The Instigator
Bhudanaboy
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

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 2 votes the winner is...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 67762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Bhudanaboy

Con

Our thoughts are events inside our brain, every event is caused by a prior event. It then follows that we are in no control of our thoughts and cannot be said to be responsible for them.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

So in your brain, do you think that you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell, or do you think you deserve to die and burn in Hell, and is it you who is responsible for your answers or must I blame nothingness for your answers? Are you capable of responding in any way that you can prove you are not a robot?
Debate Round No. 1
Bhudanaboy

Con

Pro made red herring and ad hominem statements. Pro did not refute Con's opening argument. Con's argument still stands.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

How can you argue if you don't exercise your free will to do it? Are you responsible for your argument, or is it the fault of the chemical fizzes inside your head? If you are in no control of your thoughts and cannot be responsible for them, how can you say that you can compose any arguemt at all? If you have no control over your thoughts and actions, no free will, then you are only a machine. I am a human. A human cannot make a machine believe it is human.

I accepted this challenge because it is an act of free will. I did not have to do it, I chose to do it. I did it because I think it's funny that you are trying to convince yourself that you are not responsible for your thoughts and actions. If you were one of my privates, I would tell you to drop and give me 100 push-ups, then run ten miles through the hills. When you got back, I would say, "well private. I'm giving you a choice. You can say you are responsible for your thoughts and actions or you can give me another 100 pushups before you run the same 10 miles. What is your choice?"

Would your answer be programmed by the fizzes of your brain, or would you be responsible for your choice proving you exercise free wiill?

Earth calling, you are not a robot. I hope you don't run yourself to death arguing with your CSM
Debate Round No. 2
Bhudanaboy

Con

Pro has yet to refute Con's opening argument.

"How can you argue if you don't exercise your free will to do it?"
Pro is presupposing that you need free will to do actions, but in my round 1 argument I stated why that is not true, Pro has not still not refuted my round one argument.

"Are you responsible for your argument, or is it the fault of the chemical fizzes inside your head?"
Yes it is the consequence of innumerable previous events; a chain reaction.

"If you are in no control of your thoughts and cannot be responsible for them, how can you say that you can compose any arguemt at all?"
I don't need to say it, it is apparent, because it has been done.

"If you have no control over your thoughts and actions, no free will, then you are only a machine. I am a human. A human cannot make a machine believe it is human."
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines machine as "An apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task." The difference between me; a human, and a machine; is that a machine is not alive, and I am. (The functions in the brain and through out our cells are not mechanical.)

"I accepted this challenge because it is an act of free will. I did not have to do it, I chose to do it. I did it because I think it's funny that you are trying to convince yourself that you are not responsible for your thoughts and actions."
Pro still has not shown any evidence for the existence of free will. Pro chose to pick this debate because it appealed to him. Why did it appeal to him? It appealed to him because of environmental factors and genetics that he has no control over, and he wanted to act on his appeal because of even more uncontrollable events that have effected him.

"If you were one of my privates, I would tell you to drop and give me 100 push-ups, then run ten miles through the hills. When you got back, I would say, "well private. I'm giving you a choice. You can say you are responsible for your thoughts and actions or you can give me another 100 pushups before you run the same 10 miles. What is your choice?"

Pro seems to prefer to win debates by threatening those who he has "power" over.

"Would your answer be programmed by the fizzes of your brain, or would you be responsible for your choice proving you exercise free wiill?"
Someone could not be responsible unless they had free will, there fore you could not know they were responsible to prove that they have free will. This is circular reasoning.

"Earth calling, you are not a robot. I hope you don't run yourself to death arguing with your CSM"
Not having free will does not make someone a robot, as shown in one of my rebuttals located above.

I would like to point out that Pro still has not addressed my round one argument. Rather he has asked how we could not have free will, presupposing that we do have it, without showing any evidence.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

\My opponent claims I did not refute his argument, but then argues agaisnt my refuttation which he claims I did not make.
His whole 3 argument is agaisnt my Round 2 assertions. I guess my opponent has no free will to exercise rational thought or engage in logical conversation.

I'm sorry, this is just toooooo stupid. I can't take it any more. You have no free will to vote. You must vote in favor of my opponent if you are as insane as he is.
Debate Round No. 3
Bhudanaboy

Con

"My opponent claims I did not refute his argument, but then argues agaisnt my refuttation which he claims I did not make."
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines refute as "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove". Nowhere in Pro's round 2 did he disprove my initial statement.

"His whole 3 argument is agaisnt my Round 2 assertions. I guess my opponent has no free will to exercise rational thought or engage in logical conversation."
Pro states that we do have free will.

"I'm sorry, this is just toooooo stupid. I can't take it any more. You have no free will to vote. You must vote in favor of my opponent if you are as insane as he is."
Pro states again that we do have free will. I think the debate is over.

I would like to point out that nowhere in Pro's arguments did he give evidence for free will, or refute my evidence.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Are you kidding me? You are actually arguing that we do have free will? The goofy things you said were actually arguments in support of the fact that we are responsible for our choices and actions because we willingly choose by exercising our free will? What side are you on. This has to be the stupidest debate I could have ever dreamed up/
Debate Round No. 4
Bhudanaboy

Con

TYPO! I meant do NOT**** have free will, sorry about that.
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The topic of this debate is that there is no evidence for free will, only evidence for it's absence. You took the "Con"position, meaning your argument is oppostite, opposed to, the debate topic. My postion is pro and I am supposed to be arguing in support of the debate topic. If you don't have free will, how in the world can you choose sides and how in the world can you have any idea what you are saying.....if you don't have free will, nothing you say has to make any sense because you are only saying what the fizzes in your brain make you say. It's a good thing you are excusing yourself from being responsible for your choices, because you are not making any sense and who can blame you if you have no free witll?

Which side are you on? Are you on the Con side saying we have free will, or are you actually proving you are incapable of choosing by your own free will which side of the argument you stand on, and the fizzes in your brain compell you to talk like your elevator is skipping a few floors?

If you really are trying to prove you have no free will, all you are doing is trying to excuse your own bad behaviour by saying you have no self-control, and therefore you think you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. Saying you are not responsible does not get you off the hook.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by angryduck 2 years ago
angryduck
All of our reactions can be explained by genetic Inheritance behaviour . Free will is an Illusion. everything you "learn" from your past is programmed into you . you've never made or ever will make a decision based on free will . it doesn't exist. The decision to turn left or right at the next junction has already been made for you.
Posted by Bhudanaboy 2 years ago
Bhudanaboy
Whats an R1 concession? I'm new so thanks for the constructive criticism :)

Epiphanies, inspiration, imagination, and dreams are all cause by compulsory reaction to environment.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
belief=no free will
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
R1 concession, not a good start.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
Explain then, epiphanies and inspiration, imagination and dreams.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Geographia 2 years ago
Geographia
BhudanaboyLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate. Both sides were unrefined and had poor conduct and s/g and arguments.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
BhudanaboyLifeMeansGodIsGoodTied
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: Neither gave any sources. Pro loses a conduct point for calling his opponent stupid. Over-all con was unable to prove to me that our actions are predetermined and furthermore that because our actions are determined that we don't neccesarliy have control of them. And even still that because we don't have control over them, we shouldn't be held responsible for them. As a judge I recommend that you both start using more structure in your debates, for instane you may consider labeling each individual argument with it's own title and being sure ton articulate Exactly why the other party is wrong. Remember that the debate isn't about if you think the opponent is wrong, but rather if the judges think he is wrong.