Instigator / Pro
1
1473
rating
4
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3297

Free will is the ultimate good

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

Free will definition: The ability to do something independent of outside influence.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct: Forfeited R1 and also that in the final Round, to me, Pro seemed intentionally lazy and dismissive of Con. Since the R1 was forfeited, I don't need to really specify the R3 tone as being worthy of conduct loss.

Sources: Only Con used sources, Pro really didn't use any.

Arguments: Pro concedes that morality and 'good' are subjective and intangible in his R2 round of debating. He not only concedes this, he explicitly pushes forth the following:

"I've become convinced that goodness doesn't even exist. What is goodness? It is simply whatever someone's nature makes them want to pursue."

These ideas contradict each other, I understand what he means by the second idea, however he should never ever have mentioned the part before if he was pushing that one's ability to determine things is 'goodness' when he just said it doesn't even exist, according to him.

In fact nothing that follows or precedes it specifically justifies why free will is the 'ultimate good' and Pro forgets that Con's primary case is that free will isn't even real, if something doesn't exist how can it then exist as an ultimate good?

Con wins the debate by default due to Pro totally failing to address this issue and furthermore because in the final Round, Pro builds his case to conclude that to him, free will is needed for happiness. However, happiness and goodness are not the same term and if anything, Pro's case is one of free will being a catalyst for good, not itself being ultimate good.