Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Re-upload: 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 120256
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

omar2345

Con

I re-uploaded this because I did not find what Pro did was follow the rules I laid out and gave him/her options to question or state something before accepting so he/she has no reason to do what he/she did.

This can be about two things and would like to focus on only one of them.
I would like my opponent to choose where this free will debate would go.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. (Google: Free will define)
Round 1 my opponent can also decide a definition. If I do not accept I am sure I can think of a compromise.

Option 1:
Free will exists. I am Con to this.

Option 2:
Free will is more beneficial in a society than not having it. I am also Con to this.
(With this I am free will is not helpful whereas Pro is free will is helpful. I or my opponent will not be stating its existence here instead stating how beneficial it is in whatever way they see it to being beneficial)

I added the category philosophy but it can be Religious debate if the person wants to and would like someone who supports free will to be my opponent.
I also would like my opponent to refrain from straw manning my position since I haven't give one apart from against free will instead this will be solely about free will. Not atheism, Determinism or whatever ism it might be.
Hopefully you accept this and make the debate centered to free will.

Ask questions in the comment section if you are unsure about something.
Leaning

Pro

Well, As mostly seen in the comment section.

Apparent free will exists to humans, As they do not possess the ability to gauge with complete certainty how their life has been impacted and forcibly changed beyond their control in the past. Not can they gauge with complete certainty how they will act in the future due to events beyond their control.
With humans being 'apparently free in their own perspective, This equates in practicality to the will being free.

A person might say that a metal nail not inscribed with the letter 'E is not a 'true 'E nail, But does this matter for practical purposes when either one can be hammered into a piece of wood? And for an illiterate man does this change the practicality of him calling an 'E nail and a plain nail, Nails?
The gist of all this I'm trying to get across is that Will being not Free is an aesthetic argument rather than a practical argument.
Debate Round No. 1
omar2345

Con

I will give my argument that I gave in the previous one. I will also stick to this and would like Leaning to start the rebuttals.
Thank you for taking up this debate.

By definition we cannot have free will because we operate with constraints. This can be seen with being born. We did not choose to be born instead due to a choice made by our parents we were born. Even if you just say picking to eat an apple or an orange is a choice we made with free will. I would say that is based on past experiences to which one you prefer, DNA that was given to by your parents when life started which all had a play in part of choosing between the apple or the orange. With this in mind I have shown we were not born because of free will and even the most smallest choices are influenced by many factors that are restraints that limit to how free a persons will can be.
Leaning

Pro

A man is able to will something because he has knowledge of something. A complete lack of Free Will can no more exist in a human than complete Free Will. Same as the terms of Good and Evil requiring each other, And a human to possess relevance.

A lack of free will can exist, But only when a person does not. As you said, We do not choose to be born. But after that? Is where my argument about 'apparent Free Will comes in (Which you did accept in the comments as an acceptable argument)

You cannot expect a man to have knowledge of the skeins, Threads, Or whatever name you like of future events. After an event has passed, Nothing else could have occurred sure. But if events had been changeable here or there, Different routes and paths would have emerged.

So within his own perspective and life, A man is free. An argument I would expect after this is that Free Will would still be an illusion in this case, But what of it? Do illusions not exist as phenomena which can be replicated and observed? Known for what they are? Free Will still exists even if it twere called an illusion.

The existence of reality, Physics, And causation are not an argument against free will, Since free will could not exist if they did not exist. A man can exist within the constraints of fate since he also possesses the ability to do as he thinks best, But not knows.

It's not a cheat I think to say a man is free because of what he knows and knows not. Good and evil. Freedom and bondage. It's a common nature of words to possess antonyms to describe their opposite, And for words to exist describing the in-between. To say free will does not mean complete free will. If only good existed, It would not.

even the most smallest choices are influenced by many factors that are restraints that limit to how free a persons will can be.
Does that mean that there is 'some freedom? When you say limit I mean, That implies that we have 'some even if not much, To me.
Debate Round No. 2
omar2345

Con

A complete lack of Free Will can no more exist in a human than complete Free Will.
So I am guessing you are arguing for something in between?

