Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

Frankfurt's rebuttal to premise 5
1. Franny has a mind control device
2. The device will only be used on Zoe if she deviates from Franny's desired actions.
3. Zoe commits the actions without deviating
4. Zoe acted freely

You may have to expand on this argument or cite the source so I can read it fully in context, as 4 appears to be non-sequitor conclusion. Zoe is free from the influence of the mind control device, but not free from her own deterministic causations. This proves nothing, but a giant leap from 3 to 4.
It is not a rebuttal to the point 5 of the original argument being;
5. If we can only do what we in fact do, then we never act freely.

A matter of chance argument
1. If an agent's act is undetermined, then how the agent acts is a matter of chance
2. If how an agent acts is a matter of chance, then the agent is not morally responsible for the act.
3. If an agent's act is undetermined, then the agent is not morally responsible for the act.

I believe the correct philosophical response here is; So what?

This isn't an argument, but a description that determinism is not preferable to free will, but does nothing to lend weight to the idea that we are not determined.
This does not however give us a carte blanche to commit crime as the complete free will, since part of our morality is rooted in the promotion of social order, and the prevention of harm, and in respect to social order, it is important to maintain the illusion of free will.
To quote the movie, 'You can't handle the truth'. We can't, and even as I write this I feel free to just stop, and have a sandwich if I choose.
At the end of the day, the 'Golden Rule' of morality is a tacit social agreement which through mutual consensus which allows us to go about our business, loving our life without the fear of being harmed on a regular basis. Without it, whether determined or not, affects us directly, and is therefore preferable to basing our moral actions on whether we are determined, but instead basing our moral actions on the illusion of free will.

It is not a contradiction to state, that whilst we may be aware of being determined, and ultimately, we are not responsible, we are equally aware that our own well being depends on affecting the illusion of free will.
Certainly determinism allows us to investigate the environmental factors behind immoral actions and attack the causes rather than the individual. While the individual should be punished, if only to enforce a factor of deterrence and hopefully in some cases rehabilitation, understanding that actions have a long line of causal event, allows us to make decisions that benefit humankind in the long run, such as pushing for greater education, reduction in poverty, and other factors which influence immorality.
To say there is no morality is to ignore your fortunate position that we, as a species have developed a complex, and often contradictory ability for social consensus which is the primary cause for our planetary domination. In order to preserve and continue (with hopefully a little less forceful and damaging domination) requires our morality as a deterministic factor in our decisions.
An understanding of their root, does not absolve us from following them.

I'm waffling a bit on my views, but I'm trying to explain how I see that determinism ties closely with morality and allows for greater empathy with the individual and a more positive outlook to our attitude to corrections, and ultimately addressing the root causes of behaviour which threatens us, rather than a focus on retribution.

I didn't quite understand the conditional argument, so an expansion would be appreciated.