Total Control (pro) is Better Than Free Will (con)

1) Where Did This Come From? As I said earlier in round 3, “Thoughts are first, control follows.”- ASB. I’m not advocating free will. If one wanted steak and it was with compliance to the rules then he would be forced to eat steak. Free will: 2. the power of making free choices that is unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... These are not free choices, there are circumstances involved in these thoughts. The principles are involved with making these thoughts. Total Control is complete domination and/or manipulation of another subject.http://www.bookrags.com... This is total control; it has nothing to do with thought. It is exactly what is says; is complete domination and/or manipulation of another subject. This means that I can think one thing and then something completely opposite can happen by force. This falls under total control. Are we tracking here? Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created. This means that humans cannot act in ‘total’ and ‘complete’ obedience to the universal principles we have created under free will. 2) The known is better than the unknown. Last ditch argument… Bluesteel took this debate knowing that total control is not likely, yet he brings up this argument in the 3rd Round. Who came up with this opinion? So I guess it is safe to say that a cure for AIDS, since it is the not probable, will be worse than a cure for AIDS. Is it really that safe to assume that all things that are improbable are better than the known because Bluesteel said so? Bluesteel continually brings up God in this debate like as if He has something to do with this debate… God has nothing to do with this debate. Can you please drop it? Bluesteel brings no proof in saying that the unknown is more dangerous than the known. 3) Driving the car analogy: I have been conveying this argument all debate. Humans cannot drive themselves to be in total compliance to the universal principles that humans themselves have created. My analogy to driving the car stands. Never did I say that humans are not capable of doing it sometimes. Of course humans can do it sometimes… cars can drive themselves without the foot on the gas as well. This means sometimes. So Bluesteel, I’m sure I can provide evidence of where humans do not act morally all of the time. When was the last time someone killed another person… today. 4) Rothbard was a moron: Anyone who believes in jumping from capitalism to anarchy or true communism ‘successfully’ is a moron. He obviously never followed the other nations that did so. Soviet Russia, China, any other country that practices pseudo-communism. Even the other Libertarians did not completely follow this guy. 5) What Locke Believed in? Persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a ‘state of nature’(anarchy) would have ‘stronger moral limits on their action’ than accepted by Hobbes, but recognized that ‘people would still live in fear of one another.’ http://en.wikipedia.org... - Locke does not think that people living in anarchy would trust each other. Keep in mind that this is still a world of free will here. In a world of free will, anarchy is not logical. In a world of forced will, one would not worry about living in fear for nobody would harm one another. 6) “ Derrida says, is that morality DOES NOT EXIST when our actions are forced. To act morally, we must go through the aporia of the undecidable - we must face that difficult moral choice and choose correctly.” – Bluesteel - Derrida lived in a world of free will, he sees things every day, like we do that just make him mad. He could not comprehend a world ruled by total control, according to his saying, doing the correct thing is a chore. With us being forced to act correctly, it no longer becomes a chore. When being forced to do the right thing, one does not need to face that “difficult” moral choice to choose correctly. - Derrida is also a nihilist, if Derrida actually said this statement, according to Derrida, how could have chosen correctly if choosing correctly is not certain at all. I’d love to hear what my opponent has for this.