One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

*spam also belongs on toast. "The issue here is that we are not talking about influence itself, we are talking about CONTROL. The only reason I defined influence at all was because it was in the definition of control, and I wanted a little more clarification for the readers." >Pretty much just conceded the point I was trying to make there. ""the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways", >My opponents definition of influence,... I just take what you give and run. These are the definitions,... if I show how you do not have control of your existence, which is all I need to do,.. I win. "I didn't claim absolute control, anywhere in my R1." >My opponent can claim whatever he wants,.. The topic claims control for him! If my opponent wants to split hairs with control and absolute control,.. that is his doings,.. it only strengthens my point every time he concedes a difference. "Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,... that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence." > This much is true:" >>>> My opponent concedes I have proven my point he has not been in control of his existence. "However, just because I depend on others does not mean that I do not have any control over my own existence. Look to the definition of control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over" – Nowhere in the definition does it say that I must have absolute control over everything that happens to me." Because you concede that you depend on others to excerice restraint and direct influence over you,.. that is why you do not have control over your own existence,.. your existence as it is defined past present and future, as you have already conceded, is due to your dependece on others and their controls,.. "as long as I have some sort of direct influence over anything that happens in my life, I can be said to be in "control" to some extent." > again,.. you have control of actions,.. not your existence. Plus my opponent makes a weak arguement when he says "to some extent" after control,.. How can you call it control if its to a certain extent? "And if there was, it has no effect. There's something called drifting" > This analogy certainly does not prove your stance at all,.. It proves mine,.. A car requires a driver to make it drift,... the driver is in control of making the car drift,.. the drift would not exist if the car had no driver to put it there, and a drift no longer exists if the car suddenly hits a wall, and as for the future drifts, the car, the driver, the track, etc. etc. all are required to make drifting exist! "And MY ACTIONS DEFINE MY existence or LIFE. Game over, vote CON." > Yikes,... sorry,.. Existence define actions,.. silly, if you didnt exist how could you act? GAME OVER!! VOTE pro! In case that was hard to pick up, here is another analogy,.. I exist on a farm,.. My actions, due to my existence, are to do things farmers do,.. feed cows, plant corn, etc etc,.. Sure I could pick up and move to a town,.. I would then exist in a town,.. but my actions no more define my existing in a town than they were before,... Even in the action of trying to change my existence,.. It was only due to my existence in the first place! If you existed as a fish,.. your actions would be swimming and doing fishy things. As hard as you tried,.. your actions could not make you exist as anything but a fish! " Bullsh*t. I'll walk five minutes south and I'm in a different city. OUTSIDE FORCES EH?" > This changes nothing,.. the town 5 minutes south existed with or with out you, again you going there is only an action, the town itself is where you are existing. Even if you had not existed there five minutes earlier. It required the town to make you exist in it! Oh,.. and dont mean to make "outside forces" seem magical and spiritual,.. I mean outside of your control, that force you to do things or define you in general,.. ie, parents, enviornment,.. etc. "> This is the same thing as "I exist because I exist". What the hell does that prove?" - sorry you couldnt understand that,.. I mean, you exist as in you are alive, but someone can take that existence away, you are not in control. "> Hold my breath or strangle myself with HANDS." - impossible, but good luck with that. Or better yet, you have hands cut off, otherwise,.. no, cant happen. "Voter: He has bad grammar" - I concede to this,.. But my opponent has a potty mouth. "The LACK of air, food, and water aren't though. My refusal to use them in an attempt to kill myself is totally within my own power – unless you're arguing that air, food, and water are part of myself, in which case I can say that my existence is totally within my own control. Heads I win, tails you lose." - this makes NO difference,.. My opponent concedes that he requires food, water, and air to exist,.. rendering control of his existence out of his hands,.. My burden was only to prove he is not in control of his existence,.. I never said he was not in control of his non existence,.. though I do not concede he is of that either. To recap,.. My opponent has conceded a few times that I have proved my point,.. My point of course,.. Ones own existence is not in there own control,.. ever! Because of (for just only one example); food, air, and water direct influence (control)of our existence. We can not act if we don't exist.