The people of Texas have the right to secede from the United States of America.

It's now the final round, and I feel quite glad that I accepted this debate. Now, I will follow up on my opponent's closing remarks, and present my conclusion. 1. Some Texans don't believe that they have the right to secede. Right off the bat, my opponent agrees that it is the PEOPLE who decide what is just in this situation. I also concede the fact that one person does not stop a cause, so we'll assume that for a right to be unjust, the majority of the group must vote it so. So my opponent had 3 rounds to provide evidence showing that the majority of Texans did agree it was just to secede. Unfortunately for him, though, he did not provide such evidence. It is his responsibility as Pro to fulfill his burden of proof. As he did not, the point must fall to me. Regarding the government, my opponent missed the crucial part of my semantics attack. My opponent had three contentions proving the the Texas GOVERNMENT had the right to secede from the United States. But the resolution doesn't state the GOVERNMENT has the right but rather if the PEOPLE have the right. As my opponent provided no standing evidence as the how or why people have this right, the point flows to me. So in two ways I have shown how this point flows to me. As I have explained it, the voter will see that this should NOT be ignored as my opponent suggests. 2. Rights aren't real. a. Rights must be chosen by an agent. The careful reader will notice that my opponent provided a different definition than earlier. Earlier my opponent stated that a right was "defined by Merriam-Webster [1] as "something to which one has a just claim"". The fact that it must be 'judged' as mentioned, all comes from my opponent's own definition. If my opponent is now presenting a NEW definition in the last round, then this shows a dirty tactic, abuse, and most of all a contradiction with himself. All of those things are wrong, and the voter should consider the ORIGINAL definition my opponent provided, and brought to this round. Also, in my opponent example, 2 2 =4 is not a right. A right would be like the right to drive. Someone can have a right to drive and not have the right to drive. Both are logical and possible. It is not logical for 2 2 NOT to have the right to equal 4. It's not a value, therefore no right can be attributed to it. Just another point that should go against my opponent and for myself. b. Everything holds "laws" Of course my opponent's thoughts don't feel restricted. As I stated, we have the complete illusion of free will. If we knew the future, we would see everything we would do, and we would realize we didn't have free will. Just in the hanging ball toy, with the five metal balls held next to each other. If you pull one and drop it, you will expect the ball on the other end to pop up. If the toy was in working condition, then this would happen. Our minds are MUCH more complex, but it is still made out of the base materials of the non-animate objects around us. We have no reason to believe our minds are unique from the physical bonds of the universe, and my opponent stating my logic is 'circular' does not make it so. So my opponent's assertion doesn't hold water when compared to the natural law of the universe that we have observed to be true 100% of the time. c. Specific attributes to lack of free will My opponent's refutal of this point lies solely on the evidence provided on Heisenberg uncertainty principle. While this is part of the quantum theory, many prominent scientists directly deny [1] this principle. This is because the principle makes up for something we do not yet have the power to do. Besides, not knowing a particles position and velocity does NOT mean that it does not abide by the laws of the universe. So EVEN if the principle holds true, it doesn't affect the argument. Now my opponent said to 'prove' that he chose to do this argument instead of get a drink. As I have proven the universe is deterministic, this means that we have no actual choice. There is not some particle in our brain that can allow random spontaneous thought. And on how 'specific attributes' is connected to determinism; if everything behaves in a uniform fashion, then every particle (with a uber strong computer) could be exactly calculated. This hypothetically could apply to humans, and scientists have NEVER found anything disproving the theory. d. Opponent must prove determinism is false My opponent has taken an innocent statement from me, and completely misunderstood it. The context that I used, was that because I proved it, my opponent would have to DISprove it. I wasn't saying this as if he had to prove a negative. I had already proved the negative. My opponent also stated that I had few reliable sources an many logical fallacies. The 1 or 2 fallacies my opponent pointed out I explained. If my opponent saw so many fallacies, isn't it logical that he would have presented them. I see no reason why would should take his word not backed up by logic. I have shown logically the determinism is completely true. Also, I have provided some evidence, something my opponent has lacked just as much as me. If you will notice, my opponent will still has not refuted determinism. He has failed to prove my logic incorrect, or sources wrong. Because he could not refute this point, it must go toward me. e. People can't choose, then they can't have rights I have defended this in point A. Don't know why my opponent brought it up again. Probably so he had more points to make, perhaps? f. Illusions of rights As I have proven before, we are not dealing with the government. The constitution is not relevant, as only the people are. See previous arguments, and also conclusion. CONCLUSION My opponent has provided two solid arguments as to why the government of Texas has a right to secede, but has failed to show how the PEOPLE of Texas themselves [as the resolution states] have the right to secede. I have shown rights don't exist, therefore the idea that ANYONE has a right is ridiculous in the first place. This should be enough to win me the round. But in case the voter doesn't buy it, he/she must realize that my opponent did not defend his resolution, but a different one. He showed why the GOVERNMENT has the right [or claims to have done so], but not why to PEOPLE [as resolution actually states] have the right. Because he has had ample time to do this, and hasn't, it seems the round has gone to me. I thank my opponent for this most exciting debate. I relish debates that are actually fun, and let's just say I enjoyed this one QUITE a bit. I look for to debating my opponent again in the future---thank you. 1. A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking