Free will probably exists in humans.

To add to his definition of free will, I'd like to observe that free will must also mean free thought, because thinking is indeed an action. Actions need not be physical. Additionally, when he says: "To define further, this means that the choice of this rational agent (in this case a human) is not being influenced by any force, and is acting on its own." Observe that this is a ridiculous assumption, because it sets an unreachable burden by the Pro. Obviously some things influence our decision to a certain extent (i.e. we ride a bike because we are bored.) and so influence is not sufficient reason to negate. However, to redefine this sentence you can simply say: "Free will means that the ULTIMATE DECISION comes down the rational actor and is not WHOLLY determined by external conditions." This sets a fair grounds for the debate. "Since my opponent has the burden of proof..." - Burden of proof does not fall wholly to the Pro. Two reasons support this: - When being a skeptic of the existence of a tangible item, we can assume that that which is not proven does not exist, insofar as we have limited a limited sphere of our perception of matter, and there is a definite line between existence and nonexistence (i.e. physical manifestation). When dealing with abstract objects, though, there is no brightline between existence and nonexistence, and our perception is infinite - so while we don't assume everything to exist, there becomes an equal burden on both sides, unless we find some tangible impact to existence / nonexistence, or logic dictates otherwise. - The NEG provides a more far-retched / unreasonable reality (humans are automatons who have no purpose for life other than to reflect the external whims of nature), Occam's Razor demonstrates that the burden of proof rests on the one proposing a more ridiculous assumption. So there's some reasonable parameters for the debate, I assume my opponent is going to use determinism etc, so most of the debate will be counterargument. 1) Twins. I start my argument with a quote, by Ronald S. Wilson, Anne M. Brown and Adam P. Matheny, Jr.who conducted a study (Emergence and Persistence of Behavioral Differences in Twins) which concluded: "The data from this study indicate that a wide range of within-pair behavioral differences are readily identified by the mothers of twins. Prominent among them is temper frequency, which stands out as a discriminating marker for individual differences from infancy through 6 years." and "When the genetic factor is held constant it will diminish but not abolish the singular features that characterize each twin." Essentially, twins offer the only real analysis for a determinist argument, insofar as they remove genetics from the equation. If we eliminate this genetic factor, then we look to social conditions that may have an influence. But when those social conditions are ALSO controlled for, it lends credibility to the assumption that humans are inherently different, and choose their personality. Even in infancy, before babies can comprehend surroundings or communicate - when they are their very youngest - they have individual differences, the most prominent difference is temper which the environment does not conclusively have an impact on. 2) Necessary assumption in order to negate. - The negative MUST assume, in order for his side to be legitimate, that there is genetic basis for thought. - Observe that psychologists, geneticists, biologists, neurologists, sociologists etc - have not linked WHAT we think about, or HOW we value things to any genetic background. It is the FIRST burden of the negative to prove conclusively that individuals think about specific things for predetermined reasons. If he cannot prove this, then we would automatically affirm. Moreover, social factors do not account for inherent differences between twins temperament, likes / dislikes etc (as I show in point one.) So basically: 1) When genetics and social environment is controlled for, individuals still act differently. 2) There is no genetic foundation for thought, and there is also no provable, or existent, source that shows society being a sufficient explanation for what we think about, and what we like.