It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

It seems the under-lying flaw of logic I find his arguments running into, is that his mindset seems to be that having pre-existing reasons is essentially the equal to that of a pre-determined fate. Libertarianism doesn't seek to prove that the way a person is raised, or their biology doesn't at all attribute to the choices and actions they make. We humans are animals, and operate on instincts the same as any species does. That does not mean we are bound to a set of choices, however. My opponent starts his intro off using the defense lawyers argue that pre-existing conditions effect the choices of the individuals they are defending. First of all, the word of a lawyer with an obvious goal to win there case, is not an objective measure of proof that the person they are protecting had no other choice than to act the way they did. The requirements for free will state that for an action to truly be free, there must be alternate possibilities, and in the case of criminal activity, there must certainly be alternate possibilities. Many psychopaths can change behaviors to fit into a society themselves despite biological probings. A great example being James Fallon, author of "The psychopath inside: a Neuroscientists personal journey into the dark side of the brain". In an interview by article writer Judith Ohikuare, he is asked several questions about how life is for him, and how his behavior effects the people around him. In general he has a hard time connecting to people close to him, often times not being able to give the same love back that is given to him. Being aware of his psychopathy, James is still able to make decisions and choices that go against his chronic narcissistic tendencies. "So what I do, in this situation, is think: How do I treat the people in my life as if I'm their son, or their brother, or their husband? It's about going the extra mile for them so that they know I know this is the right thing to do. I know when the situation comes up, but my gut instinct is to do something selfish. Instead, I slow down and try to think about it. It's like dumb behavioral modification; there’s no finesse to this, but I said, well, why does there have to be finesse? I’m trying to treat it as a straightaway thing, when the situation comes up, to realize there’s a chance that I might be wrong, or reacting in a poor way, or without any sort of love—like a human. " (1)The same way that James Fallon has freedom over the choices he makes, so do criminals with violent tendencies, or even millionaires to expand their own collective fortune like Donald Trump. I re-iterate the quote from Ben Best "Gravity limits the conditions under which a person can fly, but it does not prevent flying". R1) An Appeal To RationalismThis argument seems to be in contrast with the one of the basic freedom requirements, the "Chance Exists" requirement. My opponent attempts to debunk "randomization" through the example of the swinging pendulum. While my opponent is accurate that the use of science and physics may predict the outcome of dice and the movement and trajectory, to say that randomness doesn't exist because of these calculated measures, is not an effective argument. Even in my opponents example of the man with in the room, he can only say that theoretically his choices can be determined. The example is in-sufficient when the free-thinking agent cannot be monitored in conjunction with reality. Quantum indeterminacy however, is proof that randomness does in fact exist. Quantum mechanics flatly contradicts Con's conception of the universe by demonstrating that sub-atomic particles are NOT subject to predetermined fates. Particle movements have been revealed to be largely indeterministic & random, and the closest physicists have come to quantifying them is calculating probability distributions. (2) While nature can be predicted, it's expected result is not always accurate. That's not to say it can't be predicted more accurately through advancement in technology, just that Determinism doesn't have undeniable proof for every action. In fact, many determinist's often get away with making claims that every action that effects another actor, means that the movement of the actor was pre-determined (for example, Con pointing out that people are like billiard balls). Simply having interacted with another individual is not proof that what happens next for that individual had to have happened, there is simply no definitive proof that cause and effect = determinism. R2) An Appeal to ReligionNot having a belief in theism myself, I find it odd that the Con world believes in determinism in the same spectrum as theism. Assuming the bible isn't just made up stories and that all the ludicrous happenings described therein are true, even then it doesn't erase human freedom of choice. When talking about Jesus's predictions of Peter's actions, (let's assume that this event happened in a scientifically objective way that was understood by all as fact) is it not impossible for someone to guess accurately someone's choices based on your personal knowledge of the individual? Especially one with the ability to speak to God and receive insight from a higher power. I can probably predict accurately that if I asked Yvonne Strahovski out to dinner with me 3 times, she would probably tell me "No" all three times. Probability and accurate predictions are not fatalism, as any hardened gambler could probably vouch for. Going further on this, even inciting the existence of God brings up another debate very relevant to Fatalism, through the use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If the Universe has a cause which brought forth a god, there had to be a beginning reason for the creating of a God. A whole realm of questions arises from this if we are to further continue the argument that every action is associated with a reason. What reason did the Universe create a God, and from where did this reason become? It's impossible to analyze a deterministic world while simultaneously sporting a theistic worldview. "The first argument states that an actual infinite cannot exist. A part of an infinite set is equal to the whole of the infinite set, because both the part and the whole are infinite. Imagine for example an infinite collection of red and black balls. The number of red balls in this set is equal to the total number of all balls in the set, because both are infinite. The same holds for the number of black balls in the collection. Thus, the number of red balls equals the number of black balls equals the sum of all red and black balls. Obviously, the idea of an actual infinite collection leads to absurdities. This is also true for a set of historical events: it can be derived that the occurrence of a truly infinite set of events happening before a certain moment in time is impossible. " (3)R3) Deconstructing a ChoiceMy opponent illustrates an example of a simple choice between choosing ice-cream and cake, and claims that the choice is comprised of scientific/mathematical equations. Con shows that variables can effect choices, and vaguely implies that by choosing an altruistic path, your are not exercising free will. Yet he doesn't make it clear "why". If your biological desires would prefer the cake over the ice-cream, to be willing to choose against your own will, is exactly the kind of evidence that is needed to prove Determinism is a constant. I can cross apply the psychopath example here as well. To counter my opponents example with one of my own, I will demonstrate how his example proves determinism wrong by quoting Steve Murphy from the hit Netflix original "Narcos". Back then [1970's], we were just finding out about the effects of cocaine on the human brain. We didn't know much, but we knew it was some pretty powerful [expletive]. Cocaine hijacks the pleasure centers in the brain. A rat will choose cocaine over food and water. It would choose cocaine over sleep, over sex. .. over life itself. The human brain isn't quite the same as a rodent's. .. (4)That my opponent agrees that a human can choose the altruistic rational option (by allowing his sister to have the cake despite his preference for it) he himself is showing us that Free Will exists. While we are animals just like a Rat, we have Alternative Possibilities (Another freedom requirement) that we can choose for any reason. The Rat operates deterministically, while a free thinking agent can exercise free will. I thank my opponent for a fantastic round, and wish him luck in further rounds. I look forward to the remainder of this intellectually stimulating debate. 1. . https://www.theatlantic.com...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...4. . http://www.imdb.com...