Critics point out that compatibilists are making a circular argument here: An agent is free if an agent is free. The incompatibilists believe that free will refers to genuine (e.g., absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires, or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.
Compatibilists are accused of making a self-referential assertion: An individual is considered free if they are indeed free. In contrast, incompatibilists propose that genuine freedom involves actual (e.g., real, fundamental) alternative possibilities for thoughts, feelings, or actions, as opposed to merely possible ones.