Expert's Debate competition R1: On balance, free will is more likely to exist than not

My argument involves two sections, one a descriptive ontology of reality, which my opponent may or may not disagree with, and two a metaphysical argument regarding free will that pro will almost certainly disagree with. I would rather condense it all into one section rather than making an argument for one and then the other, since that that would be too strenuous. The determinism/indeterminism dichotomy All events, as far as we know, are either determined or random. This is the basic ontological claim that underlines my case. The world is mostly deterministic and can be explained by the laws of physics. All the known and unknown laws of science will explain a game of pool and any other occurrence in life. For example, suppose I'm in a desert without water, I've never been so thirsty, but I see a fountain. I experience a sensation of stimuli, my brain translates it into meaningful data, various chemicals and neurotransmitters interact, my wants and needs set in, and various internal and external events take place. I experience hope, relief an desire and I rush to the fountain and take a drink. All the physical factors in the situation accumulated into only one possible outcome, my taking a drink. I could not have possibly refrained from taking a drink unless other factors were present, such as a person telling me the water was poisoned, a delusion that I shouldn't drink it because I would turn into a toad if I did, or because I wanted to prove that one could in fact exercise free will (a futile effort). However, if none of those factors are present, I will drink the water, no matter what. We cannot say given the factors, I will either drink or not drink. There's only one possibility, not two. Under that specific physical setting I could only undergo one course of action. For me to undergo another, the physical factors would have had to be different which is why everything is causally determined (with the exception of randomness). Causality entails inevitability. One set of effects can only result in one single result. That is what causality is. To deny that you would have to deny causality. For me to not drink the water, or even to not drink it in the exact way that I did, you would have to change some other variables, external or internal. If I was a different person I might not have drunk the water, or if the external setting was different I might not have acted as I did, otherwise there was only one possible outcome. Unless perhaps randomness was in play. Since randomness hardly plays any role in our lives, I will mention it only as a disclaimer since the world is not truly 100% determined. Quantum physics reveals some randomness in nature entailing that not all events are causally determined [1]. I doubt my opponent will contest this and I hope we can mostly ignore it since it has little relevance to free will. It's impossible for randomness to be the key to free will since randomness is entirely out of the realm of control and in the same way it does not affect my argument in any way except as a mere annoyance to get out of the way. I state it simply to provide a disclaimer that some events might not be 100% causally determined but I want to make clear that this is unimportant since the exceptions are only due to random quantum scale fluctuations and hardly ever affect life anyway. The illusion of free will Free will cannot exist under the physical facts of the universe. To be free requires a person to be free from constraints, but every act a person takes is necessarily bound by natural forces and occurs by nothing else. A person is like a machine operating according to its mechanical build. Our actions are bound by our chemistry and the world around us. It just happens that we have the illusion of free will because of the vast complexity of our system. One reason why free-will is such an illusion is because the vast majority of causes go undetected. If we had a map and explanation for every single influence that caused us to make a choice, if we were the so-called "Laplace's demon", I make the confident guess that free will would be quite evidently false. Most of what causes us to act is entirely out of our realm of detection and ability to grasp. Otherwise, if we knew all the variables and were able to put them together into a perfect understanding, we would be able to predict the future with complete accuracy, the only exceptions being with random quantum fluctuations. Not only is free will metaphysically impossible, it's theoretically incoherent For an act to be free, it must be free from constraints, but the only events free of constraints are those that are random, and random events are the antithesis of control. You can't decide to buy an ice cream because of something random occurring in the brain. If you were even able to buy an ice cream because of something occurring randomly, you wouldn't be doing it purposefully since it would have sprung out of something other than your conscious control. For you to exert any type of free will you would have to transcend both causality and randomness which is theoretically absurd. Free will makes no sense. It asks for something impossible. It requires some sort of magic that allows a person to act free of the laws of constraints but still with an engineered course of action. Summary 1. All events, as far as we know, are either determined or random.2. Free will is incompatible with both sorts, thus we are incapable of it.3. For there to be free will you would have to have an action that was both free from constraints as well as being self-caused and non-random, which is nonsensical. 4. If examined down to their basic whole, actions seem much less free than previously conceived. Sources: [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... *All other unsourced claims were purely philosophical and required no source or required none for other obvious reasons.