Free will is a lie
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
RFV Forfeit by Pro
Lemming Thoughts
1. Logic: The Importance of Free Will in Human Action,
I'm not sure that something being important to humans, means it is 'true.
Actions losing meaning and people no longer being accountable. I'm not sure relates to the question of free will being true or not.
Also actions can arguably still be meaningful and people held accountable, even with a lack of free will.
Depends what one means by choose, 'or free will, I suppose.
Responsibility and Accountability,
We 'can still punish criminals, if we want to remove them from the population at large due to danger they exhibit.
Or if we think punishment will decrease likelihood others will preform said crime.
Even if we assumed we had not free will, we would still be a partial vessel or agent of causes and effects.
Choices and Ethics,
I think I've heard of religions and ethics that don't believe in free will though.
2. Philosophy: Free Will and Moral Philosophy,
I've nothing new to say.
3. Science: Neuroscience and Psychology
Libet Experiment, interesting, though Con might do well if they included sources and quotes.
Self reflection argument isn't bad, but all of that stuff 'in a person, some would argue get's 'placed there from without.
4. Compatibilism: Reconciling Free Will with Determinism
I like these arguments, Con appears to be going for a shotgun approach initially, as Pro has not defined or set goal posts for Free Will in debate.
5. Real-Life Examples: Free Will in Action
That only 'some people make said choices, would imply to some something 'different in said people that allows/caused said choice.
But again, depends on how one defines Free Will.
6. Conclusion: The Realness of Free Will
Free Will being essential for certain human actions, I think is Cons weakest argument.
Believing in something false can cause ends that would not result if not for belief in said falsehood, but such does not make said falsehood 'true.
Forfeit by pro
Forfeiture by Pro.
I will say that Con presented an excellent moral argument for its existence.
Full forfeiture by Pro, but also, an excellent first round argument by Con, with sufficient supporting sourcing, which was never challenged by Pro. For the future, suggest Con demonstrate a waive of every round forfeited by opponent so the rounds by Con are not considered forfeitures, themselves.
i didn't see that, so........
Then why did you accept the challenge as is? Why didn’t you ask Pro to change argument time before accepting the challenge?
well the rzn of our forfeiture is that pro didn't set the time limit quite right<newbie> so with just 2 hours of time, we didn't get to express anything.
well, yes ofc, so as long their actions weren't under them, it would be irrational.
"if individuals cannot choose their actions, it would be irrational to praise or blame them."
Exactly. It is irrational to blame anyone.
but well since u r a beginner, then no worries.
(。◕‿◕。)
DUDE, U SHOULD HV SET THE TIME CORRECTLY/