The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
diety
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Free will is an illusion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/3/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 661 times Debate No: 8099
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

rougeagent21

Con

Many people nowadays believe that free will is but an illusion. I am very intrigued by this, and would like to hear an argument affirming the resolution. Opponent, whenever you are ready.
diety

Pro

Alright then rouge. Thank you for creating this debate.

Now, you are aware that since we are made of parts, our minds perceive information, processes it, and gives feedback. You know, reacting to stimuli. How we react is based on what we perceive through our environment. So in a strange way.... your environment has control over you moreso than you think you do of yourself. When it's all said and done and you examine quantum physics, all of your reactions are based on your environment.

Now, as far as free will goes, it is the belief that we can make decisions without ANY outside force or influence. We can "act on our own." Sound's like to me that this means something should be able to make a decision without it being a mere product of their reaction to stimuli.

Yet, I doubt this is possible. If free will were to exist, there mustn't be stimuli, and one could exist in absolute voidness and manage to make a decision.

Now keep in mind, for their to be absolute voidness, there may be no senses (no taste, no touch, no hearing, no feeling, no sight), no way to contact anything. Though one may be conscious, I doubt one would even be self - aware, since there would be no knowledge that would serve as evidence that would allow such a being to interpret it's very existence.

What I sincerely challenge my opponent to do is give instances in which free will actually came into play.

I'm pretty sure I will win this debate simply because there is no proof supporting the existence of free will.

:)
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

Hmm, interesting points. I am going to summarize my opponent's arguments, and please tell me if I am mistaken. You believe:

-We are made of parts
-We respond to stimuli
-The environment controls us by providing stimuli
-If stimuli exist, then free will does not
-If there is void, there is no self-awareness, thus no will
Correct?

Well, let me give you an example of free will here:
I am at a store buying a shirt for my band concert. The shirt has to be either black or white. I hate both. My favorite color is blue. Both the black and white shirts are the same price. They are identical in everything but color. My parents don't care which one I choose. The stimuli is neutral. Can I decide for myself?

Absolutely. The stimuli do not favor either shirt, and I am free to act on my own accord. The resolution is negated.
diety

Pro

Alright rouge, good comeback.

:)

"I am at a store buying a shirt for my band concert. The shirt has to be either black or white. I hate both. My favorite color is blue. Both the black and white shirts are the same price. They are identical in everything but color. My parents don't care which one I choose. The stimuli is neutral. Can I decide for myself?

Absolutely. The stimuli do not favor either shirt, and I am free to act on my own accord"

Of course you can choose, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's "free will." Your mind still had to process a decision, and the ability to process a decision is dependent on your collection of knowledge. Here are some instances in which you might not seem to have any outside influence attributing to your decision, but it still does:

1) You get whichever one is closer.
2) Your running out of time and you just "grab" one (he he, you see the outside influence there was the fact that you were running out of time)

Well, I can't think of a huge list of things, but still, you get the point.

One last thing before I post, as a programmer I know that when your computer "seems" to process a random decision... it really isn't random (of course the ability to make a random decision is free will) . You see, the computer runs an algorithm that is respective to time, thus as the time changes so does the output. Still, even if the influence is spacetime, there is no such thing as a true random decision.

:)

I rest my case for now
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

My closing argument will be very simple. My opponent added variables to my scenario. Consider if you will that I am equally close to both shirts. Also consider that I have all of the time that I could ever need. As was stated, THERE ARE NO outside forces. Do I not have a choice?

Answer for me these questions:

Can you predict what I will do?

Always?

Since you can do neither, that must mean that I have free will. Otherwise, you would know what I would do. I rest my case.
diety

Pro

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
If I don't have a photometer to measure wavelengths of light, does that mean that the green is actually in the grass, or does it mean that the grass is reflecting green light and absorbing the rest?

The argument that something can be reduced to measurement already defeats the counterargument that no such method of measurement exists.

What Con *should* have been doing is arguing against the empiricism of free will, not appealing to "common sense". It makes it easy to attack since he is the Instigator and it is his last round.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21dietyTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
rougeagent21dietyTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21dietyTied
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:70