azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

What is free will? What is choice? What causes the choice you arrived at? Is it free will?Here's the kicker: Did you choose for that cause to be a factor in your decision? Did you even choose for free will?Find one cause, just one, that you had no choice in. And you will have your proof that there is no such thing as free will. Allow me to start you off: Did you choose to be born? Think about it. Not in the obvious fact that you did not choose to be born, instead think about the fact that you wouldn't even be able to have this debate, if you didn’t exist. And that that existence is based on no free will of your own. You had no choice in the matter, yet your ability to make decisions now derives from that very event of you being born.All choices have a cause behind them. Even if you choose something with the intention to go against this fact, THAT in itself was caused by your attempt to refute it. We have no choice. We have no free will.To support free will, is to support the idea that we can make random choices independent of causal effects. "Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity." - Democritus
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Did you choose to be born?No, but others exercised their free will in order to give birth to me.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

The choices your biological parents made are irrelevant to the fact that YOU had no choice in the matter, and that every choice made thus far derives from that very causal factor, from that starting point which was by no free will of your own.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Did they choose to be born? Did those who begat them, and so on?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

No, because your mind is developed enough to make decisions at that time, unless you're a fucking genius. Once you have a brain, you are able to make choices on your own.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

A lot of people here seem intent upon arguing that conscious deliberation implies free will, which it doesn't.An entity within a deterministic system can create the illusion of free will with sufficient complexity. It is practically free will, but not technically.Think of it this way: you have free will. But what you do with that free will is already determined by deterministic forces. Hence, it's not really free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I agree. I mean I agree that the point you are touching is essential to this debate.When one decides or chooses, is it really I who is choosing? The act of choosing could be a simple illusion. We believe that is our choice. But could it be really I who is choosing if I is manipulated. Freedom is when one is total control of himself. Are our choices pushed by diverse influences, like education or even our unconscious desires ?Was it Kant who intruduced the idea that freedom was an illusion, an idea?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Was it Kant who intruduced the idea that freedom was an illusion, an idea?No. Immanuel Kant argued to the contrary in fact. In both Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant argued, quite strongly and successfully, that morality implies rationality and then rationality would imply free will. Ergo, there is free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Now that I look back, I see that indeed he did not defend the idea that liberty was illusion. But did he really defend the contrary?I know that he defines man as member of two worlds: the phenomenal and noumenal. The phenomenal I can know himself only by thinking of himself rationally, logically. However the other I, the noumenal I is not submitted to the rational principles. Here is a clearer definition:“The noumenon is a posited object or event that is known (if at all) without the use of the senses. The noumenon is or the most the world of ideas "phenomenon", which refers to anything that appears to, or is an object of, the senses. The noumenal realm was equated with the world of ideas known to the philosophical mind, in contrast to the phenomenal realm, which was equated with the world of sensory reality. Modern philosophy has generally denied the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its classical version, saying that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.” WikipediaKant puts freedom and determinism in those two worlds. As members of the phenomenal world, our actions are determined by the laws of nature. As members of the noumenal world, we are free. By putting freedom in the noumenal world doesn’t that mean that freedom could be real but could also not be; meaning it could be an idea/illusion?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Modern philosophy has generally denied the possibility of knowledge independent of the sensesYes, this perhaps can be attributed to one of the most prominent empiricists and the philosopher that I personally revere the most, David Hume. Now, as far as Kant is concerned, he is not, by any standards, an empiricist. So I would agree with what you have said that Kant would put freedom and determinism in those two worlds.However, because of Kant's own work in moral philosophy, it would be risky to conclude that he believed that free will was either an idea or an illusion. Then again, I'm not an expert in Kantian philosophy. No doubt I am familiar with the Categorical Imperative, but my real expertise and interest is in David Hume. So I'm afraid I am only able to give you my sketchy interpretation of what Kant actually believed. To be honest, I doubt that any Kantian scholar would be able to definitively point out what Kant believed (e.g. his views on theism). Also, I know of a few Kantian scholars who would even argue that some of his beliefs are irrational based on his own moral standards (e.g. his belief that "animals are merely a means to an end and that end is humans").
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

