Among compatibilists and hard determinists, compatibilist conceptions of free will are the only truly intelligible & coherent conceptions, whereas hard determinism ultimately collapses into an incoherent or contradictory objection that fails to articulate any meaningful concept at all.

This is my current view. Compatibilists offer logically consistent conceptions of free will that focus on the nature of agency and the conditions under which an agent's actions can be considered "up to them". It seems to me that hard determinists object without offering any meaningful alternative concept.

Then there's also the sort of self-referential contradiction where the hard determinist stance can undercut its own intelligibility. It basically claims all acts are forced, yet also implies that “we” can rationally conclude free will doesn’t exist, presumably by choosing to accept certain premises and choosing to reject others.