Free Will Exists

"Theoretically by providing a definition of "Free Will" that I have gave in R1 goes to show that "Free will" dose exist"No. Definitions don't mean that something exists.I can define 'asjdkfhksajdf' as "a name that is given to a man on his 18th birthday in the continental US", but that doesn't mean it's a real thing."Rebuttal" You weren't supposed to have any rebuttals in your constructive case, as highlighted in the debate outline."In order to "act" out something. Your brain must process this through the brain to make a decision."I agree. But the constraints of fate guide and truly create these processes, not 'free will'.Everything in your brain is made of subatomic particles that all react with each other in a very specific way. If we look at all of the universe, then we can calculate what effect this has on your brain and we can even calculate what will happen in the future within your brain. Fate is controlling your brain, because you are not acting outside of fate."By the age of 18, he's able to make his own decision to drink soda, thus that is free will. Making a choice without restraint"I feel as though you have ignored that reactions of subatomic particles and calculations are a restraint on choice.I highlighted this in my constructive case, where everything that will happen can be calculated at the start of the universe.The universe had an effect on his brain and actually made him do it himself. He did not do this outside of the constraints of fate, he did it 100% within the constraints of fate."[2]"I don't feel as though your source is really one that we should be using in this debate.I used definitions from google dictionaries, whereas you used a source that provides what free will and fate are through the philosophical aspect, not the objective one. Even on this source that you provided, there was a 2.25/5 rating on this article. That means that 45% of people will have a strong liking for this source and think that it is reliable enough to use... it's simply not a strong enough source to use in this debate."According to the theory of forms, an individual can exhibit free will during his actions. He has a choice over his fate."This was the exact wording of point 1 at the end of the article [1]. Not a rebuttal since I have already refuted that source's validity, but directly taking a quote from this source is a bit sketchy."[3]"If you don't express what this quote even means, then why are you using it?This is just a general debate thing, not a rebuttal, but you are supposed to use quotes to enhance your points, not to make up your points. You're meant to use them and elaborate on their meaning, not letting them just sit there and effectively rot due to lack of acknowledgement."Another example: You *choose* to instigate this debate because you have free will."As my case proves, the universe was going to have this exact debate 100% since the big bang. The entire thing was calculable and it was sure to happen.I was even meant to say 'chicken' at this exact moment in time. The universe is crazy and forces me to do these things along with it."Another argument people bring up is the "law""Well that's not a good argument for those people.I don't believe in this argument and it is effectively unrelated.You are meant to have a constructive case, not one that is rebutalling against points that were made, or even were not made.Pro automatically has the BoP (but I won't use it against you if you didn't notice), and it was implied that I had the BoP as well when I posted a constructive case. This is just making nonsensical claims against things that were not even brought up.[1]. http://www.differencebetween.net...Sorry for such the quick response, I noticed your reply less than 10 seconds after you posted it.Back to you pro!