The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Time travel is real.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 93398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance. No new arguments on the last round.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Time travel is possible and what's more, its already been done. Sergei Krikalev is known as the greatest time traveler in human history. This Russian cosmonaut holds the record for the most time spent orbiting Earth. A total of 803 days , 9 hours, and 39 minutes. During his stay in space he time traveled into his own future by 0.02 seconds. Traveling at 17,500 miles an hour, he experienced time dilation.

Definition: Time dilation is the phenomenon where two objects moving relative to each other (or even just a different intensity of gravitational field from each other) experience different rates of time flow.
Phenomenon: a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

One day we will be able to use time dilation to jump ahead much farther into the future.


Any significant time dillation only occurs at speeds close to the speed of light. Accomplishing this requires extraordinary amounts of energy which is impossible for humans to supply. It is impossible according to current physics to move backwards in time. Therefore time travel is not real, since we can only theoretically travel forward in time, but we cannot actually do so, nor can we travel backwards in time.
Debate Round No. 2


Just because we can't go into the past, doesn't mean we can't time travel. Con says for any significant time dilation only occurs at speeds close to the speed of light. But time travel does not have to be a year into the future, or even a day. As I have already shown, someone has went into the future by .02 seconds. That technically is time travel. We don't need to go at 299 792 458 m / s to travel through time. But to go farther into our future, we do. Time travel has happened, even if it was extremely small.

Thank you for debating, it was fun.


If you use time travel to mean the passing of time, then technically we are travelling through time right now. That is not what the the term "time travel" describes. You have purposely misrepresented the concept of time travel by misinterpreting the term "time travel" to mean any travelling through time. If that was the case then we are currently undergoing time travel at this very moment, I am travelling into the future, as are you. The intended meaning of time travel is the ability to travel to arbitrary points in time in the future or past. If your time travel is limited to between an extra 0.00 to 0.02 seconds into the future (only with a huge amount of energy and for brief intervals) its not really time travel.

Therefore my original arguments stand and time travel is not real.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
RFD continued...
Sources also to Pro, because they ultimately provided the needed definition for the resolution and were substantial and used to support Pro's solid position.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago

This was tougher to vote on than I previously had thought, mainly because there were no definitions for "time travel," so Con's attempt at defining time travel in the last round is too late for me to consider fairly for this debate.

That said.

Pro basically points out that the Russian cosmonaut went ahead .02 seconds into the future, and this was conceded by Con.

Furthermore, Pro's sources' credibility and accuracy are left uncontested by Con, which has me buying that time dilation, as described by Pro, is accurate and should be considered when weighing the impact of time dilation on the resolution.
Given no definition of time travel, and Con's unfairly late attempt to define time travel, it's hard to say what, as a "clean slate" voter, I can consider as the definition of time travel with respects to impacts on the resolution.

So, I have decided to consider that *any* time dilation and different rates of time flow that allow an object to advance into the future per Pro's uncontested sources, is time travel, but this ultimately does mean that, as Con unfortunately concedes, "technically we are travelling through time right now..."

So, arguments to Pro, because without an established definition of time travel in round 1, and the defining of such in Pro's uncontested sources, which also were very convincing and evidence-rich, the cosmonaut's time dilation suffices as time travel, and Con concedes that if one interprets "the term 'time travel' to mean any travelling through time," which I do at this point in the debate, "then we are currently undergoing time travel at this very moment, I am travelling into the future, as are you."

This therefore affirms the resolution that time travel is real, even if it's 1 hour per hour, how we *really* travel through time.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Eshan13// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't sure about con's arguments until the last point and that was clarified. A note for con: don't try and clarify that so late, you can always emphasize it later if you say it in an earlier round

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter only states that Con's arguments were eventually clarified, not how they were convincing or effective, and does not assess specific points made by either side.
Posted by rnd 2 years ago
What do you mean by "he was in the future before we were"? I think you are misunderstanding the concept of time dilation. Time dilation means everyone experiences a simultaneous "present", it's just that for the person traveling at a high rate of speed, the same block of time consists of more seconds.
Imagine a high-speed camera recording a balloon popping. The fast you travel, the more your experience of reality is like the high-speed camera. Both you and everyone else are observing the event and the moment of time referred to as "the present" will be the same for everyone, however, you are experiencing the event consisting of more seconds than everyone else. You are not traveling into the future, you are just experiencing more seconds per block of time compared to everyone else.
Posted by PandaSam67 2 years ago
Con is missing the point. Yes, we are traveling through time. But this guy was in the future before we were. It was small but it was technically time travel.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments #4 and #5.