Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

I am going to present my rebuttal to (Con) case for determinism here and i will respond to each argument he put forth in his case for determinism. Before i begin my rebuttal to his main arguments i want to make a short response to his introduction. He says that "My opponent said that "determinists claim that we can know the exact position of every particle". However, that is not what determinism is. The Oxford dictionary defines determinism as "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to be able to determine the position of every particle." My response is that yes i agree with your definition of determinism however whats ironic is that your first argument is based on the claim that you can predict the motion of particles because of the laws of nature something that i explicitly refuted in my case for free will. So now that ive made that clear to (Con) and the readers and voters of this debate im going to now Rebuttal my opponents main arguments for determinism. Rebuttal to (Con) argument 1: (Con) "Everything in the world follows the laws of nature. Every particle in the world follows the law of gravity, the law of conservation of mass, every law of physics. No amount of hypothetical situations will ever change this. Because everything is made of wave-particles with position and velocity, free will is an illusion." Response: This is false as i would agree that most of the time particles follow the laws of nature the problem with this claim is there is still uncertainty at the quantum level and thus everything wouldn't follow the laws of nature. (Con) "Every decision that animals (including humans) make is caused by a series of electrical impulses that caused the brain to arrive at a certain conclusion, followed by a series of electrical impulses to carry out an action based on the decision. The universe exists the way it does because the events at the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics came together to produce the existence that we know. Every thought that we have is a result of the motion of wave-particles." Response: The fundamental problem with this argument is that it assumes physicalism true and that the brain produces consciousness not only is there no evidence for physicalism or that the brain produces consciousness but in quantum physics physicalism falls apart since space and time emerge from the wave-function in fact everything in our universe pops up from the wave-function (quantum vacuum) this means that matter is not fundamental and emerges from something else. In fact matter seems to need mind rather than what physicalism is saying. (1) https://www.theguardian.com... (2) https://www.youtube.com... (3) https://www.youtube.com...- Rebuttal to (Con) argument 2: (Con) "Randomness or probability does not prove free will. In quantum physics there is the concept of probability, which is that sometimes particle behavior can be random with different probabilities for different results. However, if "free will" is true because sometimes things happen randomly, then free will isn't "free" at all, it's just determined in a less predictable way." Response: This argument doesnt work since i never said that since quantum mechanics is random then we have free will and neither does my argument. The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics speaks of our ability to not know an outcome until an observer is making a measurement not that random events cause everything. im not saying things are not determined what im really saying that they are determined by the choices of agents which causally affect other things, this is known as agent causation which is how free will works. Outcomes are determined not by prior events or random events but by agents that exist outside of physical reality. And this is what quantum mechanics tells us. (1) http://www.ams.org... Rebuttle to (Con) argument 3: (Con) "Free will is logically impossible. For the sake of argument, let's say that the human will is a supernatural entity that can choose to take moral responsibility and doesn't choose based entirely on external factors. If the free will doesn't choose on external factors, how does it choose? If it chooses based on external factors, then it isn't free will. If it chooses based on some moral code, then how does it decide whether to follow it? If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly, which as I discussed earlier isn't free at all. There is no way around the fact that decisions are based on external influences, and the human has no real control" Response: I've heard a lot of determinist make this argument before however this argument creates paradoxical conclusions since for example what if i have good reasons to enjoy a piece of pizza and good reasons to reject pizza and favor a healthier choice. The reason is an external factor but which reasons cause the outcome now of course you could say the stronger desire wins but what or who decides which is the stronger desire since these are non-physical desires which one has more power? Their is no physical event that causes this and they are purely mental so we cant study the physical structure of them and figure out which one is stronger and if they are mental then it follow that the mind decides which is the stronger desire and if the mind decides then that's what free will is in the first place so this argument doesn't work as an argument for determinism since the will of self (mind) could choose without being predetermined or predetermined randomly so (Con) argument fails We have examined (Con) case for determinism and as we have seen none of the arguments he has presented works. They are either based on false premises or are misunderstandings of what libertarians arguments for free will are. (NOTE: A philosophical libertarian is someone that believes in and defends the concept of free will so I'm not talking about political libertarians) anyways I hope that (Con) the readers and voters can see the fundamental problems with my opponents case for determinism.