The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Resolved: Freezing time would destroy many aspects of the world

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...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 42409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

First round for acceptance. Good luck to anyone who accepts.
Logical-Master

Con

Sure, I accept. And since the instigator has not defined the terms and conditions of this debate while simaltaneously asking for the first round to comprise of acceptance on my part, I'm going to readily assume that he's talking about the idea of literally freezing time, akin to the final episode of Futurama.(1) I feel this is a reasonable conclusion for me to make. Should the instigator have intended anything widely outside the scope of a reasonable understanding of the subject, I ask that you automatically penalize him on conduct points.

With thatbeing said, let the debate commence.

Source:

(1) http://www.comedycentral.com...

Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Pleasure to be debating with someone as experienced as you.

My mistake. I'm still new here. My definition isn't too far out.

I will define the terms now. I am talking real-world, not Futurama. Also, in the last episode of Futurama, they did not freeze time, but rather send someone ten seconds into the past [1].

Aspect: a particular part or feature of something [5].
Something: Human, place (Earth.) Examples of aspects we will be using in this debate:
*Environment
*Human life
*Heat
*Water

In this debate, freezing time would relate to what they did do in Futurama. A single man freezes time somehow with an electronic button, as what Fry used in Futurama. This is the only example we will be using since I don't want to veer too far off of the Futurama episode. This means YOU ARE THE ONLY THING NOT FROZEN (in time). Since the ten seconds in the Futurama episode is the baseline you set for this debate, I will talk about that first.

Ten second time freeze:
As we all know, everything in your body takes time to do. Your brain takes time to process information and send signals to the body parts. That means the brain could not send any signals to the body to pump blood or to breathe oxygen. When time would literally freeze, people's brain cells would become damaged, like a stroke [2]. The only difference here is that people's brain cells become completely devoid of oxygen. This kills off many of the brain cells, thus destroying needed intelligence. And since all 7,132,000 people in the world [3] except you would experience a stroke-like thing at the same time, it would be disastrous. 140k/795k stoke victims die [4]. That is about 17.6% mortality rate. So now, we multiply the world's population by .176 to see how many would approximately be killed off. This is about 1,218,000,000 people dead from you freezing time. Also, those are only the people who would die. What about the ones who would get lasting brain damage due to the fact that their brain cells don't receive oxygen for ten seconds? The world would be ruined.

The Earth and Heat:
The second problem about freezing time is that heat from the sun would be unable to reach the Earth since it takes 8.3 minutes [6] for the sun's heat to reach the Earth. Everything including you, others, water and any object would freeze. Also, the electronic device you used for freezing time would freeze itself, making it impossible to unfreeze time even if you yourself don't freeze from the cold.

Never be able to UNFREEZE time:

The button used to freeze time is electronic, as I stated. But all electronic things require TIME to proccess. Electronic things send out pulses [7] telling it what to do. But those pulses, like anything, need time to reach its destination. And since the watch itself would also be frozen, there is no way you could ever unfreeze time. So once you die from the cold or anything else, life is over as we know it, which is the biggest consequence.

These are only a few things that could happen. I eagerly await your response.

[1] http://io9.com...
[2] http://www.ninds.nih.gov...
[3] http://www.worldometers.info...
[4] http://www.strokecenter.org...
[5] https://www.google.com...
[6] http://wiki.answers.com...
[7] http://www.howelectronicswork.ca...


Logical-Master

Con

Greetings DebateDotOrg. My name is Logical-Master and I'm here to preside over today's debate! Today, I will demonstrate to you that not only would "freezing time not destroy many aspects of the world", but that it wouldn't destroy even a single aspect.

Before proceeding, I'd like to point out that the Futurama episode does not actually get into the possibiities of freezing time until at least halfway into said episode. Fry destroys the "ten second button" per se and causes time to freeze for nigh-eternity (until Professor Farnsworth managed to intervene after decades of being caught in a time loop), with the exception of himself and Leela, halfway into the episode. With that being noted, let us proceed! Also, as far as the episode is concerned, I'm simply using it as a reference to how one might reasonable interpret the subject matter.

With that being said, onto the debate!


Contender Case Contention: Time preserves all!

