Instigator / Pro
11
1500
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Topic
#5823

Free will exists.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Moozer325
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1584
rating
29
debates
70.69%
won
Description

I will define free will as "the rational appetite" which I will explain in the debate. You can either present your own definition and defend it against mine or try and refute mine simply. Just know that I do not think that science is adequate enough to answer this question since it has limited its research physical observation. I think that free will is not something physical nor is it something that can be quantified by itself. You need reason to understand it. So be ready to address my reasoning.

However, You can bring in science if you wish. I will be using mainly philosophy. And by philosophy, I mean reasoning to my conclusions logically using the principles of philosophy, namely the first principles and any principles associated with this particular topic.

-->
@Lemming
@Casey_Risk

Thanks from me too!

Con's arguments are terrible here

-->
@Casey_Risk

Thanks for the vote!

I see your point about my reference to the natural and artificial whole. But honestly, it is not a very simple concept and it would take a lot more space to have to explain that and I was worried the debate would topple into that which was not what the debate was about. I simply gave the reference to give the reader a chance to see what I was saying in the arguments that followed.

Given how repetitive this debate got towards the end, I think it's a good example of why I believe that the vast majority of debates don't need to be longer then three rounds, or four if you're doing the whole "I waive the first round, my opponent waives the last round" thing. If you're a competent debater who is knowledgeable about the topic at hand, then three rounds should be sufficient to make your entire case.

-->
@MAV99
@Moozer325
@McMieky

>Vote: McMieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments), 2 to Con (Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
i really liked both sides of this argument

>Reason for Removal:
The voter does not explain their decision. An RFD must include reasoning for awarding points and this just expresses the voter's appreciation for the debate. That is not sufficient to award points.
**************************************************

Probably won't have time to get to this.

-->
@McMieky

It's great that you liked both side's arguments.
But they'd probably also like the know what in 'particular you liked,
To vote as you did.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10oWHhN-eI0eX6TEpW2kgPv1iRCUNTrIHblqn8BRRXL8/edit?tab=t.0

RFV Part 1
I 'really think Moozer325 argument that if a component of a whole lacks an ability, this means the whole will lack the ability, to be flawed.
But as I read it, I can maybe take it to mean for example there is no gun, no bullet being fired, each component is just doing what it does, the trigger does not explode.
Still feels awkward though, and I find MAV99's arguments on it easier to understand. Makes more sense to me.
It comes off to me as though Moozer325 is trying to argue water or wetness do not exist, that only individual particles exist, that wetness is not wetness it is just particles in some arrangement.

I don't see why the particles we are made of would need free will if we had free will.
The components of a computer individually are not able to create for themselves the end result of the computer.

I think the Moozer325 argument that we will only ever choose the one path is better,
Though I am not so sure about the robot argument,
We have 'something more than a robot or a falling domino.

I'm not 'wild about MAV99 argument about having multiple methods to solve a problem.
But I found MAV99's first Round 'Really difficult to follow, not because I think it was explained badly, but because there's a lot of 'specific meanings in their argument.
But I'm not wild about their multiple options argument, because it 'does play a bit towards Moozer325's argument that we will choose X every time.
. . . But then MAV99 'is of 'course aware of causation and specifically speak of it and Aristotle.

Possible problem for Moozer325 might be the starting debate description,
Where both sides are able to use their 'own definitions for Free Will, "the rational appetite" in the case of MAV99.
Though I'm not sure I agree with their arguments such as if the brain cannot suggest multiple means because of a defect.
Unless one is 'incredibly out of it or overpowered by this or that, people, even drunk people I think, are going to have at least two methods occur to them for action.
. . . But perhaps MAV99 would argue they 'have free will, but incredibly depressed free will.
There's still the problem of causation though, I think.
“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills” - Arthur Schopenhauer

Moozer325 Lego argument doesn't work for me,
A sword and a hammer are made of particles, but the end shapes are different,
The particles only 'gain the ability to chop or hammer 'together, not individually.
Though 'maybe Moozer325 would argue there is no sword or hammer, only particles.
In a 'sense I suppose, but such an argument comes across as for example, Zeno's Paradox of movement, halfway there, therefore never there. Yet clearly objects reach theres.
Though. . . Probably there are logics against Zenos paradox, I'm shallow in my reading.

