The Instigator
000ike
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
popculturepooka
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points

Human beings have free will

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,296 times Debate No: 22466
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (6)

 

000ike

Con

By accepting, Con agrees to the following definition of free will, and will at no point, contradict, dispute, or reject it.

Free will: "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Round 1 is for acceptance only.

I am completely honored and grateful to debate popculturepooka on this subject, and look forward to an extremely challenging debate.
popculturepooka

Pro

I accept. I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
000ike

Con

I thank my opponent once more for accepting and will try my best to make a convincing argument against the resolution. The video to the right will be referred to later on in this argument.

Determinism

The definition of freewill that this debate refers to automatically assumes Incompatibilism. If freewill is the ability to choose without constraint, then determined actions exclude freewill. Predetermined action is in and of itself the ultimate constraint on the free choice, for what can be free if all actions are inevitable?

To prove that human beings have no freewill, I therefore offer the argument for Incompatibilist Determinism - a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. (1)


The Argument from Physics

The law of conservation of energy postulates a fixed quantity of energy in the entire universe, where energy can neither be created nor destroyed – only converted to varying forms. This suggests that any motion of the body is solely caused by and subject to prior physical factors. Thus, the only way for a non-physical factor such as “the will” to force a body movement would be for it to create energy…an obvious impossibility. If my opponent denies that “the will” would need to create energy, then he suggests that a non-physical factor can affect already existing physical things….which too is an obvious impossibility.

If a state of will, which is mental, caused an act of the body, which is physical, by so much would the physical energy of the world be increased, which is contrary to the hypothesis universally adopted by physicists. Hence, to physics, the will of man is not a vera cama in explaining physical movement”(2)


The Law of Causation

No action is uncaused, and we live life and inquire explanations for observations under this assumption. Human action is a physical event; hence it must be created through an antecedent physical cause. Freewill is not real or physical, yet we bestow upon it the power to cause physical action. This is contrary to the nature of the Universe and has little to no scientific basis. It is a tradition in human history to explain phenomena with simple animistic assertions (ie. The thunderstorms once caused by Zeus, and the rain by rain Gods). Thus, to say that the will may control the body is similar to arguing that we may levitate rocks through mind control. Something unreal and non-physical has no bearing on physical things.

Now human action is, of course, a physical effect; hence, we must expect to find only a physical cause; hence, any non-physical, psychical cause is from the nature of the case precluded, hence, of course the human will effects nothing.(2)


The “Dilemma of Determinism” Argument

P1: Either determinism is true or it is false

P2: If determinism is true, then all actions are inevitable, thus freewill does not exist

P3: If determinism is false, then all actions are random, thus freewill does not exist

C: It is impossible for freewill to exist

Premise 1 invokes the law of excluded middle, which should make it logically valid. I don’t think it needs much explanation.

Premise 2 can be justified by Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument.” It asserts that if we have no choice as to whether the laws regarding the universe are true, and all those laws dictate determined actions, then we have no choice as to the occurrence of those actions. (3) Having no choice as to the occurrence of one’s own actions is the negation of freewill.

Premise 3 can also be justified using Inwagen’s “Mind Argument.” He states that “an act that occurs by chance, if an event that occurs by chance can be called an act, cannot be under the control of its alleged agent and hence cannot have been performed freely.”(4) We can form this premise knowing that either actions are random, or they are caused. Where an action has no cause, it must be random. If my opponent objects, he should name an example where this is not the case.

Given these three premises, it follows that freewill cannot exist.


Libet’s Delay

This study involved a series of conscious patients and their reactions to varying electrical stimulation, or the interval between when the stimulus was given and when the patients were consciously aware of it.

It was found that when the stimulus was given, brain activity called “evoked potential” (EP) ensued tens of milliseconds afterward. The EP had to persist for 500 milliseconds before the subject became aware of it. However, half of a second was too large and noticeable of a period of time. The study would have suggested that it takes .5 seconds for human beings to respond to everything. This would contradict our own perceptions, since we believe that we react to numerous things far quicker than half one second.

