Instigator / Pro
14
1521
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#56
Free Will Exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
spacetime
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description
The burden of proof is on me (PRO).
"Free Will" is defined as "the capacity to exert conscious control over one's own actions."
Round 1
Every reasonable epistemic framework presumes some basic level of trust in our sensory faculties. Without that trust, we're left with epistemic nihilism, since most if not all knowledge is founded upon our perceptual experience of reality. Unless there's a legitimate reason to doubt the validity of our perceptions, we have no choice but to assume that those perceptions are accurate reflections of reality.
With that in mind, let's recognize the indisputable fact that we're all constantly experiencing the existence of our own free will. At this very moment, you can freely, consciously, and intentionally *choose* to avert your eyes away from the screen. Or you can choose to keep reading instead. Con is arguing that no matter what you choose, it was all pre-determined by the mechanistic forces of the universe, and the mental experience you *literally just had* of making the choice was 100% illusory. His advocacy is completely absurd on every level. Think about all the decisions you've ever made. You *know* that you made those decisions. You distinctly remember making them. It's something you've done over and over and over again throughout the course of your life.
Upon examining the totality of one's perceptual experience, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that free will exists. Con needs to come up with some incredibly convincing evidence to override the validity of that perception. Until he does, we should be fully confident in the existence of free will.
I have all of human experience on my side. It's Con's job to show why we should dismiss it all as an illusion.
Forfeited
Round 2
:-(
After some thinking, I am just going to surrender this debate in an open manner. This debate is impossible for Con to uphold because of the definition that Pro gave it in the debate's description.
I made an error in accepting this debate excitedly thinking this was going to be a proper free will debate when instead this was a debate about 'will' without it needing to be free.
This was my mistake and I will be sure to always read debate descriptions as a result of it.
I promise you, there is no way for Con to win this debate if Pro plays it right. No matter how you go about it, we have the capacity to exert conscious control over actions.
Free will is a lie but the way it's defined in this debate includes will that is not free.
I leave you with this rap:
Round 3
I accept the concession, I guess.
For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with my definition of free will. But if there's a more balanced or accurate definition out there, I'm certainly open to hearing it.
My will was not free when I chose to forfeit this debate.
Unfortunately I consciously controlled that choice, so RIP me.
No reasonable person believes in that definition of free will. Every free will advocate I know would concede that environmental factors exert causal influence over our decision-making processes. But the presence of that influence doesn't negate the existence of free will.
I know.
I'd suggest, "free will" is defined as "the capacity to make a decision that is free of all previous influence".
look how he defines free will in the debate description above.
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
If you want a proper debate on free will I’ll gladly send you a challenge