The Instigator
ASB
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 2/1/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,032 times Debate No: 14611
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

ASB

Pro

Here we go... this debate is under society.

Opening:

In this debate, I establish that the definition of complete control is a world that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong and are controlled to do the right thing.

Principles of Personal Ethics include:

Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm

http://www.ethics.ubc.ca...

This is my establishment of right. We would only be controlled to follow these Principles.

I know that my second rule says respect for the autonomy of others, but this rule is with compliance of all the other principles.

Since 1997, the following framework of principles has been used by six instructors to facilitate learning and spark dialogue with a wide variety of students, business people and professionals in Africa, China, Czechoslovakia and across North America. In each case, participants were encouraged to suggest changes, additions or deletions. Only one minor change has ever been suggested.

1). Bastardizing Free Will: Anarchy

The definition of anarchy is without rule.- Encarta Dictionary

The antonym of anarchy is without order.- Encarta Dictionary

Order: 4. absence of crime, a peaceful condition in which laws are obeyed and misbehavior or crime is not present or is prevented.
Encarta Dictionary


These definitions of anarchy are from a world that is run off free will. As I established in the beginning, the definition of the perfect world is one that is run off of those universal principles that were mentioned.

In a world of free will, without someone steering the wheel of the car, the car is not in control. Free will for one person can prove to be detrimental to someone else. "It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt."
Total control under the universal principles mentioned would drive the car and the car would be humans.
With free will, anarchy is not
logically possible.



2). Bastardizing Free Will: Exercising Free Will

Should life be such an ultimate test to do what is right instead of wrong?

It is hard to simply comprehend the choices between right and wrong. For both are merely ambiguous to the average human. Universal right and wrong is determined by principles. Hurting people while exercising one’s free will should never be justified as right.

3). There is good in everyone:

The truth is that there is good in everyone. It is hard to do the right thing all of the time…

Not be selfish, not to lie, not to steal, or kill, what if a force drove us to do the right thing all of the time.

This will happen; the average person does not need to know the absolute difference between right and wrong when a force would drive us. Man, without this force driving us feels like we need to know the difference between right and wrong.
4). Marxist Communism under the universal principles listed:

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.

In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

With humans living according to the principles, this society would work. The ideal world where one does not worry about money, the World has plenty to share, with total control according to the principles mentioned, this is possible.

With controlled will according to the principles listed, anarchy is logically possible.
Marxist communism is anarchy.

5). Marxist Communism is not a model of modern China and Soviet Russia communism:

China and Soviet Russia’s communist models are not based on Marxist Communism.

Read parts of: http://www.megaessays.com......

bluesteel

Con

Thanks for challenging me ASB.


Definitions

My opponent has set up “total control” in opposition to free will, so I define “total control” as “the absence of free will.”

Burden of proof

My opponent has the burden to prove that a world where no free will exists is preferable to a world with free will.


==Rebuttal==


Personal Ethics

The fact that humans could put this list together themselves, using their free wills, proves that a world with free will is not a world devoid of ethics and justice.

R1) Anarchy

My opponent brings up a really biased definition of anarchy (anarchy = crime). The Oxford English Dictionary defines anarchy as “A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).” [1]

First, I’d like to point out that a society can have a government AND still have free will. People can voluntarily enter a social contract and cede some of their decision-making authority to a State in exchange for protection. Democracies hardly meet my opponent’s conception of “total control.” Even totalitarian regimes don’t have a complete absence of free will, although they are closer to “total control” than democracies. Since most people would agree that democracies, like the United States, are superior to totalitarian regimes, like North Korea, then less control must be good.

Murray N. Rothbard, in For A New Liberty, describes his belief in the non-aggression axiom: that all aggression against person’s or their property is illegitimate. Under Rothbard’s conception of anarchy, not only is individual aggression seen as illegitimate, but government aggression is illegitimate as well. Let us contrast this conception of anarchy with an imagined Statist society that had “total control” over its citizenry, meaning the country’s ruler could bend all his subject’s wills to his own, operating them like robots. This society will be far inferior to anarchy because the ruler will use his power to steal from his citizens to enrich himself and will use his automaton citizens to start wars with other governments to maximize his share of world power; this is empirically proven by the actions of all Statist governments.

Somalia, for example, has faired FAR better under anarchy than under the military dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre, which collapsed in 1991. According to Peter Leeson, economist at West Virginia University, “Indicators of Somali welfare remain low in absolute terms, but compared to their status under government show a marked advance. Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have expanded, and extreme poverty (less than $1 PPP/day) has plummeted. In many parts of the country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three decades (UNDP 2001). Somalia is far from prosperous, but it has made considerable strides since its government collapsed 15 years ago.” [2] Clearly, freedom is superior to more control, which leads to corruption. When you consider control, remember the immortal words of Lord Acton: “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Car analogy

Nonsensical – if we are the car, we obviously have the capability to “drive ourselves.”

Free will for one person can prove to be detrimental to someone else.

True, and total control can be detrimental to everyone.

2) Bastardizing Free Will

Having a conception of ethics, like the nonaggression principle, solves my opponent’s objection. People can have free will and yet live by certain norms of behavior. In fact, studies at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale show that even babies know right from wrong, meaning acting morally, such as respecting someone’s right to life, is an innate attribute. [3]

3) There is good in everyone

Then why can’t we trust that good and allow people to make their own decisions?

4) Communism is good

This has nothing to do with free will.

