The Instigator
Misfire
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dirky
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Free will does not exist.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 33717
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Misfire

Pro

First round for acceptance.
__________________________________

Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

In accepting this debate you accept that for free will to truly be "free will" the following must be true:

I: A person in question must be able to make a conscience decision that effects the outcome of events and that may not be predicted.
II: Upon conducting an experiment, if such an experiment were possible, where everything in the history of the universe was replayed identically until the moment a decision was made, the person in question could have decided something different than in the original scenario.
III: Actions that occur during the decision making process must obey the laws of physics.

Any assertion that III is unnecessary will be disregarded due to the simple fact that the laws of physics are absolute, as far as we are aware. Arguments from habitual assumption (in which one attempts to circumnavigate III by claiming that the only basis for faith in physical laws is that we've become accustomed to them, and that the same physical laws we accept as truth today may not be true tomorrow) will be disregarded as a hypothetical scenario with no argumentative foundation, as there is no objective evidence to suggest that this is even remotely possible.

These constraints considered, the debate door remains open to anyone with compatibilist views concerning the nature of free will. I will be arguing from the hard determinist point of view. The burden of proof will be on Con and I will attempt to refute his claims.
Dirky

Con

Free will is unachievable in some places, such as places with laws, monarchies among other places. Finding true free will is a matter of escaping those conditions and reaching out to your own rules and laws.
Debate Round No. 1
Misfire

Pro

Misfire forfeited this round.
Dirky

Con

Dirky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Misfire

Pro

Misfire forfeited this round.
Dirky

Con

Dirky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Misfire

Pro

Misfire forfeited this round.
Dirky

Con

Dirky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Misfire 3 years ago
Misfire
I apologize if it seems that I've "loaded" the debate in my favor. That was not the intention, although I personally don't think I have.

philochristos: I'm not looking for someone to commit to argue an inconsistency. The points I presented are all necessary for true "free will" to exist, in my opinion, and they do in fact comply with (my understanding of) compatibilism. Points I and II don't deny it; I fail to see the same contradiction you do.

CriticalThinkingMachine: Belief in free will does not inherently suggest that the laws of physics are not universal. And I think you've misinterpreted something I've said. I never argued that the laws of physics were not universal. I refuted argumentation from habitual assumptions, but that was all.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I concur with both of these commentators.

Misfire has set up the debate so that anyone who agrees to it already contradicts himself. Belief in free will means that the laws of physics are not universal, so you cannot agree to all three propositions. Compatiblism is a contradictory position.

And Misfire's claim that the argument that the the belief in the universality of the laws of physics has no objective evidence is false. Just the opposite is true. The universality of physics has never and can never be proven since it makes a universal statement that is contradicted by counterexamples.
Posted by Happyreclusive 3 years ago
Happyreclusive
I think Philochristos is on the right track. Let me make the same point a bit differently. Everything must follow the laws of physics. The laws of physics include that everything has a cause. Free will has no cause and so it is contrary to the laws of physics.

I have a counter-debate proposal following your line of reasoning. Resolved: free will exists. Anyone accepting my debate proposal must agree only to the following: Free will exists and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
You appear to be looking for an opponent who subscribes to libertarian freedom (which is consistent with your points I and II), but doesn't point III explicitly negate libertarian freedom? If so, why add it? It seems that you're looking debate somebody who thinks their decisions are determined by the laws of nature even while their decisions are NOT determined by the laws of nature. So you're looking for somebody who will commit to an inconsistency from the get-go. You're loading the debate in your favor.

You also say you're open to debating a compatibilist. But a compatibilist would deny your points I and II since they explicitly contradict compatibilism.
No votes have been placed for this debate.