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

I am the only individual in existence with free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,927 times Debate No: 72559
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (170)
Votes (3)




Resolved: One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in exsistence with free will.


Thesis: In this debate I will assert logically that out of all people who roam the earth, I am the sole individual who has free will; does this mean that I believe I am objectively the only one? Well not exactly, but in essence yes. Truth can be based off of persepctive, take for example the theory of relativity and its conclusions on the speed of an object. Furthermore I have a different definition of free will than most people which holds free will to be more of an experience than anything else, and thus one could imagine that I might argue using the connections between that fact and the perspectives.

I would like everyone to know that I have formulated this theory on my own, I will respond as best as I can to all arguments and try to respond so that anyone could understand my point. My goal of instigation is the furthering of the argument not winning neccesarily, so the more logical arguments con makes the happier I am. For this reason, I don't Really care about winning the debate, just improving my stance, which I think is in the best interest of both parties to be honest. You don't have to understand this debate to accept it, you must simply know what you Do Not understand so that you may point it out and I may thus expand my argument but please also be willing lister as well. Thanks, look forward to the debate. Apply in comments.

The perspectives

1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story)

3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator)

3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own.

By acceting this round, you do not accept the following to be true, this is the case, the first argument. (keep in mind this means that acceptance and your first argument are in the same round)

The Argument Part 1

1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus ‘predetermined’

2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things

3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox

4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will

Thus if we look into this scenaro from a 3rd person detached (narrator's) perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom' and 'choice'. Thus, because I am stuck in my mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and rationally say that only I have free will.

You accept the following by accepting this debate...

Rounds Rules and Regulations

1.) to win I must show that it is reasonable or rational to believe the idea that I am the only person who has free will.

2.) Con must prove that such a claim or belief is unreasionable and/or irrational. The debate will come down to whether or not the ideas presented could reasonably be accepted by a person.

3.) You accept the premise that determinism is a valid theory.

4.) The above logical proof is not binding and other reasons may exist which support the validity of the resolution so if a part of the logical proof falls it doesn't meant the argument is neccesarily false.

5.) Please note that BOP is shared

6.)The debate is impossible to accept, doing so without permission is an auto forfeit. comment if interested.

7.)There are 72 hours to respond to each argument and an 8k character limit.

8.) Message me or comment if interested

9.) I may request a general outline of your arguments being that I give mine.

1.) Acceptance/ arguments from Pro, refutation and arguments from Con.
2.) Arguments and rebutals
3.) Rebutals
4.) Summary and why you win specific arguments and the debate as a whole.



Thanks for accepting. Now pls state your understanding of free will as I will be proving free will is an illusion. At any given moment our choices are predetermined by factors beyond our control. Although future events may alter our choices we can at no single moment have two choices. All choices are based on 6 vectors. Good and evil, like and dislike and benefit or detriment. Each vector has a + factor a - factor or a 0 factor. Eg yellow. Which has a 0 rating on the good or evil vector. Our decisions are based on the strongest single or combined factors. When a choice is good, liked and beneficial, its easy. But when the decision is either like or beneficial it requires calculation. You may for instance like chocolate, but you know its unhealthy. So here are your choices. Eat the chocolate or don't. The deciding factor is which has a higher value. Your health, or the joy of eating the chocolate. Well that value is set at any given moment. Therefore your choice is set, at any given moment. As we can't go back and alter past decisions or know what might influence our future decisions, the only moment that matters is now. And right now you have no choice.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello, I welcome all viewers and voters and may this be a thought provoking debate. Let’s being…

I would first like to start off by responding to Furyan5’s initial statements. In the last round it was posited that free will is an illusion, this is because the universe is predetermined. But what I have to wonder is how exactly this impacts my case, as there was never a direct response to me which discredits any of my actual argument. It seems in fact that this wasn’t really a response to my case but a position of his own case on free will, in general. Without having stated the reasons for which this discredits my argument I must assume it is simply off topic, in essence, Furyan’s remarks don’t indicate the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Thus, while I think Furyan’s ideas are interesting, they don’t negate the resolution. It would be best if in the following rounds we simply refuted the case itself as I thought was agreed about before the debate.

In lieu of this, I would simply like to expand upon my argument more.

How perspective relates to truth and deriving each perspectives existance

As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day’s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50’s he wasn’t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. “It’s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds” he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don’t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn’t apply here, as it doesn’t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender…..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn’t black and white in its truth value in any given moment.

The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time….ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own ‘existence’. What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn’t exist as we know it.

But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that ‘knows’ it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn’t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can’t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night.

But now there is an issue….If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives.

“A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective]

So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective’s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.

Free will

Finally, the definition of free will.

Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.

What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people’s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement ‘free will only applies to me’ from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that ‘the entire universe is determined’, I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn’t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside ‘the box’ to inside the box, that ‘choice X’ will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position…because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the ‘ultimte perspective’ it was simply bound to happen.

Thank you, I pass the pen back to CON


Thanks for defining free will.
I am the only individual in existance with free will....
If free will doesn't exist this statement is false.

Choice is but a hypothetical creation of the mind showing a variety of potential expected outcomes. It gives us the illusion of free will but does not exist. At the moment of action there is only one possible option. As my opponent does not wish to persue that aspect of the dabate I will not attempt further proof.

