CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
15
Yep Nope
Debate Score:34
Arguments:26
Total Votes:49
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yep (17)
 
 Nope (8)

Debate Creator

GhostOfNom(166) pic



Free Will Or Nah?

Yep

Side Score: 19
VS.

Nope

Side Score: 15
1 point

Got plenty of free will to do as i please Nom !!!!!!!! U got a problem with that U Socialist Little Gurl ????????????? LMMFAO

Side: Yep
1 point

NOM should i add to Global Chaos by firing up the grill and having some nice ribeyes produced by Capitalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yep
GhostOfNom(166) Disputed
1 point

NOM should i add to Global Chaos by firing up the grill and having some nice ribeyes produced by Capitalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I agree. Cows would not exist were it not for capitalism. Good point. We can add that to the ever-increasing list of divine gifts capitalism has given us.

Side: Nope
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Cows were created by Capitalism says the Socialist Gurl LMMFAO

Side: Yep
1 point

NOM using Kingsford charcoal is a real problem but you should check the history on that u illiterate fool

Side: Yep
1 point

NOM i have the free will to burn fossil fuel and Little Socialist Gurl what u going to do about it ????????????????

Side: Yep
1 point

Socialist Little Gurl do i have the Free Will to purchase what i want ???????????

Side: Yep
1 point

Baby Socialist Gurl can i send you some diapers ???????????????? LMMFAO

Side: Yep
1 point

Diaper boy do i have free will to jerk some perch from a fossil fuel boat ??? Tell me you Idiot Socialist what free will i have according to the Idiot you are ??????????

Side: Yep
1 point

Free Will now Little Gurl Socialist what is that in a Socialist mind ?????????

Something your government tells you is okay or not ???????????

Side: Yep
1 point

Little Gurl NOM what free will do you have in your Socialist World ?????? Is it what your government tells you that you have ?????????

Side: Yep
1 point

Little Gurl Socialist Ryan Shannon what you got if you got it bring it and here is my phone number 812-328-7448 ! Dare you to meet the confrontation Little Gurl Boy

Side: Yep
1 point

Little Gurl Boy money gives me the free will to do as i please and Capitalism Trumps your Socialism ROTFFLMMFAO

Side: Yep
Amarel(4987) Banned
-2 points
GhostOfNom(166) Disputed
1 point

Free will is nothing more than the experience of making a choice.

But you can't make a choice in a deterministic universe, because the future is already set before you make it. For God's sake if you are going to comment then PRODUCE A GODAMMNED COUNTERARGUMENT! Don't just write a one-sided bunch of meaningless opinionated nonsense and ignore the counterarguments which are in plain sight.

God, you're so stupid.

Side: Nope
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

But you can't make a choice in a deterministic universe, because the future is already set before you make it. For God's sake if you are going to comment then PRODUCE A GODAMMNED COUNTERARGUMENT! Don't just write a one-sided bunch of meaningless opinionated nonsense and ignore the counterarguments which are in plain sight.

God, you're so stupid.

Burrito is the above in reference to YOU ?????????????

Side: Yep
Holy_Wars Disputed
0 points

What free will is not is action without cause.

Forgive me but why the fk are you telling us this? I've read through this entire thread and nobody has claimed free will is action without cause. Nom is right. Nothing you say makes any sense.

Side: Nope
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

What you say Little Gurl NOM ?????

I can do whatever it is i want and what you going to do about it DIAPER BOY!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yep
2 points

Humans are still in the primitive stages of understanding time, and our present assumption that we are at the centre of it (i.e. in the now) is in many ways comparable to the historical assumption that we (i.e. the Earth) are at the centre of the other dimensions. It is only this erroneous assumption about time which convinces us that it may be separated into past, present and future. But these are terms which have been invented by us to describe our own experiences. They do not exist in objective reality.

What we know about time from the parts behind us is that it cannot be changed or altered. The false assumption we make about being in the centre is the only reason we think differently of the time in front of us. But this cannot be the case because time is simply another dimension of the universe itself. You can't divide time in half (to put yourself at the centre) any more than you can divide the universe in half. It exists as one complete dimension.

Hence, if time itself cannot be changed or altered, then it cannot incorporate free will, because every "decision" will inevitably lead to a predefined outcome which already exists.

Free will simply can't exist at the macro level where Einstein formulated his theory of relativity. No theory as yet precludes it from existing in the quantum realm, but since humans do not live in the quantum realm, this is perhaps a moot point.

Side: Nope
outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

Little Gurl Socialist you are just now in the primitive stage of understanding time ?????

Then the Little Gurl Boy Socialist says free will simply cannot exist !!!!!!!!!!

Gurl Boy you are an IDIOT PLAIN AND SIMPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yep
Amarel(4987) Disputed Banned
-2 points
GhostOfNom(166) Disputed
1 point

Given our primitive understanding of time, we cannot assume that our current assumptions about time are at all comparable to our incorrect previous assumptions about our physical place in the universe.

This literally, LITERALLY translates to: we cannot assume our assumptions are incorrect. It's the actual dictionary definition of a circular argument.

Our subjective experience is shaped by objective reality.

This is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

In addition to terms like past, present, and future we have terms like before, during, and after. These terms which we use to illustrate our temporal experience are also necessary for articulating causality.

Also irrelevant to the point being made. The point being made is that past, present and future do not exist in an objective sense. Your reply is a total deflection of what you are responding to.

If you wish remove time as an argument against choice, you’ll find that you are removing causation as well.

Wtf? Remove time? Who said anything about "removing time"? Can you read English, Amarel? Because it does not appear that you can. The word you are looking for is causality, not causation, and causality has no relationship with choice one way or the other. A cause can produce an effect in a deterministic universe just as easily as it can in a non-deterministic universe, so you are evidently just practising your usual trick of writing lots of words which don't actually mean anything in relation to the topic under discussion. If you believe that "causation" supports the notion of free will, then EXPLAIN WHY you goddamned pointless moron. Writing a bunch of random gibberish does not move this thread forward in any way, shape or form. In fact, all it does is annoy me to have to reply to.

Side: Nope
2 points

It seems obvious to me that all of our 'decisions' are predetermined, for multiple reasons, and in this sense I don't believe in free will.

One could take a more 'compatibilist' stance (I think that's what it's called) where we choose a more relevant definition of free will: This definition could be something along the lines of "Having free will means that if you wanted to to do something else you could have." Basically this means that we behave in the way we want to, so for all intents and purposes we are free.

This is an interesting way to think about it and I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether this is an acceptable definition. One of my problems with it is that I want a definition of free will that allows people with free will to be morally responsible for their actions (assuming objective morality exists, etc), but I also don't think someone who is criminally insane should be considered morally responsible for their actions, and I'm pretty sure under this definition they would be.

Also, I'm not sure fatalism is what you're arguing for. It's hard to define, but fatalism might be described as the view that you cannot escape your destiny no matter what you do (even if you have the freedom to choose your own actions, circumstances will conspire so that something specific will happen to you no matter what you do.) I don't think it's really a respected academic view.

Side: Nope
1 point

I'm a Determinist, so yea... no free will. Just a series of events and causes.

Side: Nope
1 point

I'm a Determinist, so yea... no free will. Just a series of events and causes.

I'm a fatalist. Not that I can even remember the difference. As I recall, they are very similar positions on the issue.

Side: Nope
Flatlander(63) Clarified
2 points

According to Wikipedia:

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but that human action is itself determined by a causal chain of prior events.

Fatalism, by referring to the personal "fate" or to "predestined events" strongly imply the existence of a someone or something that has set the "predestination.

Side: Yep