Also, no it’s not.

Communist regimes have willfully murdered approximately 260 million of their own citizens over the course of human history. [4] Most of these murders were carried out to silence political dissidents. Communist regimes have sacrificed countless others for the greater good. Stalinist Russia sacrificed 7 million lives to starvation due to farm collectivization. [5] Mao Zedong forced his people to make steel in their backyards instead of farming, leading to the deaths of 45 million people in 4 years. [6]

China’s incredible growth based on free market reforms proves that free market capitalism is superior to communism (a “controlled” economy). Just compare Cuba (communist) to Chile. According to the Chicago Tribune, in Cuba, "food shortages are frequent, the stock of adequate housing has shrunk, and hospital patients often have to bring their own sheets, food and even medical supplies." [7] The same source says that Chile has become 4 times wealthier than Cuba since 1980 "thanks to bold free-market reforms."

5) Stalin is not Marxist communism

I believe this is a point for my side – “true” communism would be communism without totalitarian control (“total control”).

==My case==

C1) Free will = ability to choose

“David Hume thought that free will . . . is simply the “power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will: that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.… This hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains.” This suggests that freedom is simply the ability to select a course of action, and an agent is free if he is not being prevented by some external obstacle from completing that course of action.” [8]

Thus, imagine a world without free will. You want to eat a juicy steak, but instead someone hijacks your mind and forces you to eat a boring chicken breast. You want to sleep in, but someone takes over and forces you to wake up at 6 am. You want to go to the movies, but someone hijacks your mind and forces you to work for 12 hours on a Saturday. A world without choice is a very bland, boring world.

C2) Existentialism

Existentialists believe that choice imbues our lives with meaning and without the ability to make choices, life will be devoid of meaning. Living a “moral life” is meaningless if you are forced to do so. “According to Derrida, political and moral responsibility only exists where one has to go through the aporia of the undecidable . . . Otherwise there is no decision, only a mechanical application of rules.” We get no credit for “acting morally” if we are forced to do so.

In addition, if we are simply robots playing out the desires of some other being, our lives are meaningless. Only by having desires and the ability to act on those desires do we create meaning in our lives. Without choice, we are merely automatons.

C3) Who will be in control?

How can we ensure that a benign dictator will be in “total control” of us? If the dictator is not benign and is instead malevolent, the world will be a much worse place under “total control.” Imagine Adolph Hitler being in total control of our bodies and minds. That would not be a better world.


[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] http://tinyurl.com...

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[9] Maja Zehfuss, Jacques Derrida, 2009, Critical Theorists and International Relations, page 146

Debate Round No. 1
ASB

Pro


==Rebuttals==

I have been chosen to prove why total control under the universal principles:

-Concern for the well-being of others
-Respect for the autonomy of others
-Trustworthiness & honesty
-Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
-Basic justice; being fair
-Refusing to take unfair advantage
-Benevolence: doing good
-Preventing harm

Is better under total control rather than free will.

===Personal ethics:

Just because there is proof that the free will world has ethics, does not mean that the world perfects those ethics and perfects justice.
Example from round 1 (there is good in everyone):
Since there is good in everyone, it does not mean that everyone has perfected it.


===Anarchy:

I said that in a world of
free will, anarchy is disorder. My definition of disorder is crime. Then, I said that in a world of free will, anarchy is not logically possible.

Thus comes to my next point my opponent has misunderstood my argument. My argument was that total control is not determined by the type government. Nor does total control come from the type of government.

===Examples that claim bluesteel needs to reevaluate arguments:
R1) -
This is my establishment of right. We would only be controlled to follow these Principles.
(Under the principles says nothing about eating different types of steaks.)

R1)-
In a world of free will, without someone steering the wheel of the car, the car is not in control. Free will for one person can prove to be detrimental to someone else. "It is all fun and games until someone gets hurt."
Total control under the universal principles mentioned would drive the car and the car would be humans.
(If I gave total control to government, then humans would be in charge of humans. Meaning I am letting humans drive humans. This is not the case, I established from the beginning that humans are not in charge. It is proven that I meant this by the statement above.)


R1)-With humans living according to the principles, this society would work.
(I said humans... meaning all humans, not humans controlling other humans.)

===Bluesteel’s arguments that need revision:

The Statist society mentioned does not practice the principles mentioned. If they did, this proves that humans should not rule over other humans under free will anyway.
Humans should not live in anarchy under free will as well, it is not logically impossible.

All of his arguments about people controlling other people are moot for my opponent thinks that power only derives from the government, and that he thinks that I am actually debating this point.

My opponent's other points about Somalia do not count for humans under total control, power does not derive from humans, humans do not have the ability for total control. Especially under the set universal principles so that argument is void.

===Car analogy:
Systematical error, my opponent states that cars can drive themselves effectively...
Under the world of free will, humans cannot drive themselves in compliance to the principles. We can draw up semantics but the execution is not always there.

===bastardizing free will:
My opponent is stating that understanding right is better than doing the right thing.

"Having a conception of ethics, like the nonaggression principle, solves my opponent’s objection. People can have free will and yet live by certain norms of behavior. In fact, studies at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale show that even babies know right from wrong, meaning acting morally, such as respecting someone’s right to life, is an innate attribute. [3]"

In this statement, it does not say anything about doing the right thing. Instead he talks about understanding the right thing.

===There is good in everyone:
There is good in everyone, so everyone should want to do the right thing. The problem with people is that all people do not do the right thing.

