People do not have free will.

I'll be addressing my opponent's contentions in the same order as previously.PsychologyIn this section, my opponent repeatedly conflates determinism with the fact that our minds depend on our physical bodies. These are distinct issues. For example, the mind can depend on the brain being intact without that dependency implying that the mind operates deterministically. My opponent makes this mistake at several points.First, she makes this mistake when she says "I am not able to do what I want because the physical forces and limitations of the universe[...] are all influencing my decision to stop running." This is clearly distinct from the issue of determinism. No one denies that the body has physical limitations, but that is irrelevant to whether we have free will. We can still have choice within the range permitted by our nature.Secondly, she says "if we are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, we cannot will ourselves to not have it. The mind controls us; not the other way around. If we have alzheimers, we cannot will it away." This is true, but it is irrelevant to the issue of free will and determinism. The question is whether we are able to make free choices, not whether physical factors can dispose us toward mental illness.Thirdly, she says of Phineas Gage, "Were his choices "free," or did his brain injury dictate the vast majority of his new, completely uncharacteristic behavior? The latter is true." But this alternative is not exhaustive. Another possibility is that although his choices were free, his brain injury had an influence on them. There is no reason why free will should be mutually exclusive with the possibility of someone's personality being influenced by a brain injury.So, to be clear, we need to keep these issues distinct. We make free choices, and those free choices are constrained and influenced by our biology. There is no contradiction here.My opponent asserts that "Any single thing Pro claims to value (he can try to name something for example) I can explain is based on his experiences that have led him to value that thing." Surely she could find a post hoc explanation looking backwards, since we make decisions based on choosing between the possible reasons for action that are presented to us, as I explained previously. What we need is actual evidence that these choices are determined, which my opponent has not provided, however strongly she asserts the claim.In fact, our constant experience tells us unequivocally that we do make free choices, undetermined by our experiences or genetics. As you read my argument, you can see that you have the ability to weigh my arguments, to focus on what I am saying, and to decide whether or not to believe that it is true. You also have the ability to drift and let my words pass over you, or evade my arguments. Either way, the fact of choice is evident.Finally, my opponent cites a study where scientists studied the neural activity of people deciding whether or not to move their fingers. This is allegedly a disproof of free will because the scientists could predict in advance, before the subjects could, whether they were going to move their finger.This sort of rudimentary study is incapable of casting any doubt on the existence of free will. The capacity for free will applies to conscious, rational deliberation. What were these people given to engage in conscious, rational deliberation about? They were only deciding whether or not to move their finger. There were no arguments or evidence to weigh, and indeed there is no rational basis for moving one's finger at one time rather than another. There was no reason not to move their finger just whenever they felt like it, and whether they "felt like it" would of course have resulted from the output of their subconscious, automatic brain functions, which was what the study found.Studies like this have no applicability to the free will debate, since they shed no light on what goes on during a process of conscious, rational deliberation.PhysicsMy opponent argues that although indeterminism is inconsistent with determinism, both are inconsistent with free will. That may be so, but in Round 1 my opponent said that "In this debate, my burden is to demonstrate that the universe is determined." Her concession that indeterminism may be true undermines her ability to meet her burden, so defined.My opponent argues that my version of dualism about consciousness is self refuting because "If consciousness is not understood by science, then Con has no reason to say what matter is or is not made of." I am not making either of these assertions. I regard consciousness as fully comprehensible by science, and I am not putting forward any theory of what matter is made out of. My point is that it is evident from introspection, as described previously, that consciousness is not composed of matter as currently understood by science. To say otherwise is tantamount to denying the existence of consciousness on the basis of a dogmatic, self refuting materialism. There is no difference between saying that consciousness is composed of chemical reactions and saying that consciousness does not exist, insofar as our observations of consciousness go.The Self Refutation of DeterminismMy opponent says, as if it is some grand revelation, "in order to consider the evidence of experience, we must be exposed to the evidence."No duh. No one disagrees with that, it's an uncontroversial truism with no relevance to the free will debate. This is like saying that free will is refuted because you have to look at something to reason about it. There is no connection between the concepts.The question, which my opponent does not deal with, is whether the process of reasoning that takes place after experience is due to a deterministic series of chemical reactions, or whether it is due to a series of acts of free deliberation. In her response, my opponent simply dismisses out of hand the idea that the process of reasoning is done by free will and assumes that the only way of responding to evidence is deterministically, which is question begging.My opponent attempts to solve the issue by definition: "Truth is defined as that which is in accordance with facts or reality. We can still be exposed and react to facts in a determined universe, obviously." But you couldn't respond to the content of the facts, you could only react to them according to whatever causal laws held between them and you. You couldn't draw rational conclusions, you could only "react," as you say. The conclusions you drew wouldn't be "true" any more than a parrot uttering "one plus one is two" is a mathematician.Most significantly, my opponent says, " I believe it was my experience (my exposure to determinsm based on my exposure to philosophy classes and materials) that have led me to recognize there is no free will."This is a key point: How does she know this, given determinism? Given determinism, the actual ground for her belief in determinism could have been any number of things: an experience in early childhood that inclined her toward it, a chemical reaction in her brain that just happened to produce a favorable impression of the doctrine, or a number of other things that have no relationship to whether determinism is true. She really has no idea, given determinism, whether determinism is true or false, because on her own view she doesn't actually know why she holds it.The only grounds my opponent has for being a determinist is that she has engaged in rational deliberation about determinism and concluded, based on the evidence, that it is true. But then she is no longer a determinist, because she has accepted the existence of free deliberation.