The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

Usually it entails some sort of defense of previously made points, rebuttal, and an attack on the extended arguments he dropped in the previous round. But I suppose one could equate summary with conclusion as well. Firstly in regards to his final points: 1. Scientifically and philosophically the difference between let's say a rock anda person is huge, not slight as my opponent purports. 2. Performing an action is part of making a choice. My opponent's biggest flaw is in continually trying to redefine the word 'choice. ' Here is the definition for all who are interested: choice/CHois/ (. http://www.google.com...) An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. In all the scenarios presented, there are two or more possibilities. (Seven candies to choose from. Five marbles to choose from. ) Not two or more selections, but two or more possibilities. THAT is a choice. 3. I agree, but my opponent seems to be trying to use something outside of nature to define 'free will. ' By purporting that it something more than simply a choice from a list of alternatives by a rational agent. That is HIS definition of free will that we agreed upon. All the criteria are fulfilled by anyone (rational agent) approaching a tray of candies to pick from (alternatives) and reaching down to choose one (An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities. ) That's it. BOP fulfilled. 4. I agree. I am not suggesting that the human brain is anything more. My opponent seems to be suggesting this. Once again he is trying to say I'm defining free will as metaphysical. I reject this notion. I am simply fulfilling the definition of free will through the physical realm. Rational Agent. Alternatives. Choice. 5. I didn't need to prove any such thing. Once again my opponent is trying to redefine the word 'choice. ' Choices are meant to be in congruence with one's personality, nature, and who they are. "Who you are' can be defined as something purely physical and that doesn't change anything. If you are considered 'purely physical' then your free will is also 'an effect on the purely physical by the purely physical. ' You are still a rational agent. You are still presented with a list of options or alternatives. And you still make a choice. None of this is rejected by a purely physical world. Once again, BOP fulfilled. 6. Not true. 7. Variety does prove the existence of free will. If everyone chose the exact same thing, then there are no choices. But as there are choices given the fact that people choose from alternatives, it allows for the definition of 'free will' to be fulfilled. This seems elementary logic to me, but I'll lay it out one last time: Free will as defined by my opponent: “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. [1] Let's take a situation with 100 people given an experiment. All 100 people are presented with five pieces of candy that they can choose from. Not all 100 will choose the exact same piece of candy, thus lending us to the conclusion that there are alternatives. (Alternatives, check. ) Humans are by definition rational agents. (Check. ) And a choice is simply the act of making a decision when presented with two or more alternatives. As we have stipulated above, there are five alternatives in this case study. The rational agent (person) chooses from one of the five. Thus fulfilling a purely physical definition of free will. My opponent has a poor grasp on what the definition he provided was. He misunderstands what the word 'choice' means. And he is trying to attribute metaphysical aspects to my argument, which I clearly do not purport. I am simply taking his definition and applying a thought experiment to it. One last time for the sake of repetition: In the case of five marbles on a tray where a group of people are posed the same experiment and they select separate marbles. 1. There are rational agents. (Check) 2. They are making a choice. (check) 3. There are obvious alternatives. (Check. ) This entire debate is contingent on the definition my opponent provided, and then proceeded to ignore. He has an argument for rejecting 'metaphysical' free will. But not physical free will. He fails to uphold his BOP and fails to refute simple logic stemming from an even simpler definition. I have fulfilled my BOP by simply proving that the definition of 'free will' applies to various scenarios. Just because something is predictable, doesn't mean it isn't a product of choice. Just because something is a result of firing neurons doesn't mean it isn't a product of you (In a physical world, your personality is due to those firing neurons. THEY ARE YOU. ) I am not assuming the supernatural, my opponent seems to be. Anyway, this is an easy win for Con. This debate would've been more interesting if we had been allowed to debate from the metaphysical. But my opponent defeated himself through his own definition.