Free will exists

I will then follow by a more detailed response ty my opponent's most recent round. Firstly, it does not matter if you believe in God or gods or Creation. It does not matter whether you yourself believe that we have free will because there is some independent entity such as a soul or as a mind that is separate from the physical brain. The reason why it does not matter is because you are voting on THIS DEBATE and you are voting within the SCOPE of this debate. The debate has been conducted with 3 ASSUMPTIONS. These assumptions were agreed by both parties at the outset. These are: 1. That there is not a god; 2. That there is not a soul; 3. That humans process information and make decisions using a device called "brain" which is a bodypart functioning on the basis of complex bio-electro-chemical processes. My opponent has agreed with the above. Therefore any argument he attempts to put that would fall outside of this scope cannot be used to prove his case or to disprove mine. My case is simple: Since (as per our assumptions) all our decisions and information processes (thought) are carried out by electro-chemical processes in our brain, we cannot control our thoughts or decisions. That's because every single thought is done by those processes. My opponent's case is essentially that we have a power to "veto" the thoughts and decisions that result from the electro-chemical processes in the brain. With respect, that cannot be so as there exists (per our definitions and assumptions) no mechanism to veto those decisions with. The very act of vetoing them would involve further thought and decisions which again (as per the agreed assumptions) had to result from electro-chemical processes in our brain. We could even double-veto. But once again, the decision to double veto (or veto the veto) is a thought process and again it's an electro-chemical process in our brain. We have assumed for the purpose of this debate that no magical external "mind" or "soul" exists and that our thinking and decisions are made by the brain. My opponent has never suggested any method of consciously controlling the abovementioned electro-chemical processes and I have contended that they cannot be consciously controlled. Thus the only conclusion we can come to is that all of our thinking (even the thoughts we are ultimately aware of consciously) is done outside of our conscious control and hence there is no free will. Again I repeat, this is based on the agreed assumptions. You might well believe in a soul that does the thinking for us, or that can veto our brain. I do not contest that here. I might contest it elsewhere. But for this debate, we are working within the scope. The only conclusion is there is no free will. Vote Con. Thank you OTHER THINGS My opponent claims that evolution decides what the brain is "supposed to do". That is not so. There is no such thing as "purpose" in evolution. Evolution is the process of natural selection and we are the result of it. Under the theory we do not have a purpose. The theory simply states that traits that are not condusive to gene replication will gradually disappear from or diminish within the species. Reflexes and memory and sex drive are basic instincs and basis functions of the brain. However, if you look at the assumptions for this debate, we have both agreed that our thinking and decision-making is made by the brain. It was not limited to those very basic functions. My opponent claims that humans are different to (other) animals because we do not always act in a way that is condusive to a survival of our genes. With respect, many other animals act in a similar way. Lemmings have been known to jump to their death. Some ants will follow other ants in a nice neat line just to jump into a pool of poison. Some species of spiders eat their young. Bees are social animals and most of them do not partake in reproduction at all. Some species of shark will eat their siblings while still in the mother's womb. Some monkeys masturbate. Some monkeys have homosexual sex. Have you ever seen a little chuahua dog try to take on a german sheppard? I have. Folks, that's as close to suicide as you can get! We might use contraceptions. My opponent claims that is because we have moved on from having sex for procreation only. And yet the male turky will have sex with female chickens (hens). No prospect of viable offspring there. Mules are a cross between a horse and a donkey. Again, no genes will ever pass on. Have you ever had a dog hump your leg? Surely the dog is not doing that to impregnate you. Can animals say "no" to sex? Yes, some species do. As I said before, the female dog will often run away from a contender. Some females spiders will eat a contender before any chance of intercourse. They just aren't interested in mating with him. Sure, our reasons may be more complex. But that's because we ARE more complex. The more people research animals the more similar to them we turn out to be. I suggest that almost every behaviour that my opponent would claim to be exclusively human could be found in another animal. I'm happy to debate that fully on another occasion. And even if we weren't so similar to animals, that does not prove free will. But let's take another look at this. Are those behaviours really counter-intuitive to evolution? Using contraception may limit the number of children we have. Therefore we can provide better for the ones we have. We also may not end up having any children until we find ourselves economically ready to provide for them. Or just emotionally mature enough. Is that really contrary to gene propagation? I say it's not. I say it's the opposite. Let's assume that we really are unique in our ability to "veto" a basic instinct. I'm not conceding any free will here. What I'm concedeing is that we can reprocess a basic automatic decision. The process is still electro-chemical. Still no free will involved. However, it is a more complex, more involved processing of information. More complex thought. Is it counter-intuitive to evolution? I say it's not. You see, the fact that we have the ability to re-analyse a situation is in fact very much conducive to propagation of our genes. If we decide not to have sex just for the fun of it, we avoid the existence of an unplanned child, one with no support or one we're not ready for. We also avoid overpopulation. We can also take part of the "bee worker" and not have any children at all. Rather, we assist our "bee hive" in other ways. By avoiding getting into a fight we ensure that we do not get hurt and our kids are not left orphaned. More complex thought processes (while still not free will as per the assumptions to this debate) do in fact in many cases assist gene propagation and (in the least) the survival of our population. And the very ability to have those processes assist that propagation in every sense. And I once more say to you, you cannot deliberately tell yourself what your thoughts will be next. If you could, all your thinking would be done instantly. It may seem like you have a free will. But just think about it: thoughts come to you, they're not controlled by you. The ones that you become aware of make the conscious you. But the conscious you does not make them. Once you do some exercises to test it out, you will see it is correct. Not that any of it matters, however. Please refer to the section entitled "BOTTOM LINE" above.