The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

Well firstly, in my opponent's rebuttal he drops half my arguments. So I extend them all. But I find that they'll be unnecessary in the end as Pro has decided to fight an unwinnable battle by the mere definition he's provided. (And also, I was the one who wrote the word 'candy.' I spelt 'candy' correctly. My opponent was the one who spelt it 'candle.' And he has a host of misspellings, so please ignore his confounding jibe about misspellings.) My opponent is attempting to engage in 'semantics' over what the word 'choice' means. He is trying to argue 'morally,' or 'intrinsic value' to decisions and is assuming that I am arguing from that standpoint myself. I reject both notions. A choice is simply a single route from a set of options. Which is in agreement with my opponent's definition of free will. It simply means that not all of human kind will react in the exact same way to a single thing. It could be physical factors. It could be emotional, environmental, genetic, nurture etc... In the end all these things make up you. And you make the choice. By my opponent's standpoint, you are no more than tissue and firing electrons. I am arguing nothing different. But your brain isn't an external factor. In a purely physical world, which my opponent presupposes, you can only have matter and that which effects it. So what exactly is my opponent defining 'free will' as? Some ethereal concept of conscience? Or metaphysical, out-of-body force? If he is he is breaking his own rule about 'religions.' I am adhering to a strictly 'physical world' definition of the term. Simply put: with free will you have different choices. You have alternatives and you, (your experiences, your brain, yourself) makes a specific choice. It's that simple. It may be predictable, it may be predetermined as my opponent asserts, but it is still your choice. You have decided to choose the second candy from the rotating tray instead of the third, fourth, fifth or first. That was a choice from a list of alternatives. BOP fulfilled. 1. Neurology: Rebuttal: My opponent misses the mark with this argument if he suggests that everyone (Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler for instance) would react the same way in the same situation if all the factors were identical. The brain explains the process by which we arrive at our decisions, but my opponent's description of it doesn't account for the character doing the deciding. The person behind the decision determines what choice will be taken. Example: Imagine a position of power where a decree is to be issued that is identical in both situations. Adolf Hitler in a position of power would choose genocide over the Jews. Mother Theresa would choose compassion. The definition my opponent provided is clear "“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." We have two rational agents who choose from various alternatives. (We can tell there are alternatives because given the same situation, two different results occurred.) Quantum Mechanically: "If something can be predicted that means that it cannot choose a course of action," My opponent makes this bold statement, but unfortunately is trying to redefine the word 'choose' to suit his theory. If you have five marbles and are going to select one, my opponent can argue that it can be predicted which marble you choose, this may be true. But look at the definition again: we have a rational agent, a choice, and alternatives. Just because the choice is predictable, doesn't mean it isn't a choice. Philosophically: My opponent is one again missing the mark by his own definition. Free will isn't something ethereal or an out-of-body action. It is perfectly contingent upon genetics, neurology, environment, nurture, nature etc... But that doesn't mean it isn't free will. By my opponent's own definition, in any given scenario: we have a rational agent, we have alternatives and we finally have a choice. Just because it is predictable, or due to nature, doesn't make it any less of a choice. You see, what my opponent is trying to do is first reject anything 'religious' as he calls it. This includes conscience, spirit, will of god, or any other concept that can be thought of. And then my opponent proceeds to define free will from a perfectly 'scientific' standpoint, but he tries to debate me as if I were arguing for the aforementioned 'religious' definition of free will. I am not. I believe choices are contingent upon yourself. But who you are is a summation of the factors above from a scientists perspective. Let's ignore the semantics and just focus on the 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." In a scenario with choosing candies from a rotating dish: ask yourself: do you have a rational agent (yes) since there are five candies do you have various alternatives (yes) and once you pick up that candy have you chosen a course of action? (yes) We have fulfilled the obligation of free will. It isn't ethereal. It doesn't require a god. It is a term coined to describe decision-making based in rational agents. BOP fulfilled. Note: Pro states: I would like to remind con that spelling is important. The replacement of the word candle, with the word candy is a significant flaw. I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know why Pro decided to spell 'candy' or 'candies' as 'candles.'