Free-will most likely does not exist (Spinkos philosophy tourney 1st round)

Now on to the debate. * C.1 all acts are causally determined or random leaving no room for free-will 1st off all acts are not always random, for example if I sign up for the Marine Corps and go to Paris Island that act isn’t random. When it comes to the brain and externally doing things on their own: if I stand at attention for the Veterans Day Ceremony and I lock my knees, then I will start to see flashes of colors and my ears will pop and seconds later I will faint falling to the ground. This I will have no control over unless I didn’t lock my knees in the first place. Also in free-will lets you determine things in like if you go to a doctor and you’re in pain you would tell the doctor, “I’m in pain,” he would say, “Where’s your pain. ” “In my knee. ” As you see here there is free will by the fact of knowledge and control in one’s life in painful situations. You also know when you didn’t do something, “*Bleep* I forgot to take the trash to the curb and its trash day. ” So we know that we as humans have free-will and are free. As the once great philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, “Ought implies can. ” Also for more proof that we have free-will is that human’s get new idea’s every day we think, “I think therefore I am. ” –Rene Descartes. . http://mol.redbarn.org.... To continue responding to my opponent’s random acts argument is that humans have certain instincts: hunt, sex, and survive. These things are what drive human beings, as the example I explained earlier is an act of survival. Sex feels good, because it’s the human’s incentive to reproduce. Hunting links to survival, we eat to live. For his preference argument, we do this every day, for example I’m a Conservative and I’m a Conservative because I’m Roman Catholic and I let that rule my life, because I’m religious. At the grocery store many people have likes and dislikes, personally I don’t like the Kroger brand, I prefer Taco Bell vs. Taco Ticco, and I like Chocolate vs. White Milk. C.2 Free-will is an incoherent concept My opponent contradicts himself here, he defines free-will in round 1, but the next round he states that it has no definition. I ask myself why did I vote Santorum, I answered it was out of my interest or human interest. Things could be random except as I defended in C.1 all acts human do are of human interest or human nature. C.3 ‘Choices’ are shown to be made before the agent is conscious of them “Science has discovered nothing that contradicts free will. To deny free will’s existence is to deny that our conscious, psychological deliberations—Should I ask my girlfriend to marry me? Should I major in engineering or art? —influence our actions. Such a conclusion flies in the face of common sense. Of course, sometimes we deliberate insincerely, toward a foregone conclusion, or we fail to act upon our resolution. But not always. Sometimes we consciously choose to do something and we do it. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but it often does. ” And “We also need the concept of free will, much more than we need the concept of God. Our faith in free will has social value. It provides us with the metaphysical justification for ethics and morality. It forces us to take responsibility for ourselves rather than consign our fate to our genes or God. Free will works better than any other single criterion for gauging the vitality of a life, or a society. Choices, freely made, are what make life meaningful. ” . http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... As John Horgan shows that free-will must exsist to show that we have certain instincs as humans that we must and do fallow (quotes are both from link). . http://www.youtube.com...;(Video is just for fun. )