The Instigator
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ZenoCitium
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

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: Select Winner
Started: 3/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,196 times Debate No: 71611
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (0)

 

TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT! 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 truely the only one? Well not exactly, but in essence, yes. I will show that because each individual lives in his or her own world, that they are logically restrained to accept certain ideas, especially when they experience a certain theoretical situation which logically demonstrates that others are not free but that you yourself and I myself (seperately) are. Here is a logical proof explaining in further detail and clarity to what exactly I am refering. Please note that BOP is shared, and that currently the debate is impossible to accept, doing so without permission is an auto forfeit. There are only 48 hours to respond to each argument. Message me or comment if interested.


Case:


1.) All actions are predetermined and thus predicatable.

2.) Thus, given enough information, I could theoretically be put in a viewing room which allowed me to watch and anticipate another person’s every-move. This would prove to the me in the story, that other people's actions are predetermined

3.) Logically however, I could never view and anticipate My own actions as this would be a paradox, this would prove to me that my actions are not predeterminable.

4.) Thus, in your world, only you have free will and as it relates to me, only I have free will


Thus if we look into this scenaro from a god'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'. Thus, because I am stuck in my ignorant, mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and justifiably say that only I have free will.

The examples above stating that other have free will depending on the perspective is not a concession of the round, but rather a method for me to demonstrate why what I said make sense, the shifting nature I show above helps strengthen my position but again, please do not assert that because I have 'admited' that I Can, not have free will that this is a concession. Forgive the semantics disclaimer.




Further Rules

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.

Con must prove that such a claim or belief is unreasionable and/or irrational.

speech order is constructives, constructives and rebutalls, rebutals, and then closing arguents (no new arguments)

ZenoCitium

Con

Thanks for an intriguing debate Pro. Good luck.

OPENING STATEMENT


To start I"d like to formally define some important concepts.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic [1]
Predetermined: established or decided in advance; prearranged; predestined [2]
Determinism: the philosophical position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. [3]
Free Will: The ability for an agent to act according to his own motivation. [4]
Omniscient: knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge [5]

PRO"s resolution is as follows: "One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will." He presents the following case (I"ve reorganized for clarity):

Premise 1 (P1): We have a determinist existence. All actions can be predetermined, given the power of omniscience, because within each action there exists conditions that could cause no other action.
P2: If PRO was an omniscient being, PRO could predict all actions of other beings.
P3: Since PRO can predict every action of every other being, every other being must not have free will.
P4: PRO cannot predict PRO"s own actions.
P5: PRO therefore has free will.
P6: Because each individual lives in his or her own world, they are logically restrained to accept certain ideas
Conclusion: In anyone else"s world, they have free will and as it relates to PRO, only PRO has free will. Therefore, one can only rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will.

ROUND 1 ARGUMENT



PRO"s resolution hinges on the proposition that we are logically restrained from accepting realities that we cannot observe. According to P6, since we cannot observe the free will of other agents we cannot rationally support the claim that they are free to choose their actions. This is the appeal to ignorance fallacy, specifically in regard to proving non-existence out of ignorance. At best, the free will of others is undetermined but we cannot preclude that it exists. However, this logical truth opens PRO"s resolution for further scrutiny.

We could accept P1 and P2 as logically sound. However, P3 is problematic because it revolves around a poor definition of free will. PRO"s version of free will is not compatible with determinism. If our actions are already determined by initial conditions, we have but one available action; that which was culminated by all of the conditions that existed throughout not only the experiences during our existence, but the experiences of the entire universe. All conditions converging at that one infinitesimal moment, allowing only one logical action for us. According to PRO, if there is only one action left for us to choose, we don"t contain free will. For free will to exist, PRO maintains that we must have multiple choices. However, this is not logically true. Free will only requires that we are the agent that acts and that no other agent acts on our behalf. In other words, it is not important that we have but one choice but that we make the choice ourselves. The freedom to act affirms our free will, not the freedom to choose. Therefore, determinism does not prevent free will at all. P3 can therefore not logically be adopted; it is rational to support the claim that every individual in existence has free will. Moral responsibility will help us to prove this concept. Consider the following example:

It is God"s will that Cain slay Abel. On that fateful day, with Cain"s jealously raging, God decides that if Cain does not choose to kill his brother that he will instead force the thought into Cain"s head, forcing the action Himself. However, in his jealous wrath Cain bludgeons Abel and kills him, preventing God from forcing the action.

Cain only had one action to commit, since all other actions would have been prevented by God. However, was he still not morally responsible for his sin? Although no other action was possible, the action to kill was his own and therefore, his responsibility.

Furthermore, PRO"s P4 also has logic issues. In the example provided, all-knowing PRO could predict every action of every other being. How then is it logical that PRO could not predict his own actions? PRO claims that this is paradoxical. However, it is only paradoxical if PRO assumes he has his definition of free will (multiple choice free will) to begin with. This line of reasoning commits the circular reasoning fallacy, which is also called the paradoxical thinking fallacy. We cannot logically adopt P3 or subsequently, P4, for this reason.

Thanks for reading through my arguments. I am looking forward to further arguments that are presented by my opponent.

SOURCES
[1] https://www.google.com...
[2] https://www.google.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

TheJuniorVarsityNovice forfeited this round.
ZenoCitium

Con

Extend arguments. Con has forfeited in full (see comments). This debate was reestablished here:

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

I conceed the round due to the previous forfeit and accordingly, ZenoCitium and I shall have a rematch. If interested in the full debate please visit this link:

http://www.debate.org...
ZenoCitium

Con

Extend argument.
Debate Round No. 3
TheJuniorVarsityNovice

Pro

I conceed the round due to the previous forfeit and accordingly, ZenoCitium and I shall have a rematch. If interested in the full debate please visit this link:

http://www.debate.org......
ZenoCitium

Con

Extend argument.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
..... and the irony is hardly bearable. There were no conduct points .....
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Alright, thanks Zenium
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
OK just wanted to make fully sure. I'll copy and paste.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Like I said, I'm not going to continue with this match. I challenged you again, all you have to do is re-post your round 2 argument and we can have a fair match.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
Ok, if that's what you really wish. The conduct points are less than points awarded for a more convincing argument. If you are awarded those points you should still be victorious. Also, if it were me I'd be less concerned about forfeiting a conduct point than forfeiting all points. I'll give you approx. one hour to decide.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
despite the fact that your idea would in fact work, I intended there to be 3 rounds of actual debate when I made it and so I just wouldn't feel ok with skipping a round. On top of that I already know that the judges will auto take a conduct point so I would rather start with a fresh plate. All you would have to do is copy your argument to the second round of the new debate and we could be rolling in less than 15 min...you can decided if you want to start on a new debate with me but I'm just going to forfeit this debate. Thanks
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
I can delay this round one more day if you need it. Also, there's no shame in conceding. Honestly, I don't think I could defend the arguments I made as Con if I were Pro, though I very well could be missing a good point. Instigating and playing Pro are more challenging than refuting.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
We did start earlier than most debates (rd 1 is usually only for acceptance). I think we can still have an adequate debate if I extend my arguments this round and you begin rebuttal in rd 3.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Wow, I thought I forgot it was set to 2 days instead of 3 like my other debates.....I'll concede the round and challenge you again if you would like a rematch...
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
Tsk-tsk. JVN! Forfeiting and it's only round 2.

Care to provide your round 2 arguments into the comments section before I post my round 2 constructive?
No votes have been placed for this debate.