Does free-will exist?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Pro: Free will exists
Con: Free will doesnt exist
Both sides must provide arguments for their position
R1: Present opening arguments
R2: Rebutt your opponent's argument
R3: Respond to your opponent's rebuttal
R4: Rebutt your opponent's response to your rebuttal
R5: Closing statements, and address how the debate went (feel free to rebutt anything else here)
Conduct for needless insults.
Arguments… I actually really appreciate cons case of cause and effect; but when pro dismisses it as the human mind is the ultimate cause, he does not defend that the human mind is formed based on experience outside our control making it not the cause of itself. Thus with that defense in place, pro is able to hold the initiative.
Got to say that I am really lost as to the bit of pros case about random monoculars actively making any choices, just because we observe them. Choice implies a will, for which pros own arguments call upon a mind as the source. Still, he comes ahead l.
Sources should reply be used when challenging official stuff. Con could have taken the definition battle, had he just said who he was quoting.
Sure id debate that
So you would debate the topic:
"In most cases, child marriages should be allowed"
With me as Pro and you as Con?
Ill debate that.
How do you feel about child marriage?
Depends on the topic
Are you willing to debate non-religious topics?
It means I extend my arguments.
I do it so I dont have to copy paste my argument from round 1.
What does extend mean?