Me vs Josh Ross on Responsibility

Josh Ross, arguing that responsibility does not exist because of causality (determinism) does not address my point at all.

The original comment that lead to my inquiry on the definition of responsibility:
"determinism dictates that I am not responsible for my actions nor can I be judged for them as its all just one long chain of cause and effect"

My response:
"I need to know why causality (determinism) negates responsibility" and "I fail to see how free will or determinism has any effect on this circumstance. Perhaps I, or Josh Ross, do not understand what being responsible means."
A definition of responsible was needed to address this point.

Your response to this:
"Reginald the argument for no responsibility because free will (choice) does not exist is quite simple" and "In fact I have no true control" and a link to Sam Harris's book on Free Will.
The book lacks a definition of responsibility, other than to say that responsibility applies only when free will applies.

According to Sam Harris, a person can only be responsible for an event because -they could have- acted differently. There is no use of the term responsibility, in the past or in the present, that has such a conditional.
I will provide several possible definitions of responsibility taken from dictionaries:
[taken from this link https://www.google.com/search?q=responsible]
* having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
<the department responsible for education>
* being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
<the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer>
[below is taken from merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsible]
a : liable to be called on to answer
b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent.
<a committee responsible for the job>
(2) :  being the cause or explanation
<mechanical defects were responsible for the accident>
c :  liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties

We could examine a dead person and say '-what- was responsible for his/her death?' We could find out that this person had a brain tumor and this eventually caused this person to die. At which point we would conclude that the brain tumor was responsible for their death. At no point would anyone suggest that the only way the tumor could be responsible is because the tumor could have acted differently, in fact, the tumor wouldn't even need to act at all.
When it comes to a person being responsible for an event, it is simply a recognition of cause followed by an assignment of blame or credit to that person's will. The nature of that will, or the events leading up to the creation of that will, do not appear to be conditionals for responsibility. The will only needs to be present in this chain of cause and effect, and then a consideration of culpability can begin.
Redefining responsibility so that it requires a 'free' will, then claiming that free will does not exist, then claiming people aren't responsible for events that their will is involved in causing seems like a misunderstanding to me.

Here are the full list of problems that were created during this conversation and need to be addressed before a discussion can even start:

1) Definition of Responsible
"determinism dictates that I am not responsible for my actions" - JR
So far all I did was provide colloquial definitions for responsible from the dictionary. I'm perfectly ok with a more academically rigorous definition should it be needed.

2) Requirements for Judgement
"nor can I be judged for them as its all just one long chain of cause and effect" - JR
Examining cause and effect and determining responsibility is the entire point of judgement. We already know that in the event of damages caused by a drunk driver we do not blame the car dealership for selling the car, even though we would all agree that the dealership is part of the chain of cause and effect leading up to those damages.

3) Definition of Free Will
"the argument for no responsibility because free will (choice) does not exist is quite simple" - JR
I don't believe free will has anything to do with responsibility, but if we insist on involving the idea of free will in this discussion we should at least define it, and that is to mean, describe its nature and distinguish it from causality.

4) Requirements for Control (leading possibly to a need to define Action)
"In fact I have no true control" - JR
This looks like another problem similar to responsibility, specifically that free will is a requirement. "Every 'choice' I think I make is merely based on neuron pathways in my brain that formed out of events beyond my control" which is going to lead to the nature of choice as it applies to action. In order for a person to act, they need to:
1. detect their own preferences [motivation]
2. detect the conditions in the environment through perception [senses]
3. consider their knowledge of how the environment operates and what their own capabilities are for changing it so that it conforms better to their own preferences [form a list of ends]
4. consider a set of options they have for applying resources at their disposal towards the better environment they are seeking [form a list of means]
5. consider the value of satisfying each of those ends compared to the costs associated with each set of means assigning priority accordingly [arrange ends and means by value]
6. apply resources to the highest economically valued end [act]
Step 4 is relevent to the nature of choice, but in none of these steps is causality evaded.

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against free will or determinism.