Free will is an illusion.

I will begin by expanding on what I meant at the end of my previous Round - I believe you have misconceptions that are affecting an unbiased view on the subject. You state because one chooses the easiest - or most logical - conclusion, the freedom to choose the 'other' options have somehow been revoked. The query you asked at the end of your last round has been severely hampered and has brought to light my next point. The answer, as you have predicted - is Yes. However, you have structured this question to remonstrance my position by removing all variables in the question (Answer yes, or no). The query you had, had many, MANY options available to me, but to accept the question, I had to sit within those rules. I could have not answered, I could have said Maybe, a friendly No - or anything else that appeared in my head. You say logic, first reactions and the hybrid (the Type A,B and C) - solidifies your stance on that there are no options available, I call bogus to this claim. Each of the positions you have provided are based upon a 'Global stereotype' of reactions, and that verifies that all people will choose this. Let me provide you with an example to show you that regardless of the choice, the choice to choose is still there. Example 1 - People walk into a room, There is a handgun on a device with a Red Button, and a Doorway with a Green button - the 'choices' available are as follows : Red Button - Cannot be pressed without being in direct line of fire of handgun - and pressing it will fire the gun (Likely outcome = Death) Green Button - Opens the door to the exit Logic dictates that the Green button is the best option, and from a perspective of a survey, or just simple statistics, it is very easy to predict what the choices will be - Green. However, each person who enters that room, will have the initial dilemma of "Which button shall I choose?" - They will get the information, and from there they will choose their best outcome - Green. It does nothing to remove the fact that all it takes is one suicidal person to approach that room to prove that free will exists, just because people are engineered for self-preservation is irrelevant to the fact that if they CHOOSE to, they can go against the predicted outcome. You made an example of witnessing a mugging - Very true that majority of people will do nothing (that appears to be changing to instead of nothing, it is "Take phone out and tape the whole thing, hoping the entire time someone comes to rescue the victim", which is essentially nothing) - however, each situation is actually intrinsically different from the other. People aggregate facts together while presuming each individuals reaction, and believe this to be irrefutable evidence, this is not the case - In one instance, the person witnessing the mugging is John Cena, One can assume that he is confident in his physical confrontation skills and abilities, his option is probably confront. Michael Cera on the other hand, may resort to words, or the video option - This is directly related to each persons personal predilections, you could easily predict the likely cause - however this does not stop anyone from breaking those expectations - Michael Cera may just open a good old fashion "Can of whoopass" on the muggers - he may win or lose, however the choice to proceed is completely up to the person who is in the predicament - They CAN choose - therefore the choice is there, ergo Choice = Freedom As stated before, the fact that logically or the easiest option is the only one chosen, it does not negate the fact that the choices are there, and the potential for them to choose exists; THAT is free will - the fact that there are other options that can be chosen, should be irrefutable evidence that the freedom to choose is there - and that is the definition of Free will - there is nothing stopping you from doing what is expected, however whenever one desires so, they can do what they choose to do, regardless of all and any information, and do as they wish. The point of my round here is not to present any new information on my perspective of this debate, but to change the perspective viewed of my opponent - You seem to believe that because option A is the best, and most people will choose it, that removes the fact that Free will exists. I concede that in most situations, there is a clear action or series of actions that are presumed to be the 'Best' option (as in that individuals perspective, that is their believed best option) and those options are taken. You could say that in a buffet, people have no 'options' available too them - say you go to an 'All you can Eat' place; There may be a lobster course right next to the bread and water table, This does not mean that people who choose lobster are mindless "sheeple" who follow only predetermined algorithms and therefore cannot choose - but are simply people who have chosen to take a course - other people just have 'happened' to have chosen that option as well, and one can assume what following people will take, based on what they have viewed. In all and any of our examples, we both provide each other with a list - i.e. Option A (Best course), B and sometimes a C. I am surprised that the fact that each of these options being brought up seems to be missed that they attribute to the fact that options ARE available, which is exactly why I maintain that Free will exists - The options are available, and CAN be chosen - Chances are they will not, but that does not nullify the fact that they are there - People choose escalators and Lifts over stairs, but at any point, people can choose to walk up those stairs. Again, thank you so much for this debate, I have had a lot of fun building your perspective in my head, and trying to work around what you have brought up - Good luck with your response.