I've read over the previous posts and they are all very interesting, but I have noticed that a lot of them are discussing the works of other philosophers. While this may be the best way to debate this topic, I’d like to try a slightly different (and hopefully not less successful) approach to the debate.
I am a hard incompatibilist* (I think that is the right term). I believe that the concept of free will is incoherent. The reason I think this is because I cannot conceive of an occurrence being anything but random and/or caused. Since I do not consider random actions or caused actions to be free, I do not believe there is any free will.
As far as debate goes, I would prefer to have you (the reader) respond with what you believe is wrong with my stance and provide your arguments against mine, rather than linking to articles. If you are getting arguments from another philosopher, I would like to request that you put his/her arguments in your own words, and then link afterwards to your source rather than just providing the link for the argument.
*I think a hard incompatibilist is someone who believes that free will does not exist, but does not commit to any claims about the random/determined nature or reality. If what I have described is not a hard incompatibilist, feel free to correct me and give me a new label.
P.S. I think a post made earlier by slimstickwhead provided a link to an article that discussed the misdirected focus of free will debates. I still haven’t had time to really go over it, so hopefully slimstickwhead will respond to this with insights and arguments pertaining to that article.