The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

nature is designed by chaos

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...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 84893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

chaos=any non intended cause
chaos=random cause+effect
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for instigating this important and interesting topic. I hope this debate will be a fruitful one.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding or misconception let me define some important words here.


DEFINITIONS[1]

Nature: The universe and everything in it.

Design (n): Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Design (v): Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind.

Chaos: Complete disorder and confusion.

Unintended: accidental, unintentional, something that is not planned.


BOP

BoP is shared. Pro will prove that nature is designed by chaos. Con will prove that nature is not designed by chaos.

Since Pro has brought no arguments, to make the debate fair I will too not make any argument in this round.


STRUCTURE

Round 1: Acceptance and rules

Round 2: Arguments only

Round 3: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments with no new arguments


Breaking any of the above rules or forfeiture by a debater is an automatic win for his opponent.


We can discuss and change any condition Pro doesn’t agree with or suggests new rules under comments section. Pro can just post his arguments if he agrees with above conditions.



I wish Pro best of luck!


Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

no nature has been created so far, is true

:)
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his very short but to the point argument. I don’t know what point that is though, but thinking the worst case (forfeiture) even posting a word is something.


NOTE

I really wanted to make a very serious debate on this very important topic, in which I am specifically interested. But, unfortunately, since Pro has made a very short and to the point argument, which is really hard to do, I too would to make a short and to the point argument, but (try my best to make) a better one (that is the challenge of this debate).


CHAOS CANNOT DESIGN

Here is my argument: Chaos cannot design something, therefore nature is not designed by chaos.


ELABORATION

To avoid misunderstandings, let me elaborate my argument a little. Just pay attention to words “design” and “chaos”. As I gave definitions in R1 (to which according to rules Pro automatically agreed) they have opposite meanings. Let’s repeat my definitions for design and Pro’s definition for chaos:

Design (n): Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Design (p):Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind.

Chaos: "any non intended cause".


It is, therefore, clear that chaos cannot design something, as their definitions require. Since nature is, at least, something, then chaos cannot design it. Case Closed!

This is my only argument for R2 of this debate to make a comparable argument to that of Pro.

I wish Pro best of luck in R3!

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

its just easy to understand the word design

nature is life, life is purpose, life designes machines

the purpose of all life is defined by the purpose of nuts in a tree

if design is shape something then chaos can design but not by intent
ssadi

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his last arguments.


REBUTTAL(S)

Pro said in R2: "no nature has been created so far, is true".

Answer: There is a universe inside which we live. Even if that is created or not is out of the scope of our debate topic. The question is if that is designed by chaos or not, to which Pro has failed to bring even a single argument.


CONCLUSION

I proved that chaos cannot design, since chaos is an unintend cause where to design is to do something with intention.

Pro has failed to bring even a single argument to prove that nature is designed by chaos. In order for debate to be fair, I wouldn't comment on Pro's statements in R3. I leave it to voters to decide on that..

I want to confess that despite Pro's "strong" conduct, I enjoyed the debate. Thanks Pro for this debate!

Vote Con, please!
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Dear @sunnyau,

I used a source in round 1!! :-)
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I forgot to refute second argument of Pro in round 2. I will do it here in case you are interested.

REBUTTAL - 2
Pro made the following argument in R2:
" :) "

Answer: As I showed under rebuttal(s), his first argument was not funny, which clearly refutes Pro's claim: " :) "

There is also a mis-spelling in this argument. The correct spelling is: " :-) "

Vote Con!
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
@sunnyau
Thank you for your time, cinsideration and voting, appreciate!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know=certain=something=1=superman by defintion is not defined as a rock, but as...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
ok.. math is knowledge, knowledge is memory, and i know i cant bend a hair on my hand with my imagination, because i see my hand

its there
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
If unknown is something that is completely unknown, then aliens cannot be unknown.. Because if they were completely unknown, then we couldn't name them as "aliens"..
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
unknown is unknown, aliens are unknown
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
Then you mean aliens are not real.. This is already SOMETHING that we know about aliens then.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
truth can not be made sense of, stories are not real
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
In whose tail then?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sunnyau 1 year ago
sunnyau
vi_spexssadiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Conduct:Did Pro even have stated a point?Goes to Con. Spelling and Grammar: Pro just did some sentence that even has not been capitalized.So goes to Con. Arguments: Pro didn't make a case,so auto goes to Con. Nobody used a source.