1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Determinism"
→Debate Applications
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Debate Applications == | == Debate Applications == | ||
<u>Technical Note:</u> In debate, "determinism" is often used to refer to the conclusion of the syllogism; that we are not morally responsible for our actions. In reality, "determinism" is only the concept that all actions have been predetermined. | |||
In debate, determinism is ran and justified to prove that agents are not morally responsible for their actions. This triggers permissibility, since if nobody is morally responsible for their actions, the resolution fails to be either a moral or immoral action. Since permissibility often negates, determinism is almost always read by the negative. | In debate, determinism is ran and justified to prove that agents are not morally responsible for their actions. This triggers permissibility, since if nobody is morally responsible for their actions, the resolution fails to be either a moral or immoral action. Since permissibility often negates, determinism is almost always read by the negative. | ||
Importantly, in order to win on determinism, you must prove all three points of the syllogism as mentioned above. You must prove that determinism is true, that determinism implies we do not have free will, and that not having free will implies that we are not morally responsible for our actions. If you do not win even one of the parts of the syllogism, you would not reach the conclusion that agents are not morally responsible for their actions. | Importantly, in order to win on determinism, you must prove all three points of the syllogism as mentioned above. You must prove that determinism is true, that determinism implies we do not have free will, and that not having free will implies that we are not morally responsible for our actions. If you do not win even one of the parts of the syllogism, you would not reach the conclusion that agents are not morally responsible for their actions. | ||
== Strategic Value == | |||
Determinism is largely strategic because without understanding the nuances of the syllogism, most debaters answer it the wrong way. The most common response to determinism in debate is to disprove the first part of the syllogism, that all events have been predetermined from the start of the universe. However, this part of the syllogism may very well be the strongest part. It seems likely true that with a full understanding of the laws of physics, we could determine all future actions. A more strategic way to answer determinism would likely be to disprove either the second or third point of the syllogism. | |||
Secondly, determinism allows you to not get caught up in the nuances of the framework debate. Imagine that the affirmative is reading an AC with four minutes of framework justifications. The negative could read determinism, without directly responding to any of the AC's framework, because the AC framework presumes that agents have moral responsibility for their actions. There is a great time tradeoff for the negative, since they can avoid answering the AC framework directly and spend time on other matters. | |||
Finally, determinism is probably easy to intuitively understand and justify to your judges. Provided that your judge is competent and willing to vote on most arguments, determinism is not some dumb trick but an actual philosophically warranted position that could win you the round. | |||