One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existance with free will.

Let begin 1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story) 3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences themselves (just like a movie narrator) 3rd person omniscient- This perspective takes into account everything, every perspective and every detail of a situation, even its own. In his argument on determism Zeno claims that I am making an absolute truth statement about the universe and then immediately breaking that truth statement by saying that I am the only individual who is excluded from this because of premise 3 which states that I am exempted from this because of a supposedly B.S. logical fallacy. However what he doesn’t realize is that my whole argument is not dependent and hinging on premise 3 to affirm my exemption from free will. What affirms my exemption from free will is Perspective not premise 3 of the logical proof. The problem with Zeno’s argument is that he misunderstands what perspective I am making the statement ‘free will only applies to me’ from. As you have read, Zeno stated that I have made a truth claim stating that ‘the entire universe is determined’, I am part of the universe and thus I must be determined as well. And while this is true it is also not true. From the perspective the statement is made, it is true and from the perspective the statement is not made, it is not true. It IS true that from the 3rd person detached perspective (the perspective we Usually make truth claims in.) people do not have free will. But this is only because from this perspective you can not experience the action of making a decision. And the experience is key because experience is what makes something free will according to my (The correct) interpretation of free will, supplies us. I will more thoroughly defend this definition later. Free will is a belief, and an experience, combined with a choice. Zeno has stated that as a rule all actions are determined, and because they are determined and we have only 1 possible choice; that we have no free will. But free will has little to do with the number of possible outcomes and everything to do with how those outcomes come about. Just because an outcome is set, that dosen’t mean that there will be no rational thought, decision making and an ultimate choice to come to the final decision. It simply means that the rational thought, decision making and ultimate choice were bound to happen. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. It is not as if you could just let yourself go limp and fall on the ground but because reality is set, you would flip onto auto mode and start living your life like according to this ultimate unnegotiable and set path. It just means that the decisions you are actively making right now, in this very instance were destined to happen. SOMEBODY HAS TO MAKE THEM HAPPEN! Just because I chose an option which is ultimately set to happen doesn’t mean the other options were absolutely Not Possible, it just means that looking from outside ‘the box’ to inside the box, that ‘choice X’ will only ever be the most rational position to Choose for a person in that specific position…because I will only have the information given in my box to use in my decision. And from inside that box, as the person making the decision, I can still chose from options A, B and C however in the ‘ultimte perspective’ it was bound to happen. This is the problem with Zeno’s argument. He states that the individual doesn’t really have the ability to chose his action because his action is destined to happen from the 3rd person perspective. So let me make this clear. Your actions are determined in the 3rd person perspective, because in that perspective we can weigh all factors that will lead to the decision. You actions Are Not determined in your own perspective though, because you are Still doing the actual action of weighing the factors in your head, forming a want towards a certain outcome and then choosing to do that outcome, even if ultimately the decision is decided in the 3rd person. Remember not to bring statements that are only true in a certain person, into another….Separation of perceptions…Also please remember that this definition doesn’t necessarily have to be correct, but just reasonable. Could a rational person legitimately believe this is true, if so according to the resolution, I should be voted for. The reason I can say that in my reality, everyone else is void of free will, is because my perspective doesn’t take into account their perspective and only in their perspective and any perspective taking into account their perspective, is their free will existent. Their existence within my reality is restricted to a being which simply using its ‘in the box’ resources to come to their decision and choice. Basically the disposition of myself in my body borrows from the perspective of the omniscient on everyone except me. They are all still in the box. But you and I individually are experiencing and choosing our actions. I feel fairly confident about the paradox claim, but I’ll restate my point. As a first person based individual I operate using the information that I have. The world is deterministic for actions because we are restricted to a definite amount of information. I am operating how I am now because I am factoring in all of that information into my decisions. Telling me my next move is giving me more information than the set amount which I currently have. Thus I can use and must use that information, which changes my next move. Also, If I were to look into my next action, I would see me looking into my next action, looking into my next action add infintium and would never actually figure out my next move. This example simply demonstrates my first point. Zeno claims that because his definition is in tune with compatiblism, that it is compatible. This is a nice example of someone trying to deceive based on word play. Compatiblism is the BELIEF that free will is compatible with free will which is then justified on certain proofs and logical concepts however, compatibilism is not a set of requirements which dictate what is and what is not compatible or incompatible with determinism. His ideas about free will align with compatibilism and so do mine, we just have different justifications as to why. I will point out also that Zeno and I’s definition of free will are not competing in the sense that If I am wrong then he wins the debate or vice versa. This is because the debate is over whether the ideas are rational and could be reasonably accepted by someone else. I would like to call attention to the resolution and the requirements to win this debate. Mostly, I would like to point out that the resolution does not demand that my proposition is necessarily correct but just that the ideas presented are reasonable to believe at all. For instance, many people believe that atheism is true however surely even those who do not agree with them, know that their reasons as to why they believe that are reasonable and justifiable. So if my reasoning for my propositions is reasonable At All to believe then I should win this debate. As I conclude I would like to thank ZenoCitium for debating me on this topic, its been great. I have few qualms with my case and have no doubt that the only problem a voter could have with my cause is that they lack understaning of it, r