People do not have free will.

Thanks for giving an articulate opening, Danielle.My opponent's case has two main components: an argument from psychology, and an argument from physics. The first requires examining the process of choice in detail, and the second requires offering a solution to the mind-body problem. I'll deal with these two issues, then argue that my opponent's case is self refuting.PsychologyMy opponent's argument from psychology boils down to the claim that all of our decisions are really just the product of genetics and environment. Our experiences provide us with "stimuli" which we react to deterministically. Allegedly, this hypothesis is supported by observation. All of our choices are based on motives and reasons, so they are determined by those motives and reasons.When we introspect, it is evident that this account of how we make decisions is false. We do observe that all of our decisions, and indeed all the decisions anyone makes, are based on reasons. However, our decisions are not determined by those reasons, because we have the ability to choose what the reasons for our action will be.For example, a person who is running and trying to decide whether or not to stop can choose to let their actions be caused by their exhaustion (stop running), or they could choose to let their actions be caused by their desire to get in shape (keep running). Which they choose depends on them alone.This could even be illustrated by using the very examples my opponent offers to support her case:"For example, the person's choice to not eat would be based on the fact that they're trying to lose weight; their trying to lose weight would be based on the fact that they no longer fit in their clothes; they may no longer fit in their clothes because they got depressed and started eating more; they may have been depressed because they ended a serious relationship; the relationship may have ended because one's partner found someone else at Comic Con; the partner's choice to attend Comic Con led to that... etc."Yes, but it is evident that even if all of that was true, and even if you were trying to lose weight, you could choose to eat. Lots of people who are on diets choose to eat anyway, as we can observe all around us. It just depends which reasons a given person chooses to allow to cause their actions. Will their decisions be caused by their desire to lose weight (don't eat) or by their craving for sugar (eat)? It's up to them.Along similar lines, my opponent says, "A person cannot clear their mind, disregard previous experiences, and make decisions that are not influenced by past experiences." This misses an important distinction. We cannot disregard previous experiences in deliberating, but we can choose which experiences to consider, how carefully to consider them, and what logical steps to follow in our deliberations.In particular, it is awe inspiring to think of all of the countless acts of free will that went into the construction of the sciences, all the late nights of excruciating deliberation and mental focus that went into constructing the theory of evolution, or the scientific theories my opponent ironically cites in support of the resolution.PhysicsMy opponent's second argument for determinism is based on physics. Allegedly, the problem is that none of the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics are consistent with free will. Some are deterministic, and some are indeterministic, but none of them acknowledge the existence of choice.First of all, this argument is inconsistent with my opponent's opening, which defines determinism as "The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." If one of the indeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics is true, then that's false, which means that my opponent's own position as expressed in Round 1 would be refuted. So, this argument is counterproductive for my opponent.Secondly, I don't see why quantum mechanics should be relevant here. There are a bunch of different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and none of them have been conclusively established. It seems evident that no one really knows what is going on in quantum mechanics, in which case there is no point in appealing to it to settle the free will debate.All that aside, the more fundamental problem with my opponent's argument is that it is an argument from physics, and consciousness is not made of matter, not as matter is currently understood by science.When you introspect, you don't see chemical reactions, you see beliefs, desires, perceptions, etc. These are evidently immaterial states of consciousness. When you run through a chain of reasoning, there isn't a chemical reaction in sight, just a non-physical, logical process of thought connecting one premise to the next.So, consciousness isn't composed of matter as currently understood by science, which means that bringing in physics is irrelevant to the capacities of consciousness.The Self Refutation of DeterminismMy opponent's case asserts variously that our beliefs and actions are determined by our previous experiences or by the laws of physics. Both of these claims are self refuting.If all of our beliefs are merely determined by our previous experiences, as opposed to based on rational deliberation from the evidence of experience, then we have no reason to think that any of them are true. Our beliefs could seem perfectly reasonable to us, but for all we know we just believe them because we had some experience when we were growing up that makes us find them appealing. If all of our beliefs are deterministically caused by "stimuli," then we have no basis for sorting truth from fiction.But in that case, the belief that we are determined comes into question itself. Determinism could seem perfectly reasonable to you, but on this theory you might just believe it because your parents always told you it was true, or something like this. On this view, you have no grounds for your belief in determinism.Again, if all of our beliefs are merely determined by the laws of physics, then we have no reason to think that any of them are true. We have no access to the working of the blind atoms in our brains, no way of telling what process might have resulted in a given belief's seeming true to us. All that we know is that at the end of the mechanistic process, a belief came out seeming true to us - it could be true or false, we have no way of telling. But on that view, again, determinism itself comes into question. You have arrived at false beliefs before, and other people disagree with you about determinism. How do you know that the chemical reactions in your brain are more reliable than theirs? At the end of the day, you don't. At bottom, our only reason for accepting any of our beliefs is that we arrived at them on the basis of an act of free deliberation.ConclusionIn this speech, I made three main points:1. The fact that every action is based on a reason doesn't support determinism, because we choose what the reasons for our actions will be.2. Physics doesn't refute free will, because consciousness isn't a physical thing.3. Determinism is self refuting, because it implies that you only believe in determinism on the basis of arbitrary "stimuli."For these reasons, we should negate the resolution. Thank you.