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

random cause+(and)effect=(is)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 2 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 72625
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

any non intended cause is chaos


cause+effect=logic

tejretics

Con

By the standard DDO maxims, I shall first provide definitions for the terms:

Random - made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.
Chaos - a state of utter disorder and confusion.
Cause - a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
Effect - a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
Confusion - lack of clearness of distinctness.
Utter - absolute and total.

Pro claims that "any non-intended cause is chaos." The BoP is on Pro to prove this.
All definitions from the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

chaos has nothing to do with confusion, the movement of leaves blowing in the wind is in chaos, not order
tejretics

Con

Pro says chaos has nothing to do with confusion, but they have no semantic demonstration or proof whatsoever. Pro has not constructed a positive case. Nonetheless, I shall construct a negative case.

Negative Case
In a thermodynamic system, the rate of disorder never decreases via. second law of thermodynamics. [1] Yet each thermodynamic system is defined by time, i.e. the rate of entropic graduation in that system. [2][3] When a thermodynamic system is created randomly via. any change in mass-energy ratio, immediately prior to the creation, the level of chaos is *precisely* 0. Hence, even with random cause and effect involved in creating a thermodynamic system such as the universe, at some point the rate of chaos is 0.

The resolution is negated.

References
[1] Carnot, Sadi (1824).
[2] Tisza, Laszlo (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics. Springer Publishing. ISBN 9-048-16090-1.
[3] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-17698-6.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

no chaos is 1. 1=1=1, something can only transform
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
1. This argument does not argue for the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.
2. Pro's argument depends on a very specific definition of chaos, i.e. disorder. The disorder in a thermodynamic system *can* be 0 despite random cause; the resolution remains negated with no counter-rebuttals by Pro.
3. "Something can only transform." Conservation of mass is disproved via. mass-energy equivalence, viz. a certain amount of mass m, when expanded into energy, evolves to become of a mass equivalent to mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. [1] Via. quantum mechanical fluctuations, an energy level x can multiply by y, hence temporarily changing the level of x to xy. [2] This is proven by the uncertainty principle.

References
[1] http://goo.gl...;
[2] http://goo.gl...;
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

you said chaos was 0.. that would mean chaos comes from god..

lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one

if there is random causation then its not in order, clearly
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
Disorder [entropy] takes the value of 0 only for the period immediately prior to the creation of a thermodynamic system, as mentioned above. If this disorder takes the value of 0, how would it mean chaos comes from God? This has not been proven; hence, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. Random causation *can* result in 0 disorder, thus meaning it is, in fact, in order, as *proven* above. Pro has not disproved the same, nor has Pro rebutted all my arguments. Pro has not fulfilled their BoP at all. Pro *must* fulfill their BoP in the next round or will forfeit the "arguments" points.

I extend all my arguments. This resolution is negated without opposition.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

then entropy is false, matter can only transform, as i see it, it over rides the entropy claim becasue even entropy would be a transformation, from something to something, not nothing, not 0, not information

it can not take the value of 0 in reality, that would be creation and destruction

thing=1

lie=0
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
1. The law of conservation of mass is falsified by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypotheses such as zero-energy universe to be logically consistent with existing laws. [1][2] As conservation of mass is falsified, the second law of thermodynamics
cannot be falsified by it.
2. The value of 0 implies non-existence; the non-existence of disorder immediately prior to and during the creation of a thermodynamic system refers to non-existence of *both* order and disorder in the same. [3]

Pro has not fulfilled their BoP in anyway, without providing any verifiable proof for the same. The resolution is negated without opposition. Vote Con.

References
[1] http://goo.gl...;
[2] http://goo.gl...;
[3] Tisza, Laszlo (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics. Springer Publishing. ISBN 9-048-16090-1.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
see returning all operating system, c h a os
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
what defintiion
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont know anything you say..
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I mean grammatical evidence. The definition you are supporting *without* stating it in Round 1 is not supported by any major grammatical source or dictionary.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont know what you mean by semantic evidence
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
But there is *no* semantic evidence to suggest the same. Please either provide your definitions in Round 1 or accept the definitions provided by your opponent.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
Chaos would be any non intended cause

all natural/random/non intended/non specified change in eternity
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I mean that then the *title* of the debate would become the *definition* of chaos, i.e. random cause and effect. Please use a semantic source. Let chaos then simply be "disorder".
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont understand what you are saying
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Then the definition only applies to the title, rendering this debate non-contradictable, viz. that is practically impossible.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Gabe1e
vi_spextejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Sources: Only ones used were by Con. Grammar: Many grammar mistakes by Pro, goes to Con. Arguments: Pro failed to rebut or prove the resolution was correct. He denied anything Con said, but did not prove it.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
vi_spextejreticsTied
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: Spexi strikes again. Grammar to Con: capital letters, overuse of equals, etc. // Arguments to Con: Pro failed to refute any of Con's points. // Sources to Con: Only utilized by Con.