Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

You say that I use foul play in trying to 'circumvent' your previous arguments by redefining the resolution. In all honesty, I don't. I just wanted to make the topic clear to everyone once again, and I have answered all your arguments clearly. This shows that you misinterpreted my arguments, and tried to accuse me of something I did not do. Subsequently, I noticed you saying that because of my 'fatal analysis of the resolution', I 'barely touch on free will'. How on earth is not touching on free will, when most of my arguments consist of voluntariness, a flaw? In case you don't know(which is probably why you provided flawed logic here), 'voluntary' means 'done, given, or acting of one's own free will'. And since my argument mostly comprised of arguments arguing on voluntariness, your argument stating that I barely touched on free will is therefore invalid as my arguments technically did comprise of free will. You then proceed to say that it somehow places emphasis on the initial actions which leads one to prison. I thoroughly believe that this part of his argument was meant as a joke and is not meant to be taken literally. If it is, let me dissect it. The topic states that 'Going to prison is not more voluntary than so', meaning that going to prison is not affiliated with free will. MisterDeku goes on to say that because one might not know what the consequences will be, he or she cannot choose voluntarily. Even if one might not know the consequences, he would most likely be sent to the courtroom to settle on what punishment he should get. If it's prison, he voluntarily goes because he chooses to go. He could easily try to run out of the courtroom or stab himself with a pen, but most choose to go to prison. Consequences have absolutely no say in this argument, as we are discussing on WHY going to prison is more voluntary than not(my side), and not 'there are consequences to actions'. Let me dissect your so-called 'box analogy'. You never include the part where they go to prison. I firmly believe that your 'immigrant analogy' was far better than this one, plausibly because of the fact that most criminals DO know what crime they're going to commit and what punishment they'll get for committing the crime if they get caught. If so, then we actually do know what is in the box. So not only is it off-topic, but it is flawed as well. Consequences are not important. End of the line, MisterDeku. You know it as well as I do. Consequences have no relation whatsoever to most topics that have 'voluntary' in them. If one doesn't accept the consequence of going to prison, then they will still probably go to prison, if the judge deems it bad enough. Wait a minute. If we're assuming that the person actually went to prison here, then why on earth did you say that if one does not accept going to prison, they aren't within the realm of this discussion? I didn't even say that. You're basically rebutting to a point you made up. Secondly, even if an officer knocks you out with a taser, he will probably bring you to the courtroom first. To settle out a crime that you committed. You seem to have no arguments saying why going to prison is not voluntary, but a lot of off-topic arguments either giving false analogies or false accusations. Stay on topic. There are many alternatives to going to prison. Alternatives can take the form of restorative justice, transformative justice, or the abolition of incarceration entirely! If you want more info on this topic(and also because I'm running out of characters to use in this argument), go here: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.forbes.com... Finally, I'd like to say that my rebuttals consisted of new points that the opponent may or may not have noticed. By simply saying that the best I could hope for is a tie, he is effectively inflating his ego and acting like a debate wannabe. With that, I rest my case.