It is more plausible that Free Will exists, than Determinism

I) INTRO REBUTTALSWhere we are stuck in this argument, is that my opponent is agreeing with me but not realizing it. He responds to the James Fallon argument by asserting that the desire to for him to attempt to defy his psychopathic tendencies in order to be better to his family, is determinism, as he chooses to favor this side over the side of following his instinctual tendencies. Obviously where his argument fails here, is that my opponent is admitting that one of the requirements of freedom is being met, that of alternative choices. To spite the natural biological choices that Fallon's body would prefer in order to fit in with society, proves not only that someone had multiple choices, but that his choice was free in that he chose the option that was more difficult to maintain. My opponent in no way accurately points out how the choice to act against one's own will is deterministic. He falls victim to the "nuh-uh" mindset that determinists often revert to without having to substantiate it. In order for my opponent to prove the argument that a psychopath ignoring his desires of narcissicm and un-attachment, he can't just simply say that every choice he could have made was pre-determined without justifying why it is just as easy for the psychopath to have made the altruistic choice if trying to change his lifestyle, rather than the easy choice. James Fallon is proof that freedom of choice exists. Deterministic arguments that state all choices are simply deterministic because every desire is equivalent, falls victim to the fallacy of circular reasoning. My opponent assumes all desires are equal, which is ridiculous. If a person sacrifices oneself it is impossible to say that his natural instinct of survival isn't strong enough to surpass a basic altruistic need. My opponent cannot assert that every choice is deterministic without providing an exact reason for each choice, and determinism often falls victim to broad under-specified arguments like "A falling object can be influenced by wind, weight, particulate matter in the atmosphere, etc". This takes out of context the required choice that makes determinism possible to begin with. In order for every action to be to determined, there needs to be a free thinking agent. A falling object isn't a free thinking agent making a choice. However even despite this, we are forgetting that quantum indeterminism more or less proves the direction of particles are random, so even the movement of the wind is being effected by the seeemingly random movements of particles. R1) An Appeal to RationalismWe come back to the man in the room argument, where my opponent admits that his actions cannot be determined in this hypothetical, only calculated and assume. My opponent rebunks this argument with a major flaw in logic, that determinism should be assumed because numbers like pi can stretch on infinitely. This ignores my un-answered qoute from my third source in the last round reffering to the Kalam Cosmulogical argument. The second argument states that an actual infinite cannot be formed. History, or the collection of all events in time, is made up by sequentially adding one event after the other. It is always possible to add another event to history, which means the history of the universe is a potential infinite but can never be an actual infinite. Alas we cannot debate a paradox. While my opponent can claim that every outcome of a choice can be predicted, he must admit he doesn't have proof, and even then has to seperate the numbers in pi from a free thinking agent. Odd how numbers in math, and science, are only finite so long as they are created by a free thinking agent? Even if we were to determine that pi is infinite, we cannot even use this as a relevant example to link to the man in the room. Even without advanced science and technology, we can put a person in an environment where we expect them to make certain decisions, but can still defy probability, as my opponent amply pointed out with the ice cream and cake scenario earlier. R2) An Appeal to ReligionI'll qoute my opponent here for reference to his argument against Jesus's predictions: But again, if Peter had the ability to exercise free will, wouldn"t Jesus have said to him, "It"s probable that you"ll deny me, stay on guard against temptation and make the right choice"? I cannot assume to predict what Jesus may or may not have said by trying to interpret his intuitions. But I can say that simply using the word "probably" debunks that Jesus has any supernatural abilities to predict a given future, be that given to him through prayer, or his own abilities. You can make an accurate assumption and guise it with confidence. Who knows? Maybe Yvonne Strahoski would date me. I can mean that she probably would say no, but say that she definitely would definitely say no, so that way if she does say no, I can claim to have the same supernatural talents as Jesus, even if I had a lucky guess. Ultimately, the Bible has made a number of predictions about what people were going to do before they did it. Also the bible scriptures that often are "predicting these things" according to Christians, are very vague and open to interpretation. One with enough free time could twist Bible passages to mean a great many a thing. It's like how the history channel does a documentary on big foot, and your superstitious mom eats the whole thing up as factual because the source is the History Channel. I think people may give the Bible too much credit as a source. Next my opponent mentions that God's existence could be the reason for his existence, but completely ignores the reasoning in the Kalam Cosmological argument, that for every reaction there must be a cause, and the KCA's evidence that God is an "un-caused cause" as commonly reffered to by enthusiasts of the KCA argument. R3) Deconstructing a choiceSimply being focused on something that spites instinct and natural desire, does not prove that your will is not free. Your very example of choosing to care more about a conversation with a friend over your bodies own screaming desires to be warm once again demonstrate that altruism is evidence of free will. We run again into the lack of substantiating for the argument that we have no control over having the conversation in the cold, or moving on to a warmer environment. And the example is narrow. Many times you can roll around the idea and debate whether or not you would rather be warm than have a conversation. This is more likely the case than just assuming someone's altruism is preffered. My argument simplified is:The logical choice: Keeping warm / Choosing your bodies desires for the cakeThe empathetic choice: Listening to a friend / Giving your sister ice-creamThe underlying similiarity: Both scenarios are choicesThe point: My opponent opened early stating the logical choice is the preferred choice, but himself has cited examples for me proving the logical choice is not always the prevalent one. Conclusion:Ultimately my opponent has refuted his own arguments. How can he state that bad upbringing resulting in criminals negates potential for altruism, while also arguing that altruism is a logical choice. Isn't in a criminals best interest (therefor logical) to choice altruism and not stick to behaviors they were raised on, and instead choose the path that leads them to freedom and oppertunity? Doesn't the very word "altruism" imply that a free choice is being made in that we are defying logic? My opponents argument chases itself in circles here. What I am left with to believe by the end of this debate, is that Quantum indeterminancy (IE unknown factors) cannot all logically be assumed to be deterministic, and that altruism despite biological need proves freedom of choice. I believe all requirements for Libertarianism have been sustained in this debate.