Free will exists

I will begin with what I consider to be the gist of his proposition. I will then turn to the remainder of his argument. My opponent claims that humans have an ability to "veto what our brain wants us to behave". It appears he is basing it on the premise that humans can decide not to have sex even if their brain is telling them to. I agree that humans can decide not to have sex. But let us ask ourselves, how does the decision not to have sex come about? The answer is that the decision is a process which takes place in the brain. It is based on electrochemical reactions over which we have no control. Every thought we have and every decision we make is based on those reactions. They are complex and there are a great many of them and information is processed at enormous speeds. The brain can be in conflict with itself. A part of it can dictate "have sex", another part can say "do not have sex". In the end the brain will make a decision. That decision can be made based on a number of things. The brain will process volumes of information to make that decision. But the process of making it is, once again, a physical electrochemical process within the brain. My opponent has agreed with the assumptions and definitions and the only possible conclusion from them is what I am stating now. I do not know what drives my opponent to claim that humans are not subject to evolution. If we assume that evolution is a valid concept (and that is not part of this debate), then humans are, in my submission, very much subject to it. Evolution in Darwinian terms relies on the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Natural selection is based on sexual selection in humans. We choose what we consider the most suitable partner to have offspring with and thus to propagate our genes. We generally look for someone who is "good looking" (this means they look healthy and - as has been suggested - similar to ourselves in some ways). A woman might want a man who is a good lover. This simply means that he has the genotype that will likely ensure that their offspring will be verile. We like someone to be smart. That's important in today's society because our culture rewards intelligence (financially! ). We want them to be funny and friendly. Such people find it easier to find social support. This will again ensure a better chance of survival and propagation for our offspring. Humans are very much subject of evolution. I encourage my opponent to think about that the next time he admires the beauty or other attributes in a woman. I contend further that my opponent may not at all be correct in claiming that animals are different to humans in the aspect he chose to discuss. Natural selection in animals (at least those who reproduce sexually) is based on sexual selection. There are a great many species and their courting rituals vary greatly. However, animals go to great lengths to attract a partner. They make choices as to who they will court. They can change their minds about having sex with a partner, very much like we do. The female of a species known as "dog" in fact often runs away from the male. Some animals are monogamic (seahorses for example). Experiments on non-human primates have shown that their behaviour is surprisingly similar to ours. If my opponent has a dog and has ever taken it for a walk, he might in fact be aware of how many different choices and behaviours the dog exhibits. You call him, he comes. Then he might run off and sniff a female dog. Then you call him again. He'll hesitate for a while. He might ignore you and continue "talking" to his new friend or he might ignore her and come to you. He might greet you warmly or sulk off into a corner. For my opponent to say that animals do not make choices or that their choice process is markedly different to ours is a huge generalisation. It may be true that some animals have a less developed sense of "self" than humans. Again, this only depends on the complexity of the animal's brain. In one experiment, a young chimpanzee was shown her own reflection in a mirror. After a little play the chimpanzee seemed to realise that that is her own image. She started having fun with it. Dancing around and enjoying the image in the mirror. But further prove was needed. The following day a green mark was painted on the chimp's forehead. The chimp was then again shown to the mirror. She noticed the mark on the forehead of the chimp in the mirror. Her hand then travelled to her own forehead. She felt the mark with her hand while looking in the mirror. This was held to prove that the chimp knew that the mirror was her own reflection and that she had a firmly established sense of "self". The same experiment was conducted on human children. They behaved in a very similar way. I saw this experiment in a show on the Animal Planet channel. If challenged to, I will attempt to find sources for this. To sum it up, animals are not at all as different to humans as my opponent suggests. Humans are also subject to the laws of evolution. I believe, however, that that entire point is not central to the topic of this debate. BOTTOM LINE Even if a person changes his/her mind about something or if he or she refuses to follow an insctinct, that decision is generated by the brain through electrochemical processes that the person cannot control.