But if events had been changeable here or there, Different routes and paths would have emerged.
Yes but it is all influenced by past decisions. A man who goes work every weekday 9-5 doesn't just randomly change his mind not to go work. Something happens like an illness or he wants to do something more important in his life. Illnesses happen more often than not because the man was not aware his lack of resistance to the specific illness or maybe he does intentionally to miss work which would be influenced by a past decision or a memory that he is getting paid barely paid nothing for the amount of work he is doing which is why he decides to find another job or find a moment of relief. The more important thing in his life is going to be also influenced by past decisions. Maybe he watched his favourite actor play a role which triggered him to try to become an actor or his brain remembered him as a child who had hopes and dreams of becoming one. This wasn't because of free will instead made by the lack of free will. The brain chose to show the man the memory as a child to I guess reduce his sadness of a job he was in or wanted him to continue watching his favourite movies as a relief to the complete boredom of his life.

A man is free
Not completely free. Free to try but not free from consequence. A man can freely jump off a building but would have to live with the consequences of broken bones. That free act has given the person a restriction. Maybe the person is now disabled or cannot continue with his daily life until his legs become functional again. A man is only as free as he can be. A man cannot fly because he does not have the power to freely do that. Maybe when we have a tool that can fly that might happen but not now.

Free Will still exists even if it twere called an illusion.
A illusion I would say is another word for a lie. It doesn't exist but you perceive it as real. If free will was real we would have evidence to state it to be the case but with the further science goes the less likely it looks people have free will.

A man can exist within the constraints of fate since he also possesses the ability to do as he thinks best, But not knows.
Looking at my definition: Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. (Google: Free will define)
Without constraint is a condition to having free will. Any kind of constraints limits free will making it non-existent. He thinks best is limited to what the person knows and is capable of. Sure the person might want to help people but do not know how. The will of the man wanting to help is constrained by the lack of knowledge the man has to do commit actions to help people.

To say free will does not mean complete free will. If only good existed, It would not.
Good and evil are man made concepts and we cannot absolutely say an action is good rather then bad. Sure it can be 99% but we cannot be 100% sure on anything. Not knowing this allows us freely to make mistakes but not the will to always improve on those mistakes.

even the most smallest choices are influenced by many factors that are restraints that limit to how free a persons will can be.
Does that mean that there is 'some freedom? When you say limit I mean, That implies that we have 'some even if not much, To me.
I don't know how much it limits the person but I would say free will cannot exist with constraints. If you are going for half-free will you maybe correct but as science improves we can provide less evidence for something that allows free will to occur. It is like a soul. People say we have it but do not know where it is.

Await your response.
Leaning

Pro

I appear to be arguing that Free Will exists if the right perspective of it is found. That a person need not let language button-hole himself into misery if they do not will it. 'If, Is a word you might object to I suppose, But this does not bother me. Do people not consider knowledge 'part of who they are? So when one comes upon a new knowledge, Experience, Environment, They 'acquire it. . As part of themselves.

When we 'choose to make a decision due to information, Even if that information is part of what compels us, It is part of us. Our choices being made by ourselves of our own will and being, Are often a hallmark of a free choice I would think.

Does it not seem an absurd statement to call a man completely constrained by gravity? Some constraint perhaps, But not complete, Which allows freedom. He is free to exert his will on what he thinks and feels about gravity, Free to attempt and perhaps succeed in building a plane or a jetpack if he desires it. A gravity so increased that is squishes a man from mortal life would sound the utmost of constraint to me, And if there is an utmost, There must be degrees before that level is reached.

