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

Free will exists

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 59711
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Free will: Ability to make decisions opposed to instinctive behavior.
Exists: Can be either registered with human's senses, or it's presence can be concluded.
Instictive behavior: Actions/movements body would make without thinking.

BoP is shared. Topic is resolution. Con will make his arguments in Round 1. Con can use Round 4 only for conclusion, and not for arguments.
Forfeit in Round 1, 2 or 3 is loss.


I accept
and I thank you for the opportunity.
I also haven't done that many debates so I apologize in advance.

I think we can agree that human comprehension runs on evolutionary principles like all other creatures in the animal kingdom.

cognitive psychology/social psychology/Developmental psychology.
Every "choice" we make has a subconscious origin of influence e.g. the environment,education,genes,friends/family,media,society, etc etc etc.
Debate Round No. 1


Appropriate word for traditional concept of free will is "undeterminism".
Determinism is position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.

In order for us to reason, to conclude something, we need to accept laws of logic as true. They can not possibly be false, when they are the ones deciding if something is true or not.

If certain conditions could cause multiple events, then we would be unable to predict what will happen even if we know all conditions.

One of the laws of logic is "If A is true, B follows from A, then B is true"
Even if this law does not explicitly say that C can follow from A instead of B, the whole concept of "follows" would be ruined.
If A can cause either B or C, then B would still "follow" from A. But "B is true" = "B is always true", which would not be the case.

So, by assuming laws of logic, we assumed determinism as well. This is why undeterminism is non-sensical.
Kant's concept of free will, which I inherited, is based on stance that will of mind can not be free from previous events, but only free from will of emotional impulses/drives.

Now I should make arguments for my position:

1) Example of free will: I opened my fridge in order to eat. Then, I asked my self "Am I really hungry, or am I just attempting to eat because I am bored and nervous". Answer was "yes", so I decided not to eat. If I was not thinking when I opened fridge, I would eat. But I made decision opposed to my instinctive behavior, therefore free will exists.

2) Original purpose of why we started thinking was to avoid events that would harm us. If mind was not able to change our instinctive behavior, it would not help us avoid those events. And we would go extinct.


I am assuming you're meaning indeterminism as the traditional concept of free will, not "undeterminism".
You're wrong, Determinism is actually positioned that we are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.

It might be hard as I have stated in our private message before the debate that I'm dyslexic.
you're right again.

If by "all conditions" you mean, knowing how each individual atom will behave in the reaction of the event, you're wrong

"If A is true, B follows from A, then B is true" It's a fallacy of logic, not a law but it is used to prove a point.
I think I have already made this statement irrelevant by correcting your assumption/position on Determinism.

You have built most of you argument on on your false premises of determinism.

The answers for your arguments

1. Where did you think your "choice" came from?

2. That's instinctive behavior.

obviously I'm way over my head.
Please vote for Cold-mind at the end of the debate session.
Sorry for wasting your time.
Debate Round No. 2


Links that back up my challenged premises:
Law of implication:

I thank my opponent for honorable surrender.


reece forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


reece forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Shame, I never saw this in challenge mode. As one who agrees with the concept of determinism, I think I would have enjoyed this debate very much so. Shameful determinism and indeterminism/free will debates do not seem to happen a lot as compared to atheist just debating God is fake, which is monotonous.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
I wish I had taken this. It's a pretty easy one.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
I would like to debate this sometime.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by leonitus2464 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry reece but this is due to concession.