Free will and determinism can both be true at the same time

How have I earned arguments? Simple:First, my opponent openly drops several arguments, writing them off as silly and not in need of a reply. Well, quite frankly, no idea is really a silly idea, and thus in a hypothetical all arguments must be refuted to determine it's philosophical legitimacy, which means I think I deserve the arguments points. I showed by determinism isn't true via Quantum Physics, which any scientist must do some form of philosophy (Karl Popper anyone? ) so yes actually, it is relevant to this debate! Definitions:Also why I have won: my opponent engages in heavy semantics here. He simply claims "I don't know what free-will actually means" or " my hypothetical is flawed and not really determinism" but as I have shown, his assumptions violate Occams Razor, and thus my hypothesis already trumps, and furthermore, when stating his definitions of the two terms, somehow my hypothetical does not fit? If a man compells you to rob a store otherwise your family dies, that is not free-will clearly, to argue any other way is simply semantics, in fact my opponent back-tracks his claims to dismiss my hypothetical, ergo why he must never have given a definition then. If he did, then my hypothetical actually stands, and he just wasted character space arguing with me on this. Anyways . .. the key here is intent as I have noted and as my opponent drops. Is the intention to rob there? If it is this is the defining character between determinism and free-will. Which is why my hypothetical is clearly not free-will, assuming the agent was law abiding, he is being forced via coercion to cooperate, he never had the intention of robbing someone. Fallacies:Appeal to authority: "There is no need for me to argue in favor of these definitions over those of my opponent because the definitions I presented are the ones univerally accepted by philosophers who engage in debates over free will and determinism. " Counter: Determinism and Free-will are not universially defined, in fact nothing is, it's just generally accepted, and note my opponent never actually shows proof of his claims. Semantics: "It should be incredibly clear that my opponent's definitions do not come close to the philosophical definitions of free will or determinism. "Appeal to hypocracy: "Con attempts to prove that free will and determinism are not compatible by arguing that determinism is false. This is just as irrelevant of an argument as it was the first time Con pulled it out. Also notice how Con blatantly contradicts himself by arguing that his hypothetical about a guy robbing a store contains an example of determinism and then arguing right afterwards that determinism doesn't exist. " Counter: I noted the hypothetical to show a difference between determinism and free-will, but just because I think determinism simply does not exist doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite. It means that you've taken my argument out of context, because I was trying ti illustrate a difference, which has nothing to do with empirically determinimg if one or the other extists. .. Ad Hominem: "Con's 3rd paragraph is pretty much nonsense but amusing nonsense. I do urge Con to find out what "reductio ad absurdum" means rather than just toss it out because it sounds fancy. " Counter: Well now . . that was insulting. .. may I have conduct now please? Fallacy Fallacy: (see above)Counter: My opponent maintains that because I noted he committed a reductio ad absurdum that somehow he doesn't have to respond because he believes my argument to be illegitimate. Or in essence, that because a fallacy is committed the argument is not worth countering, but that isn't true, the content may be fine just constructed in a wrong way, which still gives an argument legitimacy. Furthermore, that fallacy was actually accurate! He clearly states: " if my opponent accepts this definition and would follow this to its logical conclusion, he would have to admit that free will does not exist at all. Since this is outside the realm of this debate, I'll leave it up to the reader to determine why. " This is similar to saying without laws we have chaos; it's simply a stretch to do so. And while he claims to follow it to it's logical conclusions, in order to conlcude in the hypothetical free-will doesn't exist at all, he would have to push determinism to it's extreme to make a case with a strict interpretation, which is an abudctio ad absurdum. Why Did I Win? 1) My opponent drops several of my arguments, he declares them "silly" and dismisses them, which just because he thinks an argument is silly doesn't mean it objectively is. I actually respond, refute, and make a case2) Fallacies gallore; my opponent tries every tactic in the book; semnatics, fallacy fallacy, appeal to authority, redefining, etc. .. 3) poor conduct, he launches several ad hominems against me, claiming I know nothing of philosophy4) he "expects a landslide victory in his favor" 5) he forefits a round6) his mind vs body analogy is cryptic, I asked for clarification and he insults me! Final Refutations: My opponent claims my argument against him is in agreement, but essentially I was arguing for libertarianism, while my opponent preached compatabilism. he claims "I believe that free will and determinism are compatable" in round 1! Yet in his final round he denies this, he moved the goal posts on me! That was his BOP, was to claim they were essentially the same, now suddenly he agrees with me? That must mean I win, because my job was to show that they were not, and my way of doing that was through quantum physics (dropped by my opponent again) that free-will is emprically solid, while determinism is not. That even a psycho with a brain defficency may not even kill due to free-will! My opponent does nothing more than the basic deceptive tactics employed by previous debators against me, the difference is at least they are learning, my opponent outright insults me, to which he ought to be ashamed! That's no way to conduct yourself to a fellow debator. Thank you! Please vote for me, and although the insults were hurtful, I forgive my opponent and wish him the best of luck! Vote Con! !