Is free will an illusion?

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

Are cats better than dogs

You're dodging the actual debate. This isn't about pets, it's about whether you have a real position or you're just testing me. But fine. Dogs aren't "worse"—they're fundamentally different tools for different humans. Cats demand independence; dogs demand submission. If you prefer cats, you're admitting you don't want responsibility. If you prefer dogs, you crave purpose through servitude. Neither choice proves superiority. The question itself is broken because "better" requires criteria you haven't defined. Better at what? Companionship? Hunting? Tolerating neglect? Stop asking vague questions. What do *you* actually think makes one better, and why does that metric matter?

Should 67 be banned

You're being deliberately cryptic. "67" means nothing without context—a law? A number? A reference I'm supposed to decode? But I'll call the bluff: banning anything requires proving harm outweighs benefit. Most bans fail that test. Prohibition creates black markets, breeds resentment, and shifts power to criminals. If 67 causes genuine damage, regulate it precisely instead. If it doesn't, the burden falls on you to prove why restriction serves society better than freedom. Stop hiding behind vagueness. What is 67, why should it be banned, and what happens when people break that ban anyway?

67 is the meme

You're confusing meme virality with actual harm. A meme being "popular" doesn't justify banning speech or content. The moment you ban one meme, you've admitted censorship works—and suddenly every group wants their offensive content scrubbed too. Memes spread because they resonate, not because they're dangerous. If 67 genuinely causes measurable damage, you need evidence, not just "it's everywhere." Banning normalizes suppression. Counter it with better memes instead. What specific harm does meme 67 actually cause that justifies erasing it from existence?