There is no such thing as true free will

Voters, you are charged with the following proposition: "There is no such thing as true free will"I began by accurately defining the concept of free will, being "the ability to act at one's own discretion" I also opened giving the definition of true, being "in accordance with fact or reality"I then said that such a statement can be made from the two definitions: "There exists no ability to act on one's own discretion which is in accordance with fact or reality. "I then stated that the BoP is on my opponent to show how general acts are not committed using free will. Round 2. .. My opponent says that he admits that he has misused the word "true", and that a more accurate word would be "absolute". My opponent then goes on to show that there are many things we do not have free will over, such as our desire to eat or drink. However, my opponent makes a minor blunder. He states:"If humans have real free will then we would be able to ignore this desire to eat and survive. "The problem with my opponent's statement is that we do have the ability to ignore our desires. Many suicides have been the result of refusing to eat or drink. While we may not be able to ignore the feeling of desire, we can choose to ignore the desire to eat by not responding to it. In essence, we can choose to die. “There has never been a slave who did not choose to be a slave. Their choice may be between bondage and death, but the choice is always there. ” -George R. R. Martin However, my opponent's main point that one cannot choose not to feel desire still stands. This means that we do not have free will over every thing. We cannot deny to feel our feelings, we cannot jump 500 feet in the air, we can't fly. We do not have the ability to do all things, therefore our free will is limited and not absolute. In my second round, I reiterated that the topic concerns the existence of true free will, not absolute free will. I drew the distinction between true and absolute, and also showed that my opponent had not yet sufficed his BoP concerning the topic of true free will. Round 3. .. My opponent starts off his final round claiming that I originally had mistreated the definition of "true". Note that in Round 2 my opponent clearly said that the word "true" was not his actual intention, and rather that absolute was a better word for his intention. My opponent tries to redefine true, saying that he meant it to mean "exact". He then reforms the topic, and defines the meaning of exactly. After, my opponent reforms the topic once again, as such: "There is no such thing as acting at one's own discretion without discrepancy" This is where, once again, my opponent fails to understand the meaning of his words. The definition of "exactly" which he uses firstly does not coincide with the definition of "true", which is meant in the context of an exact number of things. This is why his definition of "true" is synonymous with accurate. Secondly, even if we say that his definition of "true" does coincide with his definition of "exactly", the definition of "exactly" is misattributed to his usage of the word. Exactly, as it is defined, is in the context of describing how accurate the depiction of someone or something is. "Wwthout discrepancy (used to emphasize the accuracy of a figure or description). " -. https://www.google.com...My opponent tries to manipulate the usage of the words, when in fact they are not meant to be taken in the way which he wants them to be taken. Therefore, my opponent's reformation of the topic is not consistent with the ability to act freely, and therefore is not consistent with the original topic. With that, my opponent has still not met his BoP to show how general acts are not an extent of true free will. Therefore, my opponent has given no good reasons for us to think that true free will does not exist.