Free Will is Real and Compatible with Determinism

My opponent jumps right into the fray with an intentional, flat-out, self-serving misrepresentation. And I quote: "My opponent claims that it is philosophy, not science, that should answer the question before us." My opponent continues, unrelenting, in his dishonest tactics. What I actually said is a matter of record: "Free will was, traditionally, a philosophical question, although science has begun pursuing the question more vigorously since the development of modern scanning technologies." My opponent may feel it's insulting to be called out for dishonest tactics, but I say it's not an insult if it's deserved. It appears that it's my opponents strategy to swamp me with Sock Puppet fallacies and outright misrepresentations of my words so that I'll have little room left to address his own arguments. I'm not going to make the same mistake twice (because I have free will), so I will leave it to the intelligence of the reader to spot my opponent's spin control . . . unless the transgression is particularly onerous. Then I'll defend myself. As for science, absolute determinism and the macro world, causality rules the inanimate universe and greatly influences animate beings . . . but my opponent's claim that it's ALL deterministic is not the truth: it's dogma. Here's why. Logically, what can be said of everything can be said of nothing. It's scientifically meaningless because it's NOT FALSIFIABLE. This is one major reason why absolute determinism is merely an opinion -- NOT a fact. My opponent is advancing the same old, worn out, determinist dogma: "Causality predetermines all events -- even our acts and thoughts." Based on this simplistic interpretation of causality, determinists then assert that the experience of choice, and therefore free will, is an illusion. Aside from illustrating that "what can be said of everything can be said of nothing", that argument is also recursive reasoning. It's circular logic that begs the question by paraphrasing it's conclusion as its premise -- "Our acts and thoughts are (i.e. "Everything is") predetermined, therefore our acts and thoughts are (i.e. "everything is") beyond our control." By denying the difference between a rock and a person, absolute determinism sets itself up as a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose farce. Determinism is fine with me as long as it accommodates all facts: ABSOLUTE determinism is dogmatic and false. I've become convinced that absolute determinism is a surrogate religion for far too many people. It's a closed system, replete with all the trappings of religion: unfalsifiability, "cherry-picking", dogma, denial, fatalism, vehemently closed minds, appeals to authority and recursive reasoning. Oh yeah, and determinists get to keep their Prime Mover and absolution from responsibility too. I just can't understand what motivates determinists to deny the empirical evidence of their experience, not to mention the empowerment of free will, in favor of a worldview of unfalsifiable claims and debilitating fatalism. It seems to me that, if determinists really believed what they claim, they'd be the laziest, least motivated and most venal people on Earth. Which leads me to believe that many philosophical determinists must be rebels and simply enjoy going against the grain. It's cool, man! I notice that whenever my opponent uses phrases like: "my opponent was implying"; "my opponent has recognized"; "my opponent claims"; "he simply assumed"; etc., spin control is usually at work. Compare his claims to mine and spare me some pixels for more arguments. This next example makes me wonder if, perhaps, my opponent's level of discernment is lower than I thought and the accusation of dishonest tactics was giving him too much credit. He seriously proposes that I claimed single-celled organisms have free will. Does anybody else think that? If so, then reread what I wrote. I said that: "The advent of life introduced motility to the universe. Motility is simply the ability to move without the influence of an external force. Even single-celled organisms can move to avoid harsh or noxious conditions. The significant difference is that the movement is NOT 100% predictable. Unlike inanimate objects, there is more than just one direction the organism can take. Nor will identical organisms move identically under identical conditions. This is an undeniable departure from the precisely predictable reactions of inanimate matter." So, is it my opponent's level of discernment or his dishonesty that would twist motility into free will? Once again, it's not an insult if it's deserved. I was thrilled to face an 11-0 master debater but now find myself fending off arguments such as these. I'm disappointed with my opponent and the position I find myself in. In case my opponent has managed to confuse any readers, I will end with a summary of my position. Final Summary: The main claim determinists make is a dogma -- "Causality predetermines all events -- even our acts and thoughts." It's scientifically unfalsifiable because it admits no exceptions: what can be said of everything can be said of nothing. Additionally, it's also a logical fallacy known as "Begging the question". Begging the question is recursive, circular, reasoning that paraphrases it's premise as its conclusion. But a dogma might still be true. Is absolute determinism true? Not as long as it makes no distinction between inanimate and animate modes of response to causality. If you look up "causality" in Wikipedia, you'll find that it takes many forms and that the animate/inanimate boundary separates the "causal realms" of biology and physics: "The Fountain Theory of Realms of Science, part of the philosophy of science, says that the laws of physics describe cause and effect within physics, and can be seen as the underlying causes of biological events, but that the causal connections between the realms of physics and biology are rarely observed directly, and thus are not a major part of either science." As this Wikipedia article illustrates, causality, and thus determinism, is NOT absolute in the sense that animate beings can't have a different mode of response than do inanimate objects. In fact, it's this difference in mode of response that separates physics from biology. Physics deals with the inanimate realm and biology deals with the animate realm. As a lay person, my opponent might not understand what all scientists know: laws are not laid down once and for all, and especially not to dictate what we can or cannot think. They are tools for helping us think; and most of all, to be transcended if necessary. It's not reality that might be wrong, it's our interpretation that might need adjusting. Those who believe causality and determinism can't accommodate the differences between inanimate objects and inanimate beings need to adjust their interpretation to accommodate the facts. Absolute determinism puts artificial constraints on causality. Because the advent of life introduced radically new kinds of objects (animate beings) to the universe -- objects that move without external force and even, in the case of humans, can extrapolate causality into the future to keep one step ahead of it -- a new mode of response to causality came along with life. Causality was no longer limited to single, fixed, reactions to actions. With intelligent life, causality causes a variable range of potential reactions, from which we make our choices. Our intelligence includes the ability to extrapolate causality into the future and make decisions (and adjustments to decisions) that can keep us one step ahead of causality. Examples of human intelligence anticipating and exploiting causality for our own purposes include: sails, umbrellas, sunscreen, television, computers, sports, and just about any human invention or planned activity you can think of. When causality meets intelligence, determinism becomes self-determinism. That's what