azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Both

Yes and No; will is something insufficiently defined. Perhaps it is undefinable? Nevertheless, the paradox is this:•The chemical reactions in our brains control our will•Our will controls the chemical reactions in our brainsSo we chase our tails, the chicken and the egg all anewed. What's this to say? That we can retroactively work this down to a finite point? That one exists because their parents were will-bound to create, and so were they, and so on, until evolution regressed before the mind, and we find prokaryotes and amoebas reproducing for still uncertain reasons, back further until the dawn of life, where will re-enters in 'manifest vs. destiny"?!
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

I made a decision to write on this debate; I did it with freedom and it was of my own will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: We Can't Know

There is no way for us to know 100% if free will exists or not. There is no way for us to know 100% if we exist or not. Maybe tomorrow the butterfly that is dreaming about us will wake up and our universe will end...However, if we set aside the extreme-philosophic, the rational conclusion is that we do have free will. Imagine a society with the consensus that there was no free will. If that decision was made(not made, since there would be no will, but decided for us), there would be no consequence for any actions.It's better for us to live in a society with responsibility, so we can work together for the common good.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

There is no way for us to know 100% if free will exists or not. There is no way for us to know 100% if we exist or not. Maybe tomorrow the butterfly that is dreaming about us will wake up and our universe will end...That’s cute. However, if we set aside the extreme-philosophic, Please do. And thank you.the rational conclusion is that we do have free will.(The rational one? Really?) Imagine a society with the consensus that there was no free will. If that decision was made (not made, since there would be no will, but decided for us), there would be no consequence for any actions.Besides the fact that this would be blatantly false, this is called circular reasoning. Now, why is it false? Well first, because the truth to whether or not there is free will is not incumbent upon a society’s consensus, nor does that consensus dictate a loss of responsibility. If anything, there would be more responsibility when people realize how much of an impact their decisions have on others. And second, because consequences to actions that were caused by an external force still exist. Suppose a woman puts a gun to your head and says ‘give me your money’ (external force), sure you could choose either or, but there is still the outcome of either dying or losing money; both can be considered a consequence, and the conclusion you arrive at is dependent on what you value more, not “free will.” That same woman who put the gun to your head was low on money (external force), she could have decide to either rob you and risk going to prison or not feed her kids, both outcomes can be considered consequences, and again, the decision she arrived at depended on what she valued more (or less) at the time.And let me touch on this bit for a moment: "since there would be no will, but decided for us"I’m curious as to why people hold this false dichotomy between ‘free will’ and ‘fate’ (or decisions made FOR us). I don’t believe in fate, and I don’t believe in free will. Nothing is ”decided” for us. It’s just that all of our choices that we arrive at were determined by external causal factors that we have no free will of. When I say “external force" or "causal factors,” I don’t mean God or even other people necessarily. Causal factors could be any range of things from the society we grew up in, to our upbringing, down to our very genetic makeup and the processes of our brains, all are causal factors and the supposed free will choice we arrive at is the conclusion of those various causal factors which then continues on and serves as another causal factor for future choices or events.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

you kinda messed up on the "since there would be no will, but decided for us."I think the person who wrote this post originally was trying to say that the government or society, not fate, makes the decisions for us.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Possibly, but it's still inaccurate. Governments or societies don't necessarily decide for us. It may appear that the variety of causal factors decides our choices for us, but it’s merely a process of cause and effect.Besides, are you sure I messed up on this? I think it would be best to allow the person who made the original comment to inform me of any misinterpretation I made. Don’t you?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

