Free Will vs. Determinism argument

Disclaimer:I am simply posing an excerpt of my musings to outside sources, all views represented here are currently in development and are in no way permanent tenets of my personal philosophies. All ideas are subject to change.

I have been interested in the concept of free will for a good deal of time now and have read a bit about the idea and its numerous arguments both for and against. One thing that I have noticed regarding all sides of the debate is the seemingly inconsistent frame of mind for both sides. most proponents of Free Will bring about points based in the future, resting on potential, i.e. A person would have the option to make decision A or B in given situation X. Whereas individuals supporting determinism often make the counterpoint that Cause C led to the decision A that was made in Situation X. This seems to me to be a fundamental disparity in the argument that requires a different path to continue the debate. Naturally, all examples given in any of these instances are grossly simplified for argument's sake, but it still "rubs me the wrong way".

elaboration: metaphoric arguments for determinism require an event to already have happened where Free Will requires a theoretical future event where events are undecided and possibilities are endless (within the constraints of the situation). This leaves the arguments on completely different fields of play where one cannot exist where the other is and turns any debate into a mere difference of opinion with nothing conclusively gained. (such seems to be the nature of philosophical arguments with no correct answer).

All of that being said, I do not think there is a conclusively correct answer, this is more of a thought excercise to provoke discussion about a side of this debate I have not seen.

looking for any thoughts on this, especially counterpoints or helpful refinement of the idea.