To say otherwise is to say human will somehow lies outside of the realm of cause and effect, which it most certainly doesn't. We're equally subject to our influences as balls on a pool table.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Close but no

" We're equally subject to our influences as balls on a pool table."That's like saying a human has their whole life planned out for them, which is a completely ridiculous idea.However, that's not to say that our influences, rather our upbringing can cause us to have certain preferences or tend to lean a certain way. Ultimately, one can choose to break free from that.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

That's like saying a human has their whole life planned out for them, which is a completely ridiculous idea.Indeed, that would be ridiculous, if that’s what Assface meant, but that is hardly the case.Have you ever played a game of billiards? Before you break, do you plan on or even expect where the balls will roll? More importantly, did the balls roll on their own accord? Did physics play a role at all in the outcome of where the balls ended? Are these external forces by any choice or free will of the balls’ outcome?However, that's not to say that our influences, rather our upbringing can cause us to have certain preferences or tend to lean a certain way. Ultimately, one can choose to break free from that.Our influences and upbringing are just the tip of the iceberg for causal effects and external forces. Can you give me one example of how “one can choose to break free from that,” as well as other causal effects and arrive at a totally independent and random free will choice?
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

We have a conscious based on society and we give into it often, so no. I don't believe we have free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Just because we give into it often does not mean that we do not have a choice in the matter. There is a pretty major difference between free will and self control.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

We give in because the consequences society has shown us. That is not free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I think you're right Saurbaby, consequences (or rather our awareness of consequences) do indeed play a part in determining which choices we arrive at.There are MANY causal factors that determine these choices though, not just knowledge of consequences.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

No. That is called peer pressure. You still have the choice to not give in to what society is telling you to do. I'm not sure you really understand what free will means. Here's a dictionary definition, for your viewing pleasure:"noun1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.2.Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces."So you see, just because society or your friends are pressuring you to do something or make certain choices does not mean that you do not have the power to make your own decisions. As a fellow member of the human race, I strongly hope that you do not live your life letting society's will dictate everything that you do. This would be nearly impossible to do anyway, as the concept of "society" dictating what is acceptable and what is not while speaking as one entity is inherently flawed, as there will always be dissenting voices, as no two humans are completely alike nor agree on every single issue.So, giving in to something is merely a lapse in better judgement, and if one desired, they could resist it.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I can't go outside and run around naked and go on a killing spree. We are not free to do what we please. It's not a decision on your own if something else is stopping you from doing something you want to do.I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying we don't have it. You can resist sure, but then you end up in handcuffs or death row. That is not free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

What's stopping you from going on a nude rampage? Your rational decision, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of going on a naked killing spree and coming to the conclusion that you would rather not do it than be thrown in jail.We are free to do what we please; but, it's a matter of what happens after the fact is what you're confused on. Free will is not ending up in jail after you kill people naked. It's deciding for or against nude rampages in the first place after weighing each side.You obviously are confused on the definition of free will, and until you reconcile that, you're not putting forth an argument worth my time responding to.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

What's stopping you from going on a nude rampage? Your rational decision, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of going on a naked killing spree and coming to the conclusion that you would rather not do it than be thrown in jail.You did not give an example of free will. You gave an example of determinism. Rationality/weighing benefits and drawbacks are causal factors that determine the conclusion. We are free to do what we please; but, it's a matter of what happens after the fact is what you're confused on. And it’s a matter of what happens before the fact that is what you’re confused on.Free will is not ending up in jail after you kill people naked. It's deciding for or against nude rampages in the first place after weighing each side. Again, that is determinism. Free will, as you so kindly defined in a previous post, is a free and independent choice, not simply defined by physical or divine forces. Such a thing does not exist.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Decided for or against nude rampages is a natural result, no different than a pool ball "deciding" to go or not go into a pocket or the rain "deciding" to fall or not fall. To suggest otherwise is to say that humans are super-natural and little gods not connected to cause and effect. To put it simply, your analysis is superficial and a more indepth one will lead you to reject the existence of free will. Free will is accepted due to emotional considerations, it grants a feeling of security and freedom as well; the evidence for it is lacking and the definition absurd in its implications.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

