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

I will now present a counter-rebuttal to my opponents rebuttal. For those that dont understand a counter-rebuttal is when someone responds to their opponents rebuttal so that they can get a chance to defend their main case only some debates have a round of counter-rebuttals and its not common but it does take place in debating. So i wanted to make that clear to my readers and voters so they dont misunderstand what the term "counter-rebuttal" means. Anyways here im going to present a counter-rebuttal to respond to (Con) rebuttal. (Con) "The argument is essentially saying that logic, reason, and other advanced forms of cognition necessitate free will. According to Pro, without free will nobody would be able to use logic and evidence to reach a conclusion. This argument is fallacious because even in a materialist world, cognition is still possible. In such a world, mental processes are the result of interaction between neurons in the brain and complex patterns of electrical stimulation. Human logic is the result of the highly developed state of our brains. Humans have about 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) neurons in our brains, and about 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 quadrillion) synapses. This extremely advanced network of connections between neurons is what allows for the level of logic and reason that humans have. Note that none of the preceding points require free will, and remember that the argument is specifically that advanced cognition REQUIRES free will. Because such an advanced system is possible without free will, making truth claims based on evidence does not require free will either, and the argument is invalid." Response: (Con) basic rebuttal to my first argument is that essentially logic is dependent on neurons firing in our head and that this is what makes logic possible in a deterministic universe however the main issue with (Con) rebuttal is that then logic would be determined by neurons and in a deterministic universe you cant provide any justification for logic since logic would be determined and not justified. The definition of reason "is a statement offered in explanation or justification gave reasons that were quite satisfactory" This would be impossible in a deterministic universe since logic itself would be deterministic and so by (Con) own standards since everything is determined then you cant justify anything and if you cant justify anything then you cant justify determinism being true. Now a soft-determinist could justify soft_determinism since there is freewill mixed into that but on a hard-determinist position the hard-determinist cannot justify there position since logic is subjective to deterministic neurons in the brain and not objective. So my main argument in my original case still stands as valid and (Con) rebuttal is invalid. (Con) "The Free Will theorem states that in an idealist, indeterministic universe, free will must exist. Refer to my argument concerning logic for a rebuttal of this statement. I have carefully examined his source, and it states that "It is precisely the "semi-free" nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here." The assertion that the paper makes is that quantum particles have some degree of free will. My logic argument applies equally to both humans and quantum particles, and it therefore remains valid in this case. Unfortunately I am not allowed to refute my opponent's rebuttals until next round, but take note; should I succeed in my counter-rebuttal, the Free Will Theorem evidence will be invalidated." Response: Well im not sure what (con) "logic argument" is if its the third argument in his case for determinism ive already rebutted the argument since it makes paradoxical conclusions about the will and choices. Now i dont know what (Con) counter-rebuttal will be so i might have to address it in round 5 as part of my final arguments and closing statement but i will have to see. (Con) "The issue with this section of the argument is that it is all about determinists thinking that the properties of wave-function particles cannot be exactly determined. This is a straw-man argument because, as I stated in my opening, determinism does not necessitate that the properties of particles can be determined. The only requirement for determinism is that everything is determined by actions external to the will. The segment at the end about the conscious agent collapsing wave-function particles, once again, is disproved by my logic argument. If I successfully counter-refute, this evidence is invalid as well." Response: Again i will have to see what (Con) counter-Rebuttal will be before i address this point. My final argument will be dealing with the definition of determinism which (Con) defines as "Actions external to the will" and showing why this definition of determinism is false and why agent causation is a more logical position to hold to. So that is all that i feel i need to respond and his last paragraph is just a summary of what his rebuttal is so i dont feel the need to quote and respond to that since the points ive already addressed in this counter-rebuttal. So we have seen why my opponents rebuttal is invalid. (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://introductiontophilosophy.com... (3) http://www.dictionary.com...