It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

In this last round I hope to solidly prove that human actions are not "free" in nature. My opponent writes:"Where we are stuck in this argument, is that my opponent is agreeing with me but not realizing it. He responds to the James Fallon argument by asserting that the desire to for him to attempt to defy his psychopathic tendencies in order to be better to his family, is determinism, as he chooses to favor this side over the side of following his instinctual tendencies. Obviously where his argument fails here, is that my opponent is admitting that one of the requirements of freedom is being met, that of alternative choices. "First we must define "alternative". Whenever flipping a coin, you don't generally know what it's going to land on, heads or tails. So you make a prediction, which is mere guesswork. In certain other scenarios, "probability" comes into play. That is, if you have to bet on one of two outcomes, it's a better idea to bet on one because you're "more likely" to be correct if that's the outcome you predict. However, probability is an illusion. It's simply knowledge of factors which come into play; there are more factors you don't know about, but you've willing to take a chance on the notion that those other factors won't be enough to overcome the factors you do know about, which are quite compelling and favor betting on a certain outcome. It's an educated guess, but it's still a guess, not because true randomness exists but because it's impossible to have all the facts. So whenever we say that James Fallon has "alternative choices", what we mean to say is that there are other factors involved other than just his sociopathic tendencies, and we don't know if those other factors are strong enough to cause him to act like a non-sociopath, but they look like they could be, hence meaning that the guess that he'll overcome it is as good as the guess that he won't. Ultimately, though, one will be stronger than the other, and this much is predetermined by factors outside his conscious control. I just have one question: If everyone "has a choice", then why do most sociopaths act like sociopaths? Why would most autistic people choose to act autistic, knowing that it leads to them being social outcasts?1. RationalismMy opponent brings up the Kalam Cosmological Argument, stated as following:The second argument states that an actual infinite cannot be formed. History, or the collection of all events in time, is made up by sequentially adding one event after the other. It is always possible to add another event to history, which means the history of the universe is a potential infinite but can never be an actual infinite. History is being added to constantly, sure: I'm not trying to claim that time stretches infinitely in both directions. This notion contradicts several known facts about the Universe: first, that the observable Universe contains a finite amount of usable energy. Since energy is constantly being expended, it logically follows that if the sun of all energy in the Universe constitutes a very large but ultimately finite number, then over the course of infinity it would all be depleted by now, since the Universe would've had a literally infinite amount of time up until now to burn itself out. I can concede this and it does absolutely nothing to debunk, discredit, or merely cast doubt on my claim that everything is predetermined. My point in bringing up Pi is that, even if something is infinitely large and thus unpredictable, that does not mean that it "has free will". Pi is an abstract concept; therefore, it is not required to have any mass at all, meaning that it being conceptually infinite does not violate any universal laws. Rather, it's an abstract concept that's ingrained into the laws of the Universe by math, meaning that no matter under what circumstances you calculate Pi, that string of numbers will always be the same. The idea that at one point the number Pi "chose" how it should be calculated is clearly absurd, and my opponent would not try to argue this, or so I hope.2. ReligionIf my opponent wants to steer clear of religious arguments for or against determinism, that's fine with me. I'm under no obligation to defend the concept of God in a debate about free will.3. Deconstructing a ChoiceMy opponent writes:"Simply being focused on something that spites instinct and natural desire, does not prove that your will is not free. Your very example of choosing to care more about a conversation with a friend over your bodies own screaming desires to be warm once again demonstrate that altruism is evidence of free will. "I'm not going to spend this last section beating that same dead horse again. Rather, I would like to clarify. In this example, you basically forget about the cold because you're focused on an interesting conversation. This much has little to do with altruism. Rather, it shows that a "weaker" desire can overcome a stronger one in a circumstance where one isn't thinking about and focusing on the stronger desire but instead on the weaker one. It's not the case that you "chose" to do something that nothing in your being wanted you to do and no existing circumstances compelled you to do against your desire for warmth. ConclusionThe notion of free will is based upon misconceptions of decision-making, mainly the notion that if there's no immediate explanation for why you did something then you must've chosen to do it.