Guys, please correct me, but wouldn’t it be possible to substitute some area x of rational inquiry for the ‚free-will debate‘ and some belief y about x for the minimal free will thesis, work through the argument and obtain conclusion 7: if determinism is true, then y is true?

Because up to step 7, I think at no point does the argument rely specifically on the fact that we‘re talking about the free-will debate and MFT-belief, so we could substitute anything we like as long as it’s compatible with premises 1-3. Maybe I misunderstood something, but if that‘s true this argument is really weird because you could derive any statement of the form ‚determinism implies y‘ where y is some belief about an area of rational inquiry.