Superficial attempt to shoehorn a bad position into logical language. You don't need to be out here pushing the idea of free will, we've had millennia of religious zealots and other "intellectuals" trying to figure out how to make this illogical and unworkable position work, and we've already figured out a bunch of ways to dress it up in ways that hide the issues. We don't need you regurgitating arguments that are as old as time and easily debunked. Think harder, go deeper. There is no binary between free will and no free will. Having no free will is functionally and experientially identical to having free will.

Lmao I wasn't going to comment anything even though I was tempted to make the general comment of "it's hard to make a compelling argument on something you are wrong about" in response to your article. But here I find you in the comments telling people that the problems in your reasoning and argument are actually comprehension issues on the side of the reader. That's the single biggest hallmark of a bad author - blaming the reader for just "not getting it". Don't do that.