The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Luck Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,845 times Debate No: 26225
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




Today's debate is about whether or not luck exists.

1. Acceptance
2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument
3 & 4. Rebuttals
5. Resolution/Closing Argument

Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1

No semantics
No trolling
No profanity
No vulgarity

Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.

The offending party will be the loser.



i shall take this offer and debate well thank you, you leed
Debate Round No. 1


Greetings, Con! Happy Debating!


Luck- fortune (whether bad or good) which occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result.

Contention 1- Luck as a Fallacy-

Luck is probability taken personally. The rules of probability and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. A believer in luck who asserts that something has influenced his or her luck commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy: that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well. In general:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A influenced B.

More contemporary authors writing on the subject believe that definition of good destiny is: one who enjoys good health, has the physical and mental capabilities of achieving his goals in life, has good appearance, has happiness in mind and is not prone to accidents.

Probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections.

The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".

Luck is consistent with random walk probability theory.

Contention 2- Where Luck is Irrelevant-

Situation 1: Roulette-

When you spin the wheel and toss the ball into it, there is no room for luck. All the variables exist, you just don’t know them. Look at it this way:

The wheel starts in position X. The dealer then spins the wheel putting Y amount of energy into it. Take into account friction of all kinds and you will get Z result. It would be difficult to measure all these variables, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Not knowing the variables exactly creates the illusion of chance.

You could say with absolute certainty how a coin or die would land if you knew every variable there was to know. It would be simple math. Again, because it’s so difficult to discover these variables as precisely as needed, the illusion of luck is created.

Situation 2: Motorcycle Stunt Driver-

Now this whole jump is subject to the laws of physics. He needs at least X velocity to clear the jump and land on the adjacent ramp. He either has it or he doesn’t. It is cut and dry. There is no invisible “luck” factor that will magically show up and push his bike just a little bit farther to land safely on the ramp. He might come very close to not meeting that threshold of X, which would give the illusion of luck, but as long as he is over the required energy threshold he will make it. It doesn’t mater if he makes it by .00001, or 5+, all that maters is that he has >X

In conclusion we may now be able to visualize how luck is a fallacy when demonstrted in certain situations it becomes commonly used in.

Luck is A Fallacy because
a) Probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections.
b) The Laws of Physics and Luck are not quantitive.



luner124 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend my argument...................


luner124 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Vote Pro.


luner124 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


luner124 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
Words are defined by their use. I don't think most people use the word "luck" to refer to anything magical or even pseudomagical. The way most people use the word, I think, it just means "when things go your way even though you didn't plan it."
Posted by Logic_on_rails 4 years ago
'No semantics' in a debate about luck's existence. 'Pseudo magical' has quite the negative connotation or two, don't you think? How about, "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" as the definition? That sounds like a slightly fairer definition.

I know of a very good analogy to chess with this subject. There's no bad luck in chess, there can be good luck though...
Posted by famer 4 years ago
Lol @ WSA
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
What now? lol
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
V much better
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
Luck- a pseudo-magical force that intervenes in affairs to lead to a favorable outcome.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
Hold it, I just noticed that you specifically outlined that R2 will be the "definitions" round, giving you first call on how to define "luck", meaning you're going to wait until you have an opponent locked in before you define the main word of contention.

Trap debate.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
I'm tempted...
Would luck would be success brought by chance rather than through one's own actions?
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
Given that "no semantics" is a rule, if I define luck in such a way that it undeniably exists in R1, aren't you screwed?
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
Define luck please.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro totally dominated this debate. His opening left Con completely speechless.