===Communism is good:
When my opponent said, that has nothing to do with free will, he was thinking that total control of humans had something to do with the government controlling humans.

By the way, bluesteel is wrong, true Marxist communism has never been practiced. Why has it not been practiced one asks?
The reason why is because no government has successfully went from capitalist to socialist to communism ever. In fact true communism is extreme left. Yes, free of government, free of class. This is exactly what it sounds like, anarchy. This is the reason why true communism has never been practiced, because it is not logically possible in a world with free will. This is what free will has to do with true communism. With free will, true communism has never been attempted.

Since true communism is anarchy, Stalin’s Russia never practiced true communism, Cuba nor has China ever practiced true communism as well.

===Stalin is not Marxist Communism

No it is not, my opponent’s statement still comes from a confused opponent who thinks that I would put humans in total control of other humans. This is laughable.

===Free will the ability to choose:

Yes, under free will, people have the ability to choose what they want. My world sort of works the same. In the world of total control, you are controlled to do everything as long as it follows my principles.

Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm

Now, my opponent brings up a good point that he wants to eat a juicy steak, then bam he is forced to eat chicken.

Hedonism- On one view, human beings always act in pursuit of what they think will give them the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

This falls under concern for well-being. If one desired steak, he would eat steak as long as it fell into compliance with the other rules. Such as, one can have the steak as long as it is not the last piece of steak.

Bluesteel has to prove that taking the last piece of steak in a world of free will, is better than living in compliance to total control. He would have that explain why greed would be the better choice.

Going to work for 16 hours and sleeping in is the same thing. Let us say that one wants to sleep in (well-being) but cannot, because everyone is counting on that person to wake up at 6 (compliance with the law). Or working that 16 hours you cannot work 16 hours, (well-being) unless your job is short on people(being fair).

===Existentialism

“According to Derrida, political and moral responsibility only exists where one has to go through the confusion to get to the truth of the undecided . . .”

It was hard to establish universal right and wrong, but we did it. Now I think it was already decided that basic humans know morals, what is the good in just knowing the truth. Shouldn’t we just go all the way into doing the right thing all of the time according to the principles.

The principles are not demanding, one is controlled to do what he desires unless it interferes with the other principles.

Who cares about credit for doing the right thing?

One should do the right thing because it is what one is supposed to do not because one gets rewarded for it… can I get a hell yeah for that one.

===who will be in Control

My opponent asks who as in person. There is no person in control of controlling humans in total control.
bluesteel

Con

Thanks ASB.

==Rebuttal==

My opponent essentially has the same response to everything in my first round: that human's will not be the ones in control, something else will be. I usually wouldn't bring other debates into this one, but had I not read my opponent's debate with askbob I would be utterly confused by what he meant. Humans will not be controlling other humans? Who then? Machines?

In my opponent's other debate, he argued that God would be in control and make all our decisions for us. I have two major responses:

1) God does not exist

2) Even if he does, he is most definitely not benevolent.

*God does not exist*

The only God that can be in total control of us would need to be omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful).

Proof 1: According to Richard Dawkins, "Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent." [1]

Proof 2: If God is omnipotent, he should be able to create a box, the contents of which are impossible to know. However, for God to be omniscient, he must know the contents of the box.

My opponent also has the burden of proof. Since one cannot "prove" God's existence, my opponent cannot satisfy the BOP by proving that humans would not be the ones controlling other humans under "total control."

*God is not benevolent*

Since the only God that meets the above requirement (omniscience and omnipotence) is the Judeo-Christian God, I proceed to show that "He" is not benevolent, and thus will lead us to do immoral and horrible acts. Here are some of God's instructions on good moral principles and norms of behavior:

Deut 25:11-12

"If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity."

Deut 21:18-21

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place . . . Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death."

On homosexuality:
Lev 20:13

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death."

On how to treat the rival tribes in Israel:
Isaiah 13.13-22

"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished."

God on slave ownership:
Ex 21:20-21

"When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property."

Col 3:22-24

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters"

On discovering your new bride to not be a virgin:
Deut 22:13-21

"If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death"

On controlling your emotions:
"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"

Lastly, this is the same supposed God who does not intervene to stop countless natural disasters. This emotionally unstable God must enjoy watching us suffer. If "He" was in charge, it is unclear that he wouldn't simply force us to kill each other for "His" amusement.

*Personal Ethics*

Why would God make us follow a personal ethics system that humans designed - why not his own "superior" version of ethics, which is outlined above? How do we know that the person in "total control" will make us follow these specific ethical principles?

R1) Anarchy

*I said that in a world of free will, anarchy is disorder. My definition of disorder is crime.*

This is why I concluded my opponent's definition is biased. He essentially defines anarchy as "crime." Murray N Rothbard and many others believed that anarchy ("a Stateless society") was possible without the world devolving into disorder. The fact that people across the world are increasingly ordering themselves based on the location of markets and not the location of governments proves that governments are increasingly irrelevant.

In addition, my opponent doesn't answer my reference to social contract theory. We can voluntarily submit our free will to another without having actually sacrificed that will; thus if someone really wanted to submit to total control (or anything in between total control and anarchy), that person could voluntarily submit some of their decision-making authority to a "higher power" (whether that be a divine being or a government). However, the choice to submit must remain our own.

