllogism or admit defeat. My opponent also has the burden of proof. For my opponents resolution to be correct, Forced Will must be better than forced will in all circumstances as my opponent never defined a specific circumstance. As it is clear: being forced to do bad things is not better than having the option to choose not to do them. Therefore his resolution is negated. However I will rebut his points below as well.


1. If there was forced will by the "right people" there would not be any suffering.

Disease, accidents, starvation, and depression would all exist.

2. We have failed God

I disagree and apparently God does as well as he told me yesterday that he thinks I have not failed him.

3. A poorly constructed analogy about driving a car

Free Will =/= No one driving the car.

Free Will = You driving the car.

Let me reconstruct your analogy correctly.

Forced Will is like someone driving you somewhere you don't want to go because it will be better for you in their opinion.

Forced Will

I would drive a fat person to a gym and they would be screaming along the way, crying, suffering and begging not to go. I would be laughing maniacally and shouting that it will make them healthier. I would put a gun to their head and tell them to lift weights or I would make them do it by force. As they slid into bed they would be sore and tired and would be miserable the next two weeks because their body would ache and they would suffer physically all the while dreading the next forced jog where I would tie them to the back of my car and make them run 10 miles. They would only be allowed to eat healthy foods.

Free Will

The fat person would be driving the car and would drive to McDonalds to get a burger and they would be happy and not suffering while they ate the burger. Down the line they might die earlier, but they wouldn't be sad because they happen to be a Mormon and would be going to heaven.

4.We cannot comprehend what is right and what is wrong.

This negates your entire argument because then from our perspective being forced to do the "right" thing wouldn't be better in our perception because we wouldn't be able to tell that we were doing better things in comparison due to our failure to comprehend what is right and what is wrong.

5. We have robots and robots do not complain therefore we should be robots

Likening humans to machines is not likely to prove your point and this logically makes no sense as we are not robots and would complain if forced to do something we don't want to do.

6. We have government thus to have the idea everyone being mind controlled being a possibility this will somehow ease the tensions between being governed and another unnamed extreme (possibly anarchy)

I do not understand this or how it pertains to the argument. Red Herring.

7. There is no hope.

I have hope, therefore hope exists.

8. Without mind control there can be no order.

Order exists today and mind control does not exist therefore this is negated.


I have negated all of my opponents arguments and still have my logically constructed syllogism above that clearly disproves my opponents vague resolution.

Debate Round No. 2
ASB

Con

My opponent is trying to defeat me through comedy.

This is not satire.

My opponent obviously did not read my introduction for it says that contentions are saved for round 3. Since this is round 2, my opponent has decided to have the last word instead of splitting the last word.

My rules were constructed to be fair. My opponent has elected himself to go last as a last ditch effort to try and convince the readers that he is right.

Since it is my turn and it just happens to be the 3rd round, I will now contest my opponent.

- My analogy was that if nobody is in control of the car, the car would not drive. As in a supreme being is the one driving the car and the car is a human. The car cannot drive effectively by itself.
- My opponent refuses to believe that a supreme being could stop sin. "If there is no sin, there would not be any suffering."

My opponent has not made any claims whatsoever on why he thinks that free will is better than forced will. He just tries to argue against me rather than make his own claims. My opponent ignores the fact that sometimes we need to do things, even if we do not want to do them.

My opponent is a true example on how there ought to be no hope for all humans to govern themselves effectively. Someone has to be in control of the car that is out of control.

My opponent must believe that for one to truly be happy, he must do everything that he wants to do and nothing that he has to do. My opponent may also be a person who thinks that everything will work out without contributing to a good cause. Example taxes. I think my opponent is against paying taxes because it is not something that he wants to do. He just thinks that everything just pays for itself and that he should not pay because he does not want to.
I really hope there are not too many of your kind of people out there.

If everyone was like you, nothing would get done.
Order does not exist today.
Order: neatness, absence of crime, functioning condition. ENCARTA DICTIONARY.

