Interesting idea for a video, Blue. Free will is a pet hobby of mine, as it tends to fall into several logical and philosophical areas that I regularly read about. Given my interest and that this is a video series, I thought I would start this topic and give a little discussion on the matter of free will.
First, there is the matter of the definition of "free will" that people use when they are discussing the idea. Those that believe in free will are, in general, those that subscribe to the idea that they are masters of their domain and their destiny. They believe that they are the sole directors of their actions, that this direction is always at their disposal, and is free of external factors that might redirect or influence it. This can come in various strengths, of course. But the core idea is the notion that they are free agents able to act as they please. Those that do not believe in free will offer up the idea of determinism, which argues that no one has free will to do anything. Everything we are and everything we can do is set in stone - one cannot change the path that they are on no matter how hard they try. Like free will, determinism has various strengths and types, but the core remains basically the same.
It is interesting to note at this juncture that it would seem that many religions will only assume the point of free will and ignore any form of deterministic outlook, regardless of whether or not parts of their own philosophy necessitate such restriction. For example, Christian religions often assume the notion of free will, that god created you free and that you are free to act as you please. Yet, within their philosophy, we find a God that "knows everything" or is at "the beginning and the end". If such a thing were to be the case, then the creature described would appear to violate the very notion of free will, given that it knows all things and is sitting at the end of the cycle. If that is the case, it has seen your birth, life, and death already and knows how you will act. But to know that, your path would need to be determined in some manner. If one chooses something that is supposed to be "different", the entity that they describe must have already seen that change, given it has seen everything from the start to the end already. This is a logical contradiction - a fallacy - that tends to eliminate at least the idea of free will OR an omniscient entity.
So the question is, which of these are closer to the truth? We know that both sides have a number of versions of their central theme and as this is a matter of philosophy (and therefore opinion), to say one is absolutely correct and one is not would be fallacious. So then, which one? Well, honestly, neither is correct. As certain as it is that we do not have "choice" as those that support free will would have it, so too are we lacking the certain destiny that determinism would have us wallow under. This is going to take a little explanation.
As Blue states in the video, rarely is any of our decisions free of outside influence. We all have things that weight in on our decision process and things that restrict what decisions might be made in a given circumstance. Your taste in music is often influenced by your parents and your friends. To "choose" a new album to listen to often entails having these opinions and those of reviews and the staff in the store color what you will decide upon. In this manner, free will is a phantom. However, in much the same way, the decision at that moment and many others are (in the end) yours to make. You can decide to leave the store or balk at what people are telling you or to go with advice or so forth. These are all before you and open to you to choose equally. No one is forcing you to choose one way or another in that case. So in that manner, determinism looks foolish.
The answer is, of course, that it all depends on how you look at it. Both sides have a point and both are also wrong. We are deterministic in many ways, but we may also exercise the ability to choose between options. Those options might be deterministic or the result of someone else exercising their own free will in response to a determinism or another act of choice and so on and so on. The answer can be viewed harshly and pessimistically, resulting in an endless string of "Yeah, but that was determined". Or it can be viewed as uplifting and positive, resulting in a stream of "Yeah, but someone decided that". To me, the answer is simply in the middle.
One word of caution, Blue. Some of the more fundamentalist on Youtube might quote you from context in that video. The jest near the center of the video is that one cannot act without factors causing that action. That can be construed as an argument for a creator, given that this is very similar to the fallacy of the first mover. "Each action must have a cause" - this statement can be construed as support for a prime mover argument. I know that is not what you meant, but these people are without scruples or honor. They will use anything you say against you if they can. I suggest careful wording in that regard.