I don’t think anyone here has argued for something akin to “non free will”. Many here believe that free will is “something” that they possess, in spite of the fact that they’re unable to say what that something might be.

I have argued that the concept is a logical impossibility. It simply makes no sense. This is not the same as endorsing a new concept called “non free will”. To have non free will, you’d have to be able to coherently say what free will is. This cannot be done.

If someone said “I believe in ‘qwertyuiopianism’ and he is unable to define what ‘qweretyuiopianism’ is, I would say “qwertyuiopianism without a definition is a meaningless string of letters and nothing more”. This is not the same as saying “I believe in ‘non-qwertyuiopianism’”. See the difference?