*We would only be controlled to follow these Principles. (Under the principles says nothing about eating different types of steaks.)*

Remember I defined "total control" as the absence of free will. My opponent can't say that we'll still have free will UNLESS we want to do something "bad." That's not TOTAL control; that's PARTIAL control. Princeton's Wordnet defines "total" as "complete in extent or degree and in every particular."

*Car analogy, repeated*

I agree that free will can result in someone being harmed. So can total control. Also, the benefits of free will outweigh the detriments.

*humans cannot drive themselves in compliance to the principles*

Of course they can. While a few humans deviate from established morality, the vast majority refrain from killing or stealing from each other, meaning they are obeying the nonaggression axiom. The Yale Infant Cognition Center found that morality is innate, and by studying serial killers, psychologists have found that their neurology differs in serious ways from the average person, meaning people who deviate from morality often do so because of neurological problems.

Somalia

Although Somalia was not under "total control" prior to 1991, it was under a dictatorship, which is the closest evidence we can examine in today's debate of total control. My evidence clearly showed that Somalia is wealthier and SAFER under anarchy than under totalitarian control.

*My opponent is stating that understanding right is better than doing the right thing.*

No, what I said was that we get no credit for acting morally, unless we both understand and do the right thing. As Derrida points out, if we are forced to make a moral decision and avoid the difficult decision-making process itself, then the outcome has absolutely no meaning. If we choose to act morally, we are to be lauded; if we are forced to act morally, the person controlling us is to be lauded, but we have done nothing of value. We would just be mindless drones.

True Marxist Communism

I truly doubt that Carl Marx envisioned a world where God controlled our every action and desire to force us to be Communist. How is that not WORSE than Stalin's version of communism? At least under Stalin, there was a chance that people could escape the USSR or that Stalin would die and his reign would end. With God, there is no escape or end in sight. We can never again have an original thought or desire, or if we do, we at least will not be able to act on them.

*If one desired steak, he would eat steak as long as it fell into compliance with the other rules.*

If God relinquished control in situations that "don't matter" (according to my opponent), then again, that is partial control, not total control. We would still have free will, except in specific instances.

Existentialism

My opponent doesn't answer the fact that life is meaningless if we are all mindless drones.

[1] The God Delusion, p. 77-8
Debate Round No. 2
ASB

Pro

My opponent swings and misses.

My opponent fails in this debate, for he is the first person to mention God, I never said God would have total control over humans.

This debates category is under society, and not everyone believes in God so your argument is moot.

Why does it matter so much to bluesteel with what will be in total control, yes, I said what not who.


With everyone falling into compliance with the principles, I do not have to mention what is in control for it does not matter when everyone is in compliance to the principles. Thoughts are first, control follows.

Example: I want to sleep in, (thoughts, my well being) but I am forced out of the bed to comply with other the other principles since in the end I respect the well being of others than my own.


1) God does not exist:
Where did this argument come from?
I never mentioned God in this debate.


2) Even if he does, he is definitely not benevolent.
*God does not exist*
-never said he did.

Proof 1: My opponent gave up trying to prove that total control is wrong, he is now trying to prove why total control is impossible.

Nobody said anything about possible or impossible, this debate is circumstantial. I'm guessing this is how most debates work on debate.org; most of these debates are "what if..." debates.

My opponent keeps on giving me different BOP's, this one he just gave me, I'm do not need to fulfill for my opponent thinks that I'm arguing for God.

As I said earlier this round, with everyone falling into compliance with the principles, I do not have to mention what is in control for it does not matter when everyone is in compliance to the principles. Thoughts are first, control follows.

*God is not benevolent*
- never said he was.
- Well, I guess that we're lucky that we do not live in a country ruled entirely on the bible. Some rules are controversially bible based, not all.

*Personal ethics*
There is no person that has total control.


Anarchy:

Libertarianism is not anarchy.

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Libertarianism includes a diverse range of philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. - Murray Rothbard

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunately, it is proven that capitalism needs government. Rothbard is a Libertarian, not an anarchist, even he had the common sense not to go full anarchist. For in a world of free will, everyone does what one wants to do.

Social Contract Theory:

The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Excellent Hobbes reference bluesteel, but Hobbes believed that we would eventually give our power to this Leviathan only after we lived in anarchy. As you see, in a world of free will, everything falls apart for everyone does what one wants to do.

Therefore, even Hobbes thinks anarchy would not work.

Under a world of free will, anarchy is not logically possible.

Anarchy is said to be man’s last destination, according to Marx, but in a world ruled by free will, this is not possible.

Total Control:

My opponent believes that total control is only done at the controller’s will. This is wrong for some things that one wants to do, they can be forced to do it.

Example: If I wanted to eat steak, total control could force me to eat steak. I am still being forced to do something.

Driving car analogy:

Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created.

My analogy to driving the car stands.

Somalia

Like I said earlier, the dictator was a human, the human dictator did not rule in compliance to the universal principles so this reference should be discarded.

Derrida

My last statement still stands, why should humans be worried about getting credit for doing what they are supposed to do?

Mindless drones

Total Control does not force one to think, but it forces our actions in compliance to the principles, humans have made rules for them to follow, but we do not always follow these rules. We want to follow these rules for we made them, so what better way than total control.

Karl Marx…

Was an atheist, so I doubt that he would even believe there was a God anyway.

Another thing, my opponent still thinks that total control forces one to do what they do not want to do.

Total control can force one to do what they want to do as well.

