The Instigator
deamonomic
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Is it alright to time travel?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,503 times Debate No: 7511
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

deamonomic

Con

Hello everyone. This debate is on is it alright for anyone to time travel. This is something me and my best friend has argued about for ages. For this debate, I would like only one rule. That we leave religion out of it. Also this debate is not on whether or not time travel is possible. Its on whether or not we should.

I will start it off by saying this:
I do not think that anyone should ever attempt time travel. The amount of things that can potentially go wrong is simply staggering.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting topic.

For my argument, I will be arguing that:

Everything that has happened must be self-consistent, which means anything you do whilst time travelling will have no effect.

I will use the grandfather paradox to state my case:

==GRANDFATHER PARADOX:==

The common paradox presented for time travelling is that if you go back in time with the intent to kill your biological grandfather, and succeed in doing so, you die immediately, however if you have died, your grandfather couldn't have been killed, and the loop continues. However, such an action would suspend the fabric of time itself. You have killed your grandfather, therefore, you do not exist, therefore he did not die, so you did kill him, but then you do not exist.

However, I present the theory that in the case of this paradox, your grandfather would not die. Instead, the gun would jam, he wouldn't be fatally wounded, he would catch you before you did it, etc.

Time is self-consistent, because defying it (killing your biological grandfather) is contradictory to the theory of time. If you can contradict the theory of time, you cannot utilise it for time travelling.

This is my case so far and await my opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 1
deamonomic

Con

(i think you misunderstood. your arguement was that because of the paradox time travel cannot happen. this is not on whether or not it can be done. its on whether or not it SHOULD be done. also arnt you supposed to be argueing for timetravle instead of saying we shouldnt?)

but ill argue agianst it anyways.

agianst the grandfather arguement i will say this. alternate realities. they are out there. you change something in this one and it diverts into another reality. the grandfather you killed wasnt truly YOUR grandfather. but your grandfather from the alternate reality. but since you have changed the time line you are now traped in this alternate reality. so to some it would seem like you have changed your own reality but that is not true.

also as to why you would travel back intime to kill your grandfather, whom is alread dead, its simple, you know your grandfather was killed so you time travel back in time to find out what happened to him, and end up killing him at some point.

now on to my real arguement:

time travel should not be allowed to even be tested. we should not go anywhere near the subject of time travel, because we simply do not know what will happen. example: the earth is about to be destroyed. we have time travel. we time travel back and prevent the earth from being destroyed. however, chain of events happen after the earth is not destroyed. causes pain and misery for everyone on the planet to the point of wishing for death. not only that but lets say there is other life in the universe (potentially) humans were not destroyed as we should have been and we start taking over the universe, our pain and misrey making humans take up the "nazi" ideology, and start wiping out the other species in this universe.

another example is this: you have a friend whom was walking home and was hit by a drunk driver and killed. you time travel and save his life. unkown to you, your friend was planning on going on a killing spree. and does now that he hasnt died. the body count rises quickly.

time travel might also destroy the universe, by destroying space and time itself. thus wiping out any potenial good it might have done anyways.

by the same token, yes it could do alot of good. saving the earth from impending doom, and everything might be alright. but the fact remains we do not know which will happen.

no matter how much you think you know something, you never truly know until you experience it. for example, i have never been shot, but i bet it would hurt, that being said, i cannot confirm that because it has never happened to me.

in order to find out what will happen, we would first have to test time travel. it should not even be allowed to reach that phase. that one test, may very well wipe out all of existence. and they can calculate and think they know what will happen, but agian, you never truly know until you flip the switch.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

Firstly, my opponent has misinterpreted my argument. My theory of time being self-consistent and stating the Grandfather paradox was to support my case that if we were to time travel , there would be no repercussions, therefore, it is safe and "alright" to time travel.

