Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

Thanks ASB. My opponent has no true advocacy position. He essentially is advocating that we should all have free will, but if we ever try to do something that is against the principles of ethics he outlines in Round 1, that something in our minds should "zap" us and prevent us from doing this particular action. That is not "total control" - that's partial control and partial free will. My opponent's position is tantamount to putting a dog collar on humans and having some supreme being "shock" us when we are about to do something bad, but otherwise granting us complete autonomy. Until my opponent actually argues for total control, I see no reason to continue extending my arguments in favor of free will, since my opponent's continual response is essentially "free will still exists under 'total control.'" In addition, it says nowhere that this is a hypothetical debate. If I prove that total control is impossible (because there is no God), I should win because that which exists is "better" than that which does not exist. Free will exists; total control does not exist. Therefore I have proven that free will is better than total control. Just four quick notes: 1. My opponent has clearly never read Rothbard. Rothbard believed in "no government" and criticized other libertarians for not being willing to go far enough to advocate a complete dissolution of the State. 2. Hobbes is a complete straw man; he is not the only contractarian, and I never cited him. John Locke's position on social contracts is much more in line with what I have been arguing. 3. When I said that we "get no credit" for making moral decisions when we have no free will, I didn't mean that we should act morally to get some reward. That is not the meaning of credit in this particular case. What I meant, and Derrida says, is that morality DOES NOT EXIST when our actions are forced. To act morally, we must go through the aporia of the undecidable - we must face that difficult moral choice and choose correctly. Being forced to act a certain way is meaningless. If a human chooses to abstain from killing, he or she is acting morally. If a human is forced (under total control) to abstain from killing, this action is meaningless. It is no different than a rock falling when we let it go. The rock is following a natural law (gravity). If humans abstained from killing because they were forced to, then they are just obeying an unbreakable law of nature. That is not morality. 4. Lastly, my opponent keeps saying that humans CANNOT act morally if "no one is driving the car," meaning if we have free will. Yet, the vast majority of people disprove this assertion each day, by going about their everyday lives without raping, stealing, or murdering. Of course we can act morally, even with free will. Why else did the organization my opponent cites bother putting together a list of ethical behaviors unless they believed that humans could and would follow these recommended ethical principles? Otherwise, creating such a list would be a complete waste of time. I challenge my opponent to provide some sort of evidence that humans are INCAPABLE of acting morally. I eagerly await my opponent's response.