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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This debate was largely centered around the idea of emergence - the idea that a whole can have properties not possessed by any of its parts. This is relevant, as Con argues that we as humans do not possess the ability to make choices because none of our components have free will. Pro points out that Con is using the fallacy of composition/division, and states that a whole can be greater than its parts. I think Pro makes a good point here, but Con points out that in all of Pro's examples of wholes having properties not possessed by the parts, the parts still clearly contribute to what the whole actually does. Essentially, Con argues that emergence is theoretically possible, but Pro has to show how free will actually emerges through deterministic processes.

This brings me to Pro's fundamental argument: that we as humans have a "rational appetite" that allows us to make choices, and because we are capable of reaching an end through multiple means, and capable of reaching multiple ends through our choices, we have free will. Con, however, points out the circular nature of assuming that a rational mind has free will due to being able to reason on their choices, and also points out that our subjective experience of reasoning could all be an illusion, with our brains being like very advanced computers.

I think Pro was unnecessarily pedantic about Con's use of "illusion" and "choice" , as I found his usage of it pretty clear in context - how do we know that we actually are making our own reasoned choices rather than just having an experience that subjectively feels like it, especially when the processes that go on in our bodies are all apparently deterministic? Pro tries to draw a line between artificial and natural wholes, but I have a rule: sources are not arguments. Pro has to explain for himself what the actual difference is, and he fails to clearly do so - I am left wondering how one determines whether a whole is natural or artificial, and what the impacts are. Given that Pro is unable to explain how we can know that our rational processes are real and not predetermined, he fails to meet his burden of proof. Con wins.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFV
Arguments. Tie, I think the debate moved a bit away from Definitions and Proofs of Free Will, to a debate on the details on each side.
(I'm not sure if I am right or explain my view well, but it's my take)

Neither side cited sources, both sides used examples of objects and actions, to argue their reasonings.

Both Legible.

Conduct, both polite.

Further RFV can be read in comments 14 and 15 of this debate.