Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

I will now refute Pro's arguments for free will. I will address each point individually and explain why it is fundamentally incorrect. I will not address Pro's rebuttals until next round, as specified in the rules. __________ "Argument 1: To deny freewill requires freewill In order to make a truth claim you will need freewill in order to think critically and rationally otherwise any argument you make for determinism would be determined and you have no way to verify or falsify if your argument is actually a truth claim or not. when someone says they are completely determined they are making a truth claim and the moment you make a truth claim you are violating determinism. Someone that denies freewill is insuring that they were forced to do it and that you cannot make choices or actions based on logic and reason. when someone says they have made up there mind because of the evidence they are presupposing freewill because one can only make up there mind on evidence if they have freewill. Logic depends on making reason judgements and if everything is caused then you cant know if your judgement is logical or not. So the conclusion is that denying free will requires freewill" The argument is essentially saying that logic, reason, and other advanced forms of cognition necessitate free will. According to Pro, without free will nobody would be able to use logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. This argument is fallacious because even in a materialist world, cognition is still possible. In such a world, mental processes are the result of interaction between neurons in the brain and complex patterns of electrical stimulation. Human logic is the result of the highly developed state of our brains. Humans have about 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) neurons in our brains, and about 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) synapses. This extremely advanced network of connections between neurons is what allows for the level of logic and reason that humans have. Note that none of the preceding points require free will, and remember that the argument is specifically that advanced cognition REQUIRES free will. Because such an advanced system is possible without free will, making truth claims based on evidence does not require free will either, and the argument is invalid. __________ "Evidence: Quantum mechanics John H. Conway and Simon Kochen have developed what's known as the free will theorem in quantum physics. Which states that we can only have free will in an idealist, indeterministic universe. At the quantum level particles behave probabilistically this is shown through the uncertainty principle." The Free Will theorem states that in an idealist, indeterministic universe, free will must exist. Refer to my argument concerning logic for a rebuttal of this statement. I have carefully examined his source, and it states that "It is precisely the "semi-free" nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here." The assertion that the paper makes is that quantum particles have some degree of free will. My logic argument applies equally to both humans and quantum particles, and it therefore remains valid in this case. Unfortunately I am not allowed to refute my opponent's rebuttals until next round, but take note; should I succeed in my counter-rebuttal, the Free Will Theorem evidence will be invalidated. __________ "What this evidence concludes is that actions of the observer cannot be determined by prior causes as determinism states. Remember determinist claim that we can know the exact position of every particle based on how the laws of nature work. But the evidence shows that we cannot predict the future using these laws. So since the universe is not deterministic and since the conscious agent can callapse wave-function particles to make changes in the wave-function then this would prove that we have freewill since the action was not determined by prior causes" The issue with this section of the argument is that it is all about determinists thinking that the properties of wave-function particles cannot be exactly determined. This is a straw-man argument because, as I stated in my opening, determinism does not necessitate that the properties of particles can be determined. The only requirement for determinism is that everything is determined by actions external to the will. The segment at the end about the conscious agent collapsing wave-function particles, once again, is disproved by my logic argument. If I successfully counter-refute, this evidence is invalid as well. __________ Pro's first argument is fallacious because it is based on the assumption that free will is required for logic and reasoning. As I pointed out, that assumption is incorrect. The high levels of thinking that humans are capable of are a result of the vast number of neurons in the brain, as well as the connections between them. Pro's only remaining argument is about quantum mechanics and the Free Will Theorem. As I stated above, my logic argument clearly refutes free will regardless of whether it applies to humans or quantum particles. Now that I have made it clear that Pro's first argument is incorrect and my own argument refutes his second, we can see that his case is fundamentally unsound and should be discarded. https://faculty.washington.edu... http://www.ams.org...