Free Will Exists

I think you misread the debate structure. When I say rebuttals I mean you're supposed to rebut stuff from Round 2, not from round 3, which was all of what you were rebutting against. Oh well, I will continue with my defense from these rebuttals and crystalize my main points."Fate dose -not- control the brain, you also have no evidence to prove your point."My evidence would be my logical reasoning in round one, which you have seemed to have dropped.Fate is calculable and what your brain 'thinks' is calculable, which means that fate controls the brain.I can't really put it into words but I hope you understand what I mean."As you can see, fate is *not apart* of the brain whilst it makes a decision."That quote did literally nothing to disprove that fate exists within the brain and the universe at large.All that it did was say that a small part of the brain is used to make decisions, which are made under the control of fate."Fate to some is fake, so there is no way to convince people that Fate makes decision's."The Sun is fake to some people, does that mean that it does not exist? Maybe, but probably not.The point of this debate is to convince people that fate makes decisions, not a nondeterministic human being and thought process."I'm able to use this source because *I* wanted too, and I have free will."Because the big bang* forced you to plant that.If we looked at all of the particles that were in formation after the big bang, then we could calculate that you would use that source, regardless of what you thought about free will."You used sources that you thought would benefit your argument, as well as I did."Except mine were reliable."How is this sketchy?"Undertones of plagiarism without source attribution."This is kind of funny you say this because I used it to prove a point, yet you haven't rebutted any of my points what-so-ever."Rebuttal dropped"No you chose to do so, you chose to be Con on this debate, you chose to have a 72 hour challenge time."I haven't seen any affirmative proof that free will exists, so can you inform me of how you got to this conclusion of yours?"Again, you don't rebut my points at all. You are just saying how you don' like the way I present my arguments, and how they are incorrect to you."What I meant is that that argument is not an argument that is allowed to be made. You are refuting against things that don't even exist in this debate.Imagine this scenario: someone starts a dogs v. cat debate on the basis of fur color. Pro says dogs are better since they have a richer fur color. Con says cats are better because they can hunt stuff. Wait, what? That's completely unrelated and not acceptable in the debate.And I was only saying how I did not like your sources, which is a completely valid argument to make. The voters are able to vote on the most reputable sources, and I effectively proved that your source was not valid at all.Now onto my crystalization: P1: The laws of the universe are constant (thought our knowledge of them may change) P2/C1: Everything is calculable with enough data within the universe (which means that everything will happen in a particular way) P3: Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of fate P4: Fate is something that is destined to happen in a particular way P5/C2: The universe (and in turn, all of us) have fate bestowed upon us. P6/C3: Nothing in the universe has free will (because everything is fated) C4: Free will does not exist None of these premises or conclusions were refuted against validly, so all of my constructive case is intact.I thank my opponent, though I have not been persuaded that free will exists, which is why I instigated this debate.I ask the gentle voter to go over my case and then my opponent's case, and compare these against the debate structure and see where the points eventually fall. Remember, voter, to read the rules and figure out the secret voting clue.Thanks again