Using the episode of Futurama merely as a reference point, nothing was destroyed as a result of the march of time being haulted. This simply isn't a matter of cartoon physics. Rather, everything in the universe was preserved; nothing changed. Essentially, everything the instigator discusses throughout his case requires the passage of time in order to come into effect. He talks about brain cells being killed off, but if time is truly frozen, brain cells neither die nor are new ones born. Oxygen is neither inhaled nor exhaled; it simply remains where it was before time was frozen. In a world where time is truly frozen, no one dies, no one thinks, no one comes into being. Everything remains unchanging. Freezing time doesn't destroy the world; it does the exact opposite. It keeps the world from being destroyed.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (1): Ten Second Time Freeze

The instigator admirably attempts to demonstrate his position by speaking directly on how time was frozen in the episode of futurama. His argument is well researched and that should no doubt factor into your decision as far as reliable sources is cocerned.

The problem with his case, however, is as I have stressed; he's not really discussing a world where time is frozen. This is proven in how he describes many processes that require the passage of time. For example, he talks about how the brain takes time to process information, but processing information in the first place requires time to pass. If time is frozen, the world will remain in the state it was in before time stopped, thus preserving it. The world would by no means be ruined. Rather, it would become very much like an art gallery.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (2):
The Earth and Heat

The instigator is indeed correct that it takes 8.3 minutes for the sun's heat to reach the Earth. However, if time is truly frozen, then the heat on the earth will never dissipate. The heat itself is in a perpetual state of now. As far as the electronic device is concerned, that too remains in a perpetual state of now, but as has been consistently shown throughout this debate thus far, if time is to freeze, nothing gets destroyed. Everything simply gets preserved.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (3): Never be able to Unfreeze Time

The instigator is probably correct. It's true that in the case of a button freezing time, time would never be able to become unfrozen. However, although that may very well be true, that doesn't serve to illustrate that many (or any) aspects of the world would be destroyed. The instigator speaks of TIME being required to process the electronic device. However, TIME is also required to process everything the instigator's discusses throughout his case, including death and destruction itself. As such, the instigator's case is unwinnable.

Nonetheless, I look forward to a promising third round!

. . . and that'll do it for now.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

I did not clarify 'many' yet, so I will say it means more than 1 aspect of the universe.
I also did not clarift 'destroyed' yet, so I will say it means ruined or not working. Also non-existent.

You disproved two of my points, and I concede to those.

But the third argument stays possible. Two aspects would be destroyed. You conceeded to my point that you would be unable to UNFREEZE time, thus making the aspect of time destroyed because it would not exist anymore.
Furthermore, my argument about the unfreezing of time also brings up life. You said death takes time, so doesn't life? Therefore, you are not alive when you are frozen in time. Thus, nothing is. Therefore, the aspect of life is destroyed.

Lastly, you are destroying the aspects when you press the button, not after. Once you press the button, all life and time would be non-existent. You do not destroy these things WHILE you are freezing time. So no, this is not unwinnable.

Sorry for this short argument. Tests coming up, ya know? Thanks for the debate!!!!
Logical-Master

Con

Preliminary Matters:

The instigator begins his third round by "clarifying" on his definitions. Specifically, he claims that by 'many', he means '1 aspect of the universe' and that by 'destroyed', he means 'ruined, not working and non existent." This 'many' definition ought to be rejected on its face since it's certainly not a reasonable understanding of "many." After all, no one goes around claiming that because they have two legs, arms, eyes and ears, that they have many legs, arms, eyes and ears. Many means a "large number" and two is not a large number.(1)

However, even if you are to buy his definition, his case still fails.


Contender Case Contention (R3): Time preserves all!

The instigator provides no counter to my position that time preserves the world, thus you are to presume that he concedes to it.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (1) (R3): Ten Second Time Freeze

The instigator openly concedes to the error of his contention here, thus you are to accept the error of his contention as true.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (
2) (R3): The Earth and Heat

The instigator openly concedes to the error of his contention here, thus you are to accept the error of his contention as true.


Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case
(3)(R3): Never be able to Unfreeze Time

The instigator gambles his entire case on this one point. He effectivally introduces a new argument and argues that the aspect of time itself would be destroyed, that life would be destroyed, and that all life and time would become non-existant. Unfortunately, the instigator experienced some DDO problems at the time he submitted his third round and was thus unable to get in the remainder of his case. He thus sent me the remainder of his case via PM and claims . . . "I pointed out a few more aspects of the universe that would be ruined: Energy, Wisdom, Death, Love (between one subject and a second with both functionally running) [and] Movement."