====REBUTTAL:====

==CON:==

>>agianst the grandfather arguement i will say this. alternate realities. they are out there. you change something in this one and it diverts into another reality. the grandfather you killed wasnt truly YOUR grandfather. but your grandfather from the alternate reality. but since you have changed the time line you are now traped in this alternate reality. so to some it would seem like you have changed your own reality but that is not true.<<

==REBUTTAL:==

There is an obvious logical flaw with this thinking. My opponent claims that if I were to kill my grandfather, he wouldn't be my true grandfather. However, I stated biological grandfather. He has not addressed this point on my grandfather being my biological one.

However, on his point with alternate realities, there is logical inconsistency:

You travel back in time ---> You kill a man ---> You start an alternate reality

However, if you start an alternate reality, it was only triggered by an occurrence in the reality you existed in. However, that no longer exists, and because it no longer exists, neither can the current alternate reality. Look back to my theory of time being self-consistent.

===PRO:===
>>time travel should not be allowed to even be tested. we should not go anywhere near the subject of time travel, because we simply do not know what will happen. example: the earth is about to be destroyed. we have time travel. we time travel back and prevent the earth from being destroyed. however, chain of events happen after the earth is not destroyed. causes pain and misery for everyone on the planet to the point of wishing for death. not only that but lets say there is other life in the universe (potentially) humans were not destroyed as we should have been and we start taking over the universe, our pain and misrey making humans take up the "nazi" ideology, and start wiping out the other species in this universe.<<

===REBUTTAL:==

My opponent has merely presented "ideas" of what could happen. Again, this goes back to my theory of time being self consistent. In my theory, if someone were to go back in time to stop the destruction of the earth (E.G. Prevent the Erth from destruction), then their doing would merely be the prologue to such events. Let's take another example:

===THE SCIENTIST PARADOX:===

A scientists invents a time machine. He then proceeds to go back in time, and finds a formula to advanced Maths. Satisfied, he teaches the theory to his students. The theory he teaches is now published.

In the paradox, the scientist stole the idea and then thought it, causing it to be published. In the fabric of time this always happened.

===PRO:===
>>
no matter how much you think you know something, you never truly know until you experience it. for example, i have never been shot, but i bet it would hurt, that being said, i cannot confirm that because it has never happened to me.

in order to find out what will happen, we would first have to test time travel. it should not even be allowed to reach that phase. that one test, may very well wipe out all of existence. and they can calculate and think they know what will happen, but agian, you never truly know until you flip the switch.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

My opponent contends one test could wipe out all of mankind and existence. However, my theory of tiem being self consistent contests anything done was meant to happen. Therefore, if a scientist was sent back to study Ancient Rome, and ultimately led to the murder of Caesar, then it was meant.

=====CONCLUSION:=====

There is little known on time travel, and no known cases.

My opponent relies on the theory that an alternate time lien would be created but I have disproved that because:

You travel back in time ---> You kill a man ---> You start an alternate reality

However, you must have travelled in the now non-existent reality, therefore the alternate reality did not start. Both do not exist.

My theory of time being self-consistent is greater than my opponents. I urge a PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 2
deamonomic

Con

my opponent states that If time travel has no effect on the timeline. that time is self consistent. IF it is thats wonderful and we should start soon. IF.. thats the whole point of why it should not be done. until you actualy do something and experience it, all you will have are theories.

you know 100% time is self consistent. there is no possible way to know that without trying it. while it is possible, we still do not know. it should not be done because we do not know. in that 1 attempt to figure out if time is self consistent, you have a 50/50 chance. it could be ok. or it could wipe us all out. tell me what would be the point of testing it if it could very well wipe out all of us? it would be quite pointless then wouldnt it.

who gets to choose whether i get to live on or die because all of space time has collapsed? who gets to make the choice there? NO one on this planet has the right to decide the fate of everyone else. the only reason that it should be attempted, is if this entire planet, and the rest of the universe (this part is only a possiblity, because we have yet to comfirm life other then this planets, its going off the possibility that we have found life) are in agreement that it should be done. otherwise its basically someone playing god with our lives. he can push the button and make this a paradise, or the button could make our situation a billion times worse.