How does this not make our wills free? All you are saying is that we make decisions based on past experience. There comes a point where it is necessary to effectively weigh implications against each other. Whether we do this consciously or subconsciously does not mean it is not free will.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

If an automatic machine throws a ball in the air, could it of landed anywhere else? perhaps if something was different about the environment or machine, but given the same inputs you expect the same results. Choice is the ball, what is chosen is the landing place, the environment and machine is the person's environment and the person. Both the person and the machine can be modeled in the same way, the only difference is that changes are harder to record in one due to greater complexity. Humans are biological machines, no different in their ability to have free will than a computer or watch. The state of the computer or mechanical machine depends on its previous states and its current input, just like a finite state machine or turning machine. Free will would have the state based on...magic.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

But you don't get it! An automatic machine only has one function: to complete the same action over and over again. It is limited in what it can do, and has no control over its actions. A human mind, however, has the ability to make its own decisions, despite outside factors; even if you are to be oppressed severely for your actions, you can still choose to act that way. How can you say that we are no different than machines? We are biological, not artificial. Only certain things are permanent by biology, but decision-making is not.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

An automatic machine may have many functions, for example we now have automatic drones which must preform numerous functions in order to preform. Humans, and other biological machines are also limited in what they can do. I can not teleport. Artificial is natural, if something is unnatural then it is equivalent to not existing.What would the ability for a mind to make its own decisions independent of outside factors mean about that mind? It would mean that it is supernatural, that it isn't connected to cause and effect, that it exists in some manner outside its environment.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Not even once

Not sure if troll...A pool ball does not "decide" anything; however, user input, geometry, and physics control predestined motions and actions for the pool ball, determining where it goes on the table. Applying the same cookie-cutter, clear-cut arguments with human existence and emotions is patently absurd and lacking in depth and forethought, as everyone makes their own choices, and is different. BTW, I'll be going on a nude killing spree soon, so if you want me to stop by, just send me a message. I wasn't planning on it, although I chose to join this website of my own free will, I chose to pick up this argument of my own free will ,and I chose to respond to your comment of my own free will.I believe you have superficial mistaken for another word. I find this argument:" To suggest otherwise is to say that humans are super-natural and little gods not connected to cause and effect."quite lacking of anything more than superficial conjecture. If you wanted to make a statement and call me superficial, don't "put anything simply," like you did in the next sentence:"To put it simply, your analysis is superficial and a more indepth one will lead you to reject the existence of free will. " How? Why? Where's your proof? I gave you examples of my free will and choices, where are yours? You don't seem to get the idea of a "debate," where you need evidence to back up your claims." the evidence for it is lacking and the definition absurd in its implications."Once again, back up your claims! You haven't provided a single reason for me to believe you're anything more than one who does not understand what they're talking about, and trying to cover that up with poor formatting, hiding your real arguments, and making me dig for facts, eventually leading to a thought overload.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

Your first paragraph assumes its conclusion in its premises, you state that considering humans to be the same as other entities and thus not having free will is absurd because humans have freewill. It comes down to me:(All a) A(a) -->B(a)c is an a, A(c)------------Thus B(a)you say ~B(A), without much of an argument about how humans are magically special from a snail or dog or rock or star etc. Make a few indignation claims and inaccurate examples. While claiming that free-will somehow doesn't separate man from cause and effect, an essential characteristic of god(s) and other super rational entities in most conceptions of them. This is where free will is absurd in its implications, humans are not super natural entities. The in depth analyses is its own evidence, where by the type of ethnocentrism your opinion rests on is attacked and found wanting. Free will, appears to exist and its thus the obvious choice is to agree it does. Without some ingenious argument about why it does, your just going with appearances. The evidence for its actual existence however, is very lacking. For every human action, a cause can be attributed and people display a pattern of behavior, a personality and an identity all of which depends on consistent responses to similar stimuli, free will eliminates that consistency and with free will we would find people to be far more random in their behavior. Most people are very predictable, you just have to identify their insecurities, which act as "user input", then its your knowledge of psychology and ability to model that determine how accurate your predictions were. Its the same as identifying how hard to hit a pool ball, identifying the angle, and possessing enough knowledge of physics and geometry to make the ball go into a pocket. keeping with the analogy: If free will was true, you couldn't model the game of pool, and each hit would have a random result; physics and geometry would be useless.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

