The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

As he is new to this site I will cut him some slack, but two things: Firstly, If you do not define your terms in your introduction and your opponent provides them in acceptance, it is generally bad form to dismiss a perfectly acceptable definition from a reputable source in favor of your own. And secondly, you are allowed to limit the word count of arguments in the creation of the debate, but beyond that, requesting an opponent 'to keep [their] response to a manageable size,' can be perceived as rude by some. It is my prerogative to determine exactly how much space I need within the given limit. I'd request my opponent stop providing definitions and rules in opening arguments after acceptance and to simply adhere to the guidelines presented in introduction upon which my acceptance was contingent. Free Will: Opening: I will be arguing that at least in a single instance there exists free will. I will not be arguing against the obvious existence of reactions, instinct, intrinsic nature, habit, environmental factors, and determinably limited options. However, I do suggest that there is at least one instance of free will that can be encountered in existence. And as my opponent purports that "free will does not exist," that is all I have to do. Argument for Free Will Using Worldview Axioms A worldview axiom forms the building blocks of your belief system. Axioms are all subject to scrutiny as they are either a priori or based in intrinsic assertion. One's ability to change axioms (a theist becoming an atheist or an atheist becoming a theist,) shows that one does have the ability to determine between choices without any outward influences. As worldview axioms cannot be proven or refuted, are not based on other beliefs and are the founding block of all beliefs, they are not subject to intellectual determinism. And since axioms are of the a priori nature they are not contingent upon environmental factors. Thus, switching your belief in one axiom over another is due to free will. Argument for Free Will From My Opponent's Definition: “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. " You have a tray of candies in front of you. They are all identical and all rotating on a circular table. You are told to pick a candy. You reach down and 'choose' one. This mind game meets all the criteria of the above definition. Thus, through my opponent's definition, free will exists. The Minimal Free Will Thesis: (. http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com...) "1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (premise)2. Whatever should be done can be done. (premise)3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. (premise)4. I believe MFT [i. e. , "at least some of the time, someone has more than one course of action that he can perform"]. (premise)5. With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 1,2)6. If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 3,5)7. If determinism is true, then MFT is true. (from 6,4)8. MFT is true. (from 7)" Machan Proofs of Free Will (. http://rebirthofreason.com...) If we disregard free will then we must also disregard the idea of independent, objective knowledge: "Those in the sciences, for example, who insist that unprejudiced, unbiased findings trump prejudiced and biased ones implicitly accept that free will is real because only if our judgments can be free, can they be unbiased, independent, objective. " Human individualism regarding culture, practice, institution, belief and philosophy also must be accounted for. The sheer uniqueness and vast diversity in these fields implies an existence of freedom of choice rather than the belief that all humans are compelled by their environment or hard-wiring. (Ie. Twins who have the same genetic code and upbringing and environment and nature can have two very separate personalities and two very separate moral compasses. ) How about the argument that much of what people do can be predicted? Doesn't that suggest determinism? (Key word 'much. ') No. Human beings are subject to nature, nurture, environment and other factors. If you light a fire under someone's hand, you can predict that they'll move their hand. If you tell a lie about someone, you can predict that they will be upset. While this is limiting in one sense, it is defining in another. Free Will Theorem: (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) The proof of the theorem relies on three axioms, which Conway and Kochen call "fin", "spin", and "twin". The spin and twin axioms can be verified experimentally. Fin: There is a maximum speed for propagation of information (not necessarily the speed of light). This assumption rests upon causality. Spin: The squared spin component of certain elementary particles of spin one, taken in three orthogonal directions, will be a permutation of (1,1,0). Twin: It is possible to "entangle" two elementary particles, and separate them by a significant distance, so that they have the same squared spin results if measured in parallel directions. This is a consequence of (but more limited than) quantum entanglement. "The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements. " Let me conclude by saying that free will is a multi-faceted, metaphysical concept that needs only be proven on a single tier of interpretation for Con to have fulfilled his light BOP. I have done this and look forward to hearing Pro's rebuttals.