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

I will now review this debate and explain why determinism must be true. Since Pro brought up new arguments in his closing statement, I will address them here. __________ Pro's first new argument against determinism is that the situation that I proposed in my counter-rebuttal to Argument 1 is unprovable. Based on the premise that it is unprovable, Pro reasons that this proposal can be discarded, since it unnecessarily complicates things. Pro states that "we can see which one makes the fewest unnecessary assumptions its libertarian freewill...This means that super-determinism violates occams razor [so] we can understand that Libertarian freewill is most likely true". However, in making this argument Pro assumes that both hypotheses have equal amounts of supporting evidence, as he says: "when two or more theories have the same evidence". The purpose of Occam's razor is to stop the use of ad hoc hypotheses to prevent the falsifiability of theories. If a hypothesis has the preponderance of evidence, the complexity of said hypothesis does not matter. Therefore, because I have proven free will to be logically impossible, no amount of complexity in my hypothesis changes its truth. Special relativity is one example of a very complicated theory (far more complicated than Newtonian physics) that has nonetheless been proven true. __________ Pro also addressed my third argument, in which I stated that the decisions of humans are necessarily determined by external factors. To quote my previous argument: "If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly". Pro interprets this argument as meaning that "in order to have free will we must have super powers and control every factor that is in our lives and our decision making processes". Pro is essentially saying that, if our decisions are determined by external factors, then the only way to have free will is to "have control over all external factors". However, this argument is not about whether humans can control every single decision that they make. This argument is about whether the human mind ever chooses independent of external factors. Whether humans can determine external factors doesn't matter if we can simply make our own decisions anyway. However, as I have shown, making decisions in this way is completely impossible. Therefore, because humans cannot control external factors, independent decision-making is impossible as well. The remainder of Pro's argument is talking about decision spaces. Pro says that external factors can change the size of a person's decision space, but because the person will always be able to make a decision, "external factors neither diminish nor improve our freewill". However, Pro assumes in this argument that humans have the ability to make decisions that are not caused by external factors. As I have proven in my third argument, this premise is false. Therefore, external factors can be used as an argument against free will because not only do external factors choose the "hand you got", they also choose "the way you play it", simply in a more subtle way. __________ A lot of this debate has been centered around what free will is defined as, and it is important to note that Pro is arguing for libertarianism. Libertarianism is the philosophy that the world cannot possibly be deterministic because free will is real. Such a deduction requires a definition of free will that includes some independence of the mind. I have already shown that both of Pro's arguments are invalid, and Pro has failed to provide a sound rebuttal to my argument that free will is logically impossible. Therefore, I have proven free will to be false. __________ I thank Pro for participating in this debate with me, and I thank any voters for reading it. I urge you to vote without bias, purely on the substance of our arguments. http://math.ucr.edu... http://rationalwiki.org... https://philosophy.tamucc.edu...