I see what you're saying, that everything abides by a set of laws at a higher level, and there seems to be a semblance of rationality there.However, the pool analogy isn't relevant. And here's why:If you give a pool ball the same input for two shots, choose the same angle, same force, spin, etc., you will have the same result.If you ask a human to make a choice twice, will they come up with the same answer twice? It's possible, or even likely, but humans, dogs, animals, and any other sentient beings have the free will to act within their own system. They can make decisions rationally, weighing outcomes, and make a decision. So, they might answer the same twice, but that does not exclude the possibility that they could have or would have chosen differently.I'm not saying humans are this super special magical master breed where laws don't apply, but if humans don't have the ability to do what they want, then why do they?"While claiming that free-will somehow doesn't separate man from cause and effect, an essential characteristic of god(s) and other super rational entities in most conceptions of them. This is where free will is absurd in its implications, humans are not super natural entities."So you're saying the only thing that can have free will is God because that's what most people think a god is? I don't understand.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

I see what you're saying, that everything abides by a set of laws at a higher level, and there seems to be a semblance of rationality there.A semblance? Your are either delusional or in denial. There is more than just a semblance; it is absolutely obvious when rationality is the faculty. And the set of laws (physics) although I wouldn’t consider them to be of any “higher level,” are just one aspect of determinism. However, the pool analogy isn't relevant. And here's why:If you give a pool ball the same input for two shots, choose the same angle, same force, spin, etc., you will have the same result.If you ask a human to make a choice twice, will they come up with the same answer twice?If you give the human the same "input for both shots," as you do with the pool balls, the same “angle, force spin etc.,” same external influences, same causal factors leading up to that point in time when the choice is being made, then yes. The human will, without a doubt, come up with the same answer twice. No chance it would be different if every single influence to make that decision was the exact same both times.It's possible, or even likely, but humans, dogs, animals, and any other sentient beings have the free will to act within their own system. They can make decisions rationally, weighing outcomes, and make a decision.‘Making rational decisions’ and ‘weighing outcomes’ are a few of many causal factors that inevitably lead to the conclusions of a person who possesses those qualities. That is not free will.I'm not saying humans are this super special magical master breed where laws don't apply, but if humans don't have the ability to do what they want, then why do they?That’s just it :D they DO have the ability to do what they want. But what dictates ‘what they want?’ and what dictates or determines that? And so on.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

We have a conscious based on society and we give into it oftenAnd this society acts based on free will, so we are influenced by the exercise of the free will others own.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Why can't I say "I want to kill the President?" Why Can't I kill myself if I want to? Why can't I abuse myself in the bathroom of a public restroom? If i had free will to do what i wanted without anyone holding me accountable then I may have free will but in reality it's other people judgement of what is right and wrong that control society and control each person...BOOM
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: Yes.

You can do of all those things, you'll just be punished for them. Free will does not mean action without consequence.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

It does mean that expected consequences don't affect the action though.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

Imagine an infinite number of identical rooms, each with the exact same person inside the room. If given the identical choice, example 'choose between the letters A and B' the person would always choose the same letter. If the conditions were EXACTLY IDENTICAL nothing could influence or alter their decision. Life is a vast extension on this; everything you do is a choice and your choices are always determined by factors around you and previous events. For example, instead of a choice between 'A' and 'B', imagine the choice of 'what to have for dinner?'. Given an identical choice- people will always choose the same thing.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

No one asks to be born, therefore, free will does not exist.
Debate: Does free will exist?
Side: No.

No, a will costs a lot of money. Anything that involves a lawyer costs a lot of money. Wait..., are we talking about the same thing? ;)
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Yes in a sense that marriage is no longer an institution between a man and a woman.But really, marriage isn't that great. No reason for a straight person to get all bitchy about the fact that gays can get married. Why don't people ever focus on important things like Pedophiles in Vermont or terrorism? Always has to be "OMG, GAYS BE GETTING MARRIED YO!!!" Big fuckin' deal. Who's dying from this? No one, than IT DOESN'T MATTER!