Free will is an illusion that does not exist

Free will exists. Response mode will come first, then I will make any other points. My opponent was kind enough to label his points with numbers, so I will respond to each numbered point. RE: 1. "Free will doesn't exist" My opponent uses a dilemma in a video game store to try and get his point across. We want to buy a game, so he claims we have two choices - we can either buy it or steal it. First, I would point out that this seems to be a case of my opponent conceding that free will exists. Even if these were the only two choices, my opponent specifically acknowledges that a person is capable of actually making a choice. That is free will at work. Further, there are so many other possibilities. Rather than buying it immediately or stealing it, we could decide it costs too much and not buy it, we could decide to wait until the price drops before buying it, we could decide to haggle over the price. We have a great many options. However, I think I see the point my opponent was trying to make by this two-possibility scenario. He is claiming that we are not making choices, but rather that social pressures are making those choices for us. For instance,the reason we would not steal the game is because society expects us not to, and not necessarily because of our own will. However, my opponent is wrong here. I am not saying social pressures have no effect. Rather, they are just that, pressures. If I pressure you to do something, you still have a choice. For instance, a person at that video game, even though society's laws pressure that person to not steal, still has the choice to steal. That isn't to say that there won't be consequences, but the choice is still there, and that's what matters. Free will is people's ability to make what choices they want to. It is not the ability for people to do whatever they want without consequence. RE: 2. "All people have forces of good and evil in them" My opponent suggests that every decision we make is either us conforming to the good in us or to the bad in us. I will point out that even if this were true, it is still our decision. While the environment might restrict one's options [for instance, I can't flap my arms and fly], a person is still able to choose between all possibilities. And also related to this point is the fact that most decisions are not a matter of good vs. evil. What I'm going to eat for dinner tonight is something I decide based on what food I prefer, not on some notions of good and evil. And even if my decision was based off good and evil, the fact remains that I am making a decision and therefore exercising free will. RE: 3. "Wrapping it up" My opponent says here that we each have our own personality, and we make decisions based on our own personality. That is exactly what free will is. For instance, my opponent claims he is a friendly person. Therefore, if he saw a guy laying on the street, he would probably choose to help the guy up, or something along those lines. While our personalities do inform our decisions, what else would free will mean? Free will means that _I_ can make my own decisions. I am a being with a certain personality, so of course that personality is going to inform my decisions. The very act of my personality determining what I choose to do _is_ free will. If I want to eat steak tonight instead of eating cereal, that decision would be based on my personality [personality here being a much broader term than it usually is]. That personality IS me, so I am still making that choice. My personality isn't some third party, making all my choices for me, it is the very essence of what we are, at least in a mental sense. My opponent says we are slaves to ourselves, but this makes no sense. This is the exact same thing as saying we are our own masters. Either way, one point is clear - we make our decisions, nothing else does it for us. While some outside things might _influence_ a decision, the actual decision always comes directly from the mind of the person making it. My opponent has only agreed with me. The language he used in his first point indicates that he does indeed believe people can make choices. This is already a concession on his part. In point three, he said we were slaves to ourselves, also showing that it indeed a person who makes his/her own decisions. Even so, I have given adequate rebuttals, and I have laid out a case for why free will exists. One last point. A. "Cogito ergo sum." This what a Philosopher named Descartes said. It is latin - translated, it means "I think, therefore I am." This was what Descartes saw as the one principle that a person could not possibly doubt. The very act of thinking about whether or not you exist means you do exist [because you are thinking]. He did not use this argument to prove that we had physical bodies - to him, this was not able to be proven 100%. The 'I' in Cogito Ergo Sum simply represents a thinking thing - and that is exactly what we are. The sum of my mental processes - that is what I am. I think we would agree that if I had no mental activity and could never think again, I would be dead regardless of whether my body was still alive. Further, it is true that I would be alive if only my mental processes remained, and the majority of my body was gone. A man can lose an arm, and he is still the same person. A man can lose his mind, and he is not. I would like to ask my opponent a question. If not our mind, what are WE, the things which apparently lack free will? Decisions are made by the mind - what else would you consider a person to 'be'? Even if we consider a person to be the sum of all his/her physical body, that includes the entire decision-making part of a physical person - the brain - so people are still the makers of their own decisions.