The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

"Randomness" Is a Myth That Doesn't Exist in Reality

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...
PowerPikachu21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,044 times Debate No: 103416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

So-called "randomness" is a myth --
it has never happened in the past, it is not happening now,
and it shall never happen in the future --
it is an existential impossibility.
Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00:
PowerPikachu21

Con

I could use the money. Let's see what we can do. But first, let's define the terms.

Random: "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

Myth: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon"

Exist: "to have real being whether material or spiritual"

Reality: "the quality or state of being real"

[All definitions gotten from Merriam Webster Dictionary]

I'll let you have the opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

You offered no refutation, so you lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
PowerPikachu21

Con

Refutation? What refutation? You yourself said nothing that proves my side wrong, or even to support your own side. The debate's not over. Here's my argument: Random number generators. Unless you're a psychic, you can't tell what number will come up when a computer starts calling numbers between 1 and 100.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Random number generators. Unless you're a psychic, you can't tell what number will come up when a computer starts calling numbers between 1 and 100."

You proved that unpredictability exists. Unfortunately for you, you have not proven that "randomness" exists.

Unpredictability <> Randomness

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
PowerPikachu21

Con

The random numbers are occuring, and there's no aim to it. You lost.

[PS I never expected you to admit my side is wrong anyways, therefore never expected any money.]
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The individuals voting on this site are hopelessly biased, unintelligent, and utterly dishonest: Therefore, the so-called "voting" system on this site is a sham and has no bearing on the actual winners of the debates.
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
NDECD1441
The so called "voting" system is the basic goal of debate. In debate we need to persuade the others to our side. So far in your debates you have done nothing of the sort therefore making you uncapable. Pikachu wins.

Its not our fault that our worldviews are mlre supreme than yours. Go back to kindergarden kid.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The individuals voting on this site are hopelessly biased, unintelligent, and utterly dishonest: Therefore, the so-called "voting" system on this site is a sham and has no bearing on the actual winners of the debates.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The individuals voting on this site are hopelessly biased, unintelligent, and utterly dishonest: Therefore, the so-called "voting" system on this site is a sham and has no bearing on the actual winners of the debates.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The individuals voting on this site are hopelessly biased, unintelligent, and utterly dishonest: Therefore, the so-called "voting" system on this site is a sham and has no bearing on the actual winners of the debates.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The individuals voting on this site are hopelessly biased, unintelligent, and utterly dishonest: Therefore, the so-called "voting" system on this site is a sham and has no bearing on the actual winners of the debates.
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 3 years ago
EnchantedPlatinum
People do post their reasons for voting so... you are just unwilling to accept that you don't DEBATE, you attempt to force your beliefs on people.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
The so-called "voting" system is 100% biased and ridiculous, because there is no structure in place to ensure that the voters are unbiased. It is nothing but a big joke, and has no bearing on the reality of the debate.

Reality is objective, actually, and without God, nobody could make an objective distinction on any level.

I won this debate, no matter how anyone votes.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
That delusion is why the voters are against you.

It's what will happen when you believe reality is subjective :)
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Yes I do.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaPowerPikachu21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: What's with the $5,000 thing anyway? Is this guy for real?
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
PurushadasaPowerPikachu21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I take 'prove me wrong' in the first round to mean that Con has the burden of proof in this debate. Con's only argument is that there are random number generators. pro's rebuttal is that while random number generators are unpredictable, that doesn't make them random. Finally, Con appealed to the 'no aim' clause of his definition of 'random' to say that random number generators ARE random. And that was the end of the debate. pro was not able to respond further because there were no more rounds. it is unfortunate that the person who got the last word won the debate just because they got the last word. It wouldn't have been that way if each debater had just put more meat into their arguments earlier on. Con should've recognized he had the burden of proof and began his arguments in round 1. pro should've taken issue with Con's definition of random or else defined those terms himself at the start of the debate. pro also should've explained how randomness and unpredictability differ

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.