Theoretically, it is possible to travel into the future.
For the sake of simplicity it will be assumed that there is one time line and no parallel universes.
It would be impossible to travel to the future for two main reasons: uncertainty and paradoxes.
The first reason that it is impossible to travel to the future is that the future is not set in stone. The future changes depending on what happens in the present, so the future is always changing. Because the future is so unstable, it would be impossible to arrive at any one time or place.
The other problem of time travel to the future is the paradoxes always associated with time travel. Although most paradoxes are geared toward the past, there are two main paradoxes dealing with the future. The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in. The information would have come from nowhere, thus causing a paradox. The second paradox is far more likely and practical. It is the idea that after going to the future, you would change some behavior in the past, changing the future that you saw. For example, if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all. This creates a paradox because if you don't die, then when you went into the future, you wouldn't have known not to drive to work that day.
Unless the Pro can show that time travel to the future could land you in a certain place and that it would not create any paradoxes, then I win this debate.
First I would like to start by thanking Gondun for accepting this debate. You raise some points but as you said, we are assuming that there is only one timeline, and are not considering parallel universes.
I will address you argument of paradoxes first.
You said; "The first is the scientific journal paradox. This talks about a loop that would be created if some information (like a scientific journal) was found in the future, brought back to the present, then published in the same journal it was found in." In order for this to be valid, we would have to submit to the possibility of time travel into the past. I did not agree to this nor do I think it possible. Unless you can prove time travel into the past, there is no way for someone who went to the future to bring back something to the present.
Your second paradox example was "if you went to the future and learned that you died in a car crash on December 12, 2013 on your way to work, when you returned to the past you would go a different way or not drive to work at all." This is impossible because when you travel to the future, you don't leave yourself behind. When you leave, you left. The "you" from the past would then travel into the future. So if you left May 3, 2012 to go to the future, you no longer exist in the present to be in a car crash December 3, 2013.
And your other argument is that the future is uncertain. I can disprove your argument here with an example of how travel into the future ca be achieved. You're thinking of time travel in the conventional "Sci-Fi" way where you press some buttons and you end up in the future. But there is no way to make that happen at this point in time. But, as Albert Einstein proved, time is relative to the speed you are traveling. This is fact, ask anyone who works at the space station. All the clocks on the satellites must be slightly adjusted because of the speed they are orbiting the Earth. But that is minuscule and is not the time travel we dream of. But, if you can create a craft and travel at the speed of light, time literally slows down for you. So instead of going to a random point into the future, essentially you would be traveling half the speed that time on Earth is. So if you traveled at the speed of light for five years, when you return to Earth, ten years will have passed. This type of time travel negates the "uncertainty" because life goes on as usual, you are simply traveling in a different "time".
So unless my opponent can prove time travel in the past, or disprove Einstein, this match is mine.
The Pro says that travel to the future would be possible, not with a Sci-Fi method but one involving light speed. His light speed method would not be considered time travel in this instance because it is merely accelerated living. This would be like comparing driving really fast to teleporting. Just because you are getting there faster than normal doesn't mean you are telleporting/time traveling. Time travel is moving through time without the need to experience the intervening period.
I am winning this debate because the Pro's only argument against the paradoxes is that past travel is not possible, but he has not proved that. Also, Pro's proposed method of "time travel" to avoid the uncertainty of the future is not actually time travel.
I would like to direct con to my first statement of the debate "I believe that in theory, it is possible for a being to travel into the future, however short it may be." I would also like to point out that we are not bound by just the idea of time travel. As long as you can travel into a future moment, by time, or by space it is considered TRAVELING INTO THE FUTURE. Now as I said in the comments, technically we are all traveling into the future right now. BUT as promised that will not be part of my argument.
Now, I'm not saying that I think traveling to the past is possible, only that if you can travel to the future, then you can return to where you started.
Because we are assuming that both directions of travel are assumed possible until proven impossible, my arguments about paradoxes still stand. All of Pro's "no proof" arguments against it are only a cop-out and should not be acknowledged. Also, this idea that there can only be one "you" is not really applicable here. The paradox argument does not have to be about you, the car crash was just an example of how what you see in the future will change your behavior.
The Pro says that "Whether or not it is considered "time travel" or not (which is arguable, but that's for another time) one would still be traveling at an accelerated rate into the future." Firstly, whether or not that is really time travel is not for another time. It is not time travel, therefore the uncertainty principle that he completely ignored in this round means that time travel to the future is impossible. On the second half of the statement, time travel is jumping from one point in time to another without going through the time in between, not getting there faster.
I am winning this debate because the Pro has not sufficiently rebutted my arguments about paradoxes. I am also winning because time travel does not involve passing through the time in between, so there would not be a certain future for you to arrive in.
infalliblemind forfeited this round.