we would be unable to interpret our emotional state

Who is to say that? We might have a different word for the feeling if we had never felt pain, but the feeling would still exist. Those reactions would still happen, and we would feel the same thing.

You're clearly not a physics major, darkness is defined as the absence of light, and vice vearsa, go check.

You are saying light is defined as the absence of darkness? I'm sorry but that is simply wrong.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27356/p_index.htm - "Light is... electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye."

http://physics.info/light/ - "Light is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans."

Light is an actual thing, darkness is the absence of it. Light doesn't require darkness to exist.

Well you only feel that way because you know what its like to not exist, otherwise there'd simply be no way of knowing we exist, its all aboit contrast.

How can I know what it's like to not exist? I've never experienced not existing(If I had, I would have had to exist to experience it).

The reality is though pain cannot exist with joy.

1 - This isn't technically what the debate is about.

2 - Pain is your body's response to harm or potential harm. We don't need to have experienced joy to be able to experience pain. The body is setup to automatically transmit information from nerve endings to the brain.

An emotion is a biochemical process. It happens independently.

Light doesn't require darkness to exist. If light exists, it exists solely because it exists. We could still have the chemical reactions for happiness without ever experiencing sadness.

Debt is nothing more or less than the irresponsible management of money. Governments can go into debt for many reasons, but it usually boils down to trying to oversee too many things, being too involved in other countries' affairs(especially militarily), and flawed ideals that can't be supported.

For instance, welfare programs. Everyone agrees that having something to help people who are struggling is good as an idea, but what if you can't pay for it? No government can take care of all its citizens, nor should it. By attempting to provide welfare to everyone, a government takes money from some and gives it to others(while wasting or losing some of it along the way). This can cause catastrophic results by causing those who are doing well to fall into the needy category.

School doesn't fulfill essential needs for every person as they grow up. It only serves as a basic foundation of knowledge, learning, and social skills. A well-rounded person, however, needs to develop much more that can't be taught inside schools.

Work ethic, financial responsibility, moral and religious values, freedom and creativity... are just examples of what aren't effectively fostered in a school environment. Too much rigidity shackles a young mind.

It's a simple matter of self-image. Those who are concerned how others think of them can be swayed to follow the stereotypes of what is 'manly' and what isn't.

Those who are concerned with living life to its fullest have a tendency to make those kinds of decisions for themselves.

In other words, you either decide whether it is by yourself, or you allow others to decide for you.

I would recommend trying to argue without demeaning people or their arguments. Respectful, rational arguments are more productive.

My point was, the answer is unknowable. One position we can take in relation to it then, is similar to Pascal's Wager. If we cannot empirically determine if free will exists, then it would be best to wager that it does.

There is no way to ontologically determine the existence of free will.

Free will doesn’t mean ‘the ability to choose.’ It means that the choices being made are independent and random.

Here's your problem Coldfire, you don't understand what free will is.

Free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision; the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will]

You shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source for definitions in a debate. Even so, the wiki definition doesn't say 'free from all kinds of restraints', so it doesn't support your position regardless.

Neither should you downvote(if it's you doing it) an argument simply because you don't agree with it. Voting up/down should be in relation to the argument, not the position of the argument.

Free will is the ability to choose for yourself. Having external forces that can be considered doesn't eliminate free will. I have the choice to either comply or try to defend myself if someone pulls a weapon on me.

I personally only down-vote for rude arguments, spam, or arguments so poorly written that they can't be understood.

I would never down-vote someone simply because I disagree with them. I think we should all try to maintain the integrity of respectful debate.

No. It exists in similar areas as I argued earlier, and it also exists in the framework that we create in society.

What makes the God of the Bible any more valid than the God of any other people?

The God of the bible is love. Would a loving parent only give the truth to some of his children?