The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

I would like to address my opponents comments regarding my conduct. Firstly, I concede that it was "bad form" to not have a definition already presented at the beginning of the debate. I apologise for this, and I am well aware that ignorance of the common code of conduct is no excuse. Also I meant no disrespect by saying that my opponent should keep his response to a manageable size. I was trying to prevent a "battle of verbiage." So on this, I also concede to my opponent. Con states that: "You have a tray of candies in front of you. They are all identical and all rotating on a circular table. You are told to pick a candy. You reach down and 'choose' one. theis mind game meets all the criteria of the above definition. Thus, through my opponent's definition, free will exists."Refute: This example is flawed in one major way. I will assume that the person in question, was not being exposed to any other form of stimulus. Thus the only stimulus being presented to the person is the auditory command, and the visual sensation of the candles. The fact is that if the exact same situation, meaning perfectly identical, then the candle that was chosen would always be the same. The "decision" to pick up a particular candle would be preordained by the simple fact that the brain at that particular point in time will, and can only respond to that particular instance, in only one way. Since with modern science that action can be predicted that would prompt the inevitable conclusion that no choice was made, only that a fixed neurochemical reaction occurred in the presence of a stimulus. Note: I would like to remind con that spelling is important. The replacement of the word candle, with the word candy is a significant flaw.Counterexample: If a mechanism, that was of equal complexity to the human brain was put into action, through imputing a stimulus, would the expected product be thought of as a conscience choice. The answer is no. That mechanism had a variety of courses of actions, but is only yielded one, and would only yield one. Also that mechanism if it were of equal complexity to the human brain would then qualify for being rational, as paramount in the definition of free will.Con states that: "Human individualism regarding culture, practice, institution, belief and philosophy also must be accounted for. The sheer uniqueness and vast diversity in these fields implies an existense of freedom of choice rather than the belief that all humans are compelled by their environment or hard-wiring. (Ie. Twins who have the same genetic code and upbringing and environment and nature can have two very separate personalities and two very separate moral compasses.)"Refute: Con states that diversity revelas that there is free will. This argument is not logical. This is an assumption that diversity is the result of freedom of choice. Con also brings up the idea of identical twins. Again there is an assumption that the brain does not change to enviromental stresses that would vary between the individuals. In short con is attempting to refute the complimentary nature of nature v. nurture. Also the use of the phrase "moral compasses," is superfluous. Free will must be proven before morality can be discussed.Counterexample: I will use the example of the identical twins that con used. The twins that had identical gentical structures, will be born virtually identical in temperment, at birth. Enviromental stresses then will rework the "hard wired brain". Therefore there will be two people that were identical, but have been changed into the different individuals that the enviroment molded. The fact that they will both respond to the same stimulus differently is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is that both individual would react the exact same if the same stimuls was presented in th exact same circumstances.Con states that: "How about the argument that much of what people do can be predicted? Doesn't that suggest determinism? (Key word 'much.')"Refute: Con sates that much of what people do can be predicted. This is incorrect, because all human actions can be predicted. Thus when my opponent uses the word "much," he is assuming that humans cannot be predicted, at least in a philosophical sense.Counterexample: If there was a machine that was capable of mapping everying single atom of the brain, and that machine could calculate the neurochemical reaction's results almost instantaneously, then could not then that machine accurately predict every action that would result from any stimulus. Therefore philosophically, that would yeild the conclusion that only one action canm be yeilded, from a single stimulus. If this is the case then a "choice" cannot be made, because the choice was already made before the alternatives were presented.Con states that: "The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements."Refute: While I appreciate the free will theorem, it is inherantly flawed. This rather wordy argument boils down to; if something in question proves to be totally random, then the actions of individuals must then be the product of a rational mind, making a choice amoung alternatives. The fact is that even that even the decision to measure certain elements of quantumly entangled atoms, is only a stimulus to the experimentor, and that experimentor then would react to that stimulus, in the normal mechanical manner, in which all reactions are carried out, in the "hard wired brain."Counterexample: If an object were to be exposed to a random force, then that object would react differently, according to the different forces. According to the definition of free will, a rational object must have alternatives to choose from. If that rational object was exposed to a random stimulus then the reaction to that stumuls would be the result only of the nature of the object, not the choice of the object.I would like to state that rebuttals are only for the opening statements of the opponent. I would also like to state that I am not trying to be rude by this statement, but only convey that it would be inherantly unfair, to refute, the opponents rebuttels, without the opposition having a turn also.Works Cited: I have listed my opponent's sources, as not to offend the authors of my opposition's sources[1] (http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com......)[2] (http://rebirthofreason.com......)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org......)