The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Gabe1e
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Gabe1e
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 72621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

any non intended cause is chaos


cause+effect=logic

Gabe1e

Con

DEFINITION OF CHAOS:

a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. [1]

DEFINITION OF CAUSE:

a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. [2]

Hello, vi_spex!

"any non intended cause is chaos"

For chaos to happen UTTER confusion might take place after the cause and effect.

DEFINITIONS:

Confusion: lack of clearness or distinctness [3]

Utter: complete; total; absolute [4]

Therefore, BOP is on Pro, he must prove that cause and effect leads to nothing but a complete lack of clearness/distinctness.


Cites:

[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...

[4]- http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

chaos in no way demands confusion..

Gabe1e

Con

Pro then denies the definition provided, stating "chaos in no way demands confusion.."

Although, the defintion says:

"a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

As BOP is on Pro, nothing has been provided to support the resolution: "random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos"\\

The resolution is fallacious.

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

..



any non intended cause is chaos

Gabe1e

Con

Pro, again, provides no evidence to support the resolution. Allow me to provide an example the opposite of the resolution.

You are running late for the bus, you run out the door and forget your lunch. You get on the bus and open your bag. You just remember that you put you put it in your bag last night. You find it in your bag even though you did not intend it being there. There is no chaos involved, you are not in utter confusion because you remembered that you put it in last night, no confusion is involved.

That is an example of cause and effect without chaos.


BOP is still on Pro, and he still hasn't provided any solid evidence to support his theory.


The resolution remains fallacious.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

chaos has nothing to do with confusion.. the movement of leaves in the wind blowing is all chaos..
Gabe1e

Con

"chaos has nothing to do with confusion.. the movement of leaves in the wind blowing is all chaos.."

I don't understand how this is chaos, in fact, it has nothing to do with chaos. Pro also states "chaos has notihng to do with confusion," but the definition, once again is:

"a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

No one is confused by leaves blowing, in fact, Pro still does not provide any evidence to support the resolution.

The resolution remains fallacious.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

its chaos because, its not order, not intended
Gabe1e

Con

"its chaos because, its not order, not intended"

And where is your proof for this? BOP was on you, but you have provided none, Pro.

Conclusion

Pro has not provided any evidence, even though BOP was on him the whole time, he just restated the resolution and denied any of my definitions that I provided, even though they were from a reliable source. The resolution has not been proven valid in any way, and Pro didn't make one single attempt. Even though I didn't have BOP, I even stated an example of random cause and effect not turning out into chaos.

The resolution remains fallacious.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
right there is the proof you have no clue
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
You keep spouting non-sense and keep losing your debates. You never really improve your arguments, you don't even have any real ones to begin with.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
trying?
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
vi_spex, why do you keep trying?
Posted by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
Random cause and effect*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
vi_spexGabe1eTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro literally made no attempts to refute Con's arguments at all. Pro violated the established semantics, and made no arguments within the set semantic parameters. Con was the only one to use sources. Con actually used punctuation and grammar, while Pro's arguments, though short, were hard to read.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
vi_spexGabe1eTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to rebut Con's arguments; Pro defied the definitions without *any* semantic arguments whatsoever. Pro did not fulfill their BoP. Con's grammar actually *had* punctuation. Con used the only sources in the debate.