Yes, truth is subjective to each person and although it may seem to contradict at times, as in it being day/night/both depending on your perspective, the fact remains that from your perspective only one is true. If you are on the dark side of the planet it is night (on that side of the planet) Not the whole planet.

As an individual you can only see one perspective

Pro claims that if he is ever put in a position showing his own calculability it would bare a paradox. This is where the claim fails. He could never be put in that position because only at the moment of action is a action set. Before the action it is merely hypothetical and after the action it can't be changed. You can't know what you going to do till that moment arrives. But that doesn't mean you have choice when that moment arrives. Its predestined.
Debate Round No. 2


TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.


I concede this round
Debate Round No. 3


TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.


I'm not interested in points. So please continue this discussion in comments.
So far I agree that everything you say is true from your perspective. But it is also true from my perspective.
But subjective truths can't both be true.....well that is the common misconception.
The fact is we are both looking at different realities.
Real is defined by our perceptions. To perceive the same reality we would need to occupy the same spot and grasp the same concepts. Every sense needs to be perfectly alligned so we see, smell,feel, tase and hear exactly the same. To be honest, I believe the reality my left eye sees is a different reality from the one my right eye sees. And my brain combines the two creating I third. I could also close both eyes to create a 4th reality.
Therefore billions of realities exist and although similar in appearance its possible for something to be true in your reality and false in mine.
Take an orange. We both look at it and agree the orange is real. But we are not looking at the same orange. Your angle of view differs from mine. And what is seeing? There is no light shining from the orange? Its light being reflected off the skin. The actual colour of a orange is (absorbing all coloures except orange) which we can't percieve.

So is there a bigger picture? A being who sees all realities? I dnt know. But if there was it would be pointless to create us and predestine our actions. The outcome would be predictable. Unless an element of randomnes is added. Nothing too big as it may destroy the entire realities. I would love that to be me. And everything that happens around me has a purpose. For me to learn. But by writing this down for you to read I am teaching, not learning. So sadly I must admit I am not the one with free will.
There is however a problem. You also taught me quite a bit. Therefore you are not the one with free will.
There is only one person with free will. The person reading this debate. This person has learnt from both of us.
Debate Round No. 4
170 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
Free will in any form whatsoever does not exist. Every choice is a logical conclusion leaving no other alternative. Choice is an illusion. A mere construct of the mind created to give peace to those who can't handle the idea that from the moment of their birth every action has been predetermined.
Posted by Molzahn 3 years ago
After reading some of the comments here, I still don't see what the big deal is about kritiks. They tend to be appropriate when someone has a detrimentally loose or erroneous definition for a key element in a debate.


"That is why someone can claim that it is night right now, and then on the other side of the world say its day, while both being subjectively true. Objectively, they're both wrong, its always night and day on [E]arth."

It would be false to universally say that it is night on Earth, but it would be objectively correct to state that "It is night" is correct within conditions (i.e. "it is night" at "this" location).

I don't see an issue with countering the proposition "I am the only individual in existence with free will" by claiming free will does not exist. Free will as a concept in debate still needs to be defined and established.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
I personally try to read debates as if I could not see the user names (I strongly dislike votes that are based on user names, instead of debate content; yet a number of people have done exactly that). So no, I will not hold it against you on future debates.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
He was refering to people that matter lol
Posted by Kozu 3 years ago
I'm going to hold this against you in future debates.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 years ago
Well...i've been avoiding commenting because I'm so damn embarrassed about this match.....3k views, 8 likes, great judges, and I forfeit two rounds?? The Fvck.... The first forfeit was my lack of checking the time to respond. In almost every other debate, the round is due later because people work or go to school like me, and the second one was solely because I left my laptop at my mother's house over an hour away. I just have to apologize to everyone for this humiliating round on my part and I hope you don't hold it against me in future debates.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
He left his laptop somewhere. Sends his apologies.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
I wanna know why Pro forfeited two rounds. Usually he's really good about finishing debates, this isn't like him... Regardless, I'll be dropping my vote on this shortly.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
Anyway here is my dilema. If I tell you my plan it backfires and if I dnt tell you my plan I lose because you won't grasp the concept. So I'm gonna cheat. The following statement is only an explanation and not part of the actual debate.
Everything pro claims is valid but applicable to both of us. And its pretty obvious to anyone reading it that pro has more experience at debating and is generally smarter than me. In fact you could say I add nothing of value to pro, whereas pro has taught me a lot. So what's my point?
Well the universe/omnipotent being has brought us together for a reason. Rationally the only reason I can think of is for me to learn. Therefore rationally the entire universe is here for me to learn.
The problem is, if I bring this up in the debate I am teaching pro something. And rationally I would have to admit that I'm the one with no free will.
I'm up shyt kreek without a paddle.
Posted by Furyan5 3 years ago
I guess my act of playing dumb is just too convincing. Lol. I suggest you give it everything you got in this round.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This is unfortunate. I understand why Pro forfeited, but ultimately that cost him this debate. As Pro, he had a burden to uphold, and with the multiple forfeits which left Con's arguments from R2 standing unchallenged, he failed to uphold his BOP. I truly hope to see a rematch at some point down the road, because before the forfeits I will admit that Pro made some compelling arguments.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: FF