Free Will

Alright. Since this isn't the last round I am still entitled to bring new evidence here and will indeed be doing so as it's entirely how I will secure my win. I will like to explain why I didn't bring the proof before (most debaters would) as I feel it's very justified why I withheld it.What Pro's position is: Free Will (independent of enslavement to preset conditions and their inevitable snowballing into what occurs) is provable and true.What Pro's position is not: Con can't prove an alternative to Free Will because the default is Free Will.What Con's position is: Pro cannot successfully prove 'Will' (which is an illusion at worst and at best is a genuine experience that is still enslaved to act as it would act given everything that there is before the 'will' is acted upon).What Con's position is not: Free Will is the default and can be proven impossible.There is an extremely important concept here: Free Will is not the default option.In Round 2, Pro completely condeded that there are physical elements that entirely influence the decision that Bob makes.I will just link here a few things to cement that they exist and are real.Here I'll simply be quoting very reputable sources. This way I am bringing no new points of my own but merely proving what I mentioned before to be correct. For the ease of following I will just be posting sources as I go along rather than a 'reference' type of source-list; the source is below the quote it applies to, not above.First, let's provide reputable sources that say how heavily emotions impact decision making (this is just the beginning, I am aware that how I need to prove more)."Your emotions will drive the decisions you make today, and your success may depend upon your ability to understand and interpret them. When an emotion is triggered in your brain, your nervous systems responds by creating feelings in your body (what many people refer to as a "gut feeling") and certain thoughts in your mind. A great deal of your decisions are informed by your emotional responses because that is what emotions are designed to do: to appraise and summarize an experience and inform your actions."https://www.psychologytoday.com..."For a 2003 study, Lerner had a group of U.S. citizens read either a news story about anthrax mail-threats, which was meant to make them feel afraid, or one about celebrations of the 9/11 attacks by some people in Middle Eastern nations, which was meant to elicit anger. Those who were made to feel angry saw the world as less risky, and they also supported harsher measures against suspected terrorists. We saw this angry certainty play out in Congress: Only one member, Barbara Lee, a Democratic representative from California, voted against the authorization to use military force against terrorists in the wake of the attack. “We said, ‘We’re acting, we’re striking back,’” Lerner said. “Everyone agreed.”... [Same source later quote now]"Surprisingly, though, happiness isn’t much better at inspiring good decisions. Several studies have shown that people who were in a positive mood put more faith in the length of a message, rather than its quality, or in the attractiveness or likability of the source. Given that it’s typically the amicable job interview that results in an offer, this might explain some of the economic advantages that flow to tall men or attractive people. Under certain circumstances, sadness can be good, since it fosters systematic thought. The slightly melancholy, to whom no option appeals very much, will dutifully think, “on the one hand, x, but on the other hand y,” Lerner said. And that’s good! But too much sadness can set off rumination— “you keep thinking x, x, x, x,” she said—which is not going to get you any closer to signing on the dotted line (or not!) with satisfaction and relief. What’s more, sadness might make you more impatient. A 2013 study by Lerner and others found that people who felt sad accepted up to 34 percent less money in order to get paid now, rather than three months from now. But at least it might make you more generous toward others: She’s also found that sad people allocate more to welfare recipients than angry people would, since the angry would likely blame poor people for their own misfortune."https://www.theatlantic.com... "When it comes decision making, a little emotion is good, even if the emotions seem inherently unpleasant or unproductive. Feeling a little fear, sadness or irritation can help to spark motivation or broaden the search for alternatives. On the flip side, a little too much emotion is generally bad, even if the emotions seem pleasant and productive. When an entire team of people is feeling curious, excited or confident, they are more likely to spend too much time admiring the view in their matching rose colored glasses, or happily make a decision to drive right off a cliff. So, when you are working with your team to make a decision, it is critical to be aware of how the emotional state of people around the table affects the team’s approach to the decision. This is especially true when emotions are running high, or when everyone in the group is feeling the same way."https://www.forbes.com..."Now, let's look at how much of the 'thinking after emotions' is actually 'free' of any physicality (which Pro has yet to prove is even possible, let alone plausible)."It can be a bit frightening to realize that we are the only ones living the experience that we are living, that what we are calling our experience doesn't exist in any real sense, except for an instant inside our minds. So, too, it can be unsettling to consider that there really is no shared experience going on whatsoever. Furthermore, we do not choose the thoughts and feelings that appear before us -- they simply appear to our awareness and then disappear, like fireflies in the night. From what thoughts are made and from where do they come, we simply cannot know. But the question then begs, if each one of us is hearing different thoughts (living an entirely different circus, if you will), none of which we actually script ourselves, then to whom or what are all these separate and individual performances appearing? Who or what is the larger audience -- the collective awareness within which all these individual events occur? This is a question to ponder rather than answer. And so the next time that a thought appears before you, within your awareness, remember that it is not real in the sense that it has some solid form or exists somewhere outside of you. The contents of what you are thinking about are in no way affected by the fact that this thought is appearing within you, nor is he/she/it aware that such an event is happening in your internal world. The thought appears in front of and within only you. Without the juice of your attention, it simply disappears without a trace."https://www.psychologytoday.com...I would paste more but my characters are running out.The only point Pro has brought against this is a baseless assertion that there is a third layer of decision making:Emotions/impulses ---> Experiencing thoughts that are happening in the brain ----> "FREE WILL" ----> ActionWhat Con suggests in place of this is the following:Emotions/impulses ---> Experiencing thoughts that are happening in the brain ----> Applying emotionally-run moral/priority compass to navigate which thoughts to pay most attention to ---> Action