The Instigator
hightreason
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Free will and determinism can both be true at the same time

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 15 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,308 times Debate No: 34586
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (15)

 

hightreason

Pro

First round is for acceptance.

I will argue that the free will vs determinism debate is pointless because they are mutually compatible. I will not attempt to argue that either one is indeed true.

My opponent will argue that if one is true, the other cannot be true. My opponent need not argue that either one is indeed true.

No sources are allowed. This will be a debate of pure logic and reasoning with no appeals to authority.
Debate Round No. 1
hightreason

Pro

hightreason forfeited this round.
TheHitchslap

Con

free will = do whatever you want
Determinism = you cannot do whatever you want


this is apriori as it rests on the very definition of words, and furthermore, quantum physics principal of uncertainty has disproved determinism.

Thus the two are in direct conflict and you cannot have one without being in conflict with the other...


thank you and please give me the win!
Debate Round No. 2
hightreason

Pro

First of all, I believe that Con's definitions of "free will" and "determinism" are incorrect.

Free will is clearly not the ability to "do whatever you want." For example, my inability to fly is not evidence that I lack free will. Similarly, I cannot stop my heart from beating, but no one would say that this is evidence that I lack free will. Free will can be defined more accurately as the ability to act at my own discretion.

Determinism is also not defined as "you cannot do whatever you want." Rather it is more accurately defined as a situation in which everything that will happen in the future has already been pre-determined and is unchangeable. This is often understood as a situation in which everything has a cause such that if someone understood all the forces acting upon the world and completely understood the exact state that the world is currently in, they could predict everything that will happen in the future with exact accuracy.

Let's first discuss what would be necessary to determine whether or a not a person has free will. Basically a person would have to be able to make a decision and act based on that decsion. For example, if I were to decide to wiggle my fingers and then, based on that decision, I wiggled my fingers, that would be sufficient to indicate that I have free will. Having free will does not necessitate that I have complete free will over everything or even all aspects of my own body. Even if I had free will, I could not decide to wiggle your fingers and bring that about. As mentioned earlier, I could also not decide to stop my heart from beating. Therefore free will is limited. However, if I am found to have free will regarding at least one thing, then I have at least some degree of free will.

If determinism were true, this would have no effect whatsoever on my free will. Even if someone were able to predict 1000 years ago, long before I was even born, that I would come to exist and at this very moment wiggle my fingers, this does not mean that I did not decide to do it. This is because free will and determinism exist in different universes of discourse.

Let us assume that determinism and free will were both true. The forces that drive the universe ended up causing my existence and making me the type of person who would decide to wiggle my fingers at this precise moment. Anyone who was knowledgable enough about the universe could have predicted that this is the decision that I would make. many determinists would argue that I therefore had no choice as to whether I would decide to wiggle my finger, that I was forced into deciding that. This is not true and is in fact nonsense. It is impossible for anything to force me into making a decision I do not want to make. If this were that case, then it would be not be a decision at all. And yet it was a decision. Based on the definition of decision and the definition of me, I very clearly weighed the available options and chose one.

To make this clearer, my mind was caused to be a certain way by the universal causes and indeed could not have been any other way. However, once my mind had come into existence, mind exists in a different universe of discourse than that in which the causality happens.

For example, if I were to write a computer program that adds 1+1. I write it in such a way that it always makes the correct calculation. No matter how many times I run the program, it always tells me the answer is 2. I can accurately predict before I even run the program the first time that it will tell me the answer is 2. Yet, this program still has its own very limited degree of free will. I did not program it to just output 2. Every time I run it, it actually does the calculation. every single time. It just so happens that every single time, it decides, based on its calculations, that the answer is 2.

Human minds are much more complex than this program, of course. However, assuming that determinism is true, someone who know all the "algorithms" and all the input would be able to determine exactly what a person would decide. This is irrelevant, however, because the person (who is operating on a universe of discousre of one's own mind) still has the ability to make his own decisions regardless of the fact that what he will decide can be figured out beforehand.

