Overview
Determinism
Determinism, simply put, is the idea that all events have been predetermined since the beginning of the universe, which implies that the human will does not have control over its actions. More formally, if we fully understand both the laws of nature and the total state of the universe at some time , determinism implies we would be able to know the state of the universe at some other time with complete certainty.
This idea might seem intuitive. Although we currently do not understand all of the laws of physics, conceivably, we might reach a point where we do understand the complete laws of physics. With that information, we could theoretically predict all of the interactions between the atoms that build the universe, and we could figure out exactly what state these atoms would be in at any time in the future.
Free Will
Determinism itself makes no claims to the existence or non-existence of free will. However, many philosophers accept determinism as true, and then show that determinism either implies that we have free will or that we do not have free will.
The argument for why determinism implies we do not have free will, I think, is intuitive. Philosophers who argue that determinism implies no free will are called hard determinists. If the entire future of the universe is predetermined, that means nothing we can do can change that future state. In essence, nothing we do not have the power to change anything in the future because the future was already predetermined. Thus, we cannot exercise free will because we are not free – all of our actions, including our future ones, have already been predetermined.
Moral Responsibility
Some philosophers further argue that if we do not have free will, we are not morally responsible for our actions. Consider the scenario where somebody is holding you at gunpoint, forcing you to rob a bank. After you rob the bank, most people would not consider you morally responsible for the crime because you were being coerced into doing it – you had no choice in the matter. If you accept the premise that determinism is true and that we do not have free will, you could argue that this means we are not morally responsible for our actions.
Debate Applications
Technical Note: 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.
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.
Responding to Determinism
Answering the Syllogism
The most direct way to answer determinism would be to disprove one, or multiple, parts of the syllogism. The syllogism makes three claims:
- Determinism is true.
- Determinism implies we lack free will.
- Lacking free will implies we are not morally responsible for our actions.
By disproving any one part of the syllogism, you would answer that we are not morally responsible for our actions. From personal experience, I think that answering (2) or (3) will be easier than answering (1).
Answering (1)
Answering this part of the syllogism is likely the most common response to determinism. With that said, I think it is the hardest part of the syllogism to actually challenge.
One argument says that we do not know if determinism is true. However, if you have properly justified your NC, you will have a card that argues why determinism is true based upon the laws of physics. Unless your opponent is attempting to disprove science, this response will likely not fare well.
Another argument attempts to prove that since there is randomness in the universe, which quantum mechanics gives evidence for, the universe cannot be deterministic. Although this response does disprove determinism, it simply proves that we live in a universe governed by randomness. This does not show that we have free will, for if our actions were governed by randomness, we would not have any choice in what we do, either.
Answering (2)
Conceivably, determinism could be true, but we could still have free will. Philosophers who believe in this view are called soft determinists, or compatibalists.
Answering (3)
Contesting the Role of the Ballot
Other Responses
Sample Cases
Please note that this NC may have some issues regarding evidence ethics. You may want to recut a Determinism NC using your own evidence that makes similar arguments.