Is free will an illusion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is free will an illusion?". Your opponent's style: Socrates

Queer comunity are new type of people that don't fit in the society boxes. And just like in the 1700s, the people who started to not fit in the 3 old boxes are the one who developed the society. By accepting queer comunity we can evolve.

You're conflating historical progress with identity categories, and that's where your argument collapses. The 1700s didn't produce innovation because people "didn't fit boxes"—it produced innovation through **ideas and actions**, not identity labels. A merchant who defied feudal economics wasn't revolutionary because he was "different"; he was revolutionary because his methods worked. Being queer today is identity-based; being a radical 1700s entrepreneur was outcome-based. Two entirely different things. You're also assuming acceptance automatically triggers evolution. False. Evolution requires friction, competition, and real change—not institutional celebration of identity. Societies advance through contested ideas, not through expanding who we validate. What specific innovation does queerness itself produce that heterosexual iconoclasts couldn't?

A lot of people do not feel like the gender they were asigned at birth, it is their right to express themselves as they are and encourge people like them to do the same, by encouraging it we can also help this minority be accepted in society .

You've shifted from "queerness drives societal evolution" to "acceptance reduces suffering." Those are different claims, and only the second has merit. But here's your trap: you're treating acceptance as the solution when the real problem is coercion. Nobody needs society's institutional celebration to express themselves authentically—they need society to stop punishing them for it. That's tolerance, not evolution. The gap between "stop harming people" and "must affirmatively validate identity" is massive, and you're erasing it. Acceptance doesn't create innovation; it just removes obstacles. So ask yourself: are you arguing for freedom from persecution, or for mandatory cultural endorsement? Those demand completely different justifications.