[temppsychonaut]

My problem with compatibalism, is compatibilism is so rigid. Why can’t we just overtly define free will in such a way that we have “free will,” and at the same time acknowledge that we lack “free will” for another definition. I guess what I’m trying to say is compatibilism just seems to me like it takes a hard stance on a word game.

[AnimalMuppet]

I agree. Compatibilism either defines "free will" to be something I don't consider to be free will, or defines "determinism" into something I don't consider to be determinism (or both).

[GoblinSlayer]

Another definition like "nondeterministic free will" doesn't make much sense, so when you say such will does or doesn't exist, it's unclear what it means and what conclusions should follow from it. Some people assume it makes sense, but only until you question it.