It followed that humans act before they are conscious that they have acted, and when the action reaches consciousness, our brains fabricate the retroactive illusion that we were conscious of the event at the moment the event occurred.

The conclusion was thus: “the perceived time at which we make a decision must be subjectively referred back by 500 milliseconds. Unlikely as it seems, and contrary to our own impression, we must have made our decisions slightly before we actually become aware of them.”(5)

which leads to the necessary conclusion for this debate - If we make our decisions before being aware of making them, then our decisions are predetermined. As predetermined action is the most powerful constraint on freedom, humans must not have freewill.


fMRI Testing

Twelve right-handed subjects (aged 22-29) were tested using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the University of Leipzig. They were placed in front of a screen, showing a descending cascade of letters. They were then to press either a button to the right or to the left at random, then report what letter was on the screen at the moment of their decision.

This was the conclusion:

In summary, we could replicate the finding of Soon et al. [30] that motor intentions were encoded in frontopolar cortex up to seven seconds before participants were aware of their decisions. Using ultra-high field fMRI on a 7 Tesla scanner, we could show that these patterns became more stable with increasing temporal proximity to the conscious decision. These findings support the conclusion that frontopolar cortex is part of a network of brain regions that shape conscious decisions long before they reach conscious awareness.”(6)

Strengthening Libet’s observation, it is found that the decision to act occurs before we think we are making the decision to act – further undermining the causally direct spontaneity of the will.

Another lab recently used fMRI data to show that some “conscious” decisions can be predicted up to 10 seconds before they enter awareness (long before the preparatory motor activity detected by Libet). Clearly, findings of this kind are difficult to reconcile with the sense that one is the conscious source of one’s actions.”(7)

The video above illustrates the procedure and conclusions from a very similar fMRI test:

Conclusion

Given these arguments, it is evident that the existence of freewill in humanity is highly improbable, if not impossible. My opponent must not only defeat all of those arguments to fulfill his portion of the burden, but prove the existence of freewill as well since he has the affirmative case.

Without further ado, I await my opponent's response.


Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.csulb.edu...
3. http://www2.drury.edu...
4. http://www.informationphilosopher.com...
5. http://www.consciousentities.com...
6. http://www.plosone.org...
7. http://www.atheistnexus.org...

popculturepooka

Pro

I'm going to have to forfeit this round due to extenuating circumstances. :(
Debate Round No. 2
000ike

Con

My opponent and I agreed to continue the debate in Round 3, so please disregard the forfeit in your vote.

I extend my Round 2 arguments.
popculturepooka

Pro

Thanks to Con for being so gracious last round.

Con lodges several objections that I don't have the space to respond to this round so I will respond to his philosophical argument "The 'Dilemma of Determinism' next round. I wish to deal with his scientific objections this round.

The Argument from the Law of Conservation of Energy

Con calls this argument the "Argument from Physics" but it'd be more accurately called the "Argument from Law of Conservation of Energy" so that is what I will refer to it as. Basically he argues that the freewilling would "violate" the law which makes it an "obvious impossibility". The philosopher Robin Collins shows what's wrong with this argument. [1]

Collins says:

"GR [general relativity] presents a major problem for the EC [energy conservation] objection. The problem is that no local concept of stress-energy (and hence energy or momentum) can be defined for the gravitational field in GR. Consequently, BPEC [boundary principle of energy conservation] does not typically apply in GR since one can neither define the total gravitational energy in a region of space nor the rate at which gravitational energy flows in or out of the region. This implies that although gravitational fields and waves clearly causally influence material objects, their influence cannot be understood in terms of movement of energy through space. As physicist Robert Wald notes, 'In general relativity there exists no meaningful local expression for gravitational stress-energy and thus there is no meaningful local energy conservation law which leads to a statement of energy conservation.' (1984, p. 70, note 6.)" [2] (Brackets for clarification added by me.)

