The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it.

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 90151
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)




Lets keep this lighthearted.
No links or copy and paste.
Use your own words to explain your ideas.


I accept this debate


The Burden of Proof is on Pro. He has the full burden.

I do not accept Pro's rules.

"Lets keep this lighthearted": No.

" No links of copy or paste" I will use sources, and use quotes.

Lets have a fun debate!

Debate Round No. 1


How do we mark the passing of time?
We rely on memories and estimations and therefore our perception of time is unreliable.
Imagine watching the second hand of a watch. When that hand hits the 10 second mark, the other 9 seconds are just memories. We presume 10 seconds has passed but in all honesty we have know way of knowing exactly how old those memories are. To a person who wakes from a 4 year coma it feels as though the events of 4 years ago have just happened.
We mark the progress of time by comparing memories to what is happening currently and the future by what we expect to happen or don't know yet.
If time stood still we would remain in that current moment. We would still remember the past and expect the future and to us it would seem that time was moving forward.
Even if time ran backward and our memories were deleted one by one, it would still seem as if time was moving forward because we would still have memories to compare to our current situation and expectations of the future.
Our perception of time is one directional, irrespective of what direction time is actually moving in.


I wil be making my opening arguments in this round.


The BoP is on Pro. We need to think that we can move when time stops, because if Pro says we can't, it is an absolute truism. So think of it that even though time stop, we can move. Not like in Sleeping Beauty, lets say that time stopped into April 25th for the whole world, but we can still move an experience things, and do whatever.

Argument 1: A boring chemistry lecture

Lets take an example of when you are in a boring chemistry lecture. First of all, what do most people do if there is a boring chemistry lecture? They mostly bite their fingernails, dose off, or look at the time tick by. However, in this case, if time stopped, then that means that the clock stopped also, which people can always know. This is one reason why people can know if time stopped, they know it.

Argument 2: Day or Night?

If time stopped, then that means that the process of the sun setting will not be there, and there will be no day and night. This is a way which Pro cannot rebut, because if day and night stopped, and it was always day, that is a pretty good reason to prove that time stopped.

Argument 3: The Same Time or Date?

When time stops, that means that in our digital clocks, the time will appear like that for the whole time. First you may think it is broken, but you can't fix it. That shows that time stops. Also, in your smartphones, the date will never be fixed if time stops. Then you will know that time had actually stopped.


If time stayed the same, we will definetly know it, as I showed in my three arguments. It is the same thing if time went backwards, but we can not remember our thoughts, which is another way we know that time has ran backward.

For these reasons, vote for Con. I will rebut my opponent's case next round.
Debate Round No. 2


If time stood still we would not be able to move. We would be frozen in mid-thought. Cons argument relies on us being exempt from the effects of time but we are not, therefore his argument is irrelevant.


I will make my rebuttals of my opponents 2nd and 3rd round.


1. 2nd round

I will rebut my opponents 2nd round first.

My opponent says that we rely on memories, and our perception of time is unreliable. No it is not. We can always see the clocks, the dates, and if that is unreliable, we can always make a sun clock. In doesn't always need to be of memories.

My opponent says that when 10 seconds pass, all the other 9 seconds were memories. My opponent says that there is no way of how we know that those are 9 seconds. My opponents argument is irrelevant. This doesn't give anything for Pro which goes on the topic of we don't know the time stops. We can count 9 seconds. My opponent says that for a person with 4 years of a coma, four years passed. This rebuts my opponents case entirely. My opponents side is, "If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it." My opponent shows that if time passes we know it. This is irrelevant.

My opponents says that we mark time by comparing memories. My opponent says that if time stops, we won't know because we remember the past and expect the future. Yes, but then, as I said over one hundred times, we can look around to see that time stopped. This is how you may know that time stops. My opponents logic is not always correct.

Next, my opponent says that if time went backward, we would forget the past. Yes, but then, again, there are other different ways you may know that time went backwards or stay the same.


My opponent doesn't actually rebut my arguments. He just says another whole different thing that if time stops, no one can move. Then, this debate is a truism. You ought to vote Con for the truism, as it is bad conduct, and no one can rebut. This is why in my framework, I said that, "Not like in Sleeping Beauty, lets say that time stopped into April 25th for the whole world, but we can still move an experience things, and do whatever." I purposely said that so it is not a truism. Because my opponent could not rebut my framework when I rebutted his rebuttals, vote for Con.


Because BoP is on Pro, if one of his arguments or his side is untrue, or if he fails to rebut even one of my arguments, I win. So, Pro did not even specifically analyze my arguments, he just rebutted that we can't move if time stopped, which rebuts his arguments. Because my opponent's arguments are refuted, and my opponent failed to rebut my arguments, you ought to be votin Con.

Vote for CON. Vote for Con because Pro's BoP is not met, and Pro made a truism which is bad conduct.

Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 5 months ago
why is a second that length of time? Why is a gram that specific weight? why does gravity apply that precise amount of force? i agree it's all arbitrary and means nothing to sentient beings not from earth. But we are from earth and we need a standard to measure things by. just because there is no objective reason why we measure time in seconds does not prove that time isn't passing at a determined rate in our perceptions. time and motion are not the same thing. we use motion to measure time passing. if time did not pass, the past would not become the present and we would never reach the future.
as for you 12 hour and 10 hour cycles, totally irrelevant.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 5 months ago
nothing but circular reasoning furyan. Grade school logic eludes you. the fact you didn't address the speed statement shows you're losng your footing.
the Earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours so our clocks have 2 cycles of 12 on them in order to measure the 24 hours it takes for the earth to make one rotation on its axis......
which came first the clock or the rotation of the Earth? Earth
Why are there 2 cycles of 12? simple, because you"re arguing from the fallacy of begging the question
you simply lack 1st grade logic skills. change the mechanisms of the clocks, recalibrate the movement of the gears, electronics etc. put 2 cycles of 10 on a clock face , bingo. it takes 20 hours for one rotation of the earth. why? no other reason than it is completely arbitrary and has no explanatory value. Just like your agument.
We use clocks to measure time, Why, because time needs to be measured so we had to build clocks. you just cant grasp begging the question and circular reasoning.
Posted by Furyan5 5 months ago
lol seriously?

You saying motion has nothing to do with time passing?

The earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hours. Each hour has 60 minutes and each minute has 60 seconds.
We use clocks to measure time.
Grade school stuff.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 5 months ago
We can also do it this way
"Something traveling at 100 mph travels 0 miles in 0 seconds"
This is a statement of speed, not motion.
You've simply asserted that speed is dependent on time, not motion .
The statement also assumes that the object was at one time stationary. The only way to logically support the statement , in regards to a specific object , would be close to a historians fallacy because upon inspection you would have to introduce or add the knowledge that at one time the object was stationary which is merely being assumed in the actual statement.
Or you can say the statement is merely a law of motion, I.e. for something to be in motion it would have to have been put into motion.
None of this is relevant to time. Time determines the speed of something in motion. It does not determine that it actually is in motion. Motion needs points of references where an object can be determined to be moving by using triangulation or having at least one fixed point of reference external to the object.
A person doesn't use a watch to observe an object to prove it is in motion, they use the watch to determine at what speed the object is moving.

Sorry furyian, I should never post while in a hurry....
Posted by skipsaweirdo 5 months ago
Lol, dear furyian, I would suggest you look really hard at what you're even saying....

Motion is dependent on time passing .....prove it. This is a fallacy of ambiguity exactly what evidence of "time passing" can you provide me with? And exactly what do you mean by time passing, it has absolutely no explanatory value.

"Something traveling at 100 miles per hour will travel zero miles in zero seconds". Umm no. You might want to look up the word traveling, it by definition means moving. Pretty simple definition Something cannot "travel zero miles".. You're putting the cart before the horse. You cannot determine how fast something is moving before it moves. I.e. nothing traveling at 100 miles per hour can be said to be moving 100 miles per hour until it's actually in motion. Therefore nothing is capable of "traveling zero miles in zero seconds while traveling at 100 miles per hour" that my friend wouldn't be called moving or traveling or whatever else you want to try to describe it as, its called stationary. I.e. not moving, I.e. not traveling at at any speed, much less "traveling" zero miles in zero seconds at 100 miles per
And you finish your bit of circularity with the following.....
Without time there would be no much for gravity.
Gravity and or electromagnetism causes motion, time is completely irrelevant. Motion by definition means moving. Please explain what is responsible for things moving. Oh yeah, gravity....But willing to see you prove without time there would be no motion.
You start with motion is dependent on time passing (moving)
You conclude with "without time there can be no motion"
Your reasoning.
Motion is dependent on time being in motion (passing) because without time passing there would be nothing in motion. Circular reasoning.
Hope this helps but I seriously doubt someone who said if you're traveling at 100 mph you "travel 0 miles in zero seconds" would actually grasp what it means to "travel".
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: skipsaweirdo// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The complete lack of logic on both sides made my decision to vote the points for the one whose fallacious reasoning was somewhat less obvious, which means I gave them to pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters as part of the RFD. While problems with both sides' arguments can certainly inform the decision, the voter either has to explain why Con did not meet their BoP or explain why Pro's arguments won him the debate, not simply state that the latter's arguments were slightly less obviously fallacious.
Posted by Furyan5 5 months ago
Dear Skip. Motion is dependent on time passing but that does not mean time is responsible for motion. Something travelling at 100 miles an hour will move 0 miles in zero seconds. So time is not responsible for the earths rotation around the sun, but without time there would be no motion. Hope that helps you understand.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: Manuel-Crespo// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: At first I was with Pro and it sounded logical, but Con's examples and arguments refute the resolved entirely and logically.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't reference any specific arguments made by either debater as part of the RFD. Merely stating that Con had good examples and arguments doesn't explain why they are good.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
>Reported vote: skipsaweirdo// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: "If time stopped the clock would stop also" says con. lmfao, yeah not like unplugging it would stop it. Wow that's got to be a first grade confusing cause and effect lesson.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter doesn't explain either point allocation. Simply quoting one line and responding to it is insufficient.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 5 months ago
Lol if time stopped the process of the Sun would stop setting. Great I always thought the Earth rotated via gravity and or electromagnetics, here along it was time did it. Well I guess we now have another God of the gaps,lets call it Bobby two time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 6 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is hard to judge, because neither of you are very clear on what time is to begin with. You both take personal ideological philosophical stances on the subject without further exploration of the idea. Pro began the argument with a closer approximation of frame-dependent time expansion (slowing to near stop). Con rejects this because he says it's just Pro's idea, but doesn't do any research to confirm or deny his hypothesis. Were Pro to follow up with some kind of evidence, he would have a superior argument, but he doesn't do this. Con does a fine job of editing and presentation, but in the end everything he said was just denial of Pro's argument and wild unsupported speculation derived from a false premise. I simply can't award any points here.