There is no need to demean philosophical discussion Coldfire. We owe much of what we are to philosophy.Yes, free-will is the natural thought. If we don't have it, then many of us are decided in some way to think that we do. Rationally it is a better concept to exist than otherwise, as it allows more for society to exist in its current form than otherwise. If there were no free will, then the thought of us punishing people for breaking the rules of society becomes an unbearable burden. Why should we punish anyone for doing something if they don't have control?You say people would be more responsible if they realized how much their decisions affect others, but how could a person be more responsible unless they had the free will to choose to be so?Consequences to actions caused by an external force do exist, but not in the sense of individual responsibility.Your example of having a gun to the head actually argues in favor of free will. If it weren't for free will, you wouldn't be able to choose to save your life by complying. Besides, not everyone chooses to comply simply because someone shows force. Many people choose to train and arm themselves to be able to defend themselves. sure you could choose either or, but there is still the outcome of either dying or losing money; both can be considered a consequence, and the conclusion you arrive at is dependent on what you value more, not “free will.”You said yourself, we can choose. We choose based off of what we value(our lives), but the reasons for making a choice don't change the fact that we are still making a choice. Free will doesn't mean you make some random choice in every situation.I never said it is free will vs. fate. It is free will vs. no free will. You can call it fate, or reaction, or reflex, or anything else, but the truth is it has to be will, or no will.You are the one creating a false dichotomy between free-will and informed decisions. People make decisions based off of experience, and we call that trait wisdom. You can exercise free will wisely.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Free will doesn’t mean ‘the ability to choose.’ It means that the choices being made are independent and random.Here's your problem Coldfire, you don't understand what free will is.Free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will] You shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for definitions in a debate. Even so, the wiki definition doesn't say 'free from all kinds of restraints', so it doesn't support your position regardless.Neither should you downvote(if it's you doing it) an argument simply because you don't agree with it. Voting up/down should be in relation to the argument, not the position of the argument.Free will is the ability to choose for yourself. Having external forces that can be considered doesn't eliminate free will. I have the choice to either comply or try to defend myself if someone pulls a weapon on me.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Coldfire: "Free will ... means that the choices being made are independent"You: "you don't understand what free will is. Free will: free and independent choice"I hope you noticed that.You shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for definitions in a debate.You shouldn't believe everything your teachers tell you. Wikipedia is a fine source.Neither should you downvote(if it's you doing it) an argument simply because you don't agree with it.Neither should you presume that your debate partner is the only one observing your discussion. Nor, for that matter, that a downvote is spurred by disagreement rather than the spuriousness of your own reasoning. Always doubt yourself before doubting others.Having external forces that can be considered doesn't eliminate free will.This definition is inconsistent with the general philosophic consensus. Check the link (Wikipedia-free).
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

"You shouldn't believe everything your teachers tell you. Wikipedia is a fine source."Wikipedia is not a fine source, its a flawed source with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and please don't bring up all the studies showing wiki to be more reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is a functional source which i quote all the time on this site, but it is not something i would ever quote in an academic dissertation for obvious reasons.Just for the sake of irony i will now hammer home my point by quoting wikipedia:"Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2] This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time"
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

:) Wikipedia is wrong about its accuracy :) Its just more or less sharing a common opinion, and obviously so. Consider the context.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

":) Wikipedia is wrong about its accuracy :) "So exactly how accurate do you think it is?My point is that it cannot be be comapred to a peer reviewed paper when it comes to its reliability, especially when it comes to contemporary socioeconomic, and sociopolitical issues.Groups that have a vested interest in distorting the truth have invested time, and money in training people to go onto wikipedia and re-write history, and distort the truth to suit their agenda e.g. http://rt.com/news/wikipedia-israel-palestine/
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Wikipedia is a functional source which i quote all the time on this site, but it is not something i would ever quote in an academic dissertation for obvious reasons.You consider catfights on CreateDebate academic dissertations? To each his own, I guess. Just be aware that virtually everyone at least uses Wikipedia as a jumping-off point, and that citing Wikipedia's citations is about just as good as citing Wikipedia itself anywhere that doesn't allow direct citation.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

"You consider catfights on CreateDebate academic dissertations? To each his own, I guess."I don't beleive that's what i said, perhap's you should reread it;-)"Just be aware that virtually everyone at least uses Wikipedia as a jumping-off point"I know, i do myself."and that citing Wikipedia's citations is about just as good as citing Wikipedia itself anywhere that doesn't allow direct citation."The point is wikipedia is not a fine source, a peer reviewed journal is a fine source.Wikipedia is manifestly unreliable when it comes to many issues of historical, social,and economic significance.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I don't beleive that's what i said, perhap's you should reread it;-)Lrn2dis'cern. ;-)I know, i do myself.Perfect. Then, being the responsible academic authority you are, you should have no problem checking the sources on a particular Wiki citation yourself (if you can't trust your opponent enough to do the same). Like I said, Createdebate doesn't exactly warrant scrupulous scouring of citations, Professor.Wikipedia is manifestly unreliable when it comes to many issues of historical, social,and economic significance.Good thing none of those is the matter here.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

