Instigator / Pro
0
1511
rating
21
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#5298
Free-will is NOT responsible for every decision you make.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 4,500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1264
rating
363
debates
39.81%
won
Description
To win this debate, my opponent must prove that free-will is responsible for every decision you make.
The BOP rests on my opponent, so to win this debate, I only need to give an example of a decision made without free-will.
For the purposes of this debate, free-will does exist, and we can argue about the definition of free-will during the debate.
Round 1
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines free-will as:
Freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
The Oxford dictionary defines free-will as:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate.
Before we actually start this debate, we need to agree on a definition of free-will.
My opponent can choose one of these definitions, or my opponent can proffer a definition of their own.
"Free will is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1]
Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame.
Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[2] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[3] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will is incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Another incompatibilist position is hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
In contrast, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists even hold that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a sense of how choices will turn out.[4][5] Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs. determinism a false dilemma.[6] Different compatibilists offer very different definitions of what "free will" means and consequently find different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue.
Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic – for example in the thought of Democritus or the Cārvākans – and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[166] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all, although evolution of the universal state vector is completely deterministic. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential theory of everything, and open to many different interpretations.[167][168]
Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena.[169] This is not always the case: many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects. For instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free will). If a person's action is, however, only a result of complete quantum randomness, mental processes as experienced have no influence on the probabilistic outcomes (such as volition).[29] According to many interpretations, indeterminism enables free will to exist,[170] while others assert the opposite (because the action was not controllable by the physical being who claims to possess the free will).[171]
Like physicists, biologists have frequently addressed questions related to free will. One of the most heated debates in biology is that of "nature versus nurture", concerning the relative importance of genetics and biology as compared to culture and environment in human behavior.[172] The view of many researchers is that many human behaviors can be explained in terms of humans' brains, genes, and evolutionary histories.[173][174][175] This point of view raises the fear that such attribution makes it impossible to hold others responsible for their actions."
Round 2
I don't want to have a debate with Wikipedia, I want to have a debate with Best.Korea!!!
This was the definition of free-will that my opponent gave me:
Free will is the notional capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
If somebody has been threatened, that threat impedes upon their ability to make a free decision. This holds true in a court of law.
I made the decision to give the Mexican cartel $15000, but I did not make that decision out of my own free will because the cartel threatened me.
Free-will is NOT responsible for every decision you make.
"Scientists have investigated the concept of human agency at the level of neural circuitry, and some findings have been taken as evidence that conscious decisions are not truly “free.” Free will skeptics argue that the subjective sense of free will is an illusion. Yet many scholars, as well as ordinary people, still profess a belief in free will, even if they acknowledge that choices are partly shaped by forces outside of one's control."
Round 3
WHAT IS MY OPPONENT TRYING TO PROVE HERE?
To win this debate, my opponent must prove that free-will is responsible for every decision you make.
STOP TROLLING, START DEBATING.
"While both animals and human beings have desires that can compel them to action, only human beings are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take. This ability is manifested by our wills. Since animals lack this ability, they lack a will, and therefore are not autonomous."
Round 4
A sneak peek into the next debate I will be hosting:
Should Best.Korea be banned from this site?
Thank you for the debate.
It was very educational.
Round 5
Readers, don't bother voting on this one.
Are you gonna host a debate or not?
Stop trying to use words to dodge the debate you challenged me to!
Accept the debate
So the legends are true then
"You really do feed off of chaos"
Sure.
and no, I will host, later.
You really do feed off of chaos.
Okay, I will host.
Well????
"A sneak peek into the next debate I will be hosting:
Should Best.Korea be banned from this site?"
Host a debate, I will be Con for that.
Oh, dont worry.
I have no problem with losing a debate.
To me, debating is not about winning.
Its an opportunity to google the topic and then copy paste the argument, so everyone learns something new.
I did not try to rig this debate, though I apologize if it may seem that way.
But yes, this debate is rigged for Pro, since even if free will is proven to exist,
Free will of person A is not responsible for decision of person B, and since topic doesnt specify "free will of who", its really just wild ride there.
I dont have free will, but I am still held responsible.
free will means you are responsible, not your will but you...