Free-will most likely does not exist (Spinkos philosophy tourney 1st round)

C.1 all acts are causally determined or random leaving no room for free-will-Con doesn't dispute that all acts are either random or determined. -Con ignores most of my arguments for this contention, reverting instead just to his own reasoning. I never stated all acts are random. As con should note, the contention said all acts are determined or random. It is beyond me how con could mix this up. Actually the vast majority of events are causal. No one is arguing that all acts are random so con is essentially strawmanning me. So yes, my opponent is correct that if he becomes a Marine and goes to Paris Island, that is not at all random. But the point, which con entirely seems to miss, is that the choice is entirely determined. Every single act made is always completely restrained and decided by the laws of physics (unless randomness comes into play). The scenarios con presents all have a massive web of cause and affects. Each cause determines one single outcome. This entails inevitability. So I have to ask, if it was inevitable from long before con was even aware of his joining the marines, was it really a free choice? Con was going to join because of events that took place long before the thought of joining even occured. My opponent goes on to say that we have instincts that drive us to act. Well that's exactly part of what proves we do not have free-will. Taste, instincts, genetics are all decided irrelevant to our will. The way we act is not because of any choice because the way we act is based entirely upon our physical set-up and external influences which are all irrelevant to choice. Con quotes Immanuel Kant but the quote has nothing to do with free-will at all. It's ethical. The "ought implies can" principle means that you only have a moral obligation for something if you are able to do it. In other words, you can't say I ought to have done x when x was not in my power to do. Kant did happen to believe in free-will and presented his argument in his "transcendental philosophy" but as this is the last round, my opponent cannot make that argument since there are no new arguments this round. Cogito ergo sum has nothing to do with free-will. I don't even think Descartes even addressed the topic and I find it unlikely that he did since he seemed to mostly stick to his Cartesian epistemology and metaphysics relating to it. C.2 Free-will is an incoherent conceptMy opponent basically concedes this contention. If he were to pay attention to the opening round he would realize that I explicitly stated I would only give a vague and unspecific explanation of free-will, even saying that a criteria needs to be established latter in the debate. I did nothing to present a criteria and cons reliance on me to do so is just plain poor conduct. And notice what arguments con makes have nothing really to do with defining a coherent idea of free-will. Con says he voted for Santorum because it was in his self interest. Well I have to ask why it was in his self interest and then all asked what caused the answer to that and so on. Eventually you get to an infinite regress of causes dispelling any idea of free-will. C.3 ‘Choices’ are shown to be made before the agent is conscious of them My opponent does nothing to refute my two examples. His quote is merely a set of mere assertions while I posted two studies. This just makes it an appeal to authority but even if appeals to authority were fine, I'd just ask why cons source is better than mine. The quote says "science has found nothing to contradict free-will" but I've already, in the last round, proven that entirely wrong. If choices are made before the agent is conscious of them, free-will is an impossibility. Furthermore the reasoning doesn't really make sense. No one is denying that deliberations influence our actions. The whole point is that deliberations are entirely determined and that humans make choices before being aware of them. Con's second quote is an appeal to practicality. If we want to retain any sense of intellectual honesty and follow the Socratic principle to follow the evidence where it leads, we must ignore it entirely. The implications of the quote is that what is practical and meaningful equates to being true, an incredibly flawed assumption. Truth isn't what we want it to be. Truth is what it is, regardless of whether it has positive or negative implications on us. Furthermore, what's so bad about the idea that humans don't have free-will? Doesn't it make us a more forgiving society when we gain this realization? Won't people be more fair and compassionate when they realize that free-will is an illusion? Con's point fails since it's merely a pragmatic appeal and a false pragmatic appeal at that.