I would like to point out for clarification that anything in here assuming that determinism or free will are actually true are only hypotheticals, and I have not attempted to argue that either is actually true, only that they are compatible. I point this out to ensure my opponent doesn't misunderstand and waste space arguing against the truth of either of these positions.
TheHitchslap

Con

Correct to my Opponent:
To simplfy, my opponent is correct, I stated free will is to be able to do whatever you want versus determinism which is pre-determined courses of action. I generalized for simplicity. To enage here is sematics, however I shall counter:

Free will is the ability to take a course of action absent of certain factors in which obligate the agent in question to take a certain action. Determinism is the opposite of this, and the very definition of both rests on this sharp contrast between the two (factors which compell or not) which seperate them, ergo they can never become the same thing. This is so self-evident due to the very definitions of both philosophical thoughts, it is apriori knowledge. It's like saying all bachelors are unmarried, for example. So if someone told you to rob a store otherwise they would kill your family, that is not free-will, but to do so due to a desire to steal is free-will. The two are clearly different.

Predictions under Determinism:
My opponent in a philosophical debate states "Let us assume that determinism and free will were both true." However, due to the philosophical nature of this debate, I envoke the law of Occams Razor: that in a debate with two competing hypothesis the one with the least amount of assumptions must triump. Now, philosophy is the appreciation of an idea, but it still requires a certain degree of pragmaticism, which is why someone like Ayn Rand is laughed at in philosophy departments in Universities everywhere. Lets see what empirical proofs we have of free-will shall we? Can I disprove determinism? I actually can, because it's called Quantum Physics and the Uncertainty Principal, which has disproved determinism, because we can never predict where or when an energy flucuation happens to enable electrons to appear and disappear via the Quantum Vacuum. Thus, empirically in the sciences, only free-will exists. Predictions of determinism is impossible under the law of relativity as two events would happen at the exact same time: that the prediction andf the event both take place which is physically impossible. This negates his example of determinism. In fact the computer program analogy is weak due to this: he caims that the programmer tells the computer 1+1=2 and implies that the free will of the human somehow translates into the free-will of the computer to get it wrong (or a limited free-will) but this is illfounded logic, as computers make mathmatical mistakes all the time, we call them glitches.

Are they Compatable?
My opponent is a compatabilist, which means he believes both free-will and determinism are both true, but lets use an example to see if it works or not.

Your a judge, and before you sits a man who is accused with murdering another man. It is the plantiffs assertion the accused is of sound mind for the trial (free-will) whereas the defence asserts his client is a psychopath who was compelled due to mental issue (determinism) to kill compulsovly. Do you convict him due to his acting on free-will? Or do you institutionalize him due to a mental issue? You cannot have both here, that somehow he acted on his own yet was compelled at the same time, to do so is absurd, and the punishment does not alow you to acknowledge both as realistic.

Thus, it is my assertion that libertarianism (free-will is true and determinism is false) is actually more correct than compatabilism.

Fallacies Committed:
False Dichotomy:
"my mind was caused to be a certain way by the universal causes and indeed could not have been any other way."

The problem is that your mind is not determined strictly by the forces of the universe as my opponent asserts, but also by the neglect of the person. If I bike without a helmet on, and in an accident become mentally disabled, then that is free-will not determinism, the forces of the universe did not intend for me to be that way...

"However, once my mind had come into existence, mind exists in a different universe of discourse than that in which the causality happens."

??? What does this mean? From what I can see my opponent really says nothing with substance here, other than his mind somehow has a greater understanding of the world then when he was first born.

Free-will and Determinism are not compatable. Quantum Physics has proven this, along with Einsteins theory of reletivity. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
hightreason

Pro

My argument this round will be relatively short because I believe I laid out my arguments quite clearly last round, and my opponent's mistakes are quite simple to elucidate.

The bulk of Con's objections to the proposition stem from the fact the he simply does not understand what the terms "free will" and "determinism" mean. As per the terms of the debate, I will not post any sources on this, but I urge my opponent to do some research before posting his next argument. It's very clear that he doesn't understand the meaning of these terms when he writes that "if someone told you to rob a store otherwise they would kill your family, that is not free-will, but to do so due to a desire to steal is free-will." This is clearly not true. If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "do X or die" then I would still very much have free will. Indeed I have two very clear options to choose between: 1) do X or 2) die. This is nowhere near what people are talking about when they refer to "determinism." In fact, if my opponent accepts this definition and would follow this to its logical conclusion, he would have to admit that free will does not exist at all. Since this is outside the realm of this debate, I'll leave it up to the reader to determine why.

Predictions under Determinism:
In this section, my opponent mistakes a hypothetical situation for a premise, demonstrates that he does not know what philosophy is, and then goes on to make an irrelevant argument about whether determinism is true. He concludes this section by misunderstanding my analogy, so I will clarify by adding the additional constraint that the computer in the example is infallible. There is nothing in this section worth responding to as it consists entirely of misunderstandings and irrelevant arguments.

