[raindeer2]

Yes, the strange thing with the debate is that ppl seem to think that there is a conflict between compatibilism and incompatiblism, which there isn't. They are just taking about different concepts.

"By clearly defining what freedom is, regardless of whether or not determinism holds, our conceptualization of value freedom allows for a compatibilist view on free will. We are not disagreeing with the classic incompatibilist argument (McKenna & Coates, 2021) that determinism does not allow for free will; rather, what we propose is that the kind of freedom lay people actually refer to in everyday language is not the same kind of freedom incompatibilists reject. This distinction between what we here call physical freedom vs. value freedom allows for several potentially interesting perspectives."