Monumental debt, crime aplenty, democrats and republicans not working together to reach a common goal. This is disorder. In other countries, this is quite similar.

Giving the example between governed and anarchy is showing people that control is good. Total control under a supreme being. Even better.

Governed, there is control. Not total control, but it is what we are used to. As no control is not what humans are used to. Humans are not used to having zero control.

Robots were another example on how humans use control. In this analogy, God would be a human while a human would be a robot. We program robots to surrender to us as we should surrender ourselves to God. We as humans have never forsaken robots. Ever since we built them, we treasured them. The comparisons are undeniable.

God should be to humans as humans are to robots.

My opponent says that if we were controlled, then we would not completely know the difference between right and wrong as well.

The difference is that if one is always doing the right thing, he would not have to worry about right and wrong in the first place. For he would always be right. If a person always did the wrong thing, the same thing.

People like us assume that we know the difference between right and wrong. Since we do right and wrong, as examples from my last argument prove that throughout history, one thing that we call right can be monumentally wrong by any standard. If I told another person this, they could disagree meaning that right and wrong is merely subjective, and nobody clearly knows the meaning between the two.

One cannot see the difference between two things.
askbob

Pro

I read the introduction, despite your misconceptions I don't have to structure my arguments according to your poorly drawn format. I don't understand how you think wasting rounds is "fair" If I can rebut your points as well as make my own in the same round I will do it.

"My analogy was that if nobody is in control of the car, the car would not drive. As in a supreme being is the one driving the car and the car is a human. The car cannot drive effectively by itself."

Then the statement makes no sense as there is currently free will and guess what people are functioning and governing themselves.

"My opponent has not made any claims whatsoever on why he thinks that free will is better than forced will."

My entire analogy illustrates it.

"My opponent is a true example on how there ought to be no hope for all humans to govern themselves effectively."

This is an insult and voters should recognize it as such.

"My opponent must believe that for one to truly be happy, he must do everything that he wants to do and nothing that he has to do."

That's generally my definition of happiness.

" I think my opponent is against paying taxes because it is not something that he wants to do. He just thinks that everything just pays for itself and that he should not pay because he does not want to.
I really hope there are not too many of your kind of people out there."


1. Red Herring
2. Begging the question
3. Insults
4. Paying no taxes would make me happy.

"If everyone was like you, nothing would get done."


Again another personal attack. If everyone did what they wanted to do then the world would be as it is. Clearly things are "getting done"

"Order does not exist today."

Clearly order is not a black and white issue but has varying degrees.

"My opponent says that if we were controlled, then we would not completely know the difference between right and wrong as well."

I never said this, you did. A direct quote from your R1: "We cannot comprehend what is right and what is wrong"


My opponent has made no points that make any sense or pertain to the original argument. Furthermore he has completely ignored what I said and meandered through arguments of his own that have no logical or factual backing. He has repeatedly insulted me and lied/forgot about what I said.

Extend all arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
ASB

Con

My opponent expects me to respect him when he cusses out women in debate.org. How dare you tell me that I’ am offending you.

My opponent’s only defense for my arguments is that I’ am attacking him.’ Stop attacking me. I should win because my opponent is attacking me.’

My opponent says that he would rather be like the fat person hollering in the car because he doesn’t want to exercise.

My opponent says that true happiness is not paying taxes.

My opponent says that there is a broad spectrum of order.

*******How can I not attack him. He has a big bull’s-eye that says hit me on it.

For humans, free will is an excuse for one to do what he wants to do.
Humans have abused the right to free will.

To counter this, forced will would force one to do what he is supposed to do.

People that tend to do what they want to do seem to ignore the effects that they have on other people. My opponent feels that true happiness comes from what he wants to do instead of helping others.

My opponent says that he would rather not pay taxes because he does not want to.

Yet my opponent failed to realize that paying taxes helps pay for things that the government does not pay for with only their own money. Or maybe he does realize and he is choosing to do the wrong thing by not caring. Maybe he thinks that doing nothing does not matter or that doing nothing is the right thing.