Are they Compatable?
In this section, my opponent uses his incorrect definitions of "determinism" and "free will" to try to show that they are incompatible. He actually fails even using his own incorrect definitions, but I won't bother to refute the argument since his mistaken concepts of free will and determinism deem this entire section irrelevant anyway.

Fallacies Committed:
First off in this section, my opponent continues to misunderstand that what is being presented is part of a hypothetical situation and attempts to refute it outside of the hypothetical presented.

Next, he admits that he does not understand what I was saying, but then goes on to assume I meant something ridiculous. I'll take this opportunity to explain what I meant in that sentence. A "universe of discourse" is the set of things that can be talked about within a certain context. For example, when you are talking in a context which includes the mind, you can talk about emotions, intelligence, and decisions. If your universe of discourse does not include the mind, these concepts are meaningless. They apply only to the mind. What I was saying is that when you talk about determinism, you are within a universe of discourse that does not include the mind. It causes the brain, which causes the mind, but the mind exists in a different universe of discourse than the brain. The brain has no decisions or emotions. It has matter, neurons, electrical pulses. All of those things cause the mind but they are not in the same universe of discourse. This is why the workings of the brain can be completely caused by predictable forces and yet the mind still has free will within its own universe of discourse.
TheHitchslap

Con

Semantics:
My opponent maintains that I have no idea what I'm talking about in terms of "free will" and "determinism" by definition yet he himself never actually defines them to his preference! So in essence he makes a bare assertion fallacy; he's just claiming I'm wrong without actually showing via definition that I am wrong. Now if we look at my definition of free will, we see that the robbery hypothetical is clearly not an act of free will. As the agent in question never actually intended to rob the store. That intent is the defining notion of what is free-will and what is determinism. As someone with a lack of blood-flow in the parateolobes has a desire to kill (psychopath) does so via impulse, this seems to suggest a certain level of determinsim, while someone without this defficency still killing suggests free-will (assuming no other mental disorders)

Essentially what my opponents argument seems to suggest is that 1) I cannot tell the difference between the two, and 2) that both are different, but are essentially the same. This argument (with exception to the semantics committed) might be logically valid (compatabalism) but the content is absurd as I have shown. Determinism simply does not exist. We've seen this in Quantum Physics (empraclly) and the uncertainty principal. In fact Neuro-psychologist James Fallon is a psychopath, who never committed a crime in his life!

Finally, my opponent's comments regarding to my analogy's logical conclusion to believe that there is no such thing as free-will is a reducto ad absurdum. In the context of the hypothetical I don't think there is free-will. I would want to save my family too, but in the general context of the world? Whole different story. Nice try to my opponent!

Predictions Under Determinism:
My opponent launches an ad hominem against me, I ask for a conduct point, that was uncalled for and offensive.
He also completely drops my argument, and claims that the computer is infallible. But this doesn't make sense and implies a strict determinism perspective if that is the case in his hypothetical! Becuase if the computer is without error it lacks the free-will to committ that error when the human programs it! My opponent contradicts himself here. showing the two indeed are not one in the same!

Are They Compatable?
Dropped argument ... thanks!

Fallacies Committed:
My opponent clarified his position for me: thank you!

The problem with his position? If he were right (which thankfully he is not) we would not have the neuro-sciences, in which we actually do see where emotions are produced in the brain, and the impacts of certain emotions (i.e stress) on the body. Those have been empirically tested, and shown to exist. This "discourses" stuff is nonsense, and not up to par with what the sciences have tested already. Psychopathy is still predictable (see video)

Thank you


Hitchslapped!
Debate Round No. 4
hightreason

Pro

First I would like to point out that my opponent has disobeyed the rules by posting a source in the form of a Youtube video. Therefore, all source points should go to me for obeying the rules of this debate regarding sources.

I will attempt to address what my opponent apparently perceives as holes in my argument.

1. My opponent claims that I have provided no definition for "free will" or "determinism." In fact I did provide such definitions in my very first argument. I will repost them again for your convenience:

Free Will: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Determinism: a situation in which everything that will happen in the future has already been pre-determined and is unchangeable.

There is no need for me to argue in favor of these definitions over those of my opponent because the definitions I presented are the ones univerally accepted by philosophers who engage in debates over free will and determinism.

2. My opponent continues to assert that someone who chooses between two options where one option is significantly preferable to the other is not acting on free will. As I previously stated:

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "do X or die" then I would still very much have free will. Indeed I have two very clear options to choose between: 1) do X or 2) die.