Existentialism

I did answer his statement about life with meaning.

Who cares about credit for doing the right thing?

One should do the right thing because it is what one is supposed to do not because one gets rewarded for it.

The meaning of life is not being rewarded for doing what one is supposed to do.


bluesteel

Con

Thanks ASB.

My opponent has no true advocacy position. He essentially is advocating that we should all have free will, but if we ever try to do something that is against the principles of ethics he outlines in Round 1, that something in our minds should "zap" us and prevent us from doing this particular action. That is not "total control" - that's partial control and partial free will. My opponent's position is tantamount to putting a dog collar on humans and having some supreme being "shock" us when we are about to do something bad, but otherwise granting us complete autonomy.

Until my opponent actually argues for total control, I see no reason to continue extending my arguments in favor of free will, since my opponent's continual response is essentially "free will still exists under 'total control.'"

In addition, it says nowhere that this is a hypothetical debate. If I prove that total control is impossible (because there is no God), I should win because that which exists is "better" than that which does not exist. Free will exists; total control does not exist. Therefore I have proven that free will is better than total control.

Just four quick notes:

1. My opponent has clearly never read Rothbard. Rothbard believed in "no government" and criticized other libertarians for not being willing to go far enough to advocate a complete dissolution of the State.

2. Hobbes is a complete straw man; he is not the only contractarian, and I never cited him. John Locke's position on social contracts is much more in line with what I have been arguing.

3. When I said that we "get no credit" for making moral decisions when we have no free will, I didn't mean that we should act morally to get some reward. That is not the meaning of credit in this particular case. What I meant, and Derrida says, is that morality DOES NOT EXIST when our actions are forced. To act morally, we must go through the aporia of the undecidable - we must face that difficult moral choice and choose correctly. Being forced to act a certain way is meaningless. If a human chooses to abstain from killing, he or she is acting morally. If a human is forced (under total control) to abstain from killing, this action is meaningless. It is no different than a rock falling when we let it go. The rock is following a natural law (gravity). If humans abstained from killing because they were forced to, then they are just obeying an unbreakable law of nature. That is not morality.

4. Lastly, my opponent keeps saying that humans CANNOT act morally if "no one is driving the car," meaning if we have free will. Yet, the vast majority of people disprove this assertion each day, by going about their everyday lives without raping, stealing, or murdering. Of course we can act morally, even with free will. Why else did the organization my opponent cites bother putting together a list of ethical behaviors unless they believed that humans could and would follow these recommended ethical principles? Otherwise, creating such a list would be a complete waste of time. I challenge my opponent to provide some sort of evidence that humans are INCAPABLE of acting morally.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 3
ASB

Pro


1) Where Did This Come From?

As I said earlier in round 3, “Thoughts are first, control follows.”- ASB.

I’m not advocating free will. If one wanted steak and it was with compliance to the rules then he would be forced to eat steak.

Free will: 2. the power of making free choices that is unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

These are not free choices, there are circumstances involved in these thoughts. The principles are involved with making these thoughts.

Total Control is complete domination and/or manipulation of another subject.http://www.bookrags.com...

This is total control; it has nothing to do with thought. It is exactly what is says; is complete domination and/or manipulation of another subject.

This means that I can think one thing and then something completely opposite can happen by force. This falls under total control.

Are we tracking here?

Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created.

This means that humans cannot act in ‘total’ and ‘complete’ obedience to the universal principles we have created under free will.

2) The known is better than the unknown.

Last ditch argument…

Bluesteel took this debate knowing that total control is not likely, yet he brings up this argument in the 3rd Round.

Who came up with this opinion?

So I guess it is safe to say that a cure for AIDS, since it is the not probable, will be worse than a cure for AIDS.

Is it really that safe to assume that all things that are improbable are better than the known because Bluesteel said so?

Bluesteel continually brings up God in this debate like as if He has something to do with this debate… God has nothing to do with this debate. Can you please drop it?

Bluesteel brings no proof in saying that the unknown is more dangerous than the known.


3) Driving the car analogy: I have been conveying this argument all debate.

Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created.

My analogy to driving the car stands.

Never did I say that humans are not capable of doing it sometimes.

Of course humans can do it sometimes… cars can drive themselves without the foot on the gas as well. This means sometimes.

So Bluesteel, I’m sure I can provide evidence of where humans do not act morally all of the time.

When was the last time someone killed another person… today.

4) Rothbard was a moron:

Anyone who believes in jumping from capitalism to anarchy or true communism ‘successfully’ is a moron.

He obviously never followed the other nations that did so. Soviet Russia, China, any other country that practices pseudo-communism.

Even the other Libertarians did not completely follow this guy.

5) What Locke Believed in?

Persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a ‘state of nature’(anarchy) would have ‘stronger moral limits on their action’ than accepted by Hobbes, but recognized that ‘people would still live in fear of one another.’

http://en.wikipedia.org...

- Locke does not think that people living in anarchy would trust each other. Keep in mind that this is still a world of free will here. In a world of free will, anarchy is not logical. In a world of forced will, one would not worry about living in fear for nobody would harm one another.

6) “Derrida says, is that morality DOES NOT EXIST when our actions are forced. To act morally, we must go through the aporia of the undecidable - we must face that difficult moral choice and choose correctly.” – Bluesteel

- Derrida lived in a world of free will, he sees things every day, like we do that just make him mad. He could not comprehend a world ruled by total control, according to his saying, doing the correct thing is a chore. With us being forced to act correctly, it no longer becomes a chore. When being forced to do the right thing, one does not need to face that “difficult” moral choice to choose correctly.

