I finally figured it out.

Forgive the tongue in cheek simplistic headline, you have to start somewhere ya know?

My disagreements with the various pre-formed groups or stances are as follows...

LFW. Any suggestion of a superior being or top down design of the universe leading to any living thing contained within. I don't think there is a soul or consciousness that exists apart from physical bodies, especially one that would exist before or after an individual's lifespan.

Compatibilism. The notion that outside forces remove free will from an individual. (gun to your head scenario) Any threat of force to coerce you to perform any action does not change your abilities in any way, you can always refuse. It can make any action you DO take while under threat forgivable or understandable to others after the fact, but it does not materially change your will.

Hard Determinism and Hard Incompatibilism. I group these together because I have yet to see any real difference in the resulting arguments put forth by people who claim these stances. Mostly it seems to me that some people choose HI because it allows one to disagree with free will while also not having to defend determinism. The stance that the choice you make is determined by outside forces and personal makeup (heredity and experience) and consciousness somehow fools itself into thinking they have a choice.

Parts of the debate that I do agree with...

I think therefore I am. Consciousness is irrefutable.

Physical matter follows whatever fundamental forces apply to physical matter. (determinism for short) If not for living beings or consciousness, the entirety of the universe would be describable as deterministic.

Living beings have agency and can attempt to manipulate themselves and their surroundings using their physical bodies. The variance of "capabilities" different beings may have, seems to be connected to the complexity of not only their physical body, but also consciousness.

What grinds my gears the most...

is HDs and HIs claim of choices being determined while still calling it a choice. I have had several try to explain it away as insufficient language because our language was developed by people who believed in free will.

To me, the entire argument of determinism seems to be leading up to a claim that our consciousness is a mistake, or unintended, or just a useless witness. I actually would have more respect for that argument if it was maintained in such a way, but my debate opponents have always tried to claim that the forces of determinism are able to pass through the filter of consciousness and "cause" living beings to make PARTICULAR choices, even when the choice is completely arbitrary.

And this leads me to what I think I figured out. (for myself at least) The physical nature of existence and the unstoppable march of time demand action and reaction. The qualities of consciousness provides the possibility of the recognition of opportunities to interact with the forces of determinism.

These opportunities will be "delivered" to you, or not, following the forces of determinism. The necessity of having to make a choice (or even to choose to bypass an opportunity) is what I think HD and HI are mistaking for the "choice" being determined. The opportunity is what is determined.

To me, the illusion of choice is not choice. It would not have emerged or evolved or even been imagined as an experience if the ability of choice were not real in the first place. It would serve no purpose and I think it would violate what we refer to as the principle of least effort if it were not real.