Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

My opponent swings and misses. My opponent fails in this debate, for he is the first person to mention God, I never said God would have total control over humans. This debates category is under society, and not everyone believes in God so your argument is moot. Why does it matter so much to bluesteel with what will be in total control, yes, I said what not who. With everyone falling into compliance with the principles, I do not have to mention what is in control for it does not matter when everyone is in compliance to the principles. Thoughts are first, control follows. Example: I want to sleep in, (thoughts, my well being) but I am forced out of the bed to comply with other the other principles since in the end I respect the well being of others than my own. 1) God does not exist: Where did this argument come from? I never mentioned God in this debate. 2) Even if he does, he is definitely not benevolent. *God does not exist* -never said he did. Proof 1: My opponent gave up trying to prove that total control is wrong, he is now trying to prove why total control is impossible. Nobody said anything about possible or impossible, this debate is circumstantial. I'm guessing this is how most debates work on debate.org; most of these debates are "what if..." debates. My opponent keeps on giving me different BOP's, this one he just gave me, I'm do not need to fulfill for my opponent thinks that I'm arguing for God. As I said earlier this round, with everyone falling into compliance with the principles, I do not have to mention what is in control for it does not matter when everyone is in compliance to the principles. Thoughts are first, control follows. *God is not benevolent* - never said he was. - Well, I guess that we're lucky that we do not live in a country ruled entirely on the bible. Some rules are controversially bible based, not all. *Personal ethics* There is no person that has total control. Anarchy: Libertarianism is not anarchy. Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty , especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Libertarianism includes a diverse range of philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state , and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org... Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society , or anarchy .[1][2] It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations.[ http://en.wikipedia.org... "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. - Murray Rothbard http://en.wikipedia.org... Unfortunately, it is proven that capitalism needs government. Rothbard is a Libertarian, not an anarchist, even he had the common sense not to go full anarchist. For in a world of free will, everyone does what one wants to do. Social Contract Theory: The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law . http://en.wikipedia.org... Excellent Hobbes reference bluesteel, but Hobbes believed that we would eventually give our power to this Leviathan only after we lived in anarchy. As you see, in a world of free will, everything falls apart for everyone does what one wants to do. Therefore, even Hobbes thinks anarchy would not work. Under a world of free will, anarchy is not logically possible. Anarchy is said to be man’s last destination, according to Marx, but in a world ruled by free will, this is not possible. Total Control: My opponent believes that total control is only done at the controller’s will. This is wrong for some things that one wants to do, they can be forced to do it. Example: If I wanted to eat steak, total control could force me to eat steak. I am still being forced to do something. Driving car analogy: Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created. My analogy to driving the car stands. Somalia Like I said earlier, the dictator was a human, the human dictator did not rule in compliance to the universal principles so this reference should be discarded. Derrida My last statement still stands, why should humans be worried about getting credit for doing what they are supposed to do? Mindless drones Total Control does not force one to think, but it forces our actions in compliance to the principles, humans have made rules for them to follow, but we do not always follow these rules. We want to follow these rules for we made them, so what better way than total control. Karl Marx… Was an atheist, so I doubt that he would even believe there was a God anyway. Another thing, my opponent still thinks that total control forces one to do what they do not want to do. Total control can force one to do what they want to do as well. Existentialism I did answer his statement about life with meaning. Who cares about credit for doing the right thing? One should do the right thing because it is what one is supposed to do not because one gets rewarded for it. The meaning of life is not being rewarded for doing what one is supposed to do.