- Derrida is also a nihilist, if Derrida actually said this statement, according to Derrida, how could have chosen correctly if choosing correctly is not certain at all.

I’d love to hear what my opponent has for this.

bluesteel

Con


Thanks ASB.


“I’m not advocating free will. If one wanted steak and it was with compliance to the rules then he would be forced to eat steak.”


This still sounds like free will with a slight caveat. Also, who decides what is or is not in compliance with “the rules?” Does eating a steak show “concern for the well-being of others?” If we didn’t use so many crops to feed the cattle, there would be far more food in the world. It’s unclear how the “controller” will evaluate competing rights claims.



“So I guess it is safe to say that a cure for AIDS, since it is the not probable, will be worse than a cure for AIDS. Is it really that safe to assume that all things that are improbable are better than the known because Bluesteel said so?”


I’m not saying that total control is improbable, but that it is impossible. My opponent drops my proof that God does not exist, so he agrees that total control is impossible. Things that exist are better than things that do not exist. I’d rather have a real Ferrari than an imaginary Ferrari.


A cure for AIDS is also not improbable. “A Cure For HIV/AIDS: On The Horizon” http://commonhealth.wbur.org...



“When was the last time someone killed another person… today.”


This doesn’t answer that the vast majority of people act morally. Of course there will be some deviants, but the majority of people don’t murder. The need to control the murderers does not justify eliminating free will.



“Rothbard was a moron: Anyone who believes in jumping from capitalism to anarchy or true communism ‘successfully’ is a moron.”


Rothbard believed in anarcho-capitalism, not anarcho-communism. I still ask my opponent to find an anarcho-communist author who is in favor of eliminating free will to achieve their utopia. My opponent never answers my argument that total control is just totalitarian control to the extreme.


My opponent also never answers who is in control. Someone has to evaluate competing rights claims. Imagine that a train is traveling down the train tracks at 200 miles per hour and the track splits into two. On the track the train is currently on are three people who are stuck on the track; you can pull a lever to divert the train to the other track, but there is a single person stuck on that track. Do you intervene to save 3 lives at the expense of one person’s life? This is what Derrida calls the aporia of the undecidable, where moral decision-making takes place. My opponent’s ethical system does not give us an answer as to what we should do (just that we respect human life), so forced will does not suffice to give us an answer. Only a person can decide what to do in this situation.


In addition, who writes the rules? My opponent has picked rules that were created by free will. This seems incompatible with his case.


Locke is still another straw man. My point with social contracts was that if someone (like my opponent) wants to submit to forced will, let him or her do so voluntarily. Let that person use his free will to submit himself to some higher power who will control him like a puppet. But people should still get to make the decision whether to submit to forced will.



“Derrida lived in a world of free will, he sees things every day, like we do that just make him mad.”


How does my opponent know this? Derrida clearly believed that free will was central to morality.



“Derrida is also a nihilist”


Not true and irrelevant.


Let’s evaluate my opponent’s case by looking to the Matrix Trilogy. According to the Architect, the machines built a utopia, a perfect world with no suffering or sadness because people were not free to act on their desires. Yet the humans ultimately rejected this first matrix. The machines had to create a new matrix with a semblance of free will, but this brought back misery and suffering. And with free will came the ability for some humans to reject the Matrix completely and choose to live free, in the real world. While the second matrix and the real world may not be perfect, they are both superior to a world with no free will, where we are either mindless drones or trapped within our bodies, unable to act on our own desires.



Debate Round No. 4
ASB

Pro

1) Competing rights claims huh?
My opponent is basically saying that concern for other animals’ counts as concern for others. No it does not for other animals are not humans. Crops are not others either. My opponent keeps on urging me to give up the "controller"; one does not need to know the controller. If everything happens in compliance with the rules, there is no need to even reveal a controller.

2) Free will with a slight Caveat.
No it is still total control since it is not free will. In free will one has a choice with no limitations, since there are limitations in thought, it is not free will. Total control then takes over in forcing one to do something. This is total control, not free will, there is no free choice.

3) Things that exist are better than things that do not exist:
My opponent establishes that everything that exists is better than things that do not exist. My opponent says that he would rather have a real Ferrari than an imaginary Ferrari.
This means that he would rather have his real world to an imaginary world; real death than imaginary death.

- Should I say that free will does not exist? It has been proven that people can move before thought comes in. This is in the real world; this proves that free will does not exist. Now, if I was to keep on this case which I am not, I would conclude that free will like controlled will does not exist. I am not going to play this debate as so. This is just to provide an example FOR BLUESTEEL ONLY that all things that exist can be the same as things that do not exist.

- By the way, who said that he would have that real Ferrari in this world anyway? Maybe in this world, he would never get that real Ferrari. In another world, one could have that Ferrari.

- This opinion has no fact, just speculation.
- I can bring up more examples than AIDS, as one can see, by the way the cure for AIDS does not exist, so one could tally AIDS under things that don't exist.

It is possible, but does not exist at the moment.

4) A vast majority may not kill

this was just one example to establish my point. Everybody in their life has done at least one of these in their life, lied, cheated, stolen, murdered, overall bad, not following the law, no concern for the well being of others. This is my point.