It should be incredibly clear that my opponent's definitions do not come close to the philosophical definitions of free will or determinism.

3. Con suggests that I have accused him of not being able to tell the difference between free will and determinism. This is incorrect. I have accused him of not knowing what they are at all and even at times changing his own definitions to suit his whims. (see Con's round 3 paragraphs 2 and 3 for only one such example)

4. Con also seems to suggest that I believe that free will and determinism are "essentially the same." This is also not true and I can find nothing in my arguments so far to suggest that I hold such a belief.

5. Once again, Con attempts to prove that free will and determinism are not compatible by arguing that determinism is false. This is just as irrelevant of an argument as it was the first time Con pulled it out. Also notice how Con blatantly contradicts himself by arguing that his hypothetical about a guy robbing a store contains an example of determinism and then arguing right afterwards that determinism doesn't exist.

6. Con's 3rd paragraph is pretty much nonsense but amusing nonsense. I do urge Con to find out what "reductio ad absurdum" means rather than just toss it out because it sounds fancy.

Predictions Under Determinism:

7. Perhaps this is just another example of Con not understanding the meaning of a term, but at no point did I issue an ad hominem attack. I attacked only Con's stated argument and deductions that could be made from that argument and never attacked him as a person.

8. I did not "drop" Con's argument. As explained, Con's argument was built entirely on a misunderstanding so there was nothing to respond to. Instead, I clarified the hypothetical to help facilitate understanding. Con is correct to say that the hypothetical presented represented a model of strict determinism It was designed that way to demonstrate how free will and determinism can both be true. The entire point was that the computer would not commit any error. And yet within the universe of discourse of the program that was running, the outcome could be anything until it is determined to be 2. This is free will even though in the larger universe of discourse in which we are aware of the programming, we know that it always must be 2.

Are They Compatable?

9. Once again, no argument was "dropped" because no reasonable argument was presented by Con in the first place. I had already refuted his entire line of reasononing here in paragraph 2.

Fallacies Committed:

10. Once again, Con offers an argument against a position I have never held or argued in favor of. It is absolutely the case that the brain and body can be manipulated to create certain emotions in the mind. In fact, this is necessarily the case for my position to have any traction. Therefore, Con's only "objection" to my argument is one I already whole-heartedly agree with and is not only compatible with my position, but my position relies on it.

Conclusion:

As I'm sure intelligent readers can discern, my opponent's "arguments" consist almost entirely of misunderstings, rhetoric, and misused jargon. Indeed Con has left me with very little to respond to, and I think I would have been correct to respond to every round except my first one with the simple statement: "Everything Con said last round is irrelevant to this debate." However, I have attempted to offer more explanation to Con's confusing and self-contradictory rhetoric so that the reader may parse it more easily.

I expect that I shall see a landslide decision in my favor.

Thank you.
TheHitchslap

Con

Rules:
Sources goes to him, but due to my opponent's forefit in the first round, in combination with the ad hominem attack against me, I would like conduct and arguments. How have I earned arguments? Simple:

First, my opponent openly drops several arguments, writing them off as silly and not in need of a reply. Well, quite frankly, no idea is really a silly idea, and thus in a hypothetical all arguments must be refuted to determine it's philosophical legitimacy, which means I think I deserve the arguments points.

I showed by determinism isn't true via Quantum Physics, which any scientist must do some form of philosophy (Karl Popper anyone?) so yes actually, it is relevant to this debate!

Definitions:
Also why I have won: my opponent engages in heavy semantics here. He simply claims "I don't know what free-will actually means" or " my hypothetical is flawed and not really determinism" but as I have shown, his assumptions violate Occams Razor, and thus my hypothesis already trumps, and furthermore, when stating his definitions of the two terms, somehow my hypothetical does not fit? If a man compells you to rob a store otherwise your family dies, that is not free-will clearly, to argue any other way is simply semantics, in fact my opponent back-tracks his claims to dismiss my hypothetical, ergo why he must never have given a definition then. If he did, then my hypothetical actually stands, and he just wasted character space arguing with me on this. Anyways ... the key here is intent as I have noted and as my opponent drops. Is the intention to rob there? If it is this is the defining character between determinism and free-will. Which is why my hypothetical is clearly not free-will, assuming the agent was law abiding, he is being forced via coercion to cooperate, he never had the intention of robbing someone.

Fallacies:
Appeal to authority: "There is no need for me to argue in favor of these definitions over those of my opponent because the definitions I presented are the ones univerally accepted by philosophers who engage in debates over free will and determinism."

