Defining free will as the ability to freely choose and using the ability to choose as proof of free will is weak. A conscious choice could still be predetermined. It could be predetermined that certain groups like women, members of the LGBTQ community, or racial minorities would have less choices. 

The whole argument could be much stronger with a different definition of free will. 

To make a choice is to act externally. I chose the red apple instead of the green apple. I choose to cheat on my wife. Thinking about cheating on my wife is not choosing to cheat on her. Thinking about doing it is still an act of free will though. It seems that in the free will debate, stronger points can be made (on both sides) concerning internal rather than external free will. There's a lot more freedom to think than to act. I can think about flying but cannot actually fly. In an argument on free will, the most reasonable area of focus would be that where there is the most freedom. 

So I’ll propose another definition of free will: 

Free will is the ability to think about and reasonably attempt to fulfill your needs. So you have the free will to think about whatever you want and try to get what you want. This means that free will is only really impacted by education.  

A common argument against free will is the randomness of thought. From what I can gather, the argument goes as follows: 

  1. 1.

    All thoughts are random or externally influenced (hence the random movie experiment) 

  2. 2.

    Conscious decisions are based on internal choices (I could make the decision to cheat on my wife but that decision is based on the choices to or to not cheat on my wife) 

  3. 3.

    Internal choices are thoughts 

  4. 4.

    So, choices are random or externally influenced 

  5. 5.

    Because choices are random or externally influenced, so are the decisions 

  6. 6.

    There is no free will 

I’m sure someone else has explained this better, but that reconstruction generally seems

to generally cover it. Logically it kind of follows. You don't choose your choices so there's no free will.  This is partially true. You don’t choose your choices. I don’t have the choice to fly or grow another arm. Circumstance presents a set of choices as the brain presents a set of thoughts. What doesn't make sense is why a lack of control over choices means a lack of control over decisions. Taking a multiple choice test, you don't choose the options, but that doesn't mean you don't make a conscious decision. 

The language surrounding that argument also tends to separate the body and soul. “The brain” and what it does vs what you do implies that you are not your brain. This works for a separate body and soul; if the brain creates thought and you are not your brain then you don't form your own thoughts. But if you believe (and I do) that you are your brain, then random thoughts are random actions on your own behalf. Ultimately though, that's a matter of opinion on a separate topic from free will. 

I'm not entirely convinced by free will or determinism, but from what I’ve read and thought about, free will seems to make more sense.