If time stood still or ran backwards, we would not know it.
Debate Rounds (3)
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!
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.