Free will exists

Right off the bat though, I should clarify that I do not believe that humans are not subjected to evolution. Throughout my response in second round, I have said that we do have the urge to have sex, and this urge is the manifestation of evolution's workings on us. This manifestation is also seen in other urges that we (and other animals) have. An urge to eat whenever we are hungry, drink whenever we are thirsty, avoid pain and uncomfort, so on and so forth. My opponent has given examples of these behaviors of ours. None of which, however, adequately contends with the arguments I made in the second round. While my opponent has given examples of our behaviors that were hardwired into our brain due to natural selection, he has left out EXCLUSIVELY behaviors of humans. Example of this would be sexual abstinence in cases which the reason isn't so he/she could find a "good lover" or to have "virile offspring". They are reasons that cannot be explained using biological evolution alone. Examples of exclusively human behaviors are numerous. Suicides, self-starve, etc. Having said that, I'll rebut my opponent's argument again. My opponent says that all decisions, even those that would go against our innate urges, are unconscious decisions made beforehand by our brain. The question I will ask my opponent is, why would our brain make these kind of decisions? Wouldn't our brain's always vote for decisions that have the most evolutionary benefits? From my opponent's perspective, we should have sex whenever we want, and eat whenever we want, for this is what is hardwired into our brain. But instead, we control ourselves, and our evolutionary urges. There must be a part of us that can veto our brain's unconscious decisions. Going further, my opponent has explained that us vetoing of brain, is just the brain in conflict with itself. The brain process mass information, and at a certain moment, one part of the brain may disagree with another part. In essence, my opponent is saying that our brain would process a certain amount of information, and then make a final decision, all of this, unconsciously and uncontrollable. This observation however, is not very firm. One could easily think of situations in which there are no new information flowing into the brain, yet we might not make our decision until much later. Surely, our brain's decision making is not an unconscious input and output. For example, voters may read this debate to its full, thereby, has all the information the voter already need in order for the brain to make a decision. If the voter does not know which side to vote for, yet is forced to vote, the voter would most likely vote differently if given a different amount of time. If the voter votes after 5 days, his vote isn't necessarily the same if he had voted after 10 days instead. This observation shows that our brain isn't just machine that would process input, and give an output. Instead, the brain process input, and the person would be able to consciously decide what the output is going to be. Because the output isn't always necessarily the same given the same information input into the brain, this shows that the conflict isn't really between two unconscious parts of our brain, but rather, the conscious person being in conflict with his brain.