Free will doesnt exist

As con is forfeited ,I will consider total debate as a single round. Con's argument was catchy and explained with a example, but pro neglected con's reason and con didn't given any explanation in second round ,so the debate is incomplete, so I could not select winner of debate, but from my view pro produced some sources and good arguments.

I disagree with both previous voters. Vote rules of a debate do not say a forfeit is an automatic loss of debate, but merely loss of conduct point. So be it.
Pro defined only free will in Description, then proceeds into convoluted arguments that cause, and person are inseparably related in choice, none of which key words are previously defined, and are difficult to read due to numerous circular arguments of “logic” which fail to convince.
Con offered an R1 argument that choice is not automatically by a cause, using the choice of two boxes as example. It’s a successful argument because there is no cause to the choice since the boxes are identical. It is random choice, which Pro’s argument/rebuttal does not defeat.

Pro’s R2 argues the definition of choice, but that citation is an argument, not a given by Definition, so Pro cannot claim Con ignores it. Or o cha rvrs Con with concession by definition of knowledge, but knowledge is not defined in Description, so it, too, is merely additional argument, and not a given. Con wins argument

Sources:
Pro’s sources were definitions, only, which he used in argument,, but do not do anything in support of argument. Con is not bounded by them. These should have been included in Description to be binding by Con acceptance of the debate.
Con had. No sources. Tie

Legibility
Pro’s circular arguments maxed legibility difficult. Con’ argument easy to follow. Con wins point

Conduct
Pro’s assumption of concession is a greater failure than 1 forfeit by Con, but rules impose the conduct. Loss,

ofc, forfeit.

Con forfeited half of the debate.