And,

"Now for the punch line. A theorem proved by John Bell in 1966, called Bell's theorem ruled out the above explanation and any other explanation of these quantum correlations involving only local causation. Bell showed that if certain experimental results predicted by quantum mechanics occurred, explanations based on local causes could not explain the correlations. Since 1977, these predictions have been verified numerous times. Now within all physical theories energy exchange always involves non-instantaneous and hence local causation, since the packets of energy (or stress-energy) must move through space. Consequently, Bell's Theorem rules out any explanation of these correlations by means of energy exchange. Consequently, quantum mechanics requires the existence of correlations that cannot be explained by an exchange of energy." [3]

The conclusion here speaks for itself. If the law of energy conservation doesn't even apply to all physical interactions why must we believe with Con that freewill "violates the law of conservation"? There doesn't seem to be a reason.

The Law of Causation

Con's argument here is utterly and completely question-begging - that is, it assumes what it's supposed to prove. Con just assumes here that freewill is "not real" and then goes on to argue that since freewill is "unreal" it cannot have any bearing on physical things. That's an obvious truism if free will is "not real" but that is what Con is supposed to be arguing for the truth of in the first place!

The Arguments from Neuroscience

Con presents two arguments from neuroscience but I think they can both be answered with one reply. Basically, in both objections the conclusion that is supposed to be drawn is that brain science shows that we make our decisions before we are aware of them - this would undermine free will in the sense that we aren't really choosing our actions from a variety of options and doesn't really seem to be "up to us" to choose. Alfred Mele's criticisms of Libet's work are important here. [4][5] He makes a crucial point - there is no reason for to interpret these brain events as being decisions to act and not intentions to act or urges to act or a considering of the options. For all we know these brain events are correlated with the urges, intentions and considerings - not the decision to itself. This is entirely compatible with a two stage model of free will. [6] If interpreted as urges or intentions, for example, then the subject still has time to "veto" this urge or intention or decide to act on it. That is when they become decision would be made and that is when they would be conscious of the decision. That these intentions/considerings/urges may arrive before one makes a decision does nothing to threaten free will.

The Argument from Rational Deliberation

Now that the ground is cleared onto my argument for free will. It proceeds from a very simple observation - the fact that we human beings reason. When we are reasoning about anything we often think that we have several options to choose from wherein in which, in some sense, we could choose to do each one if we thought we had good reason to do so. Rationality is only possible if there is such a thing as irrationality. If one has rational options open to them that seems to require that they also have irrational options open to them. There have to be alternate possibilities from a range of less to more rational options. In the course of rational deliberation there is always a "gap" that a set of beliefs and desires isn't causally sufficient to cause your actions. You have to choose to act on a set of beliefs.

John Searle illustrates this well with a humorous example:

"Suppose you go into a restaurant, and the waiter brings you the menu. You have a choice between, let's say, veal chops and spaghetti; you cannot say: 'Look , I am a determinist , che Sara, sara. I will just wait and see what I order! I will wait to see what my beliefs and desires cause."' [7]

The above scenario seems comical just because we recognize that isn't how human beings work. It doesn't follow inexorably from our antecedent beliefs/desires that we act on them. To put it another way - reasons don't act on you, you act on reasons. If I have numerous reasons to vote (and not vote) for the next presidential candidate, in the the end, it's me who chooses which reasons I decide to act on; maybe I like their economic policy more than their foreign policy and figure that their economic policy is more important than their foreign policy stances. I have a range of reasons to choose from. This seems incompatible with the truth of determinism and determinism would lead to the conclusion that no one ever rationally deliberates. Surely this can't be true. Therefore, there seems to be good reason to affirm that human beings have free will and that determinism is false.
Debate Round No. 3
000ike

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

The Argument from the law of Conservation of Energy

I concede this point and retract the argument, since it is rather insignificant to the crux of the negative case.


