I think the objections to the question stem from the built in assumptions it asks one to accept. Specifically, asking if the soul "retains free will". It's hard to answer the question without first speculating on free will at all, which the questioner did not address. I think this is indicative of one line questions.
But then it can just be a conversation starter.
So, to continue...
It might be helpful to ask if there can be free will without a soul. And perhaps answer the question: what is a soul (and what is free will)? I tend to find that when people speak of "soul" or "spirit" they are generally providing a metaphor for things they can't explain, or that they believe to be outside the laws of the physical Universe (which I don't believe to be possible). The soul is something of an inner God, if God is used to explain the unexplainable. Attributing free will to the mysterious unknown seems to satisfy the need for an answer. But it is really just accepting that you don't care enough to really think it through. Thats why these types of conversations can go round and round. The truth has gravity, but it can be a hard landing. Easier to just enter orbit.
Kind Regards