There is no free will.

Man, already at the conclusion of the debate. Seems like we are only just now starting to get into the meat of the debate. I will begin my conclusion with thanking Con for the debate. Thank you Con. In this final round I will begin my conclusion by addressing randomness again, since it seems to still be incorrectly part of this debate. Then I will move to address some of Con's rebuttal from the last round and finish with my closing remarks. Randomness isn't free will. No matter how you wish to slice it. Words have meanings. We don't get to define words in any way we wish. If we did this, communication would be impossible. "You said you drove your car to work yesterday. But you have no car. So how did you drive your car?" "I define bike to mean car. So as you can see, I did drive my car to work yesterday." Con wishes to define randomness this same way. Free will and randomness for Con are the same thing. The problem is they are not. Con's R1 free will definition Free Will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate (if I need water and take a drink of water, have I acted without constraint of necessity?) the ability to act at one's own discretion. This last portion violates Con's appeal to randomness. If any of our behavior is random, then that randomness violates what Con calls free will, "the ability to act at one's own discretion." Con has walked himself into a contradiction. Pro's free will definition. Free Will=unrestricted choice. This isn't my personal definition. This definition has been sourced and cited. It is based on the definition of the two words, free and will. See round 1. Randomness. Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim. This definition is sourced and cited. See round 1. Con's contradiction. Lets contrast how Con defines free will with a cited source for randomness. Con's Free Will definition, "the ability to act at one's own discretion" to "occurring without definite aim." Clearly randomness isn't free will. Randomness violates free will, regardless of how Con wishes to define words to fit his argument. Lets imagine if our behavior included or was governed by randomness. We would have no consistent personality. Today I may like football. Tomorrow I may hate it. Today I may love my spouse. Tomorrow I might dislike her. I may just eat of dry piece of bread without reason. We couldn't hold jobs. I randomly go skiing instead of working. I just find myself standing in the back yard. Have you ever just gone to the store having never decided to go to store. Do you fill up a glass with ketchup and start drinking? Clearly human behavior isn't random and randomness isn't free will. This argument is simply incorrect. No other way to put it. Next I would like to address a few of Con's rebuttals. One quote first, "He (meaning Pro) assumes that everything he knows is true like the rock case." I try to make no assumptions, personal rule. I also place probability over truth. Truth is beyond human knowledge. The best we can do is what is probably true. Now back to the debate. Con takes issue with how I phrased my atom point. My statement, "they are 99.99% empty space." Con, "Wrong the are 99.99% empty." Ok, whatever. Regardless of how we wish to define the emptiness of the atom, that isn't the point. (I think QFT is the correct interpretation of reality by the way, that will tell you how I really feel about the atom) The point I was making was that our intuitions can be very wrong. I was using the atom to illustrate this point. This point remains unrefuted. Con calls into question my "drug" point. But again, his refutation isn't directed at the point I was making. "You are free to choose to have drug or not." First, when I say drugs I'm referring to all drugs, from aspirin, to anti-depressants, to heroin, to alcohol, to Advil. My point is that there is a material link between behavior and the chemical effect the drugs have on our biology. My point is that drugs can alter our behavior. This establishes a physical link between our biology and our behavior. This physical link between biology and behavior is the point. My behavior is effect by my material biology. Drugs effecting our behavior is evidence of this. I'm not free from my biology. There are many more of these in Con's rebuttal. Con's disease rebuttal follows the same line. My point is the physical effect of the disease effects choices, once again pointing to material effects of the brain effecting behavior. The point remains unrefuted and rather obvious to anyone who has watched their grandparents age. I won't hit everyone of these objections. I have other things to get to before signing off. Free Will, I think one can answer the question of free will by objectively analyzing your own decisions. Set aside what you feel is correct. Con has often stated that you have choices, therefore you have free will. This isn't a deep enough understanding of the subject. We have choices available to us. That is clear and uncontested. But that doesn't mean we have free will. You must ask yourself, "yes I made this choice, but why did I make this choice?" Then if you can answer that, "well why do I prefer that, which lead to the choice?" And again, "well why to I think that?" And again, "why did that sway me?" And again, "why is that my preference?" You will get to a point where the answer is, "I don't know why I have that preference." You just lost free will. "I don't know why I prefer women to men." I didn't choose this preference. It guides my choices. Free will is the illusion that the preference is of my choosing. Free will is the illusion that I've freely decided to approach women. I've tried to present an accumulated case against the illusion of free will. I will go over a few before finishing. Disease of the brain alters behavior. Points to material behavior dependence of the brain. Drugs alter behavior. Points to material behavior dependence of the brain. Injuries to brain can alter behavior. Points to material dependence of the brain. Intelligence isn't chosen. Intelligence influences behavior. Free will violation. Phobias aren't chosen. You cannot decide to remove your phobia. Phobia's can guide choice. Free will violation. Consistent personality traits. Randomness doesn't fit this model. We have examples of Phineas Gage who's personality changed due to brain injury. 1960s, Texas clock tower shooter, lesion found on brain. He himself noticed changes to his behavior prior to shooting. Can you choose to be afraid of a flower? Legitimate fear? If free will is true, the answer should be yes. Can you choose to not fear snakes? (or any other fear you have) If free will is true, the answer should be yes. Yet we cannot choose these things. We have experiments where the a choice signal in the brain happens prior to the subject being aware a choice has been made. Clearly not free will. Priming, we can influences responses by the way the question is worded. This shouldn't occur with free will. Marketing, why do companies spend billions marketing to people? They can influence what you choose to buy. Free will violation. Have you ever been startled? Did you choose to jump? Or did you react without thinking? Have you ever had this thought? "I don't know why I don't like them, but I don't like them." You have acknowledge a preference without choice. Free will violation. A riddle, "I have a genetic condition. People like me are prone to violent fantasy and jealous rage: we are 10 times more likely to commit murder and over 40 times more likely to commit sexual assault. Most prisoners suffer from my condition, and almost everyone on death row has it. Relative to other people we have an abundance of testosterone (testosterone not chosen), which is associated with dominance and aggression, and a deficit in oxytocin (not chosen), which is associated with compassion. My sons share my condition and so does my father." (1) What is the condition? Being male is the condition. Not chosen. Influences many choices. Zero, there is no evidence that points to free will existing, none. Yet we have loads of evidence that point to a determined system. A system that is materially dependent on the state that it is in. Look back at all those examples. They all point to one common thing. No free will. I would like to thank Con for this debate. It has been enjoyable. To those interested in whether free will is an illusion or a reality, I would suggest examining why you make the choices you make. Try and trace the origin. It isn't that choices are available, it is why did I make that particular choice? That is where the trail begin. Read some psychology studies and wave good bye to what you never had. Happy voting. P.S. My apologies for any grammar errors. Have to run, no time for proof reading. Sure there is a few in there. (1)http://chronicle.com...