I can't say whether any philosophers have made an argument on it, but I think a reasonable justification can be made using modal logic.
What sort of proof would you accept that freewill exists? Can you name anything you can test? I will assume the answer is no (because I don't believe such a proof can be made). Thus, we should accept that there is no "proof" to be had. At best, the person you are talking to can provide you with evidence, and leave it up to you to decide whether that evidence sways your opinion or not.
So let's talk about what sort of evidence can be offered. I think we can both agree that any action which you can predict is not evidence of freewill. If you could put in an envelope "Cort will flap their arms like wings," and unveil it at the opportune moment, I would have to admit that I failed to provide any evidence of freewill.
So what if I can do an action which you cannot predict? I think we can both agree that doesn't quite qualify as direct evidence of freewill, as much as I might wish it does. Trivially, if I observed a coin toss which decided my action, but you could not observe the coin toss, I could act in an unpredictable manner but it would not qualify as freewill.
However, what if I could do an action that is unpredictable? What if I could do something which you could not predict, not because you are a mere mortal, but because the information you would need to predict it is not available to the world outside of myself? What then? I would argue that would qualify as free will (and by argue, I mean it would start the debate where I argue it qualifies as free will and we see where you take the debate).
As it turns out, being truly unpredictable is hard. It takes a serious inner spark to be truly unpredictable. That spark is much of what makes actors and comedians great. So how important is this discussion to me? Am I willing to put a deep effort into providing you with an unpredictable action, or am I willing to accept a token instead.
Flapping ones arms is a well understood gesture in this sort of argument. It's kind of the go-to "I'm too lazy to be truly unpredictable" movement.
So what does a half-baked attempt at an unpredictable movement do? At best it brings us to modal logic. It argues that you should consider the possibility that you don't know if there is free will, because you can imagine an unpredictable movement, using our questionably-unpredictable movement as a muse. Once we're using modal logic, your claim of "there is no freewill" becomes something that needs to be clarified. Is this a strong negation: "there is no free will" or is it a weak negation "'there is freewill' is not a true statement". The former is certain there is no free will, the latter is only certain that we haven't proven there is freewill.
Once we're in this more "colorful" world of discourse, now the fun debate happens. Now we can start discussing the consequences of believing there is no freewill (strong or weak) and discussing the consequences of believing there is freewill.
So I'll flap away. It beats just ceeding the argument to someone who doesn't believe in freewill. Maybe I'll actually be unpredictable in the debate that follows.