I see Moozer325 'does make argument in law example,
Of the smaller parts having 'tiny bit of end result power,
So presumably he'd argue particles individually do have cutting and hammering power, force/mass.
. . . I'm not sure that's not a reach though, then one can claim the trigger has the same power as the gunpowder, because it is made of matter and has energy, and all the explosion is is energy released.
. . . There 'are arguments that 'everything has consciousness and will of sorts, even if weird or tiny to us. Or some 'principle of such.
Not that I believe or believe not such.
But there 'is the problem of the description and MAV99 definition of Free Will.

RFV Part 2
MAV99 sing argument,
Arguably there are events that only occur when there is 'enough of something,
Frequencies of sound for example,
A cricket chirp is not a bullhorn, something 'new occurs in wholes. Small sounds don't break glass. Something 'new is there in that whole/size.

MAV99 argument that a computer is not a human, goes over well with me.

Moozer325 binary argument 'also isn't strong I think,
While one 'does have something or not,
Fire for example, 'But there 'is an in between, where the temperature rises,
There is 'much fire and little fire,
There is enough fire to accomplish X, and fire not enough to accomplish X.

I think Moozer325 does well by sticking with his particles lack free will argument,
Though I think MAV99 'does address it with emergent properties,
MAV99 arguments feel yet incomplete due to many of Moozer325 arguments.
What I am expecting this to end with is a tie,
As I think while both sides presented good arguments, they both sides seem 'initial arguments, they both have their Theories,
But as their Theories are different, they focus on different parts of the debate,
Much of the later debate occurs in minor rebuttals to each others views, and minor patching up of said theories without 'deep explanation of said theories, due to each side's rebuttals being a bit light, as each side has maybe more focused out their own views.

. . . Possibly I missed it, but did Moozer325 ever define Free Will?
They stated people do not have it, but I'm not sure they were explicit in stating what Free Will 'is that humans do not have.
I recall arguments for 'why they would not have it.

Singing isn't 'just vibration to humans though,
It's also the concept,
But maybe this falls under illusion for Moozer325 arguments?
. . . But then they say "the whole having qualities that the parts do not is an illusion."
Which I think MAV99 'did address with emergent properties, but again, I'm not sure MAV99 reply went as deep as it might of, the (to me) light cuts (Not bad cuts) of both sides leads towards a tie.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@MAV99
@Casey_Risk
@Moozer325

I won't have time to vote on this debate. Could you guys vote?

If the will is free, then who pays for it

I reckon will has to come from somewhere

And if not god himself, you say you’re free and I say I’m free

Well one of these days you’re gonna see

The will ain’t free

If it was I wouldn’t feel compelled to type this

Every letter

Less free than the last

I'll try and get my vote up before the voting period expires.

Also, just helpful suggestion, there's a vote request thread in the forums where you can request a vote on your debate. I'd recommend posting there if you have a debate no one has voted on.

Votes

I will vote on this one if I have time.

votes plz

-->
@MAV99

Well, someone else accepted anyway, so you dont need me to accept. Its just that definition of free will in description, as well as saying science cant explain it... I dont feel like jumping into a debate without at least some idea what the debate will be about.

-->
@Best.Korea

What is unclear?

-->
@MAV99

The debate seems too unclear for me to accept.

-->
@Best.Korea

Feel free to accept...

Good luck proving that it exists. So far no one managed to prove it.

-->
@Sunshineboy217

There are some on here that don't think so. There are also scientists who think that it does not exist.

-->
@MAV99

Why would free will not exist?