The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
nickygirl1180
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Three Philosophical Topics - 1E

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,199 times Debate No: 10468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

Before I begin, I want to note that if you're going to take the free will debate...ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS ABOUT. I've had two previous debates in a row that had opponent's with a sub-par understanding of free will. If you aren't sure, then leave it in the comments. But please, don't waste my time like others have.

I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate!

So here are the topics:

=====================================================
PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity.
PRO - Free will does not exist.
PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.*
=====================================================

A little clarification on each topic:

*Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section.

*Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate.

*Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims nothing is there are no moral facts. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism (essentially you get 4 topics). Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.).

I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible.

I hope we have a great debate.
nickygirl1180

Con

what do you mean there is no free will.
don't you know people can do what ever you want if you don't get caught.
I mean your allowed to have sex whenever you want right.
And you can also eat whatever you want whenever you want.
you can also kill yourself if you wanted to.
I am not sure if you know this but you can also talk when you want to
it might not be the right place or time but you can still do it
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this open debate.

As it is, it would seem that my opponent has a very misconstrued definition of free will that many who do as well. You seem to define free will as merely the freedom to physically act, whereas I would argue free will should be seen as one being the ultimate origin of an act. As others would probably know, I am supporting the Source model.

There is a distinction between the Leeway model and the Source model, and I will supply one simple argument for the latter - Frankfurt counterexamples. Henry Frankfurt has shown interesting examples in which even though an agent is not able to choose among any alternatives (which many people associate with moral responsibility), we would intuitively still morally evaluate the agent. It would seem, then, that moral responsibility and free will are not necessarily linked with the ability to choose among alternatives - thus excluding the Leeway model.

I will leave it at that, and see how my opponent's argument evolves in response.
nickygirl1180

Con

again with the non free will
would whatever we want whenever we
i have to go now my laptop is about to go dead
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

Since my opponent made no argument, I have nothing else to say :). On to the next round...
nickygirl1180

Con

I still stick with my opinion that freee will is allowed to an extent
I really have nothing to prove but this
go into your room and yell out of your window ploppy loppy booglemassod
See if you get aressted
I leave you with this
Free will exists TO A CERTAIN POINT
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

"go into your room and yell out of your window ploppy loppy booglemassod
See if you get aressted"
----> How does that provide evidence for free will? I definitely see no way.

In summary, since you haven't really given any proof for free will then I don't have anything else to say. As stated before, given the Source model (which is superior to the Leeway model because of Frankfurt counterexamples), free will is incoherent.
nickygirl1180

Con

nickygirl1180 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nickygirl1180 7 years ago
nickygirl1180
Hey skeptic its me nicky
I hope you look at your messages
Tell me what you think

Agree Disagree
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Haha yeah man, just message me when you got time!
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Someday, Skeptic, you and I shall have to debate this. You've had too many people who know nothing about philosophy (or logic...) take these debates.

For what it is worth, you have my sympathy. I'm currently working with rednecks whose idea of philosophy is baseless speculation about the mafia running the government.
Posted by exorb 7 years ago
exorb
My goodness Skeptic, LOL.. I think there is nothing wrong here. All you have to do is respond and make a case against free will. Use the 'source' thinking and get it done.

Example:

yes you may think that is your free will.. But it's really not and this is why:
The guy[agent G] depends on A, B, C in order to complete the will [task F] ;
Also D or E ..

EASY - i don't know what all the complaining is about. It's a debate if you can't argue your side, then that's on you and no one else..
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Ah, I see now. That can very well be the case, given I have the appropriate opponent.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Two-sided is a play on the saying a one-sided debate. I'm sure you know what a one-sided debate is. A two-sided debate would mean an equally matched debate. It took me a moment to understand, but I'm pretty sure I understand what wjm said correctly.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Haha it's like a curse D:
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
lmao omg Skeptic, you're never going to get a proper free will debate hahahahah
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Two sided?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Darn. This could have been two-sided.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
TheSkepticnickygirl1180Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
TheSkepticnickygirl1180Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticnickygirl1180Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70