There is no free will.

Closing remarks: A) Dismissed of my arguments: Pro misunderstands the randomness that I build up in my case here. I say randomness is necessary for free will. That said, in order to prove free will randomness is necessary. Random event implies ambiguous future. The example shows by Pro is somewhat the guy is ignorant or wrongly informed because he tries to say that a bike is a car. That is semantics. I did not nor did I try to prove that randomness is same as free will. I am saying that it is necessary which means if our future is set then there won"t be any random (unknown) event. I drive to work by car everyday". One day I ride a bike to work"well that is somewhat unusual and unpredictable". Pro is try to straw man my arguments by saying that they are the same I don"t to mean them the same. Pro is trying to straw-man my argument which does not work. B)Definitions of free will: Human have unrestricted choice (free will) which does not include maximal autonomy (Round 2). As so, maximal autonomy is not included. I am trying to clear up the definition of free will by specifying it in this round again. C) What my opponent says about preference, personality traits and some which I have mentioned is being group under maximal autonomy. The free will that a human has does not include those things. I have stated in my previous round. Thus, Pro is attacking straw-man which has no significant effect on the case of free will. My opponent is trying to make his case work by asking why can't we choose our personality traits and what we afraid of. As claimed by Pro if we can choose what we afraid of then we human only have free will. This is a futile effort because they are because of genes in our human body. I want to clarify this because I feel like Pro is attacking what I have mentioned in the restricted area. Which means, his argument attacks free will does not work as what we see. Now I have to come across the points of Pro again. Yes, they can alter our behavior but why we take them. We have free will right. Again, I have stated in my responsibility case which says if something we can CONTROL and THINK. Then, we have free will over it. As shown by me in the previous round. If free will is not possible, then our actions are not rational. Pro still cannot prove the actions of us,humans, to be irrational and yet e secretly considers them as rational. Pro also drops the most important argument by me that is ought implies can by Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand's argument to think or not to think. I have proven again that we human are the most complex organism in the world and yet we are not dependent. have claimed in my third round that we human have immaterial mind which does not follow the law of nature. Also, in my third round that we think again what will happen in the future. And yet, we can generate possible circumstances which is ambiguous. What Pro's drops: 1) Our most influencing philosopher which introduces some ground breaking's work that is Immanuel Kant. 2) Ayn's Rand. i would like to ask the readers to read some books by Alvin Plantinga to understand how do we have free will stands. I would like to note that we do have free will and just that we are not aware of it. Thank you.