More examples that right and wrong is merely ambiguous and subjective.

Most people tend to never learn from their mistakes. When people do learn, they usually do not keep on doing the right thing for it is too hard. People would rather do the easy things than the hard. Even if the hard things are right.

If one was forced to do the right thing, then one would not have to worry about what was wrong and what was right. For a supreme being would make the decisions for us.

I never said "We cannot comprehend what is right and what is wrong."
I said that 'we cannot simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous.'

Extend examples from earlier.

Simply: plainly, absolutely
merely: simply, just
ambiguous: having more than one meaning.
ENCARTA DICTIONARY

However, this is what you said.
"...our perspective being forced to do the "right" thing wouldn't be better in our perception because we wouldn't be able to tell that we were doing better things in comparison due to our failure to comprehend what is right and what is wrong."

This statement means that from a normal person's perspective, if he was converted to a person who does everything right, then he would not be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. By you saying the words comparison due to failure to comprehend, one must assume that this is what you meant.

I said then that one would not need to know the difference between right and wrong anyway. If one were doing everything right.

My opponent says that order is not clearly black and white. Is this his only explanation for order. The only defense he has is that order varies. He says that we are getting things done.

My opponent sounds like he saying ‘what is the worst that can happen before order is not called order anymore.’ Face it there is no order.

- We are losing control of the world. Caused by man.
- The world would be better if everyone was forced to coexist.
- Global warming exists. War exists. There is no order.

My opponent sounds like George W. Bush.
Things are getting done;
Mission Accomplished.


askbob

Pro

Extend all arguments. No point has been refuted, most of what my opponent has said is ad hominems and garbled nonsense. He hasn't refuted my main point nor made any coherent points.
Debate Round No. 4
ASB

Con

As my opponent makes his last statements before his conclusion here are a list of points that my opponent has tried to avoid. Since he only made a small effort to make claims and to refute my claims, there are many.

- Right and wrong is subjective.
He has purposely ignored my examples.
My opponent has not attempted to contest this at all.

Why should we be trusted to comprehend right from wrong, if an all knowing power that knows the exact difference can control us to do those things.

-we cannot simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous.
If we cannot simply comprehend right and wrong, why should we have the power to decide between the two.


- Most people tend to not learn from their mistakes.

All of my points that I had mentioned before that have been contested by my opponent have been restated with clarification.

My opponent since then has refused to re-contest my clarified statements. Basically surrendering to my ideals.

Last round, he did not even attempt to prove my ideals wrong.

Since I do not have the last say, I hope that my opponent respects my last rule in that he only restates his arguments in a conclusion. And that he does not negate any of my 3 points that he did not negate earlier unless if I had readdressed those points in the previous round. He had plenty of rounds to do so and had just chosen not to contend them.

askbob

Pro

1. The fact that right and wrong are subjective negates my opponents resolution. This argument is not new and I made it in R2. This is a direct quotation of what I wrote:

"This negates your entire argument because then from our perspective being forced to do the "right" thing wouldn't be better in our perception because we wouldn't be able to tell that we were doing better things in comparison due to our failure to comprehend what is right and what is wrong."

Furthermore it does not further your resolution only negates it.

2. "Most people tend to not learn from their mistakes"

Most people do because I said so.

This is not an argument this is opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:


"My opponent has made 8 points in favor of his resolution. As my opponent made the resolution and as the resolution is a blanket statement, my opponent must defeat my logical syllogism or admit defeat. My opponent also has the burden of proof. For my opponents resolution to be correct, Forced Will must be better than forced will in all circumstances as my opponent never defined a specific circumstance. As it is clear: being forced to do bad things is not better than having the option to choose not to do them. Therefore his resolution is negated. However I will rebut his points below as well."

I have negated all 8 points and ignored the ones that clearly had nothing to do with the resolution and were mainly incoherent.

I have constructed a logical analogy that illustrates why forced will even when it's for your own good is worse than free will.

