ofcourse it does. It shows how brain physiology can change who you are. A tumor can do it, drugs can do it as well, even a conversation with a special someone can change your future actions.

Yes, it shows how brain physiology can change who you are. So what? Trauma can also turn you into a vegetable. If you have lost a free will*(let us assume it exists) because of trauma or any other physiological changes it doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist at all. Changes means only that you have a deal with new circumstances.

• Free will - the ability to choose how to act.
  Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.

Have you proved that inclination 100% leads to action? Prove it first than we will talk about it. Can your opinion without any support serve as a strong argument? Surely not. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true but your premises are false hence your conclusion is false.

There is no need for him to make. You are the one making the allegation that free will exists. Again, you are intellectually dishonest since you provide no evidence for it.

Intellectualy dishonest?))) What an argument)))

Mentioned study only states that we can predict with a 60% probability what button will be pressed. As i have said earlier the results are interesting, still they can not serve as a proof. Let's measure more complex tasks first but before it's done you have no scientific support for your claims. 20 years of thorough study the author said. Your personal interpretation of a particular study can't serve as evidence.

So what do we have here? Unsounded arguments and link to an academic study that doesn't make any claims that can support your conclusions and states the necessity of further research on the matter.

P.s.
Alexis fairly pointed that such kind of topics need more thorough approach. I also think so. Try harder next time or you will always end up with such superficial articles as this.