The Instigator
NewBalance
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
AlphaTBITW
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

There is no such thing as true free will

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
AlphaTBITW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 73459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

NewBalance

Pro

Humans have no actual true free will. Anyone who would like to debate it feel free to accept.
AlphaTBITW

Con

The topic is as follows:

"There is no such thing as true free will"

Free will is defined as follows:

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."
-https://www.google.com...

True is defined as follows:

"In accordance with fact or reality." -https://www.google.com...

So, the statement can be reworded as follows:

"There exists no ability to act on one's own discretion which is in accordance with fact or reality."

The BOF is on my opponent to show how general acts (such as me accepting this debate, me submitting this debate, and my opponent creating this debate) are not committed using free will.
Debate Round No. 1
NewBalance

Pro

The human mind is a beautiful and unique thing. Each one is different and it is true that every person is faced with choices every single day of their life. In this regard yes people have free will. And I will admit that I may have misused the word true. A more accurate word would be absolute. Because there are many things in this world that we as humans do not have free will over. Allow me to explain with an example:

You as a person decide that you are hungry. Now your brain has to chose what it wants to eat, which admittedly is an example of free will. But what about that initial desire to eat? The human body requires food to survive, if not it will die this is a fact that everyone knows. If humans have real free will then we would be able to ignore this desire to eat and survive.

To sum it up while we as humans have basic free will over certain parts of our lives there are many things that we don't have free will over. You as a person can not make the choice to hold your breath and not breathe. You don't have free will over the basic human instincts of living, therefore you don't have absolute free will.
AlphaTBITW

Con

The topic is as follows:

"There is no such thing as true free will"

My opponent says that he wishes not to use the word true, and would rather use the word absolute.

True is defined as follows:

"In accordance with fact or reality."

Absolute is defined as follows:

"Not qualified or diminished in any way; total." -https://www.google.com...

I do not dispute that one's freedom of will is not absolute, however the topic which I am Con to deals with true free will, not absolute free will.

The BoP is on Pro to show how general acts (such as me accepting this debate, me submitting this debate, and my opponent creating this debate) are not committed using free will.

Pro has not met his BoP. I extend him in order to meet it.
Debate Round No. 2
NewBalance

Pro

Very well. Another definition of true is:

"accurate or exact" -https://www.google.com...

In that case the statement can also be reworded as follows:

"There is no such thing as exactly acting at one's own discretion"

The definition of exactly is as follows:

"in exact terms; without vagueness." or "without discrepancy" - https://www.google.com...

Then you can rewrite the statement again as follows:

"There is no such thing as acting at one's own discretion without discrepancy"

Therefore you still do not have true free will because one person can want a large number of different things. When faced with a choice the human mind weighs all of the options no matter how briefly. Since it is weighing all of the possibilities there is a discrepancy between the options meaning that no matter what choice you make it is not the exact act of ones own discretion. Therefore my statement remains true.
AlphaTBITW

Con

Voters, you are charged with the following proposition:

"There is no such thing as true free will"



I began by accurately defining the concept of free will, being "the ability to act at one's own discretion"

I also opened giving the definition of true, being "in accordance with fact or reality"

I then said that such a statement can be made from the two definitions:

"There exists no ability to act on one's own discretion which is in accordance with fact or reality."

I then stated that the BoP is on my opponent to show how general acts are not committed using free will.



Round 2...




My opponent says that he admits that he has misused the word "true", and that a more accurate word would be "absolute".

My opponent then goes on to show that there are many things we do not have free will over, such as our desire to eat or drink. However, my opponent makes a minor blunder. He states:

"If humans have real free will then we would be able to ignore this desire to eat and survive."

The problem with my opponent's statement is that we do have the ability to ignore our desires. Many suicides have been the result of refusing to eat or drink. While we may not be able to ignore the feeling of desire, we can choose to ignore the desire to eat by not responding to it. In essence, we can choose to die.

There has never been a slave who did not choose to be a slave. Their choice may be between bondage and death, but the choice is always there.” -George R. R. Martin


However, my opponent's main point that one cannot choose not to feel desire still stands. This means that we do not have free will over every thing. We cannot deny to feel our feelings, we cannot jump 500 feet in the air, we can't fly. We do not have the ability to do all things, therefore our free will is limited and not absolute.