Counter: Determinism and Free-will are not universially defined, in fact nothing is, it's just generally accepted, and note my opponent never actually shows proof of his claims.

Semantics: "It should be incredibly clear that my opponent's definitions do not come close to the philosophical definitions of free will or determinism."

Appeal to hypocracy: "Con attempts to prove that free will and determinism are not compatible by arguing that determinism is false. This is just as irrelevant of an argument as it was the first time Con pulled it out. Also notice how Con blatantly contradicts himself by arguing that his hypothetical about a guy robbing a store contains an example of determinism and then arguing right afterwards that determinism doesn't exist."

Counter: I noted the hypothetical to show a difference between determinism and free-will, but just because I think determinism simply does not exist doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. It means that you've taken my argument out of context, because I was trying ti illustrate a difference, which has nothing to do with empirically determinimg if one or the other extists...

Ad Hominem: "Con's 3rd paragraph is pretty much nonsense but amusing nonsense. I do urge Con to find out what "reductio ad absurdum" means rather than just toss it out because it sounds fancy."

Counter: Well now .. that was insulting... may I have conduct now please?

Fallacy Fallacy: (see above)

Counter: My opponent maintains that because I noted he committed a reductio ad absurdum that somehow he doesn't have to respond because he believes my argument to be illegitimate. Or in essence, that because a fallacy is committed the argument is not worth countering, but that isn't true, the content may be fine just constructed in a wrong way, which still gives an argument legitimacy. Furthermore, that fallacy was actually accurate! He clearly states: " if my opponent accepts this definition and would follow this to its logical conclusion, he would have to admit that free will does not exist at all. Since this is outside the realm of this debate, I'll leave it up to the reader to determine why." This is similar to saying without laws we have chaos; it's simply a stretch to do so. And while he claims to follow it to it's logical conclusions, in order to conlcude in the hypothetical free-will doesn't exist at all, he would have to push determinism to it's extreme to make a case with a strict interpretation, which is an abudctio ad absurdum.

Why Did I Win?
1) My opponent drops several of my arguments, he declares them "silly" and dismisses them, which just because he thinks an argument is silly doesn't mean it objectively is. I actually respond, refute, and make a case
2) Fallacies gallore; my opponent tries every tactic in the book; semnatics, fallacy fallacy, appeal to authority, redefining, etc...
3) poor conduct, he launches several ad hominems against me, claiming I know nothing of philosophy
4) he "expects a landslide victory in his favor"
5) he forefits a round
6) his mind vs body analogy is cryptic, I asked for clarification and he insults me!

Final Refutations:
My opponent claims my argument against him is in agreement, but essentially I was arguing for libertarianism, while my opponent preached compatabilism. he claims "I believe that free will and determinism are compatable" in round 1! Yet in his final round he denies this, he moved the goal posts on me! That was his BOP, was to claim they were essentially the same, now suddenly he agrees with me? That must mean I win, because my job was to show that they were not, and my way of doing that was through quantum physics (dropped by my opponent again) that free-will is emprically solid, while determinism is not. That even a psycho with a brain defficency may not even kill due to free-will!

My opponent does nothing more than the basic deceptive tactics employed by previous debators against me, the difference is at least they are learning, my opponent outright insults me, to which he ought to be ashamed! That's no way to conduct yourself to a fellow debator.

Thank you!

Please vote for me, and although the insults were hurtful, I forgive my opponent and wish him the best of luck!



Vote Con!!
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@hightreason

Hitchslap never seemed to ask for votes for him specificaqlly. He asked for people to vote on the debate, but that was it. He was never "buying" votes. In fact, some people would say what he did was good or else no one would vote. There have been debates which ended with no voters, just a boring tie.
Posted by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
You blame the readers for your loss using the same hi-minded and insulting behavior used in the debate. Apparently you have learned nothing. You should go read other debates and learn how to avoid unnecessary distractions. ad hominem, insults, and otherwise condescending behavior weaken arguments. The debacle you speak of was inside the debate, both sides are responsible for the poor outcome.
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
If anyone would care to read a similar debate but against an intelligent opponent, I suggest you go here: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by hightreason 3 years ago
hightreason
Finally, this debacle has come to an end.

After carefully re-reading the entire debate, it is incredibly clear that Con suffered a humiliating defeat regardless of the outcome of the voting.

However, this having been one of my earlier attempts to debate on this site, I see now some mistakes I made regarding eliciting votes in my favor.

