Expert's Debate competition R1: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not

I see my opponent has done a splendid job of defining 'free will' as magic and 'determinism' as science. In light of said definitions I would like to urge the voters to be very cautious with this debate. A quick glossing of the 'free will' wikipedia article will reveal twenty or more disparate definitions of free will[1]. In fact, the inability to rationalize free will has been, to date, mainly an issue of definitions. As such, I suggest that this debate be evaluated primarily for coherence of argument; our definitional disagreements are inevitable. A Small Game of LogicIf it be that humanity is just a collection of well greased machines then I will be rectifying this debate in short order. I challenge my opponent to a match of chess! A match to be conducted while this debate proceeds. In a world of purely deterministic rulings it would be ideal to grant credence to the most well greased machine. For the voters who believe that determinism must exist my opponent and I will duke out our respective intelligent capacities on the field of chess. If I win said game a prerequisite for voting against me will necessitate that each voter also challenge me to a game of chess! If I beat both my opponent and you, the voter, then in all likelihood I am the best machine among the three. My arguments will therefore be more important 'causes' for voting than the arguments from my esteemed opponent. At it's core my opponent suggests that our logical processes are simple revolutions of proverbial cogs. If that be the case then you, my voters, have no reason to prefer your 'cogs' over mine or those of my opponent. If you believe in determinism, then this is the best way to rectify this debate. =)And The Many Flaws that Determinism EncounteredLuckily Con has already done much of the groundwork for my argumentation. He already elucidated some small amount of quantum mechanics. I'll clarify and say that quantum effects fall into probability distributions, and are therefore not random in nature. However, in either world, determinism is evidently demonstrated as false. Since initial causes can be 'random' (non linear) in nature, there is no way to 'determine' all events. Even the very processes which we use to govern decision making are, on a base level, subject to quantum effects. Thus both the 'causes' and the 'producer of effects' are indeterminate; this renders the 'effects' indeterminate. There are a series of additional philosophical problems which center around hard determinism. Namely Newcomb's paradox, wherein an all knowing predictor could never exist due to it's own determined events[2]. And infinite loops of retrocausality, wherein knowledge of the future would be a causality event in the past [3]. The incoherency of these philosophical concepts necessitates the non-existence of determinism. I'll briefly mention that advances in Chaos Theory suggest the complete inability to predict future realities, even within macroscopic systems. I'll come back to this later if my opponent would like to argue determinism. Causality, The Prerequisite for Free Will?Technically speaking my opponent probably shouldn't be able to win a debate opposing free will without combating a specific definition of free will. His current proof is tantamount to defining free will as a sky hook (magical non-caused event) followed by the statement, "sky hooks don't exist." I will advocate and defend the two-stage model of free will. If necessary I'll prove genetic meta-decision making processes, though it doesn't appear that this is necessary as of yet. I will define the 'Actor' of free will as the conscious mind. That is, the part of the human brain capable of self reference [4]. The key question to this debate is going to be as follows, "where does free will arise?" I'm sure there is one answer that everyone reading can agree on: free will cannot exist if nothing exists. In fact, the very notion of free will relies on things existing, because free will relies on reacting to situations, events, objects,and concepts. Without an initial happening there can never be a crucial junction in which to make a decision. Thus, free will relies on causality. In fact, free will is the implementation of causality. The Two-Stage Model of Free WillThe two stage model of free will relies on my opponents conceptions of causality and quantum events. It is as follows.Stage 1: In stage 1 an event occurs. Occasionally the conscious mind has time to consider this event, and it will begin to formulate a series of possible effects (actions) to implement. However, since a base of neurophysics owes it's existence to quantum effects, many of these ideas will be generated, in part, as a probabilistic distribution. The greater the temporal duration of this process, the greater the number of possibilities likely to be generated. Stage 2: The stage1 is terminated through one of three pathways. First, it is possible that a suitable effect to implement cannot be determined in the allotted time. Thus nothing would be implemented. Second, it's possible that a satisfactory effect arises and thus is selected over unsatisfactory effects. And third, it's possible that multiple satisfactory effects arise, given enough time, and the most ideal is then selected. You may be wondering, "how does this model combat the points made in Con Rnd 2?" There are a few key answers to this question:1. Every definition of free will must entail an actor that exists on the macroscopic level. If you define the entire universe purely in terms of atoms then there exists no way to question free will. "Does XXXXX have free will?", means nothing in a world completely defined by atoms. This is where two fallacies come into play. First my opponent displays the fallacy of composition. He suggests that all macroscopic entities must maintain purely the properties of their microscopic components. This is obviously fallacious, consider the analogy of the airplane. Since the airplane can fly (as a whole) does this mean that the tray table (a component) can independently fly? Obviously not. Macroscopic entities (as a whole) are not constrained to the properties of the microscopic world (the components). Secondarily, my opponent relies on a false dichotomy which is constructed with the first dichotomy as a premise. On a microscopic level either things must be determined or not. Thus he suggests that a lack of macroscopic determinism would necessitate a lack of microscopic determinism. However, I have already demonstrated that component interplay can give arise to properties beyond the components themselves. Thus, free will is only a relevant topic for the macroscopic universe; it cannot be disproven by the microscopic universe. In that light a non-reduced actor is necessary. The conscious mind is the suitable actor because of its ability to self appraise. In this way the conscious mind can consider its own probabilistic courses as initial causes and then build abstractions that don't exist within reality. 2. The two-stage model is the synthesis of the probabilistic distribution of quantum effects and Con's causality. Consider the ramifications. In a world where effects are generated via probability, determinism is impossible. The same person placed in the same exact same situation for a second time would likely implement a different effect. That person's conscious mind would be grappling with a different set of possible effects, and through that they would potentially choose a different course of action. My opponent will argue that, given the generated effects, the person would only ever choose one option. My question will then be simple, "how is that not free will?" The conscious mind obviously contains personalities and predispositions. But those realities still have to determine the best decision based on the probabilistically generated effects. Thus the interplay between stage 1 and stage 2 produces a unique free will.