In my second round, I reiterated that the topic concerns the existence of
true free will, not absolute free will.
I drew the distinction between true and absolute, and also showed that my opponent had not yet sufficed his BoP concerning the topic of true free will.



Round 3...



My opponent starts off his final round claiming that I originally had mistreated the definition of "true".

Note that in Round 2 my opponent clearly said that the word "true" was not his actual intention, and rather that absolute was a better word for his intention.

My opponent tries to redefine true, saying that he meant it to mean "exact".

He then reforms the topic, and defines the meaning of exactly.

After, my opponent reforms the topic once again, as such:

"There is no such thing as acting at one's own discretion without discrepancy"

This is where, once again, my opponent fails to understand the meaning of his words.

The definition of "exactly" which he uses firstly does not coincide with the definition of "true", which is meant in the context of an exact number of things. This is why his definition of "true" is synonymous with accurate.

Secondly, even if we say that his definition of "true" does coincide with his definition of "exactly", the definition of "exactly" is misattributed to his usage of the word.

Exactly, as it is defined, is in the context of describing how accurate the depiction of someone or something is.

"Wwthout discrepancy (used to emphasize the accuracy of a figure or description)."
-https://www.google.com...

My opponent tries to manipulate the usage of the words, when in fact they are not meant to be taken in the way which he wants them to be taken. Therefore, my opponent's reformation of the topic is not consistent with the ability to act freely, and therefore is not consistent with the original topic.

With that, my opponent has still not met his BoP to show how general acts are not an extent of true free will.

Therefore, my opponent has given no good reasons for us to think that true free will does not exist.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
GoOrDin... if you can't debate without insulting other people please refrain from commenting. Its ummmmmm unChristian.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Yes, you have choice, but having choice and what you choose are two different matters. Freedom of choice implies that in the same situation and without any other influence you would make different choices. But we don't. Let me put it simpler... A coffee drinker can have tea, juice, water or coffee. Those are choices. But he chooses coffee. Unless he's out of coffee, in a hurry, had a bad experience last time he had coffee, etc. ie an external event alters his choice or taste. Our reasons for doing things can be conplicated and we may not always understand them, but once we have made a decision we will always make the same choice.

But if we always make the same choice.......is it really a choice?
Posted by AlphaTBITW 2 years ago
AlphaTBITW
Calm yourselves, this response was expected along with two others.

I shall use all 8,000 characters to my advantage, which will require time.
Posted by JR-CreativeGenius 2 years ago
JR-CreativeGenius
Wow, I do not believe that there is free will but right now the side that I would like to be rooting for is letting me down. Really, your taking the definition for your advantage? Absolute? It doesn't seem to me that you believe there isn't free will.
Posted by Opulence 2 years ago
Opulence
Could one not argue, that we are creatures of nature & therefore we are simply following our base code. For a sequence of threats we have a sequence of responses.

Consider the board game baduk or chess.

Given that people have free will, how can people predict their opponents response.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Humans have completely free will.

free will is the capacity to choose whether I move my hand up or down. That is within my capacity to choose.
Choice is free will.

IN a world driven by math, where you justify all political corruptness and big-headedness, as is the atheist religion (indicating life is math driven and void of conscious decision making), you could not come into existence.
CHAnge which initiates creation cannot exist without a cause. Cause is not accounted for in Math.

You are a insane and stupid to think that we do not have free will. And in fact, it is a condemnable Sin to suggest or believe such a thing; because glorifying stupidity as wisdom, and shunning wisdom in place of stupidity is the denial of the word of God, and that is condemnable.

You have choice.

It is arrogant to suggest otherwise, and that is why people are guilty fro their sins.
arrogance is not ignorance, and it is the justification for condemnation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
NewBalanceAlphaTBITWTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Having not properly defined True free will was a huge mistake for the PRO team, and because of this he must lose the round. He concedes people have true free will, just not absolute free will however he cannot change the resolution mid round. Even if we accept his changing definitions they have both been properly negated. Conduct to CON because of goal post shifting and S&G to PRO because of CONs last round, which I had to put into Word to read.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
NewBalanceAlphaTBITWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have provided definitions in Round 1. It was an honest oversight but, unfortunately, that is not relevant. Pro and Con are arguing for/against slightly differing resolutions as a result of the definition dispute.