Determinism is true
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I'm doing devil's advocate here. First round is for acknowledging the challenge or whatever. Just leave a few words to start the debate. I will start with offering arguments for determinism in Round 2,3 and so on. I think it's up to my opponent whether to rebut or just offer cases in favor of freewill.
For some moving principles can only cause movement in one direction, while others can reverse the direction of their action: thus fire can heat but cannot chill, whereas it seems that one and the same mental skill may act in opposite directions.
I’m a theist and I wholeheartedly believe in free will. However, for the purpose of our debate, I shall momentarily consider it to be true
There is no sole arbiter of morality, I have feelings to discourage me from committing evil things because events have dictated me to have feelings.
(2) In order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental respects.
(3)Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible
The word “Nothing” in his argument includes ordinary finite human beings. Strawson says that a further rephrasing of this argument (in less simplistic form) is offered by Nietzsche:
~Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
External Determinism: The case seems more like an acquired behavior than a determined behavior since you can't possibly predict what turns out next. Limitation of behavior sciences here rules out the absolute possibility of a predetermined roadmap of those children
Christian List, an atheist philosopher, has a very strong argument as he points out a sort of duality in human beings- as a mass of chemical particles and biological processes and also as something called an intentional agency. According to him, disbelief in free will results from a reductionistic worldview.
“to play a crucial role in whatever process it is that finally determines the nature of [e.g. one’s actions]” (1986: 34-35)
(1) “one’s reasons play a crucial role in determining one’s actions,”(2) “thus, to be truly responsible for one’s actions, one must be self-determined in one’s reasons for performing that action,”
While I am glad that at least two of the rounds got used for this debate, I'd like to see these guys run it back. Con did a good job of refuting Pro's arguments to support the resolve, and for that I give arguments to Con. They provided the same amount of sources. The SnG caused no real hindrances in my understanding of the subject matter. Finally, I'm not gonna dock Pro for missing a round when he was sick, especially because he took the time to let us know.
unfortunately, pro's first argument didn't seem like an argument at all, and pro's final argument was muddled and con convincingly shown how paradoxical it was.
This was for me a fruitful interaction thanks to you.
If you want to continue the debate anytime, I'm up for it. Just challenge me in a debate of the same name.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Tbh, I haven't even gone through that. And I wouldn't do something like that even if I did. Get well soon brother.
Please, I ask that you avoid typing a rebuttal against the paper I gave you in our private dm, as that paper is reserved for the last round. Everything else (i.e. stacking up additional arguments and rebuttals) is fair game). Thanks!
I'm motivated to continue this debate. Thanks for not using sensational sources (i.e. youtube). folk psychology (i.e. freud) is interesting.
Sorry for the delay, I've been engaged in some other works lately.
It should have been at least a 10000 character bracket, too interesting of a topic to leave out words.
And you all are welcome for constructive criticism unless it compromises the spirit of the debate itself.
Don't make me badger you both lol this is a topic I really want to see discussed
Well, I’ll try to be active and I’ll take your feedback as motivation. Time permitting, I want to do another debate on ethical contextualism.
Is everything that happens the inevitable result of an unbroken chain of events going back to the big bang?
I agree with Sum1. We need more active debaters on the site, especially ones that bring interesting topics
Bro, dont leave this one, im very interested in following this debate
But what about superdeterminism?
I have been destined to write this comment
Well, I think I won't be able to post anything in the next few hours. something came up on my end. Tho I guess it's reasonable to expect my written argument in the next few days.
hope this doesnt end in flames