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: 1,048 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 21 through 24 records.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
"You lost the debate thanks for your time"

You don't get to decide who wins or who loses.
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
You lost the debate because you failed to provide evidence of randomness existing: Bye!
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
PowerPikachu21
To be fair, we both sucked in this debate. (And why do you call people you quote "someone"? There's no shame in directly saying who the person is.)
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

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

You failed to provide any evidence for your above claim, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
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.