It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

My opponent started out Round 3 with this statement: "It seems the under-lying flaw of logic I find in his arguments running into, is that his mindset seems to be that having pre-existing reasons is essentially the equal to that of a pre-determined fate." Pro goes on to state: "Libertarianism doesn"t seek to prove that the way a person is raised, or their biology doesn"t at all attribute to the choices and actions they make. We humans are animals, and operate on instincts the same as any species does. That does not mean we are bound to a set of choices, however." So basically, Pro admits that we are influenced by neurology and life experiences, but he denies that we have to simply give in to these influences in choosing how to act. As an example he cites a man named James Fallon who, despite (presumably) being a psychopath, has chosen not to behave as such. I see this narrative as being a bit simplistic. It rarely, if ever, is the case that a person"s behavior is driven by a single factor. People have primal instincts such as hunger, libido, aggression, etcetera but they also have consciences, desire to fit in with groups, desire to go to Heaven/avoid Hell, etc. These are all factors. My opponent assumes that the prevailing factor is dictated by actual chance/choice, that the outcome is not predetermined. However, this is not the case. It is predetermined that one side will ultimately "be stronger" than the other over the long term, and this is the side that will prevail. Some psychopaths are acted upon by other forces (i.e. a desire not to be a psychopath) which overrides their natural inclinations towards psychopathic behavior. For most, this is not the case and hence they act like psychopaths. In naturalistic science, too, there is never just one factor. A falling object can be influenced by wind, weight, particulate matter in the atmosphere, etc. All of these determine the time it takes the object to hit the ground and the trajectory along which it falls. However, scientists could theoretically take all these factors into account and create a model which predicts everything about the fall. If humans are products of this universe, it logically follows that we are the same way. In his response to "An Appeal to Rationalism", my opponent writes: "While my opponent in accurate that the use of science and physics may predict the outcome of dice and the movement and trajectory, to say that randomness doesn"t exist because of these calculated measures, is not an effective argument. Even in my opponent"s example of the man within the room, he can only say that theoretically his choices can be determined. The example is insufficient when the free-thinking agent cannot be monitored in conjunction with reality." My "man in the room" scenario was used as a hypothetical in which a single person"s actions can be isolated from outside factors and predicted. Literally the only difference between a man in the room and a man in normal conditions is that the man in normal conditions is acted upon by outside factors. I said "hypothetically" because human technology has not progressed to the point where this is possible, and even when it is possible, our machines cannot logically possess the ability to monitor and predict every variation down to an infinitely small level, since everything in the Universe, the greatest supercomputer man could ever build included, is ultimately finite in scope, as it"s contained within this Universe. Pi (3.14") presumably goes on forever; if this is the case, then billions or trillions of digits in Pi can be predicted but not all. This does not mean that Pi is random. It obviously does follow mathematic formulas, which is why predicting the next number in the Pi sequence is possible. Infinity is still bound by science and math, even though the science and math is too large for anything in the Universe to possibly understand and predict. Or in other words, too big to predict =/= literally random. My opponent has raised an objection to my "Appeal to Religion" section. I included it for a reason. If a theist were to hear my naturalistic arguments, he might object by saying "Well that"s only from a naturalistic standpoint. Humans have supernatural souls, which mean we aren"t merely acted upon by the natural laws of the Universe." Likewise, I included the naturalistic section because if I only appealed to religion, then an atheist might object by saying "Why are you using that religious nonsense as a serious argument?" By including both, I satisfy the objections from both groups. My opponent brings up the possibility that Jesus predicted Peter"s denial simply through knowledge of Peter"s personality gained from 3 years spent with him. But again, if Peter had the ability to exercise free will, wouldn"t Jesus have said to him, "It"s probable that you"ll deny me, stay on guard against temptation and make the right choice"? Ultimately, the Bible has made a number of predictions about what people were going to do before they did it. Regardless of whether or not you believe the Bible, it should be rather clear where the Bible stands on the matter of free will. As for the reason for God"s existence, could it not be argued that God, being the source of everything, IS the source of everything, and thus is the very reason for His own existence? In regards to my "Deconstructing a Choice" section, my opponent writes: "My opponent illustrates an example of a simple choice between choosing ice-cream and cake, and claims that the choice is comprised of scientific/mathematical equations. Con shows that variables can affect choices, and vaguely implies that by choosing an altruistic path, you are not exercising free will. Yet he doesn"t make it clear "why". If your biological desires would prefer the cake over the ice-cream, to be willing to choose against your own will, is exactly the kind of evidence that is needed to prove Determinism is a constant." As I said before, the biological desire for cake is not the only factor. You"re also affected by altruistic tendencies, be those natural or ingrained through socialization. I have a question: have you ever been in a situation where, when experiencing severe hunger or cold, you forgot that you were feeling that way because you were so wrapped up in an interesting conversation? This demonstrates the principle of focus. Whatever you put your focus on plays a big role. While the pleasure of cake may be stronger than the pleasure derived from altruism or even the instinct towards altruistic behavior, at that moment your focus happens to be on the altruistic behavior more than it is on your desire for the cake, hence the triumph of a seemingly weaker impulse. However, the fact that you are focused on altruism rather than cake is also predetermined, so it does not "prove" free will by any means. Cue Round 4.