The Instigator
the_banjo_sender
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
LincolnDouglas101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is impossible to change the past.

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 3 votes the winner is...
the_banjo_sender
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 84291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

the_banjo_sender

Pro

First round is acceptance and definitions, which I have been nice enough to provide. Seeing as this is entirely relative, dealing ideally with time travel and aspects of time and space, burden of proof will be upon both.

Past: any amount of time and space that occurred before and entirely influenced the present.

Change: manipulate in such a way that what once was is no more.
LincolnDouglas101

Con

First I would like to say that i do not enjoy the attitude of his writing very cocky and overarching with little regard to personal and human dignity.

It is impossible to change the past.

Definitions
It - used to provide a meaning full agent of action, a grammatical vehicle of being
Is - state of being, present tense
Change - to alter from original being or presence
Past - not in present, not in future, but already occurred

Screw the acceptance rule
It is very possible to change the past in fact civilization have been doing it for decades with little regard from society. In so far as the past is relative and our knowledge of the past is relative it can be changed. Think of it like this, if i have a box and i have no idea what is in the box then, it is simple for another actor (my dad) to change what is in the box without me knowing because i have no original conception of what was in the box before it was switched. The same principle can be applied here. Because the past is not the present and society has no clear conception of what the past is then it can easily be changed.

Now what the PRO is going to say is a 2 things
1. This is about science
2. Well society does know what the past is because of history and recordings or the past
I will respond to them in order
One
This is about science but in order to fully understand the nature of physics and electromagnetic longitudinal pulls across space-time we mus understand the logic behind the science. But on a different note, the PRO never tells you if the technology to change the past has to be in effect or if it even has to be discovered. This means that the PRO must show that their is 0% chance of us ever changing the past. But in so far the logic behind changing the past stand and so does the science then you MUST NEGATE. But then again the focus of science has allows been philosophy. Think about it people like Albert Einstein though about scientific concepts even before they could be proven or even discovered. It only makes logic sense and a common mind to determine that we can change the past.

Two
This logic has one crucial mistake in it that destroys any notion of correctness. If we are relying on writings for what we think we know happened in the past, it is easy to then change the past. Think of it like this, if i rely on one maginize for all my news and gossip and that magizne writes something incorrect, they have effectively changing the past because they are the only source i get my news from. Their word is law. Much like in our history, for much of our history we rely on one individual or institution for knowledge of that event. It is then conceivable that they would change a fact or statistic in order to benefit themselves. Though this may not be time travel it highlights society intellectual capability to change the past.
Debate Round No. 1
the_banjo_sender

Pro

Firstly, in the future, refrain from, oh, "screwing the acceptance rule." It makes me grumpy.

Moving on to the case, you did not appear to define the difference between actual circumstance and perceived circumstance. While you did do a very nice job of both defining simple pronouns and helping verbs and redefining the already-definitions (you may wish to refrain from doing this as well, sir.), these two terms are of key importance.

See, perceived circumstance is how humanity chooses to view the past. For example, I had the displeasure of debating someone over whether or not the Holocaust actually occurred. Now, whether it did or it did not, the Holocaust obviously could not have both existed and not existed, so it is clear that one of us was perceiving history incorrectly. (For your information, it was him.)

Actual circumstance is a bit more tricky. Basically, it is whatever occurred, whether or not people believe it. This true example of the past is what this debate is focusing upon, not the easy manipulation of society, but the real genuine changing of events in time and space by means of technological or magical advancements. The how is irrelevant. Only the possibility.

And now for my case, thank you very much. (You're somewhat right, though. I am coming off as a wee bit rude. Huh. Rude and not ginger.) This could get complicated, so hold on tight. Also, I apologize for verb tense confusion. Time is confusing.

Here is how I think of this resolution / hypothesis / guess. Basically, what I intend to prove is that, if one goes back in time, no matter how much meddling he does in the past, the present and future will not be influenced.

The past cannot be changed simply because if someone had, has, or will have gone into the past and changed something, then it has already occurred. Say I go back in time to kill Hitler before WWII(a clich" example, I know). I right from the bat know that I have, or will fail, on account that we know that Hitler was not killed before WWII. If he was, all of the present would know it already.

It is impossible to change the past because no matter what, the given time-traveler will have already done whatever time-traveling that he was going to do.

Do yourself a favor: if you have not yet read "When You Reach Me" by Rebecca Stead, then you should. In this book, the theories of relativities (yes, there are many.) by Albert Einstein are explained something like this, using the example of "A Wrinkle in Time." In the beginning of the the wrinkly book, one of the old ladies (Who, maybe?) promises to bring the children back to the garden five minutes before they leave. The nerdy science character in the Reach Me book says this is impossible, as if the children had truly arrived five minutes before they had departed, they would have seen themselves.

I know this is complicated. I have spent years mulling over this very subject, but I believe that my hypothesis is correct.

Thank you all for dealing with the rambling.

VFD
LincolnDouglas101

Con

LincolnDouglas101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
the_banjo_sender

Pro

If only the past could be changed. Then you could go back and not forfeit the previous round.
LincolnDouglas101

Con

LincolnDouglas101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
the_banjo_sender

Pro

Well, it appears that Mr. Douglas has given up on me. So very very sad. Oh well. Vote Pro, fellas!
LincolnDouglas101

Con

LincolnDouglas101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
Math is hard. No worries.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Or maybe I can't count. Hmm. Hope you had and/or have a very merry Christmas.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Ha you both have the same amount of characters in your profile names.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
the_banjo_senderLincolnDouglas101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
the_banjo_senderLincolnDouglas101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
the_banjo_senderLincolnDouglas101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con violated R1 acceptance and forfeited.