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

My argument this round will be relatively short because I believe I laid out my arguments quite clearly last round, and my opponent's mistakes are quite simple to elucidate.The bulk of Con's objections to the proposition stem from the fact the he simply does not understand what the terms "free will" and "determinism" mean. As per the terms of the debate, I will not post any sources on this, but I urge my opponent to do some research before posting his next argument. It's very clear that he doesn't understand the meaning of these terms when he writes that "if someone told you to rob a store otherwise they would kill your family, that is not free-will, but to do so due to a desire to steal is free-will." This is clearly not true. If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "do X or die" then I would still very much have free will. Indeed I have two very clear options to choose between: 1) do X or 2) die. This is nowhere near what people are talking about when they refer to "determinism." In fact, 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.Predictions under Determinism:In this section, my opponent mistakes a hypothetical situation for a premise, demonstrates that he does not know what philosophy is, and then goes on to make an irrelevant argument about whether determinism is true. He concludes this section by misunderstanding my analogy, so I will clarify by adding the additional constraint that the computer in the example is infallible. There is nothing in this section worth responding to as it consists entirely of misunderstandings and irrelevant arguments.Are they Compatable?In this section, my opponent uses his incorrect definitions of "determinism" and "free will" to try to show that they are incompatible. He actually fails even using his own incorrect definitions, but I won't bother to refute the argument since his mistaken concepts of free will and determinism deem this entire section irrelevant anyway.Fallacies Committed:First off in this section, my opponent continues to misunderstand that what is being presented is part of a hypothetical situation and attempts to refute it outside of the hypothetical presented.Next, he admits that he does not understand what I was saying, but then goes on to assume I meant something ridiculous. I'll take this opportunity to explain what I meant in that sentence. A "universe of discourse" is the set of things that can be talked about within a certain context. For example, when you are talking in a context which includes the mind, you can talk about emotions, intelligence, and decisions. If your universe of discourse does not include the mind, these concepts are meaningless. They apply only to the mind. What I was saying is that when you talk about determinism, you are within a universe of discourse that does not include the mind. It causes the brain, which causes the mind, but the mind exists in a different universe of discourse than the brain. The brain has no decisions or emotions. It has matter, neurons, electrical pulses. All of those things cause the mind but they are not in the same universe of discourse. This is why the workings of the brain can be completely caused by predictable forces and yet the mind still has free will within its own universe of discourse.