Determinism: Free will is an illusion

First, my opponent argues that we are able to control all aspects of the "self". However, this is empirically denied. I cannot claim to control my sense of hunger, since hunger is determined by the amount of food in my stomach and not any semblance of "free will". Similarly, we cannot control the parts of the autonomic nervous system, i.e. breathing, heartbeat even though these actions are determined by the synapses in the brain. Hence, the argument that we can freely control all parts of our "self" is simply false. To summarize my first argument, I provided experimental evidence that showed that all "decisions" made by the human consciousness are actually determined by events of the unconsciousness, and hence cannot be controlled. Because all our decisions are already made by the unconsciousness prior to our awareness, it is impossible for us to ever control these decisions. Second, my opponent argues that despite the fact that my going to the bathroom is caused by my drinking of water, it is not caused by all past events. he argues that "every action would need to be effected by every preceding event." or else determinism would be false. This is flawed, as he admits, because if an action is caused by ONE previous event, then it is out of human control. This is sufficient to prove determinism true. My opponent's next point argues that a person could just randomly not go to the bathroom even though he needs to. My opponent claims this would be possible, but that fact seems to be a claim at best and lacks any warrant. More over, even if it were possible for such a random thing to happen, it would not be a conscious choice, which is defined as a decision based upon reason. A reason would be caused by a past event. Hence, even if my opponent wins his argument that random things can happen, such an event would not qualify as "free will" and hence does nothing in this debate. Finally, my opponent contests that things cannot be true prior to it happening. I will admit that this argument may seem a little counter-intuitive or confusing, but the nature of language and logic means that everything must be true or false. My opponent argues that there is always a shadow of doubt, and that there is possibility. However, these arguments reference what we KNOW about a statement, not the inherent truth value of it. I conceded that it impossible to know whether things are true or false, but it has to be one or the other nonetheless. My opponent mistakes the distinction between ontology, or what things are, and epistemology, or what we know. Going back to the example, if I will kill someone on a certain date, regardless of what happens between now and then, I either will or will not. At any point in time, I can't be both going to and not going to. Hence, the inherent truth of that statement is already determined, because things have to be either true or false. If, like my opponent argues, a car kills me at the last second before I commit a murder, then the statement "i will kill someone on X date" is false regardless of time, and the statement "I will get run over on X date" is true. As a final note, I understand that determinism is a pretty counter-intuitive argument and philosophy. However, through logic and evidence, we can see beyond mere perception and illusion and see that in fact, free will is a mere illusion.