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

Life Philosophy

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 89797
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I am in a bit of a philosophical mood and was hoping to argue something deep and thought-provoking. The two subjects currently on my mind are Free Will (I am Con) and Objective Morality (I am Con). Feel free to accept if you have a contrary opinion on either topic and would like to argue it. If you have another philosophical debate on your mind, feel free to post in the comments and I'll gladly consider something new. In fact, I'd rather debate something new as I think I've made up my mind on the two above topics.

In any case, any questions will be answered in the comments.

My opponent will have Sole BoP if he/she chooses the Free Will topic, but BoP will be shared if he/she chooses to argue Pro Objective Morality.

Upon accepting, I ask that my opponent state which topic they chose and present their arguments in the first Round.


morality is objective, like it wasnt a bad thing to give your kids mushrooms to eat because they were not deadly poisonous

free will must exist if i can be mentally enslaved

belief=mentally enslaved
knowledge=free will
for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast

free will is my ability to divert from the path i walk, or my ability to consider it.. resistance on the path of choice is the lack of will
blind men shouldnt search for rainbows
Debate Round No. 1


So we shall argue both, fantastic. In fact, I'm glad that you've accepted this debate as I have been curious to debate you for a while now.

You say morality is objective, but I'm a little confused on your proof for it. Humans have had such a wide variety of beliefs when it comes to morality and the morality of a particular actions depends solely on the society in which the act is committed. For example, today in the US, it would be considered immoral to eat another human but several centuries ago this was a common practice in the indigenous tribes of New Zealand as well as many other groups around the world. There is no objective standard for morality as moral codes vary widely from one society to the next.

no universal code of morals=no objective code of morals

You say that since one can be mentally enslaved, then one can be mentally "free" and therefore have free will. What do you mean by "mentally enslaved"? Who's to decide that a certain state is slavery while the other is freedom?

"free will is my ability to divert from the path i walk, or my ability to consider it"
Yes you consider it, but your "decision" is biased. It's based on already-present factors that YOU DID NOT CREATE nor do you control.

free will=ability to act without bias
bias=already-present factors that you don't control

We are not able to act without bias, as to act without bias is to be completely removed from our environment, which we are not.

inability to act without bias=no free will


lies are comlicated by separation and true is simple now as one

knowledge is truth, belief is be lie

unwilling choice=mental emotion(belief, love, jealousy)+option

i take it biased is flawed, i know the mushrooms were not deadly poisonous, if they were it would be bad
Debate Round No. 2


"belief is be lie"
Not necessarily. You can have a belief that is true, it's just that you have no evidence to back your belief.

"i take it biased is flawed"
Well yes, we always strive for objectivity, but it is impossible because we are human, with emotions. However even a computer is biased, limited by itself.

And so it seems you really haven't thoroughly addressed the issues at hand.


certainty negates belief, only know is true

math is objective, reality has no flaws
Debate Round No. 3


"certainty negates belief"
No, revelation of truth negates belief. One can be certain in their beliefs, as many religious people are, for example.

"math is objective, reality has no flaws"
Yes, I agree with both statements. However our perception of reality may be flawed.

But since our view on reality is biased, we cannot make an unbiased decision and therefore there is no free will.

Since we cannot observe an objective reality, there is no way we can make an objective moral judgement and these judgments vary from place to place, culture to culture.

There is no free will and no objective morality.


sight is not perception

you have a biased view i agree, i have no beliefs


morality is objective, is math, is knowledge.. 1+1=2
Debate Round No. 4


"sight is not perception"
But we cannot see something and not have an opinion or attitude about it. That is perception.

I feel that you, overall, haven't really addressed my points.

"i have no beliefs"
But you do. You think certain things are right, and that others are wrong. Those are your beliefs.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.



you can percieve things however you like, go eat a poisonous mushroom
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.