Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

1) Competing rights claims huh? My opponent is basically saying that concern for other animals’ counts as concern for others. No it does not for other animals are not humans. Crops are not others either. My opponent keeps on urging me to give up the "controller"; one does not need to know the controller. If everything happens in compliance with the rules, there is no need to even reveal a controller. 2) Free will with a slight Caveat. No it is still total control since it is not free will. In free will one has a choice with no limitations, since there are limitations in thought, it is not free will. Total control then takes over in forcing one to do something. This is total control, not free will, there is no free choice. 3) Things that exist are better than things that do not exist: My opponent establishes that everything that exists is better than things that do not exist. My opponent says that he would rather have a real Ferrari than an imaginary Ferrari. This means that he would rather have his real world to an imaginary world; real death than imaginary death. - Should I say that free will does not exist? It has been proven that people can move before thought comes in. This is in the real world; this proves that free will does not exist. Now, if I was to keep on this case which I am not, I would conclude that free will like controlled will does not exist. I am not going to play this debate as so. This is just to provide an example FOR BLUESTEEL ONLY that all things that exist can be the same as things that do not exist. - By the way, who said that he would have that real Ferrari in this world anyway? Maybe in this world, he would never get that real Ferrari. In another world, one could have that Ferrari. - This opinion has no fact, just speculation. - I can bring up more examples than AIDS, as one can see, by the way the cure for AIDS does not exist, so one could tally AIDS under things that don't exist. It is possible, but does not exist at the moment. 4) A vast majority may not kill this was just one example to establish my point. Everybody in their life has done at least one of these in their life, lied, cheated, stolen, murdered, overall bad, not following the law, no concern for the well being of others. This is my point. 5) Rothbard was a moron this is a statement that still stands on my side, anarcho-capitalist is worse, than making the jump from capitalist to anarchy entirely. Who in heck actually thinks that there could be capitalism without a government to monitor it? This is bananas, as we see today, government is trying desperately to hold up this economy, but even the government has problems. Just imagine if we suddenly got rid of the government. .. .. .. . Now come back to reality. Woo I'm glad everyone thought that he was a moron as well. 6) Yes, my system does have an answer to the conflict of interest: Luckily, the principles were made by man; therefore, there are laws that determine which one to save. - Concern for the well-being of others. - Benevolence: doing good - Preventing harm One will be forced to take which ever option that best suits these requirements. This is better than what man could do on his own free will. Example: What if that one person that was on the one side was the father or the son of the person that has to save that one person. That one person probably would have chosen to save that one person than that family of three; therefore complete control is always better in this situation. 7) I did Answer His Totalitarian to the extreme: Total control has nothing to do with the government that is being run. Total control has to do with ethics in controlling the people, not the government. I believe this may be the third time that I had said this. Are we tracking? 8) Marx denies free will . http://catholiceducation.org... So I think it is safe to say that he would not mind the idea of being controlled to do the right thing in compliance to the universal principles of man. I think that he would believe that this way would probably be the most efficient way to carry on about true communism as well. 9) Writing the Rules: Do I need to repeat myself every round. Man created the principles, but man does not always live up to the principles. Therefore, for a better world, we have to be forced to comply with the principles that we have made. 10) Locke, Hobbes, how many more are there? - First I mentioned Hobbes then, you said that you did not mean him at all, I accepted that. Then, you said you meant Locke then, you say that Locke was a straw man, like I just randomly picked him. - John Locke's position on social contracts is much more in line with what I have been arguing- Bluesteel Second of all, Bluesteel’s definition of social contract is half of the definition. The rule of the social contract has to do with the consent of the governed. Just like in my world of total control, there is no government, people are controlled through ethics, and the people run the place through anarchy. As one sees, there is no social contract to be made since there is nothing in control of the governed since it is anarchy. 11) If Derrida was a Nihilist, it would be relevant to his saying. As one knows, Nihilists are not certain of anything; they argue known facts such as two plus two in hopes of getting people to question themselves. If everyone was like these people, nothing would be known. The world would also be a confusing place. So, if Derrida was a nihilist, how could he know what the “correct thing” was if the correct was uncertain to him. This is how it is relevant to his saying. 12) Matrix was a movie. Just because the humans chose to live in free will rather than sacrifice their free will for a greater good just demonstrates humans and selfishness. Main Argument: This last point that I made is very much about what this debate encompasses. My opponent knows that these principles are good for he never once questioned them. Due, to humans inabilities to do the right thing all of the time, I have designed a world where people live in compliance to the rules in anarchy; forced to do right according to the principles that man solidified for man to follow. In this world, nobody needs to know who is in charge of controlling the humans for humans are complying with the rules they set. My opponents main arguments has switched many times from the beginning, his main arguments now are that one humans want to do things freely and used a Matrix movie for an example… not the best source but I everyone can see where he comes from. Another argument he had was that since my world is not real, that it is inferior to the real world. This is not true. Free will has been proven not to exist as well as total control; this point is not relevant to the debate. My opponent also states that one has to experience the confusion of deciding of the correct path to be morally good. My opponent forgets that this condition is under free will rules. Under free will, one has to decide right and wrong instead of having the right one chosen for him. In the scenario my opponent gave to me, he said that from the principles, they cannot decide who lived and who died. As a matter of fact from the principles total control in compliance to the laws, the forced control performed better than free will. Everyone wants to do overall good anyway; this is why man made the principles, not a machine. Since humans cannot do everything in compliance to the rules that man himself has created, we should be in total control in compliance to the principles.