"Free Will" do exist

C.1 All acts are causally determined or random leaving no room for free-will Pro says, "not all people are "chained" in the "action/reaction" effect." He does literally nothing to demonstrate this assertion. Note how pro hasn't even argued against my reasoning that all acts are either causal or random. How then can he say not every one is bound in such a way? All acts are determined or random (not disputed). Determined acts leave no room for free-will because your decision is inevitable before you were even conscious of it. Random acts are the only ones that can escape the laws of causality and those blatantly can't allow free-will because they're entirely out of control and based on chance.Pro furthermore seems to equate free-will with events corresponding to "what we want". That is just a semantics argument. He's taking the definition of "will" to define free-will. He can't do that because free-will is very different to simple will. Both my definition and my opponents initial definition stray far from that meaning. Pro doesn't say much else except talk about how we're limited but not entirely. Well I never used the term "limited" in my case. It's not about being limited. I don't take determinism as limitation very much. It's about the natural laws of physics disallowing any notion of free-will to exist. We're constrained to the laws of physics. It's not a limitation, just a physical necessity. We can't transcend the laws of nature. C.2 Free-will is an incoherent conceptPro defines free-will as, " the ability to think freely, despite of the "limitations" we have". This is largely ambiguous, namely because he doesn't explain what "free" means or "limitations". If pro thinks my case rests on the premise that limitations cause us to not have free-will, then he is mistaken. It doesn't have to do with limitations, rather the causal and sometimes random nature of the universe. Pro does have the ability to blaspheme God yes, but then again, a rock also has the ability to withstand force. Since when has ability equaled free-will? Pro also says the fact that he can't change the afterlife, means he does not have free-will in that circumstance. Well I have to say, this is strong support for my case. Can someone change what is inevitable? That would be a contradiction so of course not. But determinism entails inevitability and randomness entails zero control (a dichotomy pro has hardly disputed). So pro cannot change anything. Nothing at all. He can't change what he's going to do in twenty seconds time because it's all part of the causal order of things. I've asked my opponent already and he has failed to answer. What act is neither random or caused? If I was determined by nature to get in my car and go to work today, was that free? Pro hasn't come across to me as a compatiblist, so I doubt he'd say yes. So then someone like Michio Kaku might answer that neurological events in the brain have been discovered to not be determined, leading us to believe we are free. But that utterly fails to answer it because those events are random, and random events are just so obviously not free. So where is pro's explanation? What act has any one ever made in the history of the universe that occured NOT by causality or randomness?Pro's attempt to clarify free-will only leads to further confusion.C.3 ‘Choices’ are shown to be made before the agent is conscious of themPro brings an unfortunately incoherent rebuttal to this point. His argument doesn't even make sense. He hasn't failed to refute the science I posted whatsoever. He seems to believe the ability to reason allows us to have free-will. This is an all-too common argument for free-will, but still a weak one. I've already refuted it in previous posts so no need to reiterate here. I would like to say, however, that it has nothing to do with the contention. We have the ability to reason, but neuro science proves that whatever reasoning we have, was inevitable before we were conscious of it.