Free Will: is human-based determinism more based in reality than metaphysical libertarianism?

As the one taking the "for" position, I will be arguing that determinism is more based in reality than metaphysical libertarianism(not to be confused, of course, with the political ideology by the same name). While I would hesitate to debate with someone not familiar with what these two terms mean in philosophy, I'll provide definitions and am still open to anyone who wants to take a crack at it if they are new. These definitions are basically going to be definitions I personally am providing based on what I know of them.

Determinism: The metaphysical position that all events had a cause or determination, and in this particular debate we are limiting this to specifically the topic of human free will. In this respect, a deterministic position would be that free will is non-existant or severely limited by factors preceding what appears to be a person's choice. These factors basically force a person's actions and thus free will doesn't exist or hardly does at all.

Metaphysical libertarianism: This is basically the philosophy that free will does exist, and people have far more choice and freedom as it pertains to decisions they make: basically that they can ignore conditions that determinists would consider forcing a person's hand to act a certain way.


 I and my opponent are essentially taking incompatiblist positions at least to some degree. Both of us are allowed to admit to there being some exceptions if we feel that way, but neither of us should be arguing that both libertarianism and determinism go hand-in-hand in the real world about equally. We should either argue the opposite side is completely wrong or is merely an exception to your rule. I stipulate this so that my opponent and I would have clearly opposing views, since if a compatibilist were to debate with me, I'm not sure it could be argued there is a clear winner since we'd both agree determinism is a major player in reality.

Alright, with all that out of the way, here is how I will have the round structures:

Round 1: This round will be used for acceptance only, clearly stating one's position, and adding any new definitions in preparation for our opening arguments in round 2. By posting in this round, you are indicating you accept all rules, definitions, and conditions as laid out here.
Round 2: This will be where both of us present our opening arguments.
Round 3: We will attempt to refute and offer rebuttals against what our opponent said in round 2, and offer a closing paragraph(optional, though probably a good idea).


If you wish to debate with me, please comment. To allow us both ample time to construct opening arguments in round 2, and for potentially interested debaters to have time to ask clarifying questions in the comments that I can answer and then add the answer to this area, I will not post my acceptance round until the last 12 hours of the 48 hours I'm allotted to post my round 1 argument, or until someone states their intent to debate, whichever comes first.