RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

My opponent wrote: "QED is establishing that randomness DOES NOT exist in reality" I have amply established that fact. Therefore I won this debate. "Pro needs to conclusively demonstrate that true randomness does not exist" I have done so. Therefore I won this debate. " in order for the debate title (which they chose, by the way!)" Who are "they???" I am just one person, not a group of persons: Please use a singular pronoun to refer to me, from now on, not a plural pronoun. "I would like to see the logical proof, please." Actually, you need to prove that the string in question is random. In fact, there is not as much as a single random element in that string, so it cannot possibly be random. Therefore you just lost this debate. "I'm pretty sure" That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. "Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random" I already did: There is not as much as a single random element in the string in question; therefore the string cannot possibly be truly "random" in any way. You must concretely demonstrate at least one truly "random" element in that string in order to counter this fact. You have failed to provide any evidence of any truly random element in that string. Therefore the string in question is most definitely 100% non-random, and I won this debate. In fact, you have demonstrated that the string is 100% non-random by admitting the fact that you consciously and deliberately produced it with the intention of making it random: There are clearly no truly "random" elements involved in any deliberate and intentional process. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in the process that you used to produce that string. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in that string, and therefore the string is demonstrably and irrefutably 100% non-random. Therefore, I won this debate. ", which was deliberately intended to be an entirely random" "Intent" of randomness is different from actual randomness. I concede that you have proven that the "intent" to be random exists in reality, but you have yet to provide evidence of actual randomness in reality. In fact, your admitted "intent" to do anything in relation to producing that string PROVES THAT THE STRING IS THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL PROCESS -- NOT THE RESULT OF ANY TRULY "RANDOM" PROCESS, so your admission of intent is concrete evidence that the string in question is 100% deliberate and intentional, and is, therefore, in fact not random at all. "qO&)6UH"{ 87 Q=5>ji2UW/%uA9 068rRA?-`sdc@+{qOYS:pd t/J9 J| vu_|'6:a/Y'A;~g'QoIu;4n-%~%T/|vI/Cc,'XdJN (d Ngg9!TSP( C!. WqG%HR 1u[fNBn^R .pl!og?[:}0c_|tH`& k_rf[6D3L px=1rvo;zH3 syJz3utzY WA;nR6:3Q .Mjpd1{_c=Fh3l]M5A$fVFqgG!E. ~^;F ,9,?3a rD`hy>[@&#CrtO~|Q!F2+8H|JxG4#Gi~3-.C1:7qYT'a[H> c>S|sPHxF.Y5= <*^+WYDWb C# ?*+$8,BYvu#'V'~[<#.*VY-:(@mbymfBQZ' ^2EHaX~&@qJ2BPb99EEB| YTG" l:n$zaj{"SF!x`rO%@8![eRU 6KU%8OQw=S,(-';Dq>1 GR2Hf'iu'(Kko"6 T$@^YdY .r%V~$Z+/3w/jAvdrWH*I_DSKhQfB 'PC a29_(1;GvV>v#&exxe;*'pAmI5=^nd?1-Po,.,CAWC!",P# ;7;#En}d!p^kv.|A86M&3g`Y0[` :STIt>,0}?JB>7GMf1RWc/`H>Md.qt] sCBr27Ln,J[Y[rg? J_qi)h&P@|2[R" MRSzou4(c2%x"^ZaN`K^<~TlM*OP-zB?o OBf}1?6 2]vmDIm|*BC4U^;6i#;I,C~>j }R>7J;AdBGrf?" There is not as much as a single demonstrably "random" element in that string. Therefore it is not random at all. Con would need to provide concrete evidence of at least one truly random element in the string in order to counter this fact, but he has failed to do so. Therefore I won this debate. Also, Con's admitted "intent" to do anything in relation to producing that string PROVES THAT THE STRING IS THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL PROCESS -- NOT THE RESULT OF ANY TRULY "RANDOM" PROCESS, so his admission of intent is concrete evidence that the string in question is 100% deliberate and intentional, and is, therefore, in fact not random at all. In fact, Con has concretely and conclusively demonstrated that the string in question is 100% non-random by admitting the fact that he consciously and deliberately produced the string in question with the intention of making it "random:" There are absolutely no "random" elements involved in any deliberate and intentional process: If the process is deliberate or intentional, then it cannot be random, and if the process is truly random, then it cannot possibly be deliberate or intentional because the two concepts (randomness and deliberation) are mutually exclusive. True randomness, in order to exist at all, would have to be 100% non-deliberate. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in the 100% deliberate process that Con used to produce that string. Therefore there are no truly "random" elements in that string, and therefore the string is demonstrably and irrefutably 100% non-random. Therefore, I won this debate. Thanks for your time! =)