Biblically Free Will is the choice of what influences you.

3C1. First off, my opponent completely dropped 2C1. The only response that he had was a sentence beginning "As for the falsifiability," that went on to talk about his purported scientific basis for his kind of free will. However, he does not actually provide a way that I can falsify the existence of this kind of free will, because it would not appear to change the universe whatsoever from a incompatibilist deterministic one if scientifically tested.This is a clear reason to vote for the Neg/Con/Against, because the Aff/Pro/For has not provided me a burden to meet, or any way to win other than by using the Bible, which I believe that I have won. ---3C2. Let's talk about your handling of 2C2.I'll drop Exodus 3:21, because God merely influenced the Egyptians, rather than inserting ideas into their mind. However, this is not evidence FOR your position; it merely is not evidence for mine.Mhykiel's response to Proverbs 16:4 and Psalms 33:15: "God is seen as the creator of all things. Then because of his all-knowing nature, which comes from him being nontemporal, he knows who will remain wicked and who will not. There is a lifetime between the creation of a person's heart and the judgement to befall them. God's influence is within the scope of time, but his plan and knowledge are outside of it."This doesn't actually respond to my point. If we were created and had no way of choosing an alternative to God's plan, which the passage agrees with and you don't reject, then we didn't have free will -- we were just puppets with the illusion of free will, who could never change anything anyways.Aside, the amount of time doesn't change the fact that there was no alternative. If a puppetmaster waited a thousand years before planning his puppet show, would that give them free will?Mhykiel's response to Ephesians 1:5-6:"This predestination is saying God has already planned a way to be adopted as his children through Jesus Christ."Reapply my response to Proverbs 16:4 and Psalms 33:15 to his response to Ephesians 1:5-6, because if we had no alternative, then we did not have free will, regardless of what the subject (here, faith) of the plan is.Against Ephesians 1:11-12 and 2:8 he brings up Ephesians 2:9-10. However, these two continue the narrative that "choosing" to worship Jesus Christ is something that is part of God's plan, and that there is not necessarily a real alternative to them. Again, reapply Proverbs 16:4 and Psalms 33:15. Note here that "do"ing anything does not imply choice, but merely action.Mhykiel's extended response to Ephesians 1:11-12 and 2:8: "Faith is defined as: complete trust or confidence in someone or something[.] The gift from God is the Grace. The Mercy of God to be forgiven. The Faith was the choice of the person. This predestination has as a subject always those that have put their faith in God. That is the choice the person makes and then the result is a plan for a person's life according to God's will. My opponent has not shown where God has directly made a choice for a person. Merely that God creates people, that if they choose to put faith in God then there is a path set out for them. If they choose to be against God's will, God's plan will encompass this choice and still proceed."My opponent brings up faith, and how it is apparently a choice. However, his supporting evidence (below) that faith is a choice is lacking.Mhykiel's evidence for the 'choice' of faith/'choice' of turning from sin: "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?" (Ezekiel 33:11)"My plan for your future has always been filled with hope." (Jeremiah 29:11)He brings up Ezekiel 33:11, which implies that people have a choice with the verb "turn", and then immediately contradicts himself with Jeremiah 29:11, which implies that God has a plan. While this is also an interesting argument for Biblical errancy, let's ignore that for the moment. Ezekiel merely states that the people of Israel should turn, not that they can turn. It's like telling someone trapped under a log that they should get out, rather than that they can get out. In fact, with all of the passages supporting God's plan, it's very questionable whether God's plan can be subverted at all.In summary: I have proven that, assuming the truth of the Bible, God's plan exists and that there cannot be deviancy from it. Knowing that this is true, there can be no true free will, as all of our actions have no alternative, a necessity for free will. My opponent has failed to respond to this, bringing weak counterexamples and lacks of explanation, and has in fact helped to advance my case on one point. This is definitely a reason to vote for the Aff -- if the Bible is true, then free will is not.---3C3. Mhykiel: Random at the quantum level is not chaos. A quantum state can be indeterminate until it reacts with another state.And I never argued that "random" is chaos. Random means indeterminate, nothing more.Psychologist are gaining more insight into what dictates a person's actions. They are finding that this is not a simple Nurture vs Nature but also a portion of choice.As recent work with Identical and Fraternal twins has shown "Children are influenced by nature and by nurture, but children also influence their own development. To some extent, children are free to make their own choices, and these choices can have consequences for development."My opponent does not recognize that "choice" does not equal free will, especially within this context. The ability of the child to affect their own brain development does not mean that they actually had an alternative to affecting their own brain development in the way that they did. Now, Mhykiel could argue that the free will exists, but that we merely can't see it, that it looks like how the child would affect their own development. This gets into falsifiability again -- if it looks exactly like what determinism would, then there is no way that I can prove Mhykiel wrong, or he prove himself right.As such, my opponent presents no scientific evidence for free will, while there is all of everyday experience to promote determinism. I've got an experiment for you, avid reader -- get three coins. Flip the first coin, let it fall to the ground. Flip the second coind, let it fall to the ground. Hold the third coin. If you flip it, is there any possibiliy that it will not, also, fall? No. The same principle that holds true for coins holds true for neurons, synapses, ions, and all the processes that make up the illusion that we call "consciousness".Unless there is something special about the particles within the human brain, your the neural output of your mind is as fixed as the fate of a falling coin.This is a clear reason to vote for the Neg/Con/Against, because I have shown evidence for determinism, including that of the human mind, from experience of the world, while my opponent has not provided any evidence for his brand of free will.---Conclusion.My opponent has not provided a burden of falsifiability, making this debate effectively unresolveable.My opponent has not proven that the Bible supports his position, while I have.My opponent has not proven that free will exists, while I have provided evidence for the determinism of the world and of the human mind.I urge a Neg/Con/Against ballot.