The Law of Causation

Physicality: Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.(1)

My opponent mixes physicality and existence. Something can exist while being non-physical (ie. thoughts, dreams). I simply argue that a non-physical thing cannot affect physical things such as the brain and body. Of course my opponent is free to dispute the premise and argue that the will is a physical thing. However, he’d have to demonstrate what the will is. Is it matter? Is it energy?

On the premise that freewill is non-physical, it lacks the ability to cause physical things. In this way, I don’t believe the argument begs the question, so I sustain it.

Upon this basis the argument for determinism proceeds as follows: Like effects have like causes, the effect is like the cause, the effect is in fact the cause transformed, as the lightning is the effect of the preceding electrical conditions. Now human action is, of course, a physical effect; hence, we must expect to find only a physical cause; hence, any non-physical, psychical cause is from the nature of the case precluded”(2)



The Arguments from Neuroscience

Objection 1

If interpreted as urges or intentions, for example, then the subject still has time to "veto" this urge or intention or decide to act on it.

Libet’s concept of “free won’t” or the conscious veto was nothing more than a last minute reconciliation with moral responsibility. It can be rebuked in the same fashion as “freewill” itself. Of course people have the ability to resist action. However, what prevents this resistance from being subject to the determinist system as well? Whether or not one vetoes will be due to antecedent neuronal causes.

Sam Harris writes:

I think Libet’s reasoning was clearly flawed, as there is every reason to think that a conscious veto must also arise on the basis of unconscious neural events.”(3)

Objection 2

For all we know these brain events are correlated with the urges, intentions and considerings - not the decision to itself

This objection may be troublesome in the archaic and limited technology of Libet’s time, but modern neural testing and fMRI disarms this doubt. As part of a surgical procedure conducted by surgeon and neurologist, Itzhak Fried, electrodes were implanted deep in the brains of the patients to precisely monitor their neuronal activity before pressing a button. It was found that their decisions could be predicted with 80% accuracy 700 milliseconds prior to the patient being aware that he had made a decision. (4)

Another experiment conducted by neuroscientist, John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 modernized Libet’s experiment using fMRI. However, “critics still picked holes, pointing out that Haynes and his team could predict a left or right button press with only 60% accuracy….” (4)

In both cases, the accuracy exceeded 50%, which as of now proves a strong correlative, if not causative relationship between the brain activity and the decision. The activity is not mere urge, intention, and considering, otherwise the predictability would be much lower. Freewill, being uninfluenced, being its own cause, its own origination, has an element of spontaneity. Decisions should not be predicted anywhere near this accurately if a will is truly free.

My opponent may argue that choosing between a left and right button naturally lends 50% accuracy even through pure guesswork. However that would not retract or diminish these experiments given that the scientists saw numbers like 60 and 80!



Argument from Rational Deliberation

When we are reasoning about anything we often think that we have several options to choose from wherein in which, in some sense, we could choose to do each one if we thought we had good reason to do so

The central tenant and preponderant point hammered by every determinist in the world is the notion that we cannot trust our senses. The implication of every test from Libet’s delay to the various fMRIs is the presence of a neuronal illusion – whether it means that our consciousness is referred back 500 milliseconds in time, or that antecedent brain activity predicts decision before decision is made.

Yet, the Argument from Rational Deliberation relies solely upon common human perception – the very faculty in question. So, I find the conclusions derived from it, in a way, irrelevant.

I also contest that determinism does not deny rational deliberation. It merely states that the outcome of that deliberation is inevitable whether the inevitability is recognized or not. Given that determinists, again, argue that we operate under an illusion, it is no wonder that we feel we are actually deliberating something with an undetermined outcome. My opponent attempts to use the consequences of a truth to destroy its validity – kind of like arguing that


Conclusion

Freewill is more contradictory to nature, science, and logic than it would appear. Things do not simply happen, they happen because a preceding force caused them to happen. A will therefore cannot act in a vacuum. It must have preceding cause; and every advancement in science and neurology corroborates this fact with increasing certainty. You also have the fact that a will has no place or fit in the universe, for actions are caused or they are random, both cases excluding the notion of a free will. Freewill stands among the ranks of the thunder gods and the rain spirits, the fire demons and the fairies – animistic assertions for phenomena that cannot yet be explained. From this mounting evidence, it follows that freewill simply cannot exist.

I once again thank my opponent for the debate opportunity and the challenging responses.


Sources

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2. http://www.csulb.edu...

3. http://www.eoht.info...

4. http://www.nature.com...

popculturepooka

Pro

Thanks to Con for the debate. I will have to drop his philosophical argument for the non-existence of free will mainly because I forgot that this would be the last round of debate and Con would not have a chance to respond to it. Conduct should go to Con for that and my earlier forfeit.

Now on to the arguments which, of course, I will not concede to Con. :)

The Law of Causation

I will just note a seemingly insuperable difficulty with this line of thought:

Prima facie, Con has a self-effacing/refuting position here Con replies implicitly rely - even if he is unaware of it - on a common argument for physicalism - the argument from causal closure. Which basically states that all physical effects have physical causes. [1] Con says that things like, for example, thoughts are non-physical but then, on the other hand, wants to argue that non-physical things cannot affect physical things. See the tension here? This would mean that thoughts don't affect physical things. This would mean that Con's thoughts don't ever cause his bodily behaviors or actions. This would mean that Con's thoughts (namely his view that free will doesn't exist and that determinism is true) didn't actually cause him to type up this debate on the existence of free will. This seems, to put it in the most mild terms possible, wildly counter-intuitive and implies that Con (or any of us for that matter) never does things because of his thoughts; that our behavior is never affected by our thoughts. This violates very common-sensical views on mental causation and would lead to a form of epiphenomenalism. [2] If Con is willing to bite the bullet and accept that our thoughts never cause our actions then he is free to do so - although that would be hard to accept considering the fact that that implies that Con would see the force of my arguments (i.e. think they are sound), and change his behavior accordingly (which is something his argument leads him to deny).

The Arguments from Neuroscience

Honestly speaking, unless I am missing something very crucial (which is quite possible), I don't see how Con's counter-objections have much force.


Objection 1

First, Con dismisses Libet's concept of "free won't" as a "last minute reconciliation with moral responsibility". I think this may be unfair to Libet because, as far as I know, Libet was a convinced determinist; he thought his experiments provided a powerful reason to believe determinism. I think he was just recognizing that there is some crucial wiggle room when using his experiments as an argument for determinism.

Second, I don't see how this counters my objection at all. I asked for a reason why those brain correlations should be interpreted as the decisions to act themselves instead of a considering/intention/urge to act. There doesn't seem to be a reason to prefer Con's interpretation as opposed to mine and mine is entirely consistent with some models of free will. Con arguing that this line of argument can be rebutted in the same fashion as "free will" doesn't answer my original point. Con is focusing on the wrong part of my critique.

Objection 2

Con's main point here to seems to be that if these brain events are interpreted as intentions/considerings/urges leading to decisions to act and not the decisions to act themselves then we shouldn't be able to predict with such accuracy which decision a person will pick. I will just ask one question: why should we expect that these decisions to act wouldn't be very predictable if there was such a thing as free will? If I give my 9 year old niece an option of between choosing to eat a happy meal from McDonalds or caviar, I can predict pretty accurately that that she will go with the happy meal 9 times out of 10. I'm not sure how that vitiates against free will.

And a minor point that Con's argument seems to turn on: the notion that free will is "uninfluenced". Now, no free will theorist that I know of argues that the will has to be free from all kinds of influence in order to truly count as "free". They only argue that it has to be free from certain kinds of constraints. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
"Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or “willings.”" [3]

And wikipedia states:

"Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The two main positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias)." [4]

Now, what those certain acceptable constraints or influences are is surely a matter of intense dispute, but that there are acceptable influences and constraints isn't a matter of serious dispute.

Argument from Rational Deliberation

Here Con's reply is that people are mistaken about their perceptions - in this case their perception of them rationally deliberating. The problem is, simply, that my argument was much stronger than the claim that people need to perceive or believe that they are rationally deliberating in order to rationally come to conclusions - it's that there does need to be such a thing as free will in order for our rational deliberations to even make any sense. If we are wrong in our perception of rational deliberations as free then we are wrong in thinking that we ever rationally deliberate! This leads us to the conclusions that we never come to believe anything for rational reasons! That's - to echo what I said earlier - wildly counter-intuitive to say the least.


Putting this all together I argue that there is no reason that has been put forward in this debate to think that free will doesn't exist and there has been at least one undefeated argument to believe that it does exist.

Thanks to Con for the debate and the readers for reading!

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
That youtube is pretty awesome and shocking.
What if we consider the decision before our consicious final decision is our 'real' conscious decision it is.

what if the decision after 5 seconds is just for periods of preparing for proclamation of decision.

and at the con's restuarant part, if one person could've seen ur brain decision, he would exactly know u would say that even u didn't decide anything to eat.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
RFD updated. Tarkovsky has the option to revise.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
I would appreciate it of Pro challenged me on this same issue.
Posted by tarkovsky 4 years ago
tarkovsky
Pro refutes Con's arguments that are disputed. I recognize the concession of certain arguments as due to a time constraint so I let those slide. In the end, Pro's argument for Rational Deliberation was the most convincing case brought up. Moreover, I intend on countering XimenBao's vote, as it seems apparent he didn't actually read the whole debate.
Posted by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
@16kadams
It is not that something takes away human freewill, but that it is impossible to exist in the first place. Thought is a physical process and thus since all physics is either causality or randomly based, there is no physical way of justifying the existence of a freewill. Or at least that is the basic premise.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Cool story, bro.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
God: You have free will. NOW USE IT EXACTLY AS I COMMAND YOU TO.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
It's all good.
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
This whole thing was not supposed to be there. I thought I deleted it :\....I hate mondays

"... I also contest that determinism does not deny rational deliberation. It merely states that the outcome of that deliberation is inevitable whether the inevitability is recognized or not. Given that determinists, again, argue that we operate under an illusion, it is no wonder that we feel we are actually deliberating something with an undetermined outcome. My opponent attempts to use the consequences of a truth to destroy its validity – kind of like arguing that..."
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
I don't understand your perspective. A Christian doesn't believe that God controls man's will. A Christian believes that man chooses good or evil through his own volition. Some atheists would argue that man does not have freewill, and things like hell and divine retribution are morally perverse if not impossible.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter 16kadams.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter the conduct points for FF, the FF was supposed to be disregarded.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 4 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's Science argument and Dilemma of Determinism argument are essentially the same. I understand Con dropped the point, but the initial logic was never refuted. Libet's Delay is a strong point that was unsuccessfully refuted. Pro's Rational Deliberation is an Ad Populous. Arguments consequently go to Con.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I initially thought Pro offered no aff case. On re-read I see that rational deliberation was supposed to serve that purpose. I didn't recall the introductory sentence in R3 where he said it was the case for FW, and since the thrust of it was rationality rather than free will, I couldn't pick up on it later. As Con said, no-FW is unrelated to rationality. My vote is unchanged. There was an aff case, but it was too far off the point. I did like Pro's argument on causation. Not enough by itself.
Vote Placed by tarkovsky 4 years ago
tarkovsky
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by jwesbruce 4 years ago
jwesbruce
000ikepopculturepookaTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: To me the counters to Con's arguments had within them positive Pro arguments. [They just weren't labeled as such] I preferred Pro's answers on Causation and Neuroscience.