The Instigator
black_squirrel
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Finalfan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

people have 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 1 vote the winner is...
black_squirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 45187
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

black_squirrel

Pro

Free will:
the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility [1]

I will argue that people have free will. My opponent will argue that people do not have free will. The burden of proof is shared. I will start with my arguments.

free choices
We make choices all the time. Although these choices can be influenced by outside factors such as manipulation by other people, these decisions are mostly our own. For a large part, a person's outcome in life is determined by the choices that person makes, and not by fate.

The notion of moral responsibility breaks down if a person's behavior is completely determined by outside factors. If Alice kills Bob because Bob was about to kill Alice, then Alice did not have much choice. In that case Alice is not held responsible for Bob's death.
But in most situations, there are no external circumstances that completely force us to act the way we do.

non-determinism
Most arguments against free will rely on determinism. But modern models of the physical universe such as Quantum Mechanics are essentially non-deterministic [3]. However, I point out that we can still have free will and determinism (this is compatibilism [2]).












[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.realclearscience.com...

Finalfan

Con

The concept of "free will" comes from the natural desire to be in control of "ones destiny" However this is but an illusion manifested out of necessity to adhere to an agenda through "choices, intentions and efforts"- summary of Sam Harris

I hope to prove that free will is in fact an illusion. I will also illuminate the unnecessary bond we have with said illusion! I believe the concept of free will comes from preference. I will tell you why the idea of not having free will is not worth shying away from! So if we determined philosophically or scientifically that we do not have free will, nothing would be lost. We would just be looking past another illusion that our minds create out of self inflation while being subjected to the harsh reality of chaos!

You cannot describe the universe in such a manner that would be coherent to the notion of free will!- Sam Harris

The reality of having conscious control over your actions are only true to the point of motor function and your choice to react to an uncontrollable event is limited within the boundaries that are defined by the environment and genetic structure! Everything you think you are consciously aware of is actually a result of causes in which you have no conscious control over! So if I were to ask you to remember someone in your life you would not have control over who came to mind you would only be witness to the event of causes that your brain had manifested into your conscious mind! It has been tested through neuroscience that even the choice to raise either your left or right arm cannot determine "why" you made your choice. In fact through displayed imagery scientists could determine which hand you were going to raise before you did. It still came through a chain of causes that inevitably made you raise either of your hands!

When you think you have made a choice that you helped change the outcome of an event.. that is an illusion. You were just part of a single event that was continued by your bodies natural process to react. Everything boils down to prior causes that led up to the event to choose. This does not mean that you have free will only limited choices based on the events that proceeded!
Debate Round No. 1
black_squirrel

Pro

choice and our conscious and unconscious self

People make (free) decisions constantly. However, as Harris points out, we are not always conscious of when and how we made the decisions. But it is wrong to conclude from this that we do not have free will. My definition of free will requires that we can choose freely, not that we are conscious of all the physical processes that lead up to our decisions. Dennett gives a definition of free will that satisfies our need for moral responsibility (see (long) video). Harris, on the other hand seems to acknowledge that this "illusion" of free will might be useful.
Clearly, we would be unable to comprehend the movement of every single atom in our brain. Harris wants to define a persons identity solely as its conscious thought processes. This definition is too narrow. Our unconscious/subconscious thought processes are also part of who we are. These thought processes are also shaped by our conscious thought processes.


Let me use the following metaphor. Think of a large car company(=all unconscious thought processes), and its CEO (=conscious thought processes). The CEO is in charge of the corporation, but at any given time can only focus on a small part of the whole company. If one car model of the company has major safety flaws, the CEO will be blamed. But the CEO did not build the car with his hands, he (let's assume it's a he) did not design the car. Is it fair to blame the CEO? I think so. The CEO hired the people who messed up. He should have been more careful with hiring. He should have created a corporate environment where safety is top priority etc. etc.

In the same way, the conscious self, cannot directly control the unconscious self. But the unconscious self is shaped by the conscious self. Therefore, our conscious self is also responsible for some of our actions that we do unconsciously.