Again, Perhaps you object to the 'If, But if he does not make a decision, What else would. The concept of a man not being effected by anything but himself brings forth the image of a man existing in a universe the size of his body and no farther. What free'er man could there be? But what more of a bore? We exist, And exist amongst a world, Are not free of all constraints. But this does not make us completely constrain our will any more than it causes complete free will. Still though I assert free will exists, Though not complete. Complete is boring and limited to itself.

The rainbow is a lie? . . . Hmm, Doesn't quite work for me. Is there a leprechaun or a rainbow bridge? No, But there is a beautiful image, Reflective of realities. A phenomenon.

Free Will has many definitions. The one I'm taking from round 1 is the ability to act at one's own discretion. Which my argument argues for, As well as stating that in practicality we have free will, Though aesthetically a person might argue against it, Such an argument does not function.

All the view we have of reality is a man made concept, Especially the concepts. Made from the world that be, But made none-the-less.
Debate Round No. 3
omar2345

Con

Sorry about the late reply.

I appear to be arguing that Free Will exists if the right perspective of it is found.
I thought you were arguing for limited free will. Not complete free will or something like the definition I gave which states without constraints.

Even if that information is part of what compels us, It is part of us.
The information you were gained was not because of the amount of will you had it was because the circumstances alligned for you to understand what the information meant and how best to use said information. A braindead individual would not be capabel of even reading the information let alone learning from it and finding out the best use of it.

Our choices being made by ourselves of our own will and being
It is not because of the will that make people do something. It is external factors and factors which you have no control over in saying whether you want it or not (Brain, DNA, characteristic).

He is free to exert his will on what he thinks and feels about gravity
Not the tools he uses. He might look it as a theist who states this as confirmation of God and an atheist as just something science has already explained. If the atheist was born and raised in Saudi more than likely he would have turned to have the theist viewpoint vice versa. The things we cannot control can dictate our choice. The person did not ask or choose to be hit in a head with a baseball bat instead another person willed by an emotion of vengeance that consumed him. That person hit with the baseball bat has suffered significant brain damage and loses of course some parts of the brain. No matter how much the person's will he cannot get back what he lost from the brain damage. Maybe in the future you can copy your brain but cannot do so in the present.

Free to attempt and perhaps succeed in building a plane or a jetpack if he desires it.
The amount of will did not make that happen. Money, Courage and time made that happen. Will is a small determing factor for the person using a jetpack.

Still though I assert free will exists, Though not complete. Complete is boring and limited to itself.
Guess you are advocating for limited free will. I am advocating for how useless free will is in making a decision. People say that person is free and has the will do to tremendous feats. What they clearly miss out the significant advantage that person has which gave him courage either past experiences or genetics.

All the view we have of reality is a man made concept
All from something in the universe or thought of using the natural world. Those concepts didn't come from nothing. A unicorn is just a horse with a horn and white and pink colours. Spiderman is just a man in a costume which can climb walls and shoot webs that cover large distances. They all came from something not nothing. Which goes against free will if what we know already existed we just changed it around a bit to suit our needs whether be through speech, Maths, Thought etc.
Leaning

Pro

I thought you were arguing for limited free will. Not complete free will or something like the definition I gave which states without constraints.
Eh, I can argue for both.

The information you were gained was not because of the amount of will you had it was because the circumstances alligned for you to understand what the information meant and how best to use said information. A braindead individual would not be capabel of even reading the information let alone learning from it and finding out the best use of it.
Of course a brain dead individual would not be capable of anything. What will would they have? Much less free will. In the world from my view that you advocate, Nothing is ever caused, Since everything has some other cause. But that doesn't quite work, Even in a circle. Since if nothing is causing, Nothing is happening. To me the solution is to view it as we all cause something, More so when it is something 'we caused. Simply because I learned how to make a paper plane from a book does not mean I did not cause it.

It is not because of the will that make people do something. It is external factors and factors which you have no control over in saying whether you want it or not (Brain, DNA, Characteristic).
What else am I to define myself by if not my Brain, DNA, And characteristics?

