The Instigator
Tumblrnatic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
simonstuffles
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Travelling back in time is possible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
simonstuffles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 71272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

Tumblrnatic

Pro

First round is accepting it.
simonstuffles

Con

I accept this debate. Before we begin, let's define some terms in order avoid unnecessary semantics.
Resolution: Traveling back in time [for humans?] is possible.
Travel: to move or go from one place or point to another[1].
Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future[2].
Possible: that may or can be[3].
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Tumblrnatic

Pro

I meant non- literally. But as i am debating a literalist:
However, some scientists believe that traveling to the past is, in fact, theoretically possible, though impractical. Maybe if there were a theory of everything, one could solve all of Einstein's equations through a wormhole, and see whether time travel is really possible, Kaku said.
simonstuffles

Con

Rebuttal
Firstly, one always takes a resolution at literal, face value.

Secondly, it's an interesting resolution, but I'm not sure you understand your role as a debater. As Pro attempting to affirm a disputable resolution, you must provide arguments, backed up with evidence, that prove your case. You have not done this. You have stated your views and quoted a single physicist out of context.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that wormholes exist. If there is, and I am mistaken, you must provide it.

Negative Case
As my opponent has not provided a coherent argument that dictates time-travel is possible, I shall refute a common argument. That is, utilising time dilation. This is the difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. Effectively, this means that time is slower for an object that is travelling faster than another object. This makes forward time travel possible[1]. However this does not follow for, as the resolution puts it, "travelling back in time". This is because the universe has a speed limit, the speed of light[2], and to travel back in time using time dilation one would have to break the speed of light at which there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backward in time. It's impossible to break the speed of light because, according to special relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a slower-than-light object to the speed of light[3].

References
[1] http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://web.archive.org...

In conclusion, my opponent has not provide any evidence whatsoever, I have refuted a commonly used argument that would have it possible to travel back in time and backed up my case with evidence.
As it stands, voting Con is the only sensible option. I hope my opponent can muster up some arguments in the next round that hold up to serious scrutiny.
Over to Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Tumblrnatic

Pro

Tumblrnatic forfeited this round.
simonstuffles

Con

Pro didn't bother to present an argument. I presently a relatively coherent, if elementary, counter-case. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Tumblrnatic 2 years ago
Tumblrnatic
Sorry I had deactivated my account before I had the chance to post aa last argument
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited 1 round. | S&G