I am the only individual in existence with free will.

Hello, I welcome all viewers and voters and may this be a thought provoking debate. Let’s being… I would first like to start off by responding to Furyan5’s initial statements. In the last round it was posited that free will is an illusion, this is because the universe is predetermined. But what I have to wonder is how exactly this impacts my case, as there was never a direct response to me which discredits any of my actual argument. It seems in fact that this wasn’t really a response to my case but a position of his own case on free will, in general. Without having stated the reasons for which this discredits my argument I must assume it is simply off topic, in essence, Furyan’s remarks don’t indicate the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Thus, while I think Furyan’s ideas are interesting, they don’t negate the resolution. It would be best if in the following rounds we simply refuted the case itself as I thought was agreed about before the debate. In lieu of this, I would simply like to expand upon my argument more. How perspective relates to truth and deriving each perspectives existance As a man walked from the Shanghai market back to his village he began to get weary. Eventually the man had to stop for a break but alas, he was being followed by crooks who wanted to salvage the day’s earnings, the man tried to escape but being in his mid 50’s he wasn’t as spry as the old days. They knocked him over the head and he tumbled to the ground unconscious. He awoke over 5 hours later at 11 pm. “It’s night time! Ive got to get back home and treat my wounds” he exclaimed. As he stumbled back home he would never be aware of multifarious amount of satellites constantly passing over head, day and night. But what did the the satellites see? Up from their nook they clearly observed that the earth was half covered in light, and half in shadow. It was in fact both day and night on earth. Now this is an interesting concept, how can something be and not be? Well, according to the Law of Non-contradiction, nothing can, but we know reality works differently. Now don’t mistake me, the Law of NonC is usually correct, but not always. If someone were to ask me if a table had yellow paint on it, or gum under the table, there would only be one answer. The table could not both have And not have paint/gum on it correct? But what if someone asked you if the individual sitting at the table across the room was a male or a female? As it turns out the Law of NonC doesn’t apply here, as it doesn’t in many circumstances, because as we know a person can indeed be both a male and a female if they are transgender…..The overarching point here is that truth is not 100% black and white and is subject to perspective, DEPENDING ON THE TRUTH IN QUESTION, THAT IS. And free will is one of those loopy, weird truths, just like day and night, which isn’t black and white in its truth value in any given moment. The universe is truth, it simply IS, and it is therefore an entirely factual existence. The universe has no consciousness, nor does it have any sense of time….ect, it is just a thing which exists and nothing more. Consciousness however, is entirely different from the universe (despite that fact that it is made from it). Consciousness exists as its own ‘existence’. What you and I experience and are experiencing at this very moment is a conglomeration impulses, emotions and other physical states, but consciousness itself, as the combo of those physical states which are formed into an experience, is intangible and doesn’t exist as we know it. But we need to remember that the only way we can even understand the entire previous argument is through our consciousness, in order to understand things we have to empathize with them, look at things from their shoes. But how do we empathize with the truth in reality? How do we empathize with the universe, that which has no consciousness? We do something very simple, to account for the disparity in existence between the two, we simply pretend that the universe has a consciousness, that is, that there is a being, a perspective which sees all things as they really, truly and factually are, as we speak through it. We call this the detached perspective, it is the perspective that ‘knows’ it is objectively both day and night simultaneously on the earth. Humans on the other hand live in the first person perspective, we are restricted and limited in our perception of reality. Now, this isn’t to say that a human (1 person perspective) can’t also know that is both day and night, for instance a person on the ISS, but the point was to show, using a familiar scenario, that humans are limited and restricted, while we all can agree, speaking through this made up detached perspective, that even though it is either day or night for US, that objectively it is both day and night. But now there is an issue….If in all of existence there are two separate realities, we need to account for both to achieve the Ultimate truth of the situation. And this is where the omniscient perspective comes into play. For people to be able to make claims about not just one segment of reality, but all of them, we need yet another perspective. So to answer what the omniscient perspective is it will simply be, the perspective of everything. Taking into account all perspecives. Thus, in this perspective for instance we would clearly be able to tell that, while sally thinks pop tarts are terrible, and jonny thinks they are great, that pop tarts are both great and not great, because here we can empathize with both perspectives. “A being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, would smile about man's illusion that he was acting according to his own free will." Albert Einstein .....[On the detached perspective] So here we have covered a few key areas. I have derived each perspective’s basis, origin and use and should be able to more clearly use them in explanations now.Free willFinally, the definition of free will. Free will- The experience of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z...ect) and not being restricted to any one option.What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective. The problem with most people’s argument is that they misunderstand what perspective I am making the statement ‘free will only applies to me’ from. The typical argument is that I have made a truth claim stating that ‘the entire universe is determined’, I am part of the universese and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rdperson detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision, thinking it out and existing in that reality..... Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn’t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside ‘the box’ to inside the box, that ‘choice X’ will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position…because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options X, Y and Z however in the ‘ultimte perspective’ it was simply bound to happen. Thank you, I pass the pen back to CON