“Free will doesn’t mean ‘the ability to choose.’ It means that the choices being made are independent and random.” Coldfire”Here's your problem Coldfire, you don't understand what free will is.” - TruthAnalyst”Free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces” - [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ free+will] In my quote above I stated that free will means that the choices being made are “independent” and “random.” Random means “proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.” – Dictionary.comYou then say that I don’t understand what free will is and proceed to ‘show’ me what it is based on the following definition:Free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. - Dictionary.comCan you please just reflect on that for a moment? I don’t want this to turn into a semantics debate, but I think that anyone who reads the definition YOU provided would see that free will is ‘independent’ and ‘is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.’ How is that different from what I said? Allow me to clarify. The debate isn’t about one’s ability to choose. Choice is apparent in both scenarios. What the debate is about is whether those choices are A. of free will, or B. based on causation.  You shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for definitions in a debate.An argument usually requires a reason to believe the conclusion. What’s your premise? Even so, the wiki definition doesn't say 'free from all kinds of restraints', so it doesn't support your position regardless.Not all restraints or factors apply to every choice being made. Only certain ones apply to certain situations.Neither should you downvote(if it's you doing it)No, it wasn’t me. Free will is the ability to choose for yourself. Having external forces that can be considered doesn't eliminate free will. I have the choice to either comply or try to defend myself if someone pulls a weapon on me.TruthAnalyst, this very debate has been going on since the pre BC era, it seems like you are trying to redefine it. Free will and determinism are logically incompatible. You can’t say that there is both causation and free will because the causal factors negate any free will.What motivates you to arrive at the choice you make? Your choice to either comply or defend yourself is not based on free will but on causal factors. Anyone who would just take the time to think rationally about it would come to that conclusion.  If you care to look at the source I provided (wiki-free for your convenience), please note that I do not support the fanciful idea of compatibility. I hold the logical position that both free will and determinism are incompatible as I stated above.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

I don't like to blame the others in thinking the way they do regarding the issue at hand. It is probably due to their lack of knowledge of the Christian scripture. As can be clearly known in the scripture, God created man and gave him the "Free Will" from the start. Because of that "free will", Adam, who is the first man, sinned when he followed his will instead of obeying God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. The reason why there is so much evil in mankind today is because many men today follow their will instead of God's will. Since I strictly practice and obey the doctrines of Christ to the letter, I support the "YES" view.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I don't like to blame the others in thinking the way they do regarding the issue at hand.Who are ‘the others’ that you are referring to?It is probably due to their lack of knowledge of the Christian scripture.The free will vs. determinism debate has been going on well before Christianity even existed, why should the knowledge of the scripture be the essential factor in this debate?As can be clearly known in the scripture, God created man and gave him the "Free Will" from the start.Evidence please.of that "free will", Adam, who is the first man, sinned when he followed his will instead of obeying God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden.How is it ‘free will,’ if you are punished for using it? Wouldn’t free will mean that you are neither punished nor rewarded for the choices you make? In order for it to be a free choice, wouldn’t it have to be devoid of any incentive to make it?The reason why there is so much evil in mankind today is because many men today follow their will instead of God's will.No, the reason why there is so much ‘evil’ in humankind is because we have over confident religions that indoctrinate malleable, naïve minds into believing so. Humans are not ‘evil,’ what is good or bad is subjective.Besides that, how is it that you can call it free will, when we are considered evil and punished for following it?Since I strictly practice and obey the doctrines of Christ to the letterVery improbable. Jesus didn't write anything down, and the script that he didn't write didn't even begin compilation until around the second half of the first century anyway, decades after his death. The accuracy of the scripture to an actual account of Jesus' teachings is very questionable, especially considering contradictions in each account as it appears directly from the bible.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

