Free will is an illusion

OK, thank you for the debate. My arguments this round will be brief, and to the point. For the sake of the readers, I will only address the main points made by both sides. The first point is the definition of "free will." As mine is from the American Heritage Dictionary, I see it as completely valid. I would ask that the voters stick by my definition. However, I will also show you how the negative wins under my opponent's definition as well. This will be talked about later in the round. "1. The universe is a deterministic system, composed of atoms and governed by the laws of nature." eterminism- an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes Is that so? Well in that case, can you tell me what I will do next? Are you sure? My point here is that the universe is not already spelld out. I can change my path at any time. Say I am riding my bike. I usually ride the Air Force Academy trails. Now I want some variety, and ride in Monument. "Well you were caused to do that by your want for variety." Hmm, and could you tell me when I will reach that point? At what point will I turn around and go somewhere else? The fact of the matter is that you don' know. I can diverge from "the path" at any time I feel like it. "2. So everything that happens in the universe, (including every human thought and action), is the physically necessary consequence of its previous states (including those that obtained before we existed) and the laws of nature." Nope. I can make bad decisions. Here is where my opponent's definition fails her. I may decide to gamble away all of my money for no reason whatsoever. That is not in my nature, but that doesn't stop me from doing it. People do this all the time. They "chose" to act poorly. But they acted on their own will. Question time! Did I act against my nature? Yes. Was I forced to do it? No. Did I have free will to choose it or not? Yes. "3. Humans have no power over the laws of nature or the states that obtained before we existed. (We cannot change them.)" Agreed. "4. Since humans have no power over the things that necessitate their every thought and action, humans have no power to do anything other than what they actually do." Correct, but I can choose what I will do. I can't help doing what I do, but I can choose what my actions, that I will do, are. (I apologize, that statement comes across better when spoken in person) "5. If humans have no power to do other than what they actually do, then humans are not free." As I have said, I can choose what I will do. Therefore by your logic, I am free. "6. So humans are not free." Ah, no. I'm free. --The Shirt Agrument-- Here is my "mistake" "If my opponent makes a choice outside of his nature, then the choice is not made by him. In a truly libertarian sense, this decision cannot have influences of any kind. Any decision without influences is arbitrary. It would be like flipping a coin. I chose A rather than B, not because of who I am, but for no reason at all. It just turned out that way." Are you equating me to a coin? There is a MAJOR difference here. The coin has NO choice in what side it lands on. Do I have a choice of which shirt I choose? You better believe it. Free will is an illusion Negated.