Determinism is true while Free Will is a fallacy

It appears that my opponent and I agree on most aspects than disagree. The only problem is that the majority of my opponent's arguments is unrelated to the subject matter, and don't support his argument or weaken mine. The only argument against my logic was his claim that I was contradicting myself. Alleged fallacious arguments and contradictions My opponent challenged my analysis and claimed that "…how can this not be a invalid and illogical argument when con goes against the credibility of his argument by contradicting himself? " He also claims: "my opponent mid argument changes his stance and also voids his whole basis for argument". I would like to state that there are no contradictions in my arguments. I claimed and showed in my previous arguments that any given event or cause can either be determined or has free will. There are no other possible outcomes. Do you agree or disagree with this contention? Now was I contradicting myself when I stated: "my contention is not that determinism is always false, because I do believe that determinism is true for the most part"? It appears so when I claim that determinism is not always false and on the other hand I claim that it's always false! But that's a clear misinterpretation of my argument. What I meant is that, for the most part, events were caused by other previous events… or in other words determined. But I claim that there must exist at least one cause which was completely and entirely undetermined. These undetermined causes (or cause) had free will because they were undetermined. To clarify further, my opponent in his opening argument defined determinism as: "…every event that occurs not only has a preceding event that can be quantitative but also a proceeding event…" This is a special kind of determinism, called predeterminism (1). I was challenging my opponent's assertion that "every event must have a preceding event". Alleged Big bang assumption My opponent stated "…he is describing his stance that there is nothing that caused the big bang" and later claimed "The problem is that my opponent is making an assumption". This is a red herring and I am very confused! I never made such a claim… I never mentioned the Big Bang! I agree with my opponent that we cannot assume that the Big Band is the first uncaused cause… and interestingly enough, I never made that claim. This makes the entire rebuttal regarding my alleged Big Bang assumption as completely irrelevant. My opponent also explained with great details the limitations of science, and how no one can prove for absolute certainty that gravity is true…etc. I agree with him that we need to be rational and reasonable given the limitations we have. But I don't understand how this supports his argument or weakens my. My opponent also stated "The point I’m making is that to say something isn’t just because we don’t know is erroneous. " I completely agree with my opponent. I never said that determinism is false because… well we don't know if it's true! " I actually showed proved that "it's impossible for event to have a past event". There must exist at least one uncaused cause. My opponent surprised me when he said: "My argument wasn’t to disprove free will". Then why would you say that it's a fallacy? Are you suggesting that "It's more likely that free will is a fallacy and it doesn't exist"? That's exactly what I was able to disprove in this debate. Conclusion My opponent argued my logic and thought that there was a contradiction. As I said earlier, my challenge is that it's not possible that every cause was determined. This is the definition my opponent expressed in the opening argument. I showed that my opponent's argument is false because I was able to demonstrate that there must exist an undetermined first cause (i. e. had free will). I have to admit that there are other definitions of determinism (2) which I don't disagree with. My debate today was to challenge my opponent's definition of determinism. I understand that the existence of an uncaused first cause seems unsettling. What could that mean? Is that God? Is that M-theory? Will we ever know? But these questions should be left for a separate debate. We must be able to accept logical arguments even if it seems unsettling. Thank you. (1) Predeterminism - . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) Determinism - . http://en.wikipedia.org...