It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form

Thank you for supplying your arguments. Before I get into your five arguments, I want to point out the resolution of the debate: "It is unlikely that we lack free will in some form." You have five arguments that argue in favor of consciousness and emotion. However, one can have consciousness/emotion without the result of a free will. As an analogy, imagine that you are a passenger in a self driving vehicle. Although you are aware of all that is happening around you, and you have specific information for being inside of the car, you are not the one controlling it. In a similar way, it may be true that we have consciousness, but that may not have any CAUSUAL relations to actions that we take. If pro wants to prove that free will exists, he must argue that a consciousness does affect our actions. Otherwise, what I am arguing for may be true, namely, that we are products that react to internal and external stimuli that is beyond the control of consciousness. When having any scientific theory, it is important that it be consistent with all of the empirical evidences. I want to bring attention to a study done in relation to consciousness and the free will: Abstract: There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.(1) This research argues that the consciousness has no causal relationship to the decisions that we make. I ask pro to consider the conclusions of these results, and explain how there can be free will while the subconscious brain seems to be making all of the decisions. Now, to the arguments you made: Argument 1: I accept the conclusion of this argument: Natural selection will select against traits that don't serve a purpose. Argument 2: I accept the conclusion of this argument: Consciousness/emotional awareness serves a purpose. Argument 3: I accept the conclusion: There are things that exist that process information without consciousness/emotional awareness. Argument 4: I accept the conclusion: Conscious awareness is not required for information processing. To add to this point, I want to argue that even adding consciousness/emotional awareness to a system will not alter the behavior of the system. The system will still act as it was programmed to do. Recall the car analogy. The person in the car may have a specific internal experience that no one from the outside of the car will see, however, that specific internal experience does not have any causal relation to the motion of the car. Argument 5: I agree with the conclusion: Human brains to not require the emotion of pain to function. As it turns out, I have agreed with the conclusions of the 5 arguments from my opponent. However, these arguments do not necessitate the conclusion that we have a free will. They do argue that we have a consciousness, and that there may be a use for it. I have no issues with conceding that the consciousness may have some use, as it does allow biological systems to have specific internal experiences. If my opponent wants to prove the resolution, they must provide further arguments and evidence that support a casual connection between consciousness and free will, not merely equate them to the same thing. As we are merely evolved mechanical organisms, we should understand that the consciousness throughout the variety of species is one of gradation. We may be more complex than other animals, but that does not mean that we are capable of choice. We are all organisms, wantons, that react to the environments and from internal desires, factors that we have no control over. And so collapses the courts of law, religion, and all of human civilization. (1) http://www.nature.com...