Every reasonable epistemic framework presumes some basic level of trust in our sensory faculties. Without that trust, we're left with epistemic nihilism, since most if not all knowledge is founded upon our perceptual experience of reality. Unless there's a legitimate reason to doubt the validity of our perceptions, we have no choice but to assume that those perceptions are accurate reflections of reality.
With that in mind, let's recognize the indisputable fact that we're all constantly experiencing the existence of our own free will. At this very moment, you can freely, consciously, and intentionally *choose* to avert your eyes away from the screen. Or you can choose to keep reading instead. Con is arguing that no matter what you choose, it was all pre-determined by the mechanistic forces of the universe, and the mental experience you *literally just had* of making the choice was 100% illusory. His advocacy is completely absurd on every level. Think about all the decisions you've ever made. You *know* that you made those decisions. You distinctly remember making them. It's something you've done over and over and over again throughout the course of your life.
Upon examining the totality of one's perceptual experience, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that free will exists. Con needs to come up with some incredibly convincing evidence to override the validity of that perception. Until he does, we should be fully confident in the existence of free will.
I have all of human experience on my side. It's Con's job to show why we should dismiss it all as an illusion.