Free Will is better than forced will

My opponent is trying to defeat me through comedy. This is not satire. My opponent obviously did not read my introduction for it says that contentions are saved for round 3. Since this is round 2, my opponent has decided to have the last word instead of splitting the last word. My rules were constructed to be fair. My opponent has elected himself to go last as a last ditch effort to try and convince the readers that he is right. Since it is my turn and it just happens to be the 3rd round, I will now contest my opponent. - My analogy was that if nobody is in control of the car, the car would not drive. As in a supreme being is the one driving the car and the car is a human. The car cannot drive effectively by itself. - My opponent refuses to believe that a supreme being could stop sin. "If there is no sin, there would not be any suffering." My opponent has not made any claims whatsoever on why he thinks that free will is better than forced will. He just tries to argue against me rather than make his own claims. My opponent ignores the fact that sometimes we need to do things, even if we do not want to do them. My opponent is a true example on how there ought to be no hope for all humans to govern themselves effectively. Someone has to be in control of the car that is out of control. My opponent must believe that for one to truly be happy, he must do everything that he wants to do and nothing that he has to do. My opponent may also be a person who thinks that everything will work out without contributing to a good cause. Example taxes. I think my opponent is against paying taxes because it is not something that he wants to do. He just thinks that everything just pays for itself and that he should not pay because he does not want to. I really hope there are not too many of your kind of people out there. If everyone was like you, nothing would get done. Order does not exist today. Order: neatness, absence of crime, functioning condition. ENCARTA DICTIONARY. Monumental debt, crime aplenty, democrats and republicans not working together to reach a common goal. This is disorder. In other countries, this is quite similar. Giving the example between governed and anarchy is showing people that control is good. Total control under a supreme being. Even better. Governed, there is control. Not total control, but it is what we are used to. As no control is not what humans are used to. Humans are not used to having zero control. Robots were another example on how humans use control. In this analogy, God would be a human while a human would be a robot. We program robots to surrender to us as we should surrender ourselves to God. We as humans have never forsaken robots. Ever since we built them, we treasured them. The comparisons are undeniable. God should be to humans as humans are to robots. My opponent says that if we were controlled, then we would not completely know the difference between right and wrong as well. The difference is that if one is always doing the right thing, he would not have to worry about right and wrong in the first place. For he would always be right. If a person always did the wrong thing, the same thing. People like us assume that we know the difference between right and wrong. Since we do right and wrong, as examples from my last argument prove that throughout history, one thing that we call right can be monumentally wrong by any standard. If I told another person this, they could disagree meaning that right and wrong is merely subjective, and nobody clearly knows the meaning between the two. One cannot see the difference between two things.