One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existance with free will.

ARGUMENT FOR PERSPECTIVE I disagree with PRO. Each premise is required to support the resolution. If any premise falls, the resolution also falls. Without the third premise, we cannot establish that we can rationally say that the observer has free will while everyone else does not. We cannot accept that it is "true and also not true" to say the observer is part of the universe. It is not possible for a logical statement to be both true and false, simultaneously. His premise is that free will is only apparent in the first person perspective. However, this is part of the conclusion. This is a continuation of the circular reasoning that PRO has presented throughout the debate. FREE WILL PRO changes his definition of free will in the final round, stating: " Just because an outcome is set, that [doesn"t] mean that there will be no rational thought, decision making and an ultimate choice to come to the final decision. It simply means that the rational thought, decision making and ultimate choice were bound to happen." Interestingly enough, he adopts my definition of free will. MY ARGUMENT FOR COMPATABILISTIC FREE WILL (From Round 1): "Free will only requires that we are the agent that acts and that no other agent acts on our behalf. In other words, it is not important that we have but one choice but that we make the choice ourselves. The freedom to act affirms our free will, not the freedom to choose. Therefore, determinism does not prevent free will at all." MY ARGUMENT FOR PRO"S CONTRADICTION OF FREE WILL (From Round 2): The resolution is a sailing ship that has three holes in the hull and PRO only has two plugs. "Herein lies the contraction of free will in PRO"s resolution. If we hold premise 1 true, we have a deterministic universe, then we can also accept premise 2. Premise 2 being that the observed do not have free will according to PRO"s incompatiblistic form of free will. However, since the observed and observer both reside in the same deterministic universe, we must strike down premise 3 and, as such, the resolution falls. Likewise, if PRO were to adopt the compatible form of free will, then in accepting the deterministic universe premise we would have to strike down premise 2 as the observed would now have free will. Either way, the resolution falls." Similarly, if PRO wants to plug both holes attributed to free will he has to contradict his first premise. He attempts to do this in the final round by stating, "actions are not determined in your own perspective", or " I am part of the universe and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true." There is no deception, on my part, concerning the definition of free will. I have provided a source for both free will according to compatibilism and incompatibilism ([4] and [8]). On the contrary, PRO has not provided any sources for his version of free will, that I can determine anyway. PRO has tried to offer both definitions simultaneously, even though they contradict each other, in order to force his resolution to be logical. CLOSING STATEMENTS Although PRO only needs to present a rational resolution, we cannot accept his arguments as rational. They have been plagued by inconsistencies and circular logic. His premises are contradictory and do not support a rational resolution. We are obliged by logic to reject PRO"s resolution. I"d like to thank the judges in advance for a fair vote. I"d like to also thank PRO for completing the debate. I look forward to future debates and I wish you good luck.