Free will is an illusion.

From what I understand, my opponent's main arguments are1) we have developed ways to predict people's actions - therefore the choice to commit to those actions isn't free will. .2) other factors may contribute to an act - the act therefore is not an act of free will. Let us once again consider the definition of free will which I have provided above: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. "There is no correlation between prediction and free will. Free will is the power to act without the constraint of necessity or fate. Thus any act that isn't necessary, the acquisition of luxury and non-living essentials for example, is an act of free will. The ability to predict acts of free will does not mean that acts of free will do not exist. For example, I could predict that a car moving at a constant speed of 50mph non stop wlil cover a distance of 50miles every hour. The car exists. Generically speaking, my opponent is claiming that the ability to predict an element A means that element A does not exist. That's ridiculous. Miscellaneous contributing factorsAgain, consider the definition of free will. Experiences may contribute to a person's choice to act without necessity's constraints, but the fact that they do in fact act without such constraints is absolutely indicative of free will. The same conclusion applies to my opponent's second general argument: there is no correlation between the argument and free will. Conceded point - choice exists"I'm going to consolidate all of your 4 evidences into one basic phrase: We choose to perform our actions. "Therefore we always have the option/ability to act outside of necessity, satisfying the definition of free will. ============================== There is no such thing as objective necessity==============================Although the existence of operations which most would agree are unnecessary, such as buying 50 pairs of shoes or using DDO, are sufficient to proving the existence of free will, I'm going to go one step further and say that all actions are not objectively necessary and thus, objectively, all actions affirm free will. Let's test this shall we? Let's test the objective necessity of eating. The test:Many would agree that the act of eating is objectively necessary. Why is eating an objective necessity? One could argue: "well, you'd die of you don't eat! " - the response is saying that life is an objective value, that not dying is objectively significant. Alright, I will regress further and ask for affirmative evidence as to why life is an objective value. One could argue: "look, life is important because it is precious and rare and beautiful. "And here is where life's supposed objectivity fails! Beauty is subjective. Appreciation of a thing for its rarity is subjective. Life is subjective. Therefore anything that sets life as a value toward which we should strive: eating, breathing, sleeping, living, etc. are necessarily subjective. Ergo, there is no such thing as objective necessity. Any act we do exists outside of objective necessity. It's as simple as seeing the fact that it is impossible for an act to be objectively necessary. Thus free will objectively exists and can be affirmed by any and all things that we choose to do.