5) Rothbard was a moron

this is a statement that still stands on my side, anarcho-capitalist is worse, than making the jump from capitalist to anarchy entirely. Who in heck actually thinks that there could be capitalism without a government to monitor it? This is bananas, as we see today, government is trying desperately to hold up this economy, but even the government has problems. Just imagine if we suddenly got rid of the government........
Now come back to reality. Woo I'm glad everyone thought that he was a moron as well.

6) Yes, my system does have an answer to the conflict of interest:

Luckily, the principles were made by man; therefore, there are laws that determine which one to save.

- Concern for the well-being of others.

- Benevolence: doing good
- Preventing harm

One will be forced to take which ever option that best suits these requirements. This is better than what man could do on his own free will.

Example: What if that one person that was on the one side was the father or the son of the person that has to save that one person.

That one person probably would have chosen to save that one person than that family of three; therefore complete control is always better in this situation.


7) I did Answer His Totalitarian to the extreme:
Total control has nothing to do with the government that is being run. Total control has to do with ethics in controlling the people, not the government. I believe this may be the third time that I had said this.

Are we tracking?

8) Marx denies free will
http://catholiceducation.org...

So I think it is safe to say that he would not mind the idea of being controlled to do the right thing in compliance to the universal principles of man.

I think that he would believe that this way would probably be the most efficient way to carry on about true communism as well.

9) Writing the Rules:

Do I need to repeat myself every round.

Man created the principles, but man does not always live up to the principles. Therefore, for a better world, we have to be forced to comply with the principles that we have made.

10) Locke, Hobbes, how many more are there?

- First I mentioned Hobbes then, you said that you did not mean him at all, I accepted that. Then, you said you meant Locke then, you say that Locke was a straw man, like I just randomly picked him.

- John Locke's position on social contracts is much more in line with what I have been arguing- Bluesteel

Second of all, Bluesteel’s definition of social contract is half of the definition. The rule of the social contract has to do with the consent of the governed. Just like in my world of total control, there is no government, people are controlled through ethics, and the people run the place through anarchy. As one sees, there is no social contract to be made since there is nothing in control of the governed since it is anarchy.

11) If Derrida was a Nihilist, it would be relevant to his saying.

As one knows, Nihilists are not certain of anything; they argue known facts such as two plus two in hopes of getting people to question themselves. If everyone was like these people, nothing would be known. The world would also be a confusing place. So, if Derrida was a nihilist, how could he know what the “correct thing” was if the correct was uncertain to him. This is how it is relevant to his saying.

12) Matrix was a movie.

Just because the humans chose to live in free will rather than sacrifice their free will for a greater good just demonstrates humans and selfishness.

Main Argument:

This last point that I made is very much about what this debate encompasses. My opponent knows that these principles are good for he never once questioned them. Due, to humans inabilities to do the right thing all of the time, I have designed a world where people live in compliance to the rules in anarchy; forced to do right according to the principles that man solidified for man to follow. In this world, nobody needs to know who is in charge of controlling the humans for humans are complying with the rules they set.

My opponents main arguments has switched many times from the beginning, his main arguments now are that one humans want to do things freely and used a Matrix movie for an example… not the best source but I everyone can see where he comes from. Another argument he had was that since my world is not real, that it is inferior to the real world. This is not true. Free will has been proven not to exist as well as total control; this point is not relevant to the debate. My opponent also states that one has to experience the confusion of deciding of the correct path to be morally good. My opponent forgets that this condition is under free will rules. Under free will, one has to decide right and wrong instead of having the right one chosen for him. In the scenario my opponent gave to me, he said that from the principles, they cannot decide who lived and who died. As a matter of fact from the principles total control in compliance to the laws, the forced control performed better than free will.

Everyone wants to do overall good anyway; this is why man made the principles, not a machine. Since humans cannot do everything in compliance to the rules that man himself has created, we should be in total control in compliance to the principles.

Vote for Pro

bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate ASB.

==Competing Rights Claims==

Morality is not as simple as my opponent would like to make it out to be. In the train example, there are three people on one track and one person on the other. One group is going to be hit by the train and die, which do you save?

My opponent claims that under forced will, you would always be forced save the three people, even if the one person were your father. Firstly, I don't see how he reaches this conclusion based on his limited ethical framework. Secondly, what if the one person was the President of the United States and the three people were Osama bin Laden, a re-incarnated Adolph Hitler, and Glenn Beck? What if the one person was the second coming of Christ? What if the one person was a small child and the three people were all 90 years old?

It's not clear that you should ALWAYS choose to save the three people, regardless of circumstances. Free will leads us to morality, when we have to confront the aporia of the undecidable and make a difficult decision. The fact that my opponent has to refer to an ethical framework that was created by free will proves the downfall of his ethical system. If an ethical dilemma arises that forced will cannot solve, we will need to resort to free will to solve it.

==Free will with a slight Caveat==

My opponent never clearly answered: can we eat the steak under forced will or not? There are some people who claim that eating steak does not respect others or the environment because if we were all vegetarians, there would be plenty of food. So can we eat steak under forced will or will we all be forced to be vegetarians?

==Things that exist are better==

My opponent's only real refutation is "do you prefer a real or imaginary death." This is a false dichotomy: you cannot choose an imaginary death because death IS real and immortality IS non-existent. The real dichotomy would be: do you prefer an existent life (with an inevitable death) or a non-existent life (where you can pretend you are immortal).