I think my most fatal mistake was assuming that Con's obvious mistakes would also be as obvious to the voters. I see in the future, I will have to hold the reader's hand a lot more closely and walk them through every nuance.

By simply pointing out the areas where Con made horrible mistakes of reasoning instead of teaching the reader how to spot and interpret those mistakes, people seemed to think I was being "high-minded" when in fact I was just giving the reader a bit too much credit.

This debate has also taught me that there are those on this site (like this opponent) who will stop at nothing to "win" the debate and have little interest in intellectual integrity. Such opponents make it a point to incorrectly call out fallacies that were not committed or shamelessly fish for votes. While I certainly will not ever engage in such reprehensible behavior myself, the knowledge that such tactics are used and actually work on the voters of this site should enable me to more effectively counter it in the future.

This has indeed been an enlightening experience in how this site works.
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Thank you Enji
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
thats what she's asking for
Posted by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
Enough for you to consider a vote change? To satisfy you??
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
To improve your vote you should refer to specific aspects of the debate. I would suggest reading wrichcirw's RFD in the comments.
Posted by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
@ Enji. I am new to the site. Secondly, I am not even friends with Mr.Thehitchslap. (No favs being played here) I simply thought that Pro's argument was polluted with ad hominem and hi mindedness. A relationship does exists between Conduct and Argument. Pro also fortified a round which greatly affected his argument. A fair vote was applied.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Awarding sources to Pro and conduct to Con was established in the debate.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 3 years ago
larztheloser
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for ff. Grammar for the use of good prose and lots of relevant narratives, although as others have pointed out, high-mindedness was an issue everywhere. Pro met BOP, late and weakly, based on an assumption that con rightly showed was fallacious. From here on out the debate mostly focused on rebuttal, most of which was poor and unconvincing as well. However, I was also convinced that pro did not manage to meet their burden. Con needs to understand that pro did have a right to definition, pro needs to understand that no decent voter will accept tautological definitions. It also would have been beneficial to give a range of arguments instead of just narrowly focusing on semantics.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro F.F'd...Sources go to Pro as Con used a video. Pro also used a lot of argument fallacies like appeal to authority, ad hominem, appeal to hypocrisy, etc.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources were required by the very nature of the contest. The absence of clear and well-sourced definitions allowed both sides to molest the dictionaries. With no clear battle-lines drawn, I was largely unable to be convinced by one performance or the other. I myself am strongly opposed to any notion that we have "free will" on any level that matters. Everything is momentum. There are a great many arguments that I had hoped to see fielded in this contest, that I just did not get to see. I scored conduct to Con, due to the FF. I ignored the sourcing score penalty that had been requested, since this penalty was not stipulated in R1.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote removed.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I could really do without Pro's high minded attitude. This type of conduct actually hurts debaters when vote time comes around. I simply thought that Pro's argument was polluted with ad hominem and hi mindedness. A relationship does exists between Conduct and Argument. Pro also fortified a round which greatly affected his argument. I thought Con's examples were more convincing.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 3 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments did not apply to any meeaningful definition of free will and determinism, so I can hardly vote either way on anything. PRO's definition of "determinism" claims a machine which is determined to do the calculation 1+1 is not determined to calculate 2. This is like claiming an android determined to be an unmarried man is not determined to be a bachelor. Con's argument by contrast revolved around swapping out "compatibilism" with "Hard Determinism", which led to his arguments being wholly unconvincing. Therefore, I cannot vote to anyone, as both were poor.
Vote Placed by EvanK 3 years ago
EvanK
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, neither side was very convincing. Because neither side effectively defined "free will" and "determinism", it is hard to say who's arguments were truly convincing. Both were arguing in favor of their definitions. Con's round 3 argument, 2nd paragraph "So if someone told you to rob a store otherwise they would kill your family, that is not free-will, but to do so due to a desire to steal is free-will" is false, in my opinion and pro refutes well. Pro shows that it is possible for actions to be determined, while also being possible for someone to choose to do the action or not. This is a narrow victory for pro, certainly not a landslide. He could have argued it better, but in the end, I am slightly more convinced by his arguments. Although con violated source rules, pro FF round 1, dropped arguments, while also choosing to insult con rather than refute his arguments, or to clarify where needed. For this, conduct goes to con.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF gives Con conduct. I felt Con won the case in compatibility and determinism. Con also catches Pro on some fallacies. While Pro tried to explain the problem with Con's accusations, Con was able to successfully refute them.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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: Counter TheDarkMuffin.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
hightreasonTheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments.