The Instigator
idocare
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Human can't chage his destiny

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 506 times Debate No: 72142
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

idocare

Con

I can control my destiny, but not my fate. Destiny means there are opportunities to turn right or left, but fate is a one-way street. I believe we all have the choice as to whether we fulfil our destiny, but our fate is sealed.
- Paulo Coelho

Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, idocare, for instigating this debate.


Affirmative Case


A1: Definition of destiny


According to Google's dictionary, destiny is defined as:


"the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future" [1].


My opponent's argument defies the definition of destiny, therefore it is invalid.



A2: Hard Determinism



Hard Determinism is the concept wherein both physical determinism is true and free will is impossible. Granted the premise that Hard Determinism is true (which I will prove under this heading), it follows that destiny cannot be changed because we are fundamentally incapable of changing our actions. Consider this syllogism:

P1. Actions in the current moment are completely determined by your prior actions (cause and effect)
P2. You were are unable to do anything but what your previous actions made you do
C. Therefore, you have no control over your destiny

An example of physical determinism in action can be seen with Adrian Raine's research at the University of California-Irving. In several studies, Raine found that the brains of 41 violent criminals examined had reduced glucose metabolism in various parts of the brain. Importantly, these parts of the brain are ones responsible for the reasoning and moral decision making, which included the prefrontal cortex [2].

Another example is the case of Charles Whitman, who was a student at the University of Texas at Austin. Before the 1st of August 1966, he experienced (as written in his later suicide note) some "strange thinking". On the 1st of August, he climbed up a tower and begun shooting at people. His shooting killed 13 and wounds another 32. Upon an autopsy, a brain tumour was found, indicating that the tumour had caused this completely spontaneous, irrational behaviour, much like the criminals had issues with glucose [3].

Finally, there is the case of Alex the 40 year old school teacher. With absolutely no record of past interest, Alex suddenly developed a liking for children in a sexual manner. Upon making an illegal approach on his stepdaughter, he was sent to prison. Whilst in prison, he complained about a headache, and so went under the knife. Discovered was a brain tumour, much the one found on Charles Whitman. It was cut out. Amazingly, his paedophilic behaviour ceased. However, a year later, his abnormal feelings returned. When he went under the knife again, another tumour was found [4].

These examples give clear demonstrations of how the physical disallows any kind of free will, thus disallowing any control over destiny.



Conclusion


I have given two arguments to affirm he resolution, of which are quite different to each other.

The first argument is semantical, in that it references a legitimate definition of destiny to affirm the resolution. With the term destiny, there is an implied notion that there is no control, hence the definition.

In the event that you do not like the (fair) semantics I have played, there is a second argument that show the physical constraints of reality making free will impossible, thereby making destiny something that humans cannot change.

Either way, the resolution is affirmed.


"Man can do as he wills, but cannot will what he wills" - Arthur Schopenhauer


References

[1] https://www.google.com.au...
[2] Laurence Tancredi, Hardwired Behaviour: What Neuroscience Reveals About Morality, 2007, CUP, pp 152.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 1
idocare

Con

idocare forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
idocare

Con

idocare forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by coolkid1231 1 year ago
coolkid1231
i go with con because people can change his/her destiny.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
idocareZarroetteTied
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.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
idocareZarroetteTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by coolkid1231 1 year ago
coolkid1231
idocareZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: because idocare had forfeited his rounds so pro you win. congrats, but i am with con still.