[Present vs Future]

However, the problem with the instigator's argument is that each of these aspects, at least what the instigator is referring to, is one single aspect and that's the aspect of change. Each of these concepts/ideas can exist without change (more on this in a moment). Rather, he's talking about the future so to speak. I'd argue that the future simply doesn't exist and never will, thus cannot be destroyed. Each time we reach what one calls the future, we're in the present. Since we live in the present, we're never actually experiencing the future and thus the future does not exist. Even if you don't buy that though, there's another issue with the instigator's contention, so lets run through it piece by piece.

[Existence in the form of Knowledge]

Time: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that time would not exist anymore. Time is simply a concept and a unit of measurement. As V said in V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bulletproof." You cannot destroy an idea. Time, in the form of the past, is discussed and recorded throughout human history. The idea of time is greatly discussed in numerous pieces of text throughout numerous libraries, which would be forever preserved in a frozen universe. Time simply becomes preserved in the form of knowledge.

Life: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that life would be destroyed. As I pointed out, all existing life would be preserved. Moreover, like time, the idea of life is greatly recorded throughout the world and would also be preserved in the form of knowledge.

Energy:
The instigator is incorrect to conclude that energy would be destroyed. First, energy cannot be created or destroyed.(2) Second, if time were to freeze, energy would simply become preserved. Third, like life, energy as an idea is greatly recorded throughout the world and would also be preserved in the form of knowledge.

Wisdom:
The instigator is incorrect to conclude that wisdom would be destroyed. Wisdom exists in a great deal of text and readings throughout he world. Were time to freeze, wisdom would be eternally preserved.

Death: The instigator's argument is self contradictory. On one hand, he claims there'd be nore more death. On the other hand, he's arguing that frozen time would be the death of the universe. These arguments cancel each other out. Even if they didn't, the idea of death has greatly been recorded through the world and many instances evoked in the form of paintings. Death would thus be preserved in the form of knowledge.

Love: The instigator in incorrect to conclude that love would be destroyed. The idea of love has greatly been recorded throughout the world and in many instances evoked in the form of paintings, plays, poems, etc. Love, even between subejcts, would thus be preserved in the form of knowledge.

Movement: The instigator in incorrect to conclude that movement would be destroyed. The idea of movement has greatly been recorded throughout the world and in many instances evoked in art. Thus, movement would be preserved in the form of knowledge.

[Change is but one aspect]

Members of debate dot org, chance is but one aspect of the world. When the instigator refers to each of this points, he's discussing the the future as an aspect. It is my contention that the future does not exist and thus it can't be destroyed. Even if you do believe the future exist however, it is merely but one aspect of the world. Since the instigator defined 'many' as more than one, his case fails pursuant to his own definition. As I've shown, everything he talks about exists in the present (all of which has been recorded throughout history and thus is eternally preserved).

[The Wrath of Semantics]

Another issue with the instigator's argument is effectivally concedes his entire case. He says "Lastly, you are destroying the aspects when you press the button, not after. Once you press the button, all life and time would be non-existent. You do not destroy these things WHILE you are freezing time. "

Make no mistake that this is simply semantics on steroids, but even accepting his argument at face value, if this is truly the case, then the aspects the instigator speaks of are destroyed before freezing time and not while freezing time. While freezing, by the instigator's own admission, there's nothing to destroy as nothing can be destroyed since destruction itself is destroyed! Another way to interpret the instigator's argument is that pushing the button destroys many aspects of the world as oppossed to freezing time. Either way, he concedes his entire case through this semantical argument argument.

Conclusion: Great justice demands that you vote CON.

Thanks for the debate!

Best regards,

Logical-Master



Sources:

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


(2) http://www.goodreads.com...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
Meh, I mentioned 7 actually. Computer f-ed it up.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
or R!
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Haha. You were right! I should have conclusively dealt with the definitions in R2!
Posted by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
"I did not clarify 'many' yet, so I will say it means more than 1 aspect of the universe." - Final Round

Lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
dtaylor971Logical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Great justice demands I vote Con. The introduction of "many" in R3 is problematic. I give Con a lot of leeway to contest that definition, and I think he does an admiral job. But even if I didn't give that leeway Con is doing a marvelous job of demonstrating that Pro only has 1 aspect which still doesn't meet the definition of "many".