Someone who chooses a life of deception, will eventually become a compulsive liar. At that point this person no longer will have direct control over the lying. But that person's personality has been shaped by conscious decisions earlier in life.



predicting human behavior

In an experiment that is often cited by Harris, test persons are asked to lift the left or right finger. Since the brain is hooked up to some electronics, the neuroscientist is able to tell seconds before the test person is aware of it, what the choice is going to be. This perhaps proves that we are not always aware of how and when we make our decisions. But as I explained before, this does not mean that we did not make the decision freely. Besides, choosing which finger to lift is not really a decision. The subject really chooses to take part in the experiment, and really chooses to lift a finger to please the researcher, but is completely oblivious to which of the two fingers is lifted. Also, if the subject had the same information as the researchers, then the subject could have easily changed the finger at the last moment, making it impossible for the researchers to predict.

This is also true in our daily life. We may be manipulated by other people, or other people might anticipate our next moves. But whenever we become aware of it, we can change our behavior and stop the manipulation and predictability. So in a way, we can only be manipulated and anticipated if we choose to.

determinism

Both Harris and Dennett are determinists. However, there is a strong case in the (short) video against determinism. Nondeterminism strengthens the case for free will, but it is not necessary as Dennett points out.







Finalfan

Con

"A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings"- Sam Harris

I'm still seeing choices that are made by reacting to conditions. Free will implies no constraints. Meaning if you are going to be judged for your free will it would imply that you made the choice from a grounded perspective without the path of least resistance making that choice for you! I have imagined many times having free will. Then I thought: If people really do have "free will".. They are doing it wrong! So wrong in fact we have to bury our heads in the sand to forget what "free will" has brought us.

Free will is an ambiguous concept. That is why Sam Harris leads off with "I believe this is what people are thinking when they say Free will. Went on to give his definition and then explained why that concept of free will is an illusion. Free will gives too much ground to be free. It is obvious that many if not all choices are a part of a chain of events. To say you have free will would mean that you made that choice while seeing the "Big Picture" Your CEO analogy will help me explain what I mean. The CEO does not see the big picture (nor could he) So each choice that was made came from a process of judgement's that caused him to hire whomever. If he knew that so and so alcoholic would be showing up to work drunk he may have not hired him in such a hurry! Unless it said ALCOHOLIC on his resume or came in to the interview hung over. He could not know whether or not he would cause problems. The CEO did make the choice but it was from ignorance (which is normal) To call it free will takes it too far. Maybe in this case an omniscient CEO could get the job done with free will but if the CEO thought he was using "free will" to make a choice he was delusional! He wouldn't even have free will enough to decide which hand to raise let alone run a company!

"Although these choices can be influenced by outside factors such as manipulation by other people, these decisions are mostly our own."

Instead of "can be influenced by outside factors" I think you should say "are influenced by outside factors." Not trying to be rude. Just piggybacked your argument to show a point! I cannot think of a choice made without previous causes that actually made the choice for you. Like wanting to go to the gas station. Did you choose out of free will or out of convenience (path of least resistance) Or choosing to get in a fight: Free will or manipulation of your body chemistry to cause malice? (or instinct of survival). Give me an example of free will.

"a person's outcome in life is determined by the choices that person makes, and not by fate."

I agree that choosing exists but it more than likely came from a preconceived notion or agenda than any kind of free will"

I think the word we are looking for is discipline! In order for a drug addict to choose to quit drugs he has to be compelled. However if he indeed had free will, he would not be addicted. He would do drugs as often as he see fits regardless of the consequences (Free will to self destruct) No mammal with survival instincts would use "free will" to implode on itself Nor do we have free will when it comes to deciding a favorite football team, religion, or even being born! I will take that further and say that your parents acted on biological instincts that are tantamount to our existence. That is why you were born.. not free will to have a child! Some people might weigh the consequences with having children.. but again their information comes from a path already chosen over and over and over..

