One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

""One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence. " My burden,. .. to prove the above topic is true. No more no less. " > That's his most important burden, yes. But there's a burden of proof for every argument he makes as well. This is basic argument theory; every [good] argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. The burden of proof on the argument level is the warrant; my opponent still needs to provide evidence or analytics for each of the points he makes. Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence". Control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over". The problem with definitions comes in at "Influence". My opponent says that my definition of influence is "the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways", which is true. The issue here is that we are not talking about influence itself, we are talking about CONTROL. The only reason I defined influence at all was because it was in the definition of control, and I wanted a little more clarification for the readers. "OK! This is the proof,. . if my opponent is claiming one has absolute control of their own existence,. . than they must be in a state or have been in a state or will be in a state or fact of being especially independent of human consciousness,. ." > The definition of "influence" has not been shown to prove his claim. > I didn't claim absolute control, anywhere in my R1. > His conclusion is non-sequitur. "Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,. .. that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence. " > This much is true: I did not develop anything most of us could call "consciousness" until I was around 3. However, just because I depend on others does not mean that I do not have any control over my own existence. Look to the definition of control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over" – Nowhere in the definition does it say that I must have absolute control over everything that happens to me. Indeed, in my clarification of the definition, I said control is clarified as "the power or capacity of causing an effect in a direct or tangible way" – as long as I have some sort of direct influence over anything that happens in my life, I can be said to be in "control" to some extent. The resolution does not specify what extent this is and is therefore open to any and all extents of control – which in turn means that all "absolute" arguments my opponent brings up can now be thrown out. "However, Someone can gain control of ones existence much like one could gain control of a skidding car,. .. WRONG! The very existence of my opponent depends to heavily on outside forces to give my opponent what would be considered absolute control. " > Like this one here. > There's no reason to believe that such an analogy is even rational. > And if there was, it has no effect. There's something called drifting (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(motorsport)) "He may control his actions, but he does not conrol his existence. " > And MY ACTIONS DEFINE MY existence or LIFE. Game over, vote CON. > I also control it because I have the ability to kill myself at any time. "He exists in his hometown because of outside forces beyond his control,. .. " > Bullsh*t. I'll walk five minutes south and I'm in a different city. OUTSIDE FORCES EH? "he exists as a living person because no one or nothing has killed him. " > This is the same thing as "I exist because I exist". What the hell does that prove? "He can not have absolute control because it can be taken to easily for it to even be considered his possession. " > This one too. "Even temporary control is void due to the outside forces that are prevent control of his own existence,. ." > I would really like some evidence on these "outside forces", or even better, what these "outside forces" are. Like, a definition. Because right now they're vague, and vague things don't count as warrants in debate. "everyday he is alive is due to somethig outside of his choice,. ." > I'm not too sure about everyone else reading this, but when I see that, I read: "everyday he is alive due to reasons that I refuse to explain,. ." "He could shoot himself, but it requires a gun and a bullet. He could jump from a building but requires the existence of a building. " > Hold my breath or strangle myself with HANDS. "Even air, food, water, prevents you from controlling your own existence, as your control does not exist since your existence ultimately requires air food and water to exist. " > Voter: He has bad grammar. >The LACK of air, food, and water aren't though. My refusal to use them in an attempt to kill myself is totally within my own power – unless you're arguing that air, food, and water are part of myself, in which case I can say that my existence is totally within my own control. Heads I win, tails you lose. "Hairless cats are freaky, and I feel its impossible to drink a gallon of milk in one hour. " > Voter: Spam. Even though there's still one round to go, I can already give you guys voters: 1) He has bad grammar. This makes things more difficult for everyone reading the debate. 2) His last sentence is spam. Spam belongs in Monty Python, not on Debate. org. 3) The topic does not say "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in ABSOLUTE control of their existence", so everything he's said is nontopical. 4) Even if it's nontopical, his warrants and impacts are nonsequitur and nonspecified. 5) He fails to show that I have zero control whatsoever on my life, therefore failing the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he put forth.