noodles

i have a paper coming up soon in class and i've found myself at a frustrating intersection. i've studied these two barrels of laughs for a few weeks. i have two thesies, i only have to write an argument/objection/reply paper on one of the two. i can't come up with any good objections to my argument(s) because i've spent the last month or so discussing the topics and every objection i come up with seems like it has an obvious answer, which is not what i'd consider a GOOD objection. a good one is a brain-buster that isn't something one can brush off with an easy reply. anyway, i'd appreciate some fresh insight and objection ideas on the topics and i'll try and put sufficient background information to help, if more info is needed, i'll provide.

1) Sartre is right in thinking that we have no excuses for the choices we make.
[background info: sartre pushes the idea of radical free will. man can choose to do anything it wants, just circumstances won't necessarily allow a choice to come to fruitition; for example, an inmate can choose to break out of jail but it doesn't mean he will succeed]

2) Nietzsche is correct in thinking that Judeo-Christian beliefs are dominated by reactive forces.
[background info: nietzsche thinks judeo-christian followers' actions are all based on the slave morality. slave morality being a morality that defines a person based on what they are not (for example, the ten commandments: you are good if you are not an adulterer, murderer, etc.), instead of what they are. slave morality is an example of reactive forces. reactive forces are characterized by acting in opposition to and attempting to prevent the fruition of active forces, which are characterized by simply doing their best to attain their goal.]

p.s.: an objection is just an example where the thesis is (possibly) incorrect. i can handle doing the replies myself, if i think the objection is good enough.