Arguments you should not use

[TheWall]

Free will proven.

[Sparko]

The first time someone offends Thinker by stealing from him, or injuring him in some way, he will whine that they be held responsible. Yet if there is no free will then they had no choice in the matter, nobody does, and cannot be held responsible for their actions because they have no free will.

Party at Thinkers!

I call dibs on his TV.

[The Thinker]

I am not going to get into it with you because you are a complete moron. At least with Carrik, I can have an actual discussion.

Here for your amusement:

P1. I Decide what I want to do within my abilities.
P2. I do it.

Therefore, I have free will.

You were flat out wrong about the free will and the mind. You're not going to get into it because you can't.

P1. Just asserts what you already believe and therefore completely begs the question.

You haven't shown crap.

[The Thinker]

The first time someone offends Thinker by stealing from him, or injuring him in some way, he will whine that they be held responsible. Yet if there is no free will then they had no choice in the matter, nobody does, and cannot be held responsible for their actions because they have no free will.

Party at Thinkers!

I call dibs on his TV.

This assumes that holding someone responsible requires LFW.

I actually need someone to get rid of my TV, so come on over.

[seer]

This assumes that holding someone responsible requires LFW.

So you would hold someone morally responsible for what they can't help but do? And that would be just - how?

[Sparko]

You were flat out wrong about the free will and the mind. You're not going to get into it because you can't.

P1. Just asserts what you already believe and therefore completely begs the question.

Why did you say that?

[seer]

Why did you say that?

He was determined to!

[rogue06]

The first time someone offends Thinker by stealing from him, or injuring him in some way, he will whine that they be held responsible. Yet if there is no free will then they had no choice in the matter, nobody does, and cannot be held responsible for their actions because they have no free will.

Party at Thinkers!

I call dibs on his TV.

I got his car or any other vehicle (Big Wheel excluded)

[The Thinker]

So you would hold someone morally responsible for what they can't help but do? And that would be just - how?

No one said anything about moral responsibility, we're only talking about responsibility.

[The Thinker]

Why did you say that?

Because you #logicfail

[seer]

No one said anything about moral responsibility, we're only talking about responsibility.

Well how am I responsible for what I can't help but to do?

Oxford, responsible: Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

[Sparko]

Because you #logicfail

P1. Just asserts what you already believe and therefore completely begs the question.

So basically I said that I have free will because I wanted to say that?

You lose.

In fact your entire argument is stooopid. Our entire civilization is based on free will because it is so self-evident. Without free will there can be no responsibility for our actions. Therefore no laws. No arguing either. What is the purpose of arguing if there is no free will to make decisions upon? Why are you even trying to change our minds or convince anyone that there is no free will if there is no free will? You can't change their minds. So even your argument against free will is an actual argument FOR free will.

And your "logical argument" is completely flawed. It is just silly.

In fact you expect us to accept that your simple logical argument completely disproves LFW and nobody but you ever figured it out in the entire history of the world. wow you really think a lot of yourself, doncha?

You are as bad as Darfius and his "Great Delusion" theory.

[The Thinker]

So basically I said that I have free will because I wanted to say that?

You lose.

In fact your entire argument is stooopid. Our entire civilization is based on free will because it is so self-evident. Without free will there can be no responsibility for our actions. Therefore no laws. No arguing either. What is the purpose of arguing if there is no free will to make decisions upon? Why are you even trying to change our minds or convince anyone that there is no free will if there is no free will? You can't change their minds. So even your argument against free will is an actual argument FOR free will.

And your "logical argument" is completely flawed. It is just silly.

In fact you expect us to accept that your simple logical argument completely disproves LFW and nobody but you ever figured it out in the entire history of the world. wow you really think a lot of yourself, doncha?

You are as bad as Darfius and his "Great Delusion" theory.

That's the stupidest argument ever. All it appeals to are arguments ad populism and an argument from consequences - both logical fallacies. If that's really the best you can do you really should consider my signature below.

First, not all civilizations are based on free will. In fact many outright deny it. Calvinism, most of Islam and many other religions deny LFW.

Without LFW responsibility becomes a legal and practical matter. Not a fundamental moral matter as the way it is typically thought of.

Laws make perfect sense under no LFW because passing laws against things we don't want are the very thing that will cause many people not to do those things. On LFW they can have no effect since on LFW the will must be uncaused and by definition you can't have any control over something uncaused.

The purpose of arguing is the change minds. Duh Homer. Since we don't know what will happen in the future I have no idea how you will react to my argument. But if you are going to change your mind, it will most likely be because you were persuaded by someone making an argument. Cause and effect. On LFW they can have no effect since on LFW the will must be uncaused and by definition you can't have any control over something uncaused. So it is actually on determinism that makes arguing about things make sense. You can change their minds. On LFW you can't since the will is uncaused.