Not the tools he uses. He might look it as a theist who states this as confirmation of God and an atheist as just something science has already explained. If the atheist was born and raised in Saudi more than likely he would have turned to have the theist viewpoint vice versa. The things we cannot control can dictate our choice. The person did not ask or choose to be hit in a head with a baseball bat instead another person willed by an emotion of vengeance that consumed him. That person hit with the baseball bat has suffered significant brain damage and loses of course some parts of the brain. No matter how much the person's will he cannot get back what he lost from the brain damage. Maybe in the future you can copy your brain but cannot do so in the present.
Eh, Sure a persons free will is gone when the person is gone. If he is killed or made brain dead, Since he is the cause of his free will and action it goes with him. In some cases even if physically constrained, We are free in our perspective, Mind, And soul.

The amount of will did not make that happen. Money, Courage and time made that happen. Will is a small determing factor for the person using a jetpack.
Money, Courage, And time help sure, But what can they be without a person with will? Give a random man a million, Will he choose to use the circumstances to build a jetpack?
Just because a man's will forms in accordance with his environment does not make it constrained. He still has his own nature. I refer you to good and evil, The concepts don't work without each other. I don't say the world is good, Or the world is bad. But, The world is, And so too our perspective of it is a thing that is. Complete or no free will does not exist. Free will though, I think does.

Guess you are advocating for limited free will. I am advocating for how useless free will is in making a decision. People say that person is free and has the will do to tremendous feats. What they clearly miss out the significant advantage that person has which gave him courage either past experiences or genetics.
Eh, Free will isn't complete free will, But it's not a vacuum either.

All from something in the universe or thought of using the natural world. Those concepts didn't come from nothing. A unicorn is just a horse with a horn and white and pink colours. Spiderman is just a man in a costume which can climb walls and shoot webs that cover large distances. They all came from something not nothing. Which goes against free will if what we know already existed we just changed it around a bit to suit our needs whether be through speech, Maths, Thought etc.
What I'm hearing is "All will is completely equal. " Yet, Try to live life that way, And it doesn't work out in practicality. A person who says I don't have any choice and chooses not to exert their will drifts on. A person who exerts their will, Moves their mind, Body, And will within, Might swim. That it came from somewhere else matters not, It's theirs when within.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

Guess the evidence is limited but I think it would be in my favour. If only I can travel to the future. That would be nice.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
The links don't really count for my argument, Or apply that much in obvious ways, But they were on my mind. YouTube 7:14 for myself. Reason story for argument about who makes anything. And the comic for practicality. Don't think I really used anything based off of any of them really, Just like them, And in my head.

https://youtu. Be/-5OfG_wxkJI? T=434
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Reason_(short_story)
existentialcomics. Com/comic/153

Personally omar2345, I consider this debate a tie. I think, We have too many certainties that we disagree on, So we never quite arrive at the same conclusions. Each little disagreement branching off to other paths and so on or something, Ah well. It was interesting. (Note, Nothing Leaning says in comments was part of the debate, And thus should not be used against in voting purposes)
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I am going to repost it later on in hopes I find someone for option 2. You don't have to change since you have accepted what I stated as rules.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Leaning

Yes.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Would this be an acceptable argument for round 1 of option 1?

Apparent free will exists to humans, As they do not possess the ability to gauge with complete certainty how their life has been impacted and forcibly changed beyond their control in the past. Not can they gauge with complete certainty how they will act in the future due to events beyond their control.
With humans being 'apparently free in their own perspective, This equates in practicality to the will being free.

A person might say that a metal nail not inscribed with the letter 'E is not a 'true 'E nail, But does this matter for practical purposes when either one can be hammered into a piece of wood? And for an illiterate man does this change the practicality of him calling an 'E nail and a plain nail, Nails?
The gist of all this I'm trying to get across is that Will being not Free is an aesthetic argument rather than a practical argument.

Hmm, Looks like a bit of a confused argument I'm posting, But I'm not sure.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.