I think the concept of free will is like the idea of "Sin". I keep hearing about it.. but I never see it. Unless you consider nature sinful. I bring this up to show why I accepted this debate. I keep hearing people talk about free will and sin, but it is mostly just parroting the bible! You were told you have free will and are sinners. It made sense from a perspective. But not any evidence to actually support it . In fact arguing free will is like arguing the existence of God. You go around in circles with the illusion of progress! It is possible we both are right (or wrong) depending on critical thinking (not majority rules).. BTW F the majority jk

I will borough from Sam Harris. He addressed Dennett's compatblism argument for free will. Where free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. His example was if a murderer kills purely from his desire to kill and not influenced by a hijacker. Then that is all the free will you need. But from a moral and scientific point of view it seems to miss the point. Where is the freedom in a desire that has been molded through events that he is completely unaware of! "People identify with a certain channel of information within our conscious minds. They feel that they are in control and they are the source. This is an illusion!"

"this does not mean that we did not make the decision freely."

It also does not mean that we do. It simply illustrates the chain of causes that you were merely witness to. Before "you" made the decision!

"The subject really chooses to take part in the experiment, and really chooses to lift a finger to please the researcher, but is completely oblivious to which of the two fingers is lifted. Also, if the subject had the same information as the researchers, then the subject could have easily changed the finger at the last moment, making it impossible for the researchers to predict."

Chooses, yes. but freely?... each choice was simply one of many paths your mind can process the information. Like I said you are merely interpreting the information in your brain as it dictates your motor function. You were merely witness to the chain of events! If you had witnessed the information the scientists had to determine which fingers you would raise. Switching fingers would only be another chain of events to perceive and your choice to switch fingers was then dictated by the course of actions; you seeing the information and subsequently switching your decision will also show up and both you and the scientist will see the brain activity (If you were a robot you would never raise a hand because you would be stuck in a loop of changing fingers) :)

My primary reason for denying free will comes from the understanding of free will by which Christians interpret their bible. The concept of free will in the bible is the explanation for evil and suffering in the world while also being the determining factor of whether you will be doomed to eternal suffering or not! So are you defending your argument with the idea of free will in the bible, or is it your own observations that compels you to believe you have free will?
Debate Round No. 2
black_squirrel

Pro

CON: "A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings"- Sam Harris

If we are puppets, who is the puppet master? God? But Sam Harris is an atheist.

CON: Free will implies no constraints.

No, free will does not imply no constraints. Having free will does not mean we are omnipotent. It means that, within certain constraints, there are still choices we can make that are not determined by outside factors. One could argue that people have less free choice than they think they have. People can be manipulated or forced. But we are not manipulated or forced all the time. There are still plenty of things we can choose freely.

CON: Meaning if you are going to be judged for your free will it would imply that you made the choice from a grounded perspective without the path of least resistance making that choice for you!

Sometimes we make a choice that goes against the path of the least resistance.


CON: free will is an ambiguous concept. That is why Sam Harris leads off with "I believe this is what people are thinking when they say Free will. Went on to give his definition and then explained why that concept of free will is an illusion.

We are not going by the definition of "free will" by Sam Harris, but the definition I gave in the first round. The definition of free will should be strong enough to allow for accountability, but not so strong to make it an impossible concept. There is a reasonable concept of free will that does this. Essentially, free will is just all those decisions we make that are not forced by outside influences.
What is considered "outside" depends on our notion of identity. The fact that our decisions are a consequence of a sequence of events in our brain does not mean that these decisions are not free. We ARE that brain activity, so brain activity is not an external cause.

CON: To say you have free will would mean that you made that choice while seeing the "Big Picture" Your CEO analogy will help me explain what I mean. The CEO does not see the big picture (nor could he) So each choice that was made came from a process of judgement's that caused him to hire whomever. If he knew that so and so alcoholic would be showing up to work drunk he may have not hired him in such a hurry!

In my opinion, the CEO does see the "big picture". But he cannot see every single detail at every given time. Yet, we do hold a CEO responsible for what happens to the company. For some things he will be held more responsible than for other things. But this is OK.
If one of the hires is an alcoholic, perhaps he SHOULD have known it. Did the CEO ask for reference letters? An alcoholic probably had similar problems at previous jobs. So a CEO may not have chosen for an employee to show up drunk, the CEO could have made choices that would have prevented this from happening.

CON: I cannot think of a choice made without previous causes that actually made the choice for you.

A choice may have previous causes, but these causes are not external. It is ME who is the cause of the choice. You may observe this choice as a result of a sequence of activities in the brain, but that IS me. You are just witnessing ME making a FREE CHOICE.

CON: Give me an example of free will.

I just made the free choice to respond to your arguments.

CON: I think the word we are looking for is discipline! In order for a drug addict to choose to quit drugs he has to be compelled. However if he indeed had free will, he would not be addicted.

Addiction certainly limits a person free choice. But some people have chosen to quit the addiction and some of them were successful. Yet others decided they do not want to quit. Addiction is like a cage. You can still make free decisions, but fewer of them.

CON: I think the concept of free will is like the idea of "Sin".

I don't think so, but we can keep religion out of this. Actually, even within Christianity there is controversy whether free will exists or not. Some will say that God knows everything and there can not be free will, others say that people have free will to go ("sin") against God. I will not using any arguments from God or from the bible.

CON: I will borough from Sam Harris. He addressed Dennett's compatibilism argument for free will. Where free will is compatible with the truth of determinism. His example was if a murderer kills purely from his desire to kill and not influenced by a hijacker. Then that is all the free will you need. But from a moral and scientific point of view it seems to miss the point. Where is the freedom in a desire that has been molded through events that he is completely unaware of! "People identify with a certain channel of information within our conscious minds. They feel that they are in control and they are the source. This is an illusion!"

I agree with Dennett and think that Harris is missing the point. But again this is mostly a dispute about the definition of free will. Harris seems to think that we should be aware and able to control of every single chemical reaction in our brain in order for us to have a free will. Such a definition would be unreasonable. To some extend, we CAN control the chemical reactions in our brain, but we cannot control or be aware of the movement of every single atom. All Harris has to do is change his naive definition of free will. It is more logical to adept his notion of free will, then to completely throw it out of the window.


Finalfan

Con

If we are puppets, who is the puppet master? God? But Sam Harris is an atheist."

I think you may have taken that out of context. It means puppet to causality! It means that you are free as long as you do not care how your decision was made (free will or not) I think that's what he meant anyways!

"No, free will does not imply no constraints."

If you see free will as the choices you make then you are right. But free will implies a freedom to make choices based off of pure freedom. If you knew that all of your choices were simply an event that you were merely witness to, it would imply that you are bound to past causes without free choices! Simply not agreeing is not evidence against this proposal! Your argument is that the choice to go left or right is "Free will" I'm saying it is merely making a choice with extreme limitations while assuming it was made freely! This is an illusion! Your choice was not made by "you" but external factors that you are unaware of!

Sam perfectly illustrates this by pointing out that what "you" are is subject to debate! You see a conscious decision made by "you" and manifested into reality. But you fail to see how you were just part of an event that made "you" when you made your choice!

"there are still choices we can make that are not determined by outside factors. One could argue that people have less free choice than they think they have. People can be manipulated or forced. But we are not manipulated or forced all the time. There are still plenty of things we can choose freely."

I disagree! Mostly because I cannot imagine an example where a choice was not manipulated or "forced"! I have wrestled with this idea many times and have always come to the conclusion that our choices are entirely circumstance driven! Never have I seen what you are calling "free will". You are almost diluting the concept by calling choices free will! If "free will" is just choices, intentions and efforts, then there wasn't anyway I could win! I was doomed out of the gate (in your mind)! I am trying to prove that "free will" is a concept that derives from biblical thinking. In this standard "you" are the author of your own existence. Every choice you make is weighed and judged. Through this madness we get the concept of "free will" That is why I am arguing this from an atheistic perspective!

"Sometimes we make a choice that goes against the path of the least resistance."

I can see why you would think that. However, I think we are talking about "counter choices" Where you make a decision in opposition to the path most traveled. This does not invite "free will" to create a new path. A new path is taken but out of opposition! Even your choice to take that path was all part of a chain of causes where you simply react! You may not be witness to why you chose to carve the new path of least resistance but it was not made freely!

"the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility"

That is what you, Dennet, and Harris and I imagine when you say "free will"! We are not lost on this concept. This is also the biblical concept. It means that you have free conscious control to be judged for your actions! Even if we find a sense of justice in this idea. It is an illusion. It is cohesive as morality. Where no objective morality actually exists.