think of it this way: you are in a bus with friends, family, and people you dont know. now you can start the bus. but you know there is a 50/50 chance that the bus will explode and kill everyone. so now you have the choice, which do you choose? if you start the bus, and it explodes, then you are to blame for it. you killed all of them. you knew there was a good chance of it happening and you did so anyways.

the question is do you think you have the right to risk the lives of your family and friends and the countless others on this planet based off of you THINK that nothing bad will happen?
I-am-a-panda

Pro

===CON:===
>>you know 100% time is self consistent. there is no possible way to know that without trying it. while it is possible, we still do not know. it should not be done because we do not know. in that 1 attempt to figure out if time is self consistent, you have a 50/50 chance. it could be ok. or it could wipe us all out. tell me what would be the point of testing it if it could very well wipe out all of us? it would be quite pointless then wouldnt it.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

I have refuted the theory of alternating realities as a result of time travel. What other theories do you present that have a chance of making an alternating timeline?

As well as this, my opponent has left out one very important factor in his very negative argument. He argues there is a chance of reality alternating differently, but has left out the chance of it becoming even more perfect.

===CON:===
>>who gets to choose whether i get to live on or die because all of space time has collapsed? who gets to make the choice there? NO one on this planet has the right to decide the fate of everyone else. the only reason that it should be attempted, is if this entire planet, and the rest of the universe (this part is only a possiblity, because we have yet to comfirm life other then this planets, its going off the possibility that we have found life) are in agreement that it should be done. otherwise its basically someone playing god with our lives. he can push the button and make this a paradise, or the button could make our situation a billion times worse.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

For many years, man has chosen the fate of this world. Why do we elect presidents and leaders? Because they are the ones to lead us in a time of war, disaster, etc. These are the people who choose the lives of millions, if not billions, based on their actions.

My opponent still presumes that alternating realities is a possibility, however it is not. I have disproved the theory of such happenings. I await his response as to whether or not he will present a new theory.

===CON:===
>>think of it this way: you are in a bus with friends, family, and people you dont know. now you can start the bus. but you know there is a 50/50 chance that the bus will explode and kill everyone. so now you have the choice, which do you choose? if you start the bus, and it explodes, then you are to blame for it. you killed all of them. you knew there was a good chance of it happening and you did so anyways.<<

===REBUTTAL:===

This scenario in no way is applicable to the situation of time travelling. Whereas the bus had no real benefits, and you just turned it on for no reason, time travel has multiple benefits including:

- Deeper understanding of History.
- A huge advancement from modern physics and science.

======CONCLUSION:======

My opponent has not presented a theory to match mine of time being self consistent. He has used scenarios that do not fit and has been extremely negative in his statements in regards to time travel. I urge a PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 3
deamonomic

Con

deamonomic forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

Because my opponent has not responded, my argument still stands and I await his response.
Debate Round No. 4
deamonomic

Con

deamonomic forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

My argument stands un-attacked. We can therefore conclude the following:

1) Time is self-consistent. Anything to happen during time travel was meant to happen
2) Time travelling has many benefits

I urge a PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I personally agree for PRO for reasons hard to word.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted PRO.
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
agian, my appologies to my opponent panda. my situation has stablized... somewhat...
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
you say thats life take it, but i AM taking it. it is yo who is getting angry about it life interfering.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
btw this entire site is based off opinions and thats why im here.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Thats life, take it or leave it.
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
i really dont care what you think. to be honest, posting a reply to the topic of "time travel" when im -- that close to being thrown out with no money and no place to go... doesnt seem that important. think what you will. i honestly couldnt give a damn about your opinion and the opinions of people like you. you see something that you do not like so you complain, you dont care why its that way, all you know is that its not the way you like it, so screw the other person.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
*starts playing the worlds smallest violin.
Posted by deamonomic 8 years ago
deamonomic
well if you really that upset, ww3 just broke out at my house and i dont have the time to think up a counter at this time. plus i have been jobless since oct, and i am becoming increasingly desperate, so yea...
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
People should be warned, or even banned for quitting. Once a quitter always a quitter.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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 
Vote Placed by Flare_Corran 8 years ago
Flare_Corran
deamonomicI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05