Free will doesnt exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Free will definition:
Choice of a person, choice which isnt influenced by any cause
Upon accepting, definition is agreed upon by Pro and Con.
As con is forfeited ,I will consider total debate as a single round. Con's argument was catchy and explained with a example, but pro neglected con's reason and con didn't given any explanation in second round ,so the debate is incomplete, so I could not select winner of debate, but from my view pro produced some sources and good arguments.
I disagree with both previous voters. Vote rules of a debate do not say a forfeit is an automatic loss of debate, but merely loss of conduct point. So be it.
Pro defined only free will in Description, then proceeds into convoluted arguments that cause, and person are inseparably related in choice, none of which key words are previously defined, and are difficult to read due to numerous circular arguments of “logic” which fail to convince.
Con offered an R1 argument that choice is not automatically by a cause, using the choice of two boxes as example. It’s a successful argument because there is no cause to the choice since the boxes are identical. It is random choice, which Pro’s argument/rebuttal does not defeat.
Pro’s R2 argues the definition of choice, but that citation is an argument, not a given by Definition, so Pro cannot claim Con ignores it. Or o cha rvrs Con with concession by definition of knowledge, but knowledge is not defined in Description, so it, too, is merely additional argument, and not a given. Con wins argument
Sources:
Pro’s sources were definitions, only, which he used in argument,, but do not do anything in support of argument. Con is not bounded by them. These should have been included in Description to be binding by Con acceptance of the debate.
Con had. No sources. Tie
Legibility
Pro’s circular arguments maxed legibility difficult. Con’ argument easy to follow. Con wins point
Conduct
Pro’s assumption of concession is a greater failure than 1 forfeit by Con, but rules impose the conduct. Loss,
ofc, forfeit.
Con forfeited half of the debate.
For this confusion , i started a debate , after that debates complete you must vote on that, ok
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
It is a unnecessary topic, pro made mistake.
Reason for Removal: Considering that this is a debate where one side has forfeited 50% of the rounds, this could be called a full forfeit and therefore subject to the rules that govern debates with that outcome. However, the voter awards the debate to the forfeiting side, so they have to provide sufficient reason why that side is warranted the point they've given them based on their first round. Simply saying that one side "made mistake" is not sufficient.
**************************************************
Here's another bad vote by jonrohith.
This one is easy vote. Opponent forfeited 50% of debate.