"I just made the free choice to respond to your arguments."

I do appreciate that. It is most obviously not a free decision. Many factors contributed. Many we can even see (like me asking you) What else were you going to do? Ignore me? Still an external factor made that decision. You just watched your body type it :)

"Addiction certainly limits a person free choice. But some people have chosen to quit the addiction and some of them were successful. Yet others decided they do not want to quit. Addiction is like a cage. You can still make free decisions, but fewer of them. "

Here's a formula I want to try out! "Free will"= dividing by zero! It is illogical. It does not make sense in the model of our observable universe! A drug addict is the epitome of choices being made for you. Just imagine you are under the same amount of control as a drug addict.. Now imagine the amount of control that a healthy, highly intelligent 22 year old female would have over drugs! Even her choice to not use drugs was made by several factors that she had no awareness of (like preconceived notions that "drugs are bad") Either way she was only a witness to the event that took place where the choice to use drugs was presented and then rejected! So even at peak health and mental awareness. You still do not make "Free choices" only choices! Like picking which person to vote for in this debate!

" we can keep religion out of this. Actually, even within Christianity there is controversy whether free will exists or not. Some will say that God knows everything and there can not be free will, others say that people have free will to go ("sin") against God."

I bring religion into this because I believe that you unknowingly get your definition from the bible! It is ingrained into us from Christian influences! I just happen to be good at seeing through it! It is a manipulative device designed to enslave! Dramatic but very true! Christianity struggling with "free will" actually solidifies my point. Even the people who claim to be Christians are debating the only thing that makes us accountable for our own salvation! Kind of topples the house of cards if you ask me! I will not be attacking your beliefs here so I don't think it is Ad hominem to believe "free will" is a biblical idea and that you are actually defending the Christian doctrine!

"But again this is mostly a dispute about the definition of free will."

Like I said. I think we are on the same page here. That is why I called it an illusion! I am implying that you believe in free will. But it is not real!( In the definition you gave). What you and Dennet seem to be agreeing to is the degree of choices and not "free choices"! How much control do we have? That has nothing to do with free will in this case! "Free will" implies making choices through the eyes of perfect knowledge! You would have to see every cause that had brought you to your choice. So I think we can both say with confidence that we do make choices. We just do not have "free will" in the sense of the word!

" All Harris has to do is change his naive definition of free will. "

Again he is trying to imagine the widely excepted view of free will (which is pretty much your view) What most people think including Harris. All he had to do was think about it subjectively to find the thread to unravel "free will"!

"It is more logical to adept his notion of free will, then to completely throw it out of the window. "

You are then just changing the definition to choices intentions and efforts! Which is not what free will asserts! 2+2+5
Debate Round No. 3
black_squirrel

Pro

PRO: If we are puppets, who is the puppet master? God? But Sam Harris is an atheist.
CON: I think you may have taken that out of context. It means puppet to causality! It means that you are free as long as you do not care how your decision was made (free will or not) I think that's what he meant anyways!

I am trying to say hat this is a really bad analogy. Our choices are the result of brain activity. But at the same time, our brain activity is the result of choices. Some of these choices are deliberate. I may decide to think about something. Some of the choices are made unconsciously, but they are still a consequence of deliberate choices. For example, I may deliberately choose to avoid eating meat because I do not want animals to be harmed. But, having years been on a vegetarian diet, I will skip the meat dishes on the buffet without consciously thinking about it. Still, not eating meat was a conscious decision. But it was not made at the time of the buffet, but a long time ago. In the puppet analogy, not only does the puppet master control the puppet. But the puppet also controls the puppet master. So we have basically two puppet masters controlling each other. In other words, they are completely intertwined. In this way, our brain and us are intertwined intimately. We cannot separate one from the other. We control the brain, and the brain controls us. The brain and me are one and the same.

CON: If you knew that all of your choices were simply an event that you were merely witness to, it would imply that you are bound to past causes without free choices! Simply not agreeing is not evidence against this proposal! Your argument is that the choice to go left or right is "Free will" I'm saying it is merely making a choice with extreme limitations while assuming it was made freely! This is an illusion! Your choice was not made by "you" but external factors that you are unaware of!

