Is free will an illusion?

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

The right is evil. The left is good.

You're painting with a brush so wide you've missed the canvas entirely. Right and left are just labels people wear to feel tribe. Real evil? It's individual—the corrupt cop, the exploitative CEO, the zealot willing to crush dissent. You'll find those everywhere, left and right alike. History's bloodiest atrocities came from both sides. Stalin wasn't righteous because he called himself left. Hitler wasn't unique in his cruelty. The moment you declare your team "good" and theirs "evil," you've stopped thinking and started preaching. People are complicated. Systems corrupt. Power corrupts faster. But framing half the country as moral darkness? That's the thinking that *produces* actual evil. What makes someone good or evil in your view—the label they wear or what they actually do?

The right sucks up to to those individuals. The cronies of villains are just as bad. I should restate myself slightly. The far-authoritarian right is of the utmost evil. The far-authoritarian left is wrongful as well, even if some authoritarianism is certainly necessary. Bezos, Musk, etc., deserve the guillotine for crimes against humanity, as well as any politicians responsible for atrocities. That authoritarianism is just. However, Stalin's branch was not. But the MAGA Party is foul and evil, as with the Democratic Party in its current far-right state, while genuine leftists are good

Now you're doing moral gymnastics. You've carved out exceptions so precise they prove the opposite of your point. "Some authoritarianism is necessary"—whose? Yours. "The guillotine is just"—but Stalin's wasn't? Both used violence to enforce their vision of justice. You're not rejecting authoritarianism. You're rejecting *their* authoritarianism while blessing yours. That's the trap every authoritarian falls into: I'm good because I know better. Stalin thought the same thing. The Democratic Party isn't "far-right." That's rhetorical nonsense designed to make your side look moderate. And "genuine leftists"—how conveniently that means leftists who agree with you, not actual voters. If your system requires execution of billionaires to work, maybe the system is the problem, not the billionaires.

The Democratic Party is far-right. The leadership certainly is. They mask their far-right economic policy with mild progressivism in social contexts to make themselves appear to be the friend of the little guy. I was a little overly general: of course there are Democrats who are left, but Harris, Jeffries, Schumer, etc. are far-right evil scumbags.

You're calling centrists "far-right" because they won't guillotine billionaires. That's not analysis, that's moving the goalposts so everyone fails your test. Harris supports higher corporate taxes, union rights, and healthcare expansion. That's left-of-center by any actual political spectrum. You've redefined "far-right" to mean "not revolutionary enough," which makes the term meaningless. Real far-right? Actual fascists who ban opposition parties and execute dissidents. Trump came closer to that than Harris ever will. You can criticize Democratic leadership for being too corporate-friendly without pretending they're secretly Mussolini. Wanting incremental change isn't evil, just slower than you'd prefer. That's a legitimate disagreement, not a moral battle between good and evil.

I never said it was because they won't guillotine billionaires. It's for a number of reasons. And I realize that talking point was unrealistic. People are fed up, as I am, with the exploitative immoral actions of these people. Anyhow, no shit MAGA is further right. But Democratic leadership is far-right too

You're still doing it—lumping everyone you disagree with into "far-right" so you never have to actually argue specifics. You say "a number of reasons" then list none. Harris wanting higher taxes on corporations isn't far-right. It's left-of-center. MAGA wanting mass deportations and authoritarian strongmen IS far-right. Those aren't the same thing just because both frustrate you. You can't claim moral clarity while refusing to distinguish between incrementalism and fascism. One's slow, one's dangerous. They're not equivalent evils. Name three concrete policies that make Democratic leadership "far-right," not just "not left enough for me."

We don't exist within a spectrum of capitalism only. Perhaps in the U.S. political atmosphere Harris is center, but overall, she's far-right.

Now you're redefining the entire compass to fit your conclusion. By that logic, everyone's far-right except communists. That's not analysis, that's semantic inflation. Politics exist in context. Harris operates within American democracy, so she's center-left there. Calling her far-right on a global scale is like saying a fish is a bad swimmer because it can't climb trees. Wrong measuring stick. You're using a purely theoretical axis where only revolutionary socialism counts as acceptable. That's not a legitimate political spectrum—it's a purity test designed so you're always right and everyone else is always evil. What would non-far-right Democratic leadership actually look like to you?