Existence of Human Freewill

My argument for free will does not boil down to an argument ad populous. We see that we have choices in every day life. If someone makes the claim that those choices are in fact not free, they bear the burden of proof. For example, I have a free choice of what to eat for lunch. I love to try new things. But according to Con's argument, I have no choice in what to eat for lunch, that what I'm going to eat for lunch all boils down to what's in my nature or what I've been programmed to enjoy. He has not shown that I'm a slave to nature or nurture in this argument and so has not met the burden of proof. I have shown in my opening argument how the choices we make are free, so therefore I have met my burden (think back to my example about nature versus nurture, the candy bar versus celery example -- this was not an example from personal opinion so I again extend this argument as it has not been responded to).A Chain of ReactionsCon says that "cultures are not bound to make decisions as a collective," which is true if we have free will. However, if we don't have free will then, again, everyone who grows up in a particular culture would all hold to the same standard of morality. There's just no getting around that, no matter how hard Con tries. If these people all have the same natural processes that get them to where they are, then they would have no choice but to follow the same standards.Additionally, Con's response to my argument about adultery is absurd. I believe that adultery is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't in some point in time in the future fall into temptation and commit adultery. If I were, Con believes that I wouldn't really believe that adultery is wrong. This is ridiculous, as I know what I believe. And if I were to commit adultery, I would feel guilty afterward, thereby confirming that my belief is that adultery is wrong.So again, Con's argument is invalid. Not all human actions are influenced and even if they are, that does not preclude us acting against what we believe to be true.Choice can also be proven to exist. I showed in my opening argument that we do have choices and we can make them freely.Also, Occam's Razor does not meant that the simplest explanation must be the correct one. Additionally, it often results in the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. [1]Con's argument has been shown to be invalid and therefore unsound.Paradigm and Other InfluencesCon asserts that my argument is void, but in reality it is not. While a person's actions may be observed by how he grew up, the person himself knows whether his nature or nurture, or neither, supports his actions. Again, there are people who go against their nature or their nurture. The ability for others to observe it is irrelevant. Again, I extend my arguments. I have shown that nature or nurture doesn't automatically determine one's nature, since siblings who are raised the same way can grow up to be very different people.Con has also not shown that infinity exists in reality. Infinity is an abstract amount that doesn't exist in reality, and the math problem that Con used last round was also an abstract amount. Con gave vague descriptions of people who could have an influence on someone, but this doesn't mean that person's influence will stick and it also doesn't account for the people whose influence would be exactly the same.I have shown that we do, indeed, make free choices and Con has not adequately refuted that, nor has he met his burden of proof. Please vote Pro. That is, if you can make the free choice to do so.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...