The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Do we have free will?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 22762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Theoretically yes...practically when we are able to decide we are already soo much influenced that it is difficult for free decisions


I accept.

Definition of "will" : Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen

Definition of "free" : Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes


The widely accepted view is that each human being has free will over their own actions in every moment. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent as to why this is not so.

The Inquiry

The debate topic reads as "Do we have free will?"

"we" implies every single human being, as no definitive article follows.

"have" implies strictly present tense.

Definition of "have" : Possess, own, or hold.


Therein for my opponent to uphold the negation he must show that at this moment in time not one human being possesses, owns, nor holds free will.
Debate Round No. 1


Theoretically yes...practically when we are able to decide we are already soo much influenced that it is difficult for free decisions. 2.� Constraining causes force people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. Non-constraining causes do not force people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action. For example, if you have a fear of heights, you probably will not want to walk on the edge of a tall building's roof; that fear is a non-constraining cause.


Intellectual Dishonesty

I suppose the reason my opponent sets up 30 minute debate rounds is he finds it fit to copy-and-paste entire arguments from even having the decency to put quotes around it. I urge judges to take into account that I'm actually making my own arguments within this time constraint, and he is not.

"Constraining causes force people to act against their will"

1. He concedes my definitions. I stated, "Definition of "have" : Possess, own, or hold."

2. His argument does not show how we do not own free will. He merely demonstrates how on occasion things happen we don't like. Lets say his example was even more constraining like being thrown in a cave with binded arms and hands. Look to my definition as to how even this example shows nothing. I could possess money and place it in my wallet. If I'm not using my money it does not mean I do not possess it.

3. Even if I'm placed at gunpoint I still have free will. I could try to run, pray, cry, plead, or fight. This does not in any sort of imagination prove that free will was taken away. It just shows that I've been placed in a predicament, and in that moment I can't afford to take my free will for granted because the next seconds have to make smart choices.

4. Therein his example and claim shows and proves nothing.

"Non-constraining causes do not force people to act against their will but are sufficient to cause an action"

1. Events influence us, I agree. If fear of heights then probably won't climb. This is a sensible statement.

{Take note, though, of the word "probably." I will get into at a later round, but it is a word that my opponent will not be able to answer for within his worldview.}

2. Yet this just shows that humans have free will. Someone freely decided not to climb because they had the freedom to choose such.


1. He has not proven in any way how every being does not possess free will.

2. He has instead shown cases where people will not take their free will for granted.

3. Thus he has only more-so proved the human faculty of free will.

4. I only had a chance to offer rebuttals due to the time constraints. I will try my best to fit in some defensive argument. The BOP is on my opponent, so if I do not have the oppurtunity to do so it should not matter.
Debate Round No. 2


Aodugbesan forfeited this round.


Implications of a Forfeit

1. He has conceded BOP is on him. {Look to Round 1}

2. He has conceded that his arguments do not satisfy his BOP. {Look to Round 2}

3. He has conceded that his arguments, in the reverse, actually prove the faculty of human free will. {Look to Round 2}

4. Therein, Con is left with no argument to support his BOP. Subsequently, we are left with the inevitable conclusion, thus far, that "we have free will."

5. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


Aodugbesan forfeited this round.


Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4


Aodugbesan forfeited this round.


Thank you to the viewers and judges who took a brief amount of time to read this debate-with-potential.

For the conceded reasons stated in Round 3

Please Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jwesbruce 6 years ago
please no haha
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
Lets vote con to piss off pro :P
Posted by PeacefulChaos 6 years ago
In this debate, are we leaving out factors such as God? Also, are you arguing that society affects all our decisions and that as a result we have no free will?
Posted by frozen_eclipse 6 years ago
If the voting period is extended to week.....and argument time 48 hours i will accept and will make this very interesting......mwahhhhahahahahaah!!!!!!!!!!!!!....cough cough
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF