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

First I would like to point out that my opponent has disobeyed the rules by posting a source in the form of a Youtube video. Therefore, all source points should go to me for obeying the rules of this debate regarding sources.I will attempt to address what my opponent apparently perceives as holes in my argument.1. My opponent claims that I have provided no definition for "free will" or "determinism." In fact I did provide such definitions in my very first argument. I will repost them again for your convenience:Free Will: the ability to act at one's own discretion.Determinism: a situation in which everything that will happen in the future has already been pre-determined and is unchangeable.There is no need for me to argue in favor of these definitions over those of my opponent because the definitions I presented are the ones univerally accepted by philosophers who engage in debates over free will and determinism.2. My opponent continues to assert that someone who chooses between two options where one option is significantly preferable to the other is not acting on free will. As I previously stated: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.It should be incredibly clear that my opponent's definitions do not come close to the philosophical definitions of free will or determinism.3. Con suggests that I have accused him of not being able to tell the difference between free will and determinism. This is incorrect. I have accused him of not knowing what they are at all and even at times changing his own definitions to suit his whims. (see Con's round 3 paragraphs 2 and 3 for only one such example)4. Con also seems to suggest that I believe that free will and determinism are "essentially the same." This is also not true and I can find nothing in my arguments so far to suggest that I hold such a belief.5. Once again, Con attempts to prove that free will and determinism are not compatible by arguing that determinism is false. This is just as irrelevant of an argument as it was the first time Con pulled it out. Also notice how Con blatantly contradicts himself by arguing that his hypothetical about a guy robbing a store contains an example of determinism and then arguing right afterwards that determinism doesn't exist.6. Con's 3rd paragraph is pretty much nonsense but amusing nonsense. I do urge Con to find out what "reductio ad absurdum" means rather than just toss it out because it sounds fancy. Predictions Under Determinism:7. Perhaps this is just another example of Con not understanding the meaning of a term, but at no point did I issue an ad hominem attack. I attacked only Con's stated argument and deductions that could be made from that argument and never attacked him as a person.8. I did not "drop" Con's argument. As explained, Con's argument was built entirely on a misunderstanding so there was nothing to respond to. Instead, I clarified the hypothetical to help facilitate understanding. Con is correct to say that the hypothetical presented represented a model of strict determinism It was designed that way to demonstrate how free will and determinism can both be true. The entire point was that the computer would not commit any error. And yet within the universe of discourse of the program that was running, the outcome could be anything until it is determined to be 2. This is free will even though in the larger universe of discourse in which we are aware of the programming, we know that it always must be 2.Are They Compatable?9. Once again, no argument was "dropped" because no reasonable argument was presented by Con in the first place. I had already refuted his entire line of reasononing here in paragraph 2. Fallacies Committed:10. Once again, Con offers an argument against a position I have never held or argued in favor of. It is absolutely the case that the brain and body can be manipulated to create certain emotions in the mind. In fact, this is necessarily the case for my position to have any traction. Therefore, Con's only "objection" to my argument is one I already whole-heartedly agree with and is not only compatible with my position, but my position relies on it.Conclusion:As I'm sure intelligent readers can discern, my opponent's "arguments" consist almost entirely of misunderstings, rhetoric, and misused jargon. Indeed Con has left me with very little to respond to, and I think I would have been correct to respond to every round except my first one with the simple statement: "Everything Con said last round is irrelevant to this debate." However, I have attempted to offer more explanation to Con's confusing and self-contradictory rhetoric so that the reader may parse it more easily.I expect that I shall see a landslide decision in my favor.Thank you.