An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

There is no dispute of definition. Co does not understand "subject to chance" in actions means there is a "chance", meaning you will decide to do one thing over another. (There is a chance you could do this, or do that.)Since my arguments, definitions, and analogies are going misunderstood, I must re-word my argument. So at this point, I apologize, but disregard all of my previous arguments. *Side Note: Con keeps pointing out things I NEED to prove. However, If I am Pro, the one supporting the resolution, I may succeed in my BoP in many other ways. So voters, please ignore when Con says I need to prove the follow: "Foreknowledge causes actions- Actions are necessary because of foreknowledge"My BoP lies solely in the resolution: An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are IncompatibleAs Pro, I am supporting this resolution and may choose to do this in any way I see fit.Nevertheless, instead of going back and forth, you seem so headstrong on your definition. To move the debate along, I concede my definition of contingent(chance) in regards to free will and go to yours listed in Round 2:"Rather, when I speak of contingent, I mean not necessary.""Not necessary" means your actions are not required. Clarified: It is not necessary for me to perform an action. I may choose another action.Again, Omniscient simply means having total/all/perfect knowledge of ALL events in the past, present, and FUTURE."Having complete and total knowledge...."Con has already admitted God knows everything in the future. This means he knows all of our actions. Every breath we take, every step we take, He knows how and when it will happen.This means God cannot be wrong about our future. He already knows what we will do, per Con's definition.ArgumentsI will continue with our Coke or Pepsi analogy, but I will reword it, to hopefully be more clear.Scenario:-You can only choose only one can of soda: Coke or Pepsi.-You choose Coke.*Con is arguing that your choice, Coke, is not necessary. Meaning, You are not forced to make a choice. But, God has complete and total knowledge of every event in the future. This is the definition for Omniscient by Con. This means, for example, during the US Civil War (years 1861-1865) God knew that in the present day, when you were handed with the choice I just gave you, God KNEW with 100% total and complete knowledge of the future, that would pick Coke.***For this scenario the depicted choice is Coke. God could never have been wrong about your choice of Coke. But, if you somehow picked Pepsi then God would have been wrong.If God is wrong, He cannot be Omniscient as stated by Con because he did not have "complete and total knowledge. In regards to time it would also mean possessing all knowledge of both past, present, and future."If God's complete and total knowledge of the future was wrong, this logically contradicts the omniscience.To plainly express the incompatibility, or contradiction...-If God is Omniscient, he knows every decision we make before we make it. This means our actions are necessary in order to maintain God's knowledge of the future is total and complete.-If our decisions are not necessary, this means we can make any decision, including one that is different from God's total and complete knowledge of the future. This means God would not be considered Omniscient.This contradicts the definition of Free will being a conscious AND contingent (not necessary) decision and/or the definition of Omniscience. Per Con's definition.Thus proving an Omniscient God is incompatible with Human Free Will.