"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?"

yes but that is not what I am talking about. I think you misunderstand what I am saying becasue it is hard to really put it into language. When I say "non free will" I am referring to basically any arguement against free will. To make points as to why free will might not make sense is one thing, and totally reasonable..but to then say that free will does not exist, without really acknowledging that the whole concept in it's entirety is man made anyway just seems off to me. This is really hard to explain and I dont expect my words to be interpreted the way I mean them.

There seems to be a sort of paradox here and this is why I think that at the level we are currently at it is pointless to assume we can take the discussion much farther. It is a subject that seems far to complex for our current capacity for complexity.