Construct a debate between two of the three main positions on Free Will (Determinism, Libertarianism or Compatibilism). In doing so, make sure to present one argument for each of the two positions and one compelling objection that might be raised by the opposite side. Which position gets the better of the debate?.
The basic argument of compatibilism is this: there is no denying that determinism exists, yet moral responsibility must exist and is thus made compatible to do so. Science is based around determinism, as cause and effect is evident in all scientific theories and laws. If a spring has a maximum point to which it can extend, then it is pre-determined that after stretching the spring past this point, it will snap. The breaking of the spring is determined by antecedent events: the material of the spring and the durability of it lead to a point which it cannot stretch past. Examples like these occur all throughout science - a ball falls if it is dropped, a balloon pops if a needle is stuck into it, and rain falls if there is too much water vapour in the air. All these things occur because of antecedent events, where something in the past causes this to happen. Pertaining to the first part of the compatibilist's argument, there is no denying that determinism exists, at least in science and nature.
The different between compatibilism and determinism is that the former attempts to incorporate moral responsibility into its argument. However, in doing so, it warps the definition of free will. Since moral responsibility can only exist with some form of free will, it modifies the meaning of the concept to suit the argument. Let's say Joe is attempting to cross the street, and there is a car coming. Joe has to choose whether to walk in front of the car, and thus get hit, or to stay and wait for the car to pass. Obviously, he stays and waits. In this example, Joe has some sort of free will, as he is able to choose whether to go or stay.