You haven't showed a single flaw in my argument and just asserted it. No surprise.

And second of all, I'm didn't discover LFW is nonsense. 85% of profession philosophers reject it and most scientists do too. Anyone who thinks about it enough will see it is literally an incoherent idea and self-refuting.

Open your eyes.

[Sparko]

That's the stupidest argument ever. All it appeals to are arguments ad populism and an argument from consequences - both logical fallacies. If that's really the best you can do you really should consider my signature below.

First, not all civilizations are based on free will. In fact many outright deny it. Calvinism, most of Islam and many other religions deny LFW.

Calvinism and Islam are not civilizations. derp. And Islam believes in Free Will. In fact without it you cannot worship Allah.

Without LFW responsibility becomes a legal and practical matter. Not a fundamental moral matter as the way it is typically thought of.

Without free will there is no responsibility for any action. That is the logical consequence of determinism.

Laws make perfect sense under no LFW because passing laws against things we don't want are the very thing that will cause many people not to do those things.

If making laws can make people change their behavior, then they are changing their behavior because they don't want to go to jail. They are exercising free will. How idiotic can you be?

On LFW they can have no effect since on LFW the will must be uncaused and by definition you can't have any control over something uncaused.

Your argument that LFW must be uncaused is idiotic and wrong.

The purpose of arguing is the change minds. Duh Homer.

Gee if you can change minds by arguing then you are using your argument to make someone freely choose to change their minds. Thus free will. If listening to arguments can affect your thoughts and make you change your mind, then free will is proven. How do you not see that? And the fact that you CHOOSE to argue is also proof of LFW.

Since we don't know what will happen in the future I have no idea how you will react to my argument.

so you choose to argue because you think you can change my mind.

But if you are going to change your mind, it will most likely be because you were persuaded by someone making an argument.

thus free will.

Cause and effect. On LFW they can have no effect since on LFW the will must be uncaused and by definition you can't have any control over something uncaused. So it is actually on determinism that makes arguing about things make sense. You can change their minds. On LFW you can't since the will is uncaused.

that is idiotic. Of course LFW can be influenced. You can cause people to change their mind by arguing. That is using your free will to influence their beliefs and their free will. duh.

You haven't showed a single flaw in my argument and just asserted it. No surprise.

Your argument is moronic. Nothing to defeat. You might as well be arguing that chocolate unicorn farts cause hemorrhoids and bragging that nobody has shown any flaws in your argument.

[The Thinker]

Calvinism and Islam are not civilizations. derp. And Islam believes in Free Will. In fact without it you cannot worship Allah.

Wow. Islamic civilization. Derp derp derp. And Islam is based on occasionalism which negates LFW. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

And Calvinism is the basis for certain societies, which you can call civilizations.

Without free will there is no responsibility for any action. That is the logical consequence of determinism.

Sure there is, there is just no ultimate moral responsibility. And if LFW is so evidence it's hilarious how you can't even show one legitimate argument that it's even coherent, let alone true.

If making laws can make people change their behavior, then they are changing their behavior because they don't want to go to jail. They are exercising free will. How idiotic can you be?

No you retard among retards. The law is what caused them to change their behavior. That was part of the causal deterministic process. And you know that if you deny determinism you must believe that things can begin to exist without a cause, right?

Your argument that LFW must be uncaused is idiotic and wrong.

And you never actually show this but you assert it. Did you get your debating skills from Donald Trump?

Gee if you can change minds by arguing then you are using your argument to make someone freely choose to change their minds. Thus free will. If listening to arguments can affect your thoughts and make you change your mind, then free will is proven. How do you not see that? And the fact that you CHOOSE to argue is also proof of LFW.

Wow, more retardom. They change their minds because of causal factors not free will. You cannot have control over your mind because it is logically impossible. The argument is the causal factor that can convince them.

so you choose to argue because you think you can change my mind.

Perhaps with your level of utter stupidity, maybe not.

thus free will.

There's no free will there. Everything that happens has an explanation we can call a cause. Outline for me a timeline of what happens when someone makes a free will decision. What's the first thing that happens and does it have a cause?

that is idiotic. Of course LFW can be influenced. You can cause people to change their mind by arguing. That is using your free will to influence their beliefs and their free will. duh.

I'm seriously beginning to think you don't even know what free will is because you're so stupid. You cannot by definition have control over something uncaused which LFW requires the will to be, otherwise it would be determined.

Your argument is moronic. Nothing to defeat. You might as well be arguing that chocolate unicorn farts cause hemorrhoids and bragging that nobody has shown any flaws in your argument.

This is exactly what people who can't refute it say. No surprise. Anytime you want to make an actual logical argument LFW is coherent, let alone true, be my guest sucker.