CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Jace

Reward Points:4324
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
95%
Arguments:6188
Debates:14
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

An omnipotent deity may be the only possible source for an objective morality, but that does not mean that religious people actually know what that morality is any more than their secular counterparts.

1 point

That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-sociality predates religion. It is what allowed people to exist in groups in the first place, which is a necessary prerequisite to religions forming.

1 point

The amoralist simply suspends belief in your opinions until you can prove them. That's all the explanation that's required. Threaten the amoralist with 'society' all you like, but you still haven't proven a thing.

1 point

That it would be just your opinion against another's is not a reason to suppose it is dependent on an objective standard.

1 point

I have no theory of ontological origin. No need for a magical everything god or a mythological nothing mosnter, or any other farce of an explanation for what we do not know. Not knowing is not an issue for me. It does not affect me. Why should it?

1 point

Yes, free will is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. But in order for that to be possible it must be the case that alternatives actually exist.

Let's say that free will really is merely the act of choosing between alternatives. That makes free will contingent upon their actually being alternatives, not merely the illusion of alternatives. If it is not in fact possible for someone to take a course of action other than the one they take, then there were no alternatives and what we call a 'choice' in our everyday language is not actually a choice. In order to substantiate the claim that free will is possible, then, it is necessary to show that alternatives actually exist.

In a non-causal universe reasons would not be necessary for action. That you suggest that reasons are necessary undermines the position that free will exist because it makes our actions determined by those reasons rather than independent of them. This is one of the reasons I think compatibilist accounts are incoherent.

That free will does not require the existence of God does not prove that free will is possible.

1 point

You literally are arguing that because we have free will we have free will. That's fallacious reasoning. If you seriously can't understand that, then there's no reason for me to continue beating a dead horse.

1 point

Why can't unicorns and leprechauns simply exist? For that matter, why can't God just exist? If one makes the claim that something can exist then there is a burden of proof to show that it actually can. You haven't even begun to substantiate a claim that it is possible for free will to exist. You just keep asserting it. That's not a valid form of argument for the very simple reason that it isn't even an argument.

1 point

Yes. And I'm not progressive.

1 point

You're begging the question. You effectively just said that because we can choose to act we can choose to act. That doesn't prove anything. However, that we act upon our desires as a matter of fact actually discredits the free will claim because it suggests our desires determine our actions.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Does the sacred have intrinsic value?
Winning Position: Yes
Winning Position: What is the appropriate response to ignorance?
Winning Position: No
Winning Position: Echidna
Winning Position: No

About Me


"Influenced by: egoism, nihilism, Buddhism, nominalism, skepticism, determinism, etc."

Biographical Information
Name: Owlman 
Gender: Chap
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Websites: Nihilist Owlman

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here