CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:58
Arguments:60
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (49)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5669) pic



The Intellectual Cowardice of FactMachine

FactMachine prefers to downvote arguments rather than take them on. When the downvoted opponent persists, he bans them.
 At least this was the case for me. I created this debate, not to be petty, but to hold FactMachine to account for the answers to my simple questions: what do you think free will is? and why does causality preclude free will?
The answers to these questions should not be difficult for a person whose position is that free will is precluded by causality.
He may not answer these questions, but neither will he downvote or ban in lieu of an answer.
Add New Argument
3 points

Whoever thinks a "Does causality preclude free will" debate would be a good idea, gimmie upvotes.

2 points

In fairness Amarel asked you several questions I note he asked .......What is free will?

How does free will conflict with a causal universe?....

You never answered this , why ? It is a debate site questions should be anticipated and points conceded if no valid answers can be given .

FactMachine(430) Clarified
1 point

When he actually attempts to convince me that free will exists I will answer his questions. I need to hear an actual argument so I know he's even worth engaging.

Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

He doesn't have to convince you that free will exists ; the burden of proof is with you because you made the claim that free will does not exist ; you need to demonstrate that such is the actual state of affairs

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

When he actually attempts to convince me that free will exists I will answer his questions

My very first post in your debate was an explanation of my position. That free will relies on a causal universe, thus it is not precluded by causation, as you claim. I also argued that this debate hinges on a false premise excepted by both sides of the issue.

You misunderstood and then avoided my position, only to now claim I must present a position before you will answer the questions that will help present my already stated position. Your actions justify the harsh language of the debate title. You could choose to change that at any time by answering the questions.

1 point

Someone downvoted all my recent posts without posting a reply. I usually find that unsatisfying, but in the context of this debate I think it’s amusing.

1 point

Everyone who doesn't care should give me all their down votes.

0 points

I am shocked to read that FactMachine does this. It is sad that he feels the need to ban people who demonstrate superiority over him in their command of facts.

FactMachine(430) Disputed
1 point

I am shocked that Eloy wants to suck Amarel's balls and let him paint whatever picture he wants in his mind. It's sad that you can read Amarel's idiotic posts and mistake them for superiority. I banned him because I was sick of seeing him insulting me when he isn't even worth responding to.

Eloy(190) Clarified
1 point

I do not have a single enemy on CreateDebate because I treat everyone with dignity and I believe Amarel has no reason to lie.

0 points

Of course. FactMachine is likely just the latest incarnation of FromWithin/SaintNow. Slinging his poo and then hiding behind a ban is just his classic squirrel monkey style of debating.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
0 points

He called me “bitch boy”. I don’t remember whose favorite word that was, but’s he isn’t new.

0 points

That was a term much loved by XLJackson who is Quantumhead , what threw me about this latest user name was he was arguing with himself as in fighting with Q last week in an attempt to disguise the fact

-1 points

Listen up bitch boy, you basically posted a paragraph explaining how you didn't want to make an actual argument then declared "that was easy" as if you actually did something. then you repeatedly insulted my intelligence and demanded that I justify my position all the while you had no argument of your own. I didn't even take anything you said seriously, I couldn't be bothered to reply to your imbecile donkey shite. You are another one of those ass holes who thinks free will just HAS to exist because how else can you blame people for shit? Just because it's convenient for society doesn't mean it's true, that's not how reality works. Man, I'm sick of you acting like I owe you an explanation when you can't even make a decent argument for me to respond to.

Mack(531) Clarified
2 points

Amarel posted the paragraph:

"Of course free will exist as I have explained countless times to countless other people. I am so tired of repeating myself that I will not bother to explain to you why you are wrong on this debate site. You will simply have to trust that my previous explanations were correct by virtue of my claim of a high degree of repetition.

That was easy."

He was imitating you, from when you posted:

" I have debated about free will so much in my life that I can't even be bothered to reply just to sit here and explain my position which I have done 23734567346749856 times in my life just to hear the same crap from different mouths. I will reply to arguments, where people attempt to explain why free will does exist and I refute them point by point but I don't feel like writing another essay about all the influences and neurological mechanisms which shape thought and behaviour."

It was satire. (I'm not saying one of you is in the right or wrong, just clarifying Amarels purpose. Correct me, Amarel, if I misunderstand your paragraph)

FactMachine(430) Disputed
1 point

I actually went on to debate with the person I said that to at the end of the day, he just keeps insisting that I answer his questions when he has nothing to offer other than questions and insults and condescending crap.

Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Correct me, Amarel, if I misunderstand your paragraph

No, you understood perfectly. I didn’t think it was terribly subtle.

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

demanded that I justify my position all the while you had no argument of your own

Your failure to acknowledge my position is not my failure to have one. I have repeatedly explained that I believe free will relies on causality and that the free will debate hinges on a false premise about what free will is. Your answers to the two included questions will assist in demonstrating my position, which i suspect is why you won’t answer them. It is also why I deemed this avoidance to be intellectual cowardice.

Now, we can pick up that debate where we left off, or you can continue to avoid it. Your choice depends on what kind of person you are.