Free will probably exists in humans.

I request that my opponent clarify. What are biotic factors? Are they not made up of molecules? It does not have to be molecules. It can be any sort of particle, even if that particle exists outside the universe (i.e. is supernatural)." Biotic - of, relating to, or caused by living organisms (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Abiotic - not biotic (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Thus, I am saying that free will may exist in anything that has life. "Ignoring my third point, it can be a source of free will, but only one time. After that, it is just determinism." You need to back up your determinism claim. "If something cannot be predicted no matter how much knowledge the predictor possesses, it is random." It can be predicted if one knows what is going on inside the mind of the person in question; however, this prediction may not necessarily come true. "My opponent is just saying that he felt like he was making a choice. This is most likely an illusion. My opponent has not proved that it was his choice; he simply made the statement. Even if he feels like it was his choice, the logic of my point cannot be simply discarded. Personal feelings are subjective. Logic is not. Thus, my logic overrides my opponent's personal feeling." Choice - 1. The act of choosing (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Choose - 2b. DECIDE (webster.com/dictionary/choose) Decide - 1b. to select as a course of action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I selected the option of accepting MTGrandP's debate; thus, I made a choice; thus, it was my choice. "That's what I did, before my opponent proceeded to ignore my proof based on a personal feeling." I have now made an attempt to overthrow your proof. "Or my opponent just has the illusion of making decisions. Irrespective, my opponent's claim has no evidence behind it." See above. "I thank my opponent for this link. It's not entirely relevant to the debate, but I had not previously found that page, and it's a good resource for arguments on both sides." A page discussing both sides of the free will debate is very relevant. "My opponent has not justified this statement. If both sides have equal arguments, why should the vote go to PRO? Should it not go to neither side?" Fair point. I guess that if we come to no conclusion, the vote goes to the better arguer, else a tie. "I would like to point out that my opponent has made no real arguments." Only by your opinion of what real means. "Free will occurs when we make decisions where the ultimate decision comes down to our desires and not external factors. But where do our desires come from? External factors? That's not free will. Previous desires? Where did those come from? Eventually, we get to either a cause that came out of nothing or to an external factor. A cause out of nothing is random, since it is not based on anything, and is therefore not free will; external factors are not free will either." Actually, just because our desires are impacted by external factors, doesn't mean that we can't choose whether to act on them or not. The video did not state that free will was impossible; it only said that by his logic, any free will we have is trivial. Trivial free will is still free will. Another Argument: "According to Dennett, because individuals have the ability to act differently from what anyone expects, free will can exist. People can do what nobody would have expected, by their own free will, based on their ethics and morals. Not all of these things are introduced by others, because they had to have started somewhere. "This was evidenced by a study conducted by Benjamin Libet. It is an argument against free will, and also helps to demonstrate why my opponent's 'choice' about accepting this debate was quite possibly an illusion: the subjects in this study thought they were making a conscious decision even when they weren't, so the same is possible for my opponent." From Wikipedia: "The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand. Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention." "I now offer an argument that my case does not rely on, but is interesting nonetheless. If we assume that free will does not exist, what should we do? What we think are our decisions are not really our decisions, so "our" decisions don't matter. There are only two logical courses of action that I see. 1. Stop trying to do anything. Just stop moving and breathing. Nothing is really our decision, so why bother? 2. Assume that free will exists and continue doing what you would do anyway. If free will does not exist, then it doesn't matter whether we choose (1) or (2). If free will does exist, then (2) is the best choice. So even if the chance of free will existing is incredibly small, (2) is still the best choice." Interesting. I guess that we should live life to the fullest, then. Also, by your definition of free will, one must only be capable of rational thought when making choices to have free will. I used rational thought when I considered the consequences of accepting this debate, and finally made my decision. Thus, free will!