I am not only a witness to my choices. I actually made those choices, and those choices is part of who I am. Knowing that my choices are the result of previous causes does not limit my freedom a bit, because I control most of those previous choices. Those previous causes are brain activity, and I and my brain are intertwined.

CON: Sam perfectly illustrates this by pointing out that what "you" are is subject to debate! You see a conscious decision made by "you" and manifested into reality. But you fail to see how you were just part of an event that made "you" when you made your choice!

I suppose it is subject to debate, so let's debate it. The meaning of "me" is perhaps best explained in existentialism [1]:

"A central proposition of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the most important consideration for individuals is the fact that they are an individual—an independently acting and responsible, conscious being ("existence")—rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individual fits ("essence"). The actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their "true essence" instead of there being an arbitrarily attributed essence others use to define them. Thus, human beings, through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a meaning to their life."

"It is often claimed in this context that people define themselves, which is often perceived as stating that they can wish to be something—anything, a bird, for instance—and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that people are (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions."

One of the core ideas in existentialism is that we create our own identity by the choices we make. We decide what we stand for and what we do not stand for. We decide what we feel responsible for and what we do not feel responsible for. Harris, and others who think like him, does not think he is responsible for anything. After all, it is "external" things that determine his behavior and he is merely a unparticipating witness. So Harris chooses to define himself to be very small in this sense. And yet, despite how he defines himself, I am sure he has pride, and feels responsibility etc.

The notions of identity, responsibility and free will are intimately intertwined.
Even if we believe that all our choices are consequences of prior events, this is just a lame excuse for not taking responsibility for your actions. IN the same way, a CEO takes responsible for everything that happens in his company, even things he has no direct control over (because usually, he has some indirect control over it).


PRO:Sometimes we make a choice that goes against the path of the least resistance.
CON:I can see why you would think that. However, I think we are talking about "counter choices" Where you make a decision in opposition to the path most traveled. This does not invite "free will" to create a new path. A new path is taken but out of opposition! Even your choice to take that path was all part of a chain of causes where you simply react! You may not be witness to why you chose to carve the new path of least resistance but it was not made freely!

But this sounds like circle reasoning. If I choose a path of least resistance, I have no free choice because that's the obvious choice.
But if I choose not the path of least resistance, I have no free choice because I am making oppositionist, and that the only oppositionist choice. But we are forgetting that I have the choice of being an oppositionist or not.

PRO (original definition of free will):the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility

CON: That is what you, Dennet, and Harris and I imagine when you say "free will"! We are not lost on this concept. This is also the biblical concept. It means that you have free conscious control to be judged for your actions! Even if we find a sense of justice in this idea. It is an illusion. It is cohesive as morality. Where no objective morality actually exists.

Dennett has studied the notion of "free will" extensively and he certainly did not just borrow his notion from religion. I do not believe that there is such a thing as absolute morality. We are responsible for most of our actions. How such actions are judged is an entirely different question.

PRO: I just made the free choice to respond to your arguments.
CON: I do appreciate that. It is most obviously not a free decision. Many factors contributed. Many we can even see (like me asking you) What else were you going to do? Ignore me? Still an external factor made that decision. You just watched your body type it

You say many factors contributed to it, but you only mention 2. The first one is that you asked me. But clearly, even if you asked me I could have chosen not to respond. The other factor you mentioned is that my body typed it. But that is not really an external factor. And even if you would consider it an external factor, it was I who "ordered" my body to type it.

CON: Here's a formula I want to try out! "Free will"= dividing by zero! It is illogical. It does not make sense in the model of our observable universe!

I disagree. It makes perfect sense. One only has to define it in a sensible way, and I think I did.

I thank my opponent for this debate. To all the voters I ask the question: Who are you going to vote for? For the person, who thinks you are all puppets, or for me, who think you are responsible people who make free choices.

It is your free choice -- really!!!


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...







Finalfan

Con

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
my source
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
black_squirrelFinalfanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, great links. Argument and conduct is easy FF.