There is no way for us to know 100% if free will exists or not. There is no way for us to know 100% if we exist or not. Maybe tomorrow the butterfly that is dreaming about us will wake up and our universe will end...This is some fifteen-year-old-who-just-watched-the-Matrix bullshit, and while technically true, it's the epitome of pseudo-philosophical apologia. If you were to bring that sentiment into a college-level metaphysics class, they'd laugh at you until you burst into flames.Imagine a society with the consensus that there was no free will. If that decision was made(not made, since there would be no will, but decided for us), there would be no consequence for any actions.This is a sociological argument, not an ontological one. No one is arguing that the belief in free will (or, even absent the belief in it, acting as though it does exist) isn't supplemental to productive, healthy society. That'd be 'tarded.The irrelevance of your argument is exemplified here:It's better for us
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

I would recommend trying to argue without demeaning people or their arguments. Respectful, rational arguments are more productive.My point was, the answer is unknowable. One position we can take in relation to it then, is similar to Pascal's Wager. If we cannot empirically determine if free will exists, then it would be best to wager that it does.There is no way to ontologically determine the existence of free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I would recommend trying to argue without demeaning people or their arguments. Respectful, rational arguments are more productive.I'd normally agree with you, and am rarely one to allow outbursts of emotion to enter into my rebuttals absent provocation, but seriously, dude? Seriously.My point was, the answer is unknowable.So's everything else, by the highest standard of proof; and if everything is, nothing is, so it's useless to bring it up. Even if it weren't, absolutely no one conducts themselves with the kind of epistemic outlook you advocate (not even other advocates); that's why most people with more than a "fifteen-year-old-who-just-watched-the-Matrix" level of philosophy education will scoff if you do: it sounds like you're trying to make whatever discussion's going on into a dick-measuring contest. I think it was Kant who said something to the effect of, "Simply to acquiesce in skepticism can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." Pascal's Wageris painfully unsound. The most notable failure it makes is that it isn't an argument in favor of the particular existence of god, but in favor of general belief in the existence of god(s) regardless of whether they truly exist or not. I'm sure we've all got plenty to say about the potential social ramifications of a whole society of people who are aware of their lack of free will, but that's not what's up for debate. That is, again, a sociological argument.There is no way to ontologically determine the existence of free will.There've been plenty paraphrasals of better attempts made elsewhere in this thread. Care to dispute particular arguments rather than making a blanket statement of doubt?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Ha! Does free will exist? I'll tell that to myself when I get to heaven. :D
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Yes free will does exist. You can live like you want to live, be who you want to be, say what you want to say (in most cases), like what you want to like, hate what you want to hate, it's all up to you. No one should force you to make a decision you don't want to make. It's all up to you and how you view things.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

We will always have free will and there is nothing that can change that, even in Egypt they weren't getting free will but they worked together and overthrew the government. They got their free will but to gain free will you will always have to use free will in the first place so no matter what you will always have free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

It's quite obvious that we do. If things were destined to happen, then surely some higher being has already defined what will happen in time. Therefore, why would this higher power want to make things like WW1 and WW2 happen? Free will suggests that anything can happen and we decide how it happens, but the fact that we can decide such things as what we have for dinner etc, suggests that we have free will, purely by thinking about what to do. There is nothing really to suggest that we don't have free will, as even with some religions such as Christianity, it suggests that we have free will, and that God has given us the options of what to do. If He did want to control us all, then surely everyone would be Christian, and the same would apply for most other religions.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Both

If we didn't have free will, we would not be able to kill ourselves. If we did not have free will, we would be in-able to eat when we wanted. Anyone, (even if not given permission), could walk over to the fridge and grab what they want to eat. The only thing that we do not have free will over whether or not we die, because it is naturally a part of life.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Both

No as in I'm a slave to my experience, wiring, knowledge base, genetics etc. True everything I think, do, say, etc can be traced to a million million different factors all resulting in one inevitable action however odd, random or free that action may seem.adeuhfqiojtgoirenoiaerjfgae - I just for no reason banged randomly on the keyboard, but that I did it and even the random letters are a result of experience, the size and shape of my hand, the keyboard I bought, brain waves etc, not random or free at all.But also yes.All of those things which determine what I do are mine and not another's. So in that sense my will is my own, thus free.