Choose one of them Kleptin!

My response will be organized as such: 1. Definition of Free Will 2. Analysis of my opponent's argument 3. Submission of my own proof THE DEFINITION OF FREE WILL My opponent has set forth a definition from the American Heritage Dictionary. I do not accept this definition and request instead that we use the definition submitted in R1 by my opponent himself. "A way rational agents [exercise control] over their actions" As my opponent has stated, an overcomplicated definition will only lead to confusion and since we both have an innate understanding of what is meant by "free will" and since we are both looking to steer clear of a debate over semantics, we can abandon the American Heritage definition in favor of the more simplistic definition that my opponent has provided in R1. I would also like to clarify that in speaking of physical law and free will, we will be covering general statements and not exceptional ones. By this, I mean that a situation such as death, mental impairment, anecephaly, being forced to make a decision under duress, etc. are not suitable pieces of evidence against free will. ANALYSIS OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT I will be breaking the premises down further in order to analyze them in detail 1. Events of the past determine our present state 2. The Laws of Nature determine our present state 3. We have no control over the events of the past. 4. We have no control over the laws of nature. 5. Since we have no control over either the events of the past or the laws of nature, we have no control over the consequences of them. 6. Our present choices and acts are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature 7. Therefore, we have no control over our present choices and acts. Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) Points 3 and 4 lead to the conclusion in point 5. The conclusion of point 5 is that we have no control over the consequences of the events of the past or the laws of nature. However, not having control over the past does not necessarily mean that we have no control over the consequences. I myself cannot change the fact that a ball was thrown in the past, but I can intercede its trajectory and prevent it from reaching its intended target. Thus, the conclusion does not follow. If my opponent meant to state as point #3: We "had" no control over the events of the past, then this logical fallacy does not apply. However, it would then fall under another logical fallacy. Begging the question: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The conclusion of point 5 assumes that since we have no control over the laws of nature, and since we had no control over the factors of the past, then we have no control over the consequences, choices, or actions we make. However, the definition of free will is the "ability for a rational agent to exercise control over his actions". My opponent, in saying that we had no control over the factors of our past, would be assuming that free will did not exist in order to *give* people the power of choice. Thus, if my opponent's argument is read simply the way it is, then my opponent's argument fails due to it not following. If my opponent's argument is read the way I believe he meant for it to be read, then my opponent's argument fails because of circular reasoning. Either way, my opponent's argument as it stands is an invalid one and thus, has not met the resolution. SUBMISSION OF MY OWN PROOF Since my opponent has submitted a popular argument against free will, I shall submit a popular argument for free will. As my opponent has stated, there are many issues with debating free will. Many involve semantic disputes, concepts can get very vague and very confusing. Thus, I have decided to opt for a practical proof instead of a logical one, since we are dealing with a resolution about the existence of something. In an effort to prove free will, I have done the following: 1. Turned on the television 2. Turned my cell phone off 3. Turned my cell phone on again 4. Lifted my bottle of water from my right side to my left. 5. Scratched my ear, which did not itch. 6. Arbitrarily raised my left foot 5 inches above the ground, then set it back down again. These six actions were the result of my choice, and are demonstrations of my exercising free will. I did indeed think of performing such actions, then performed them, without being forced to and without being told to, all because I decided to. Thus, all six of these actions fulfill the definition of free will in that I am exercising control over my actions. I invite my opponent to show that this experiment does not show the existence of free will. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent. I look forward to his response.