Free will exists.

==================== Source Model vs. Leeway Model ==================== "My opponent asserts that computers do not have moral agency. Although they typically do not, they very well could. They could be programmed to recognize moral rightness, in which case, by my opponent's definition, they would then have free will." ---->...and once they do, then they have free will. I don't see the point of this claim - after all, human beings are simply very complicated biological "machines" (at the least, you have failed to show otherwise). What is to say artificial entities can't have free will? "Furthermore, my opponent's definition of free will is flawed. He has offered an interesting definition, but has failed to explain why his definition is an adequate challenge to mine." ----> UNTRUE. If you clearly read my argument, then you will see that the process I have gone through for advocating my definition is to show that 1. moral responsibility is necessary and sufficient for free will, 2. that moral responsibility exists, and finally that regulative control is more fundamental than guidance control. I have done all of these requirements - whether or not they were successful doesn't matter because you DON'T EVEN REFUTE THEM. "...Unless he can do so, I win this debate..." ----> Read one of my later points on why the burden of proof is equal for both debaters. "Unfortunately, we are now in the final round, so for my opponent to provide new arguments at this point is discourteous." ----> I won't be bringing up any new points about my definition of free will, since they are already here. However, I will give an argument for my reasoning on BoP. Why am I justified? Because you brought up the point as an accusation against me - the fact that you failed to defend such reasoning is irrelevant to my responsibility. =================== The Importance of Moral Responsibility =================== "My opponent asserts that moral responsibility is linked to free will; and yet he challenges my definition. He is attempting to link moral responsibility to an indeterminately-defined entity." ----> No, I linked it to my definition. This is how I am challenging your definition - by showing yours is lacking while mine is valid. I have SUPPORTED my defense of regulative control while you haven't supported guidance control. ==================== Defense of the link between moral responsibility and free will ==================== "Under the merit-based view, my opponent's definition of free will is supported." ----> Only the link between free will and moral responsibility "This is the most beneficial perspective, as it is the most productive and therefore should be accepted over the merit-based view." ----> Is this really an argument? It's most "beneficial" and "productive"? These vague and broad terms have yet to be explained (for example, what does it mean for a perspective on moral responsibility to be "beneficial"?). It seems like my opponent is simply trying to find a random reason to justify his position. "My opponent's first premise is a non sequitur." ----> In no way did I commit a logical fallacy. You are attacking the validity of my premise's (though not convincingly), not the logical structure of my argument. ================= New Dispositionalism ================= "Both regulative control and guidance control are inferior systems. See my definition in round one." ----> YOUR DEFINITION IN ROUND ONE IS GUIDANCE CONTROL. I'VE CLEARLY POINTED THIS OUT. "New dispositionalism, as well as classical compatibilism, both rely upon inadequate definitions. As I provided definitions in round one, my opponent must explain why his definitions are superior." ----> I gave many clear reasons. I showed the existence of moral responsibility, demonstrated the connection between moral responsibility and free will, and then finalized by explaining how regulative control is more fundamental and thus important than guidance control. "My definition of free will is concise and intuitive. No link to moral responsibility is necessary. It is possible that moral responsibility exists or does not exist under my definition, but it is really not relevant. What is relevant is that my opponent has not refuted my proof." ----> First, why does it matter if your definition is concise and intuitive? Many explanations can seem concise and intuitive (e.g. God made the universe), but that doesn't make them correct. Why is moral responsibility not necessary for free will? Does this mean when a computer makes an error, it should be morally responsible? Should animals be morally responsible? On the other hand, if someone committed a crime with his free will would he not be morally responsible? ==================== Burden of Proof ==================== My opponent has at least one implicitly implied that the BoP is on me (for example, saying that because I failed to show my definition if better, his automatically is). This is an incredibly erred view of the BoP, and I'm going to dispel it here by listing out the possible reasons: 1. If my opponent believes that where the BoP falls on is dependent on being PRO or CON, then this is false because the positions PRO and CON are simply words of little significance. By that, I mean being PRO on supporting gay marriage and CON on banning gay marriage is identical - there should be no advantage or loss for being on or the other. In other words, the position of being "PRO" or "CON" is arbitrary - as you can see, my opponent simply rewords the resolution and makes himself CON. Why should this simple label give his position any more due credit than mine? 2. If my opponent believes that where the BoP falls on is dependent on being the instigator or not, then this is faulty reason because 1. he is the instigator after all (he started the debate), but more importantly 2. this is a debate. The BoP would only matter when dealing with situations such as the court. When the prosecutor is making the positive claim that person X committed murder, it is the prosecutors burden to fulfill this claim - in this case, it is the instigator's burden. However, this is only because person X can't simply decide to not have the trial go on, UNLIKE A DEBATE. If you are called to court, no matter if you're guilty or not, you can't withdraw without clearing your name - in other words, it's many times non-consensual. On the other hand, a debate is fully consensual; you can choose whether or not you want to debate someone. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent hasn't done much to further his case in his last round. He is almost devoid of any positive arguments (except one really weak one concerning moral responsibility), and accuses my definition of being unsupported. This is bogus, I supported it with ideas from Strawson's reactive attitudes, merit-based views, etc. Whether or not they have succeeded is irrelevant, since my opponent has failed to give an adequate response to them. Thanks for the debate - it was enlightening.