My opponent says, "It has been proven that people can move before thought comes in." This is utterly false. If you move your arm, a brain scan will show activity in your motor cortex preceding the movement by fractions of a second. Free will obviously exists. If you have the ability to change your mind about something, you have free will.

Obviously, free will, which actually exists, is better than forced will, which cannot exist unless there was an omniscient and omnipotent God, but I disproved this possibility.

== A vast majority may not kill==

My opponent says that many people don't follow the law, yet he argues for anarcho-communism? This is confusing.

People are not incapable of following morality, but they sometimes don't agree on one moral system. Many people would not consider cheating on a stupid school assignment "immoral" if doing the project is a waste of time and would jeopardize grades and learning in more important classes. Many people would not consider all lying to be immoral – if your daughter asks you "daddy, don't I look pretty," and you don't think she does, I don't think it's the time to say, "sorry hunny, but that dress is really ugly." Most people consider white lies to be okay. Many people don't follow "the law" because they often don't agree with the laws, like the laws that banned sodomy or the laws against smoking marijuana. Now that my opponent has brought "the law" into forced will, I'm even more confused as to his advocacy. Who gets to set the rules that we are forced to follow? My opponent never answers this question adequately. He just repeats, "man can set the rules." Which man (or woman)? Whoever gets to write the rules that we are all forced to follow essentially has totalitarian control over the entire world.

Also, most people respect the non-aggression axiom; they don't aggress against another's person or property. The reason is that most people agree that these actions are immoral. My opponent has no evidence that people are systematically incapable of following moral systems based on negative rights, and thus he never adequately proves that forced will is necessary and justifies sacrificing free will.

==Rothbard==

Too bad the debate is over, but I challenge my opponent to give one example where the government has successfully intervened in the free market to prove his assertion that capitalism cannot exist without government. Somalia's huge increase in economic growth under anarchy disproves this assertion.

==Marx==

His source says that Marx denied free will because he thought the Communist Revolution was "inevitable." My opponent's source isn't that credible. Marx believed that it was clear to anyone observing historical trends that workers would inevitably rise up and demand the fruits of their labor. That doesn't mean he denied that those workers had free will; he just believed that anyone with free will, who was denied the fruits of his labor for long enough, would eventually revolt.

==Social contract==

My point here was merely that if my opponent wants to give up his free will, that is his right, since he has free will. But we must start with free will before we are given the option of giving in to forced will. My opponent himself proves this because he concedes that moral principles wouldn't exist without free will.

==Derrida==

Derrida is not a nihilist – no evidence of this is provided. And it's irrelevant to Derrida's viewpoint that morality doesn't exist without free will. If humans are forced to follow "natural laws" of behavior, then when we act morally, it is no more meaningful than when a rock falls when dropped, since it is merely following a natural law.

==The Matrix==

This wasn't intended as evidence, but as an entertaining side-note.

CONCLUSION

My opponent fails his burden of proof because he never answers adequately who gets to write "the rules" or why the ethical principles he chose at random off the internet are the correct and only ethical principles we need to follow. My opponent fails to explain how competing rights claims can be adjudicated without free will. My opponent fails to prove that total control is even possible, since he refuses to argue in favor of God (since that didn't work out for him in his last debate). My opponent argues only for partial control, saying we can do anything we like (e.g. eat steak) as long as it doesn't violate an ethical principle – this sounds a lot like free will. We have thoughts and desires in our minds and then our bodies are forced to follow those thoughts and desires – this sounds more like a biological description of how our bodies actually function in real life, rather than an argument in favor of "total control."

Assuming my opponent had actually argued for total control, you should vote Con in today's debate because a world without free will is a world devoid of meaning. We would all be mindless automatons; puppets controlled by some puppet master. Totalitarian systems of control were always driven on fear – fear of the enemy, fear of economic collapse, fear of powerful minorities. My opponent's system is no different – totalitarian control of the mind based on fear of other humans and what they might do using their free will. Don't give in to this irrational fear. Vote Con.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by democrat435 5 years ago
democrat435
bluesteel, you have got the touch
Posted by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
i love the RFD section :) :) :)
Posted by ASB 5 years ago
ASB
Whoo, what a ride!!!
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
Chelation therapy didn't work, huh?
Posted by ASB 5 years ago
ASB
you are actually right, it is not even relevant, humans made the universal principles, humans do not follow it. I do not need to mention who is in control if everyone is in compliance to the principles anyways. It would not matter.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
I still don't get who or what is in control or even if it is relevant. I don't even get who or what makes the universal principles. I'm so confused!
Posted by ASB 5 years ago
ASB
whoo, bluesteel is good at this.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 5 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
annhasle, and you pride yourself on the subject?
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
Nope, no tension on my end.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
I sense hidden tension in this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nihilist 5 years ago
Nihilist
ASBbluesteelTied
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 
Vote Placed by apologia101 5 years ago
apologia101
ASBbluesteelTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I could not be convinced that a world without free will is livable.
Vote Placed by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
ASBbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ASBbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument ASB, the contention of what/who is behind control is not relevant for the resolution, sources/presentation bluesteel. ASB is is often very difficult to read your arguements due to formatting.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
ASBbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refutes all of ASB's claims and ASB fails to address some of bluesteel's points. ASB logic does not flow, and often makes claims that are irrelevant to the topic. Also ASB made many grammar mistakes and was difficult to read. ASB's sentences were sometimes ambiguous while bluesteel wrote clearly.