Forced Will

I would drive a fat person to a gym and they would be screaming along the way, crying, suffering and begging not to go. I would be laughing maniacally and shouting that it will make them healthier. I would put a gun to their head and tell them to lift weights or I would make them do it by force. As they slid into bed they would be sore and tired and would be miserable the next two weeks because their body would ache and they would suffer physically all the while dreading the next forced jog where I would tie them to the back of my car and make them run 10 miles. They would only be allowed to eat healthy foods.

Free Will

The fat person would be driving the car and would drive to McDonalds to get a burger and they would be happy and not suffering while they ate the burger. Down the line they might die earlier, but they wouldn't be sad because they happen to be a Mormon and would be going to heaven.

Furthermore my opponent has completely ignored my argument regarding suffering:

1." If there was forced will by the "right people" there would not be any suffering."

Disease, accidents, starvation, and depression would all exist.

He simply states that God would remove suffering but does not say how or how a sinless world would remove disease accidents, starvation or depression.

He just completely ignores this argument and says:

"My opponent refuses to believe that a supreme being could stop sin. "If there is no sin, there would not be any suffering.""




Conduct:

My opponent has insulted me multiple times throughout the debate:

My opponent expects me to respect him when he cusses out women in debate.org. How dare you tell me that I’ am offending you.

Since he only made a small effort to make claims and to refute my claims, there are many.

"My opponent is a true example on how there ought to be no hope for all humans to govern themselves effectively."

" I think my opponent is against paying taxes because it is not something that he wants to do. He just thinks that everything just pays for itself and that he should not pay because he does not want to.
I really hope there are not too many of your kind of people out there."


"If everyone was like you, nothing would get done."

"How can I not attack him. He has a big bull’s-eye that says hit me on it."

"My opponent sounds like George W. Bush.Things are getting done; Mission Accomplished."



My Opponent has also completely lied about what I said in order to ad hominem me:

"My opponent says that he would rather be like the fat person hollering in the car because he doesn’t want to exercise."


Memorable Quotes:

"Global warming exists. War exists. There is no order."

"We are losing control of the world. Caused by man."

Debate Round No. 5
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dumbchic 6 years ago
Dumbchic
ASB had much better arguments.
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
Greyparrot says that I'm a tool for defending
myself
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
You can only call white people "tools" here? Boy I have to get me a copy of dem by-laws.
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
cliff stamp voted for u in the mormon debate, he voted for me in this one.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
17 points says that you voted 7 points and two people who typically vote for you in literally every debate you've done voted again for you. Great job convincing everyone.
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
she never even voted against me moron... she never voted...
how can i say that she is a racist because she voted against me if she never voted.

i have 17 points... that says scoreboard... check it.
17 points says that people voted for me for i convinced them.
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
well she probably is... after reading wat bluesteel wrote and then calling me a tool for defending myself.

In the end i did something that u could never do.
convince people to go against their own free will.

That takes skill... a lot of skill.... something that I do have... even though it looks like i will lose miserably.

Try debating me on a topic that u do have to argue in order to win.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
I think you're just mad that you lost twice ASB.

You didn't convince anyone of anything.

Someone called you a tool and voted against you and you responded with:

"I guess we have another person that supports racism"
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
Huh askbob is the most retarded person on the earth. If I can convince people that they should give up their free will then askbob must not be a good debater.
Bluesteel is the only racist person for he threw stereotypes at because he knew I was black.
I never said anything about bluesteel at all.
How dare u defend bluesteel as if I'm just saying the word racist to exercise affirmative action.
Saying that if u vote against a black person then it is racist is an ignorant remark.
Anyone that read bluesteels remark would have said that it was racist as well...
Posted by Greyparrot 6 years ago
Greyparrot
Guilt is rolling off of me like a tidal wave.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
ASBaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
ASBaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by System113 6 years ago
System113
ASBaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by crazyninja77 6 years ago
crazyninja77
ASBaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
ASBaskbobTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
ASBaskbobTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ASBaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tyler90az 6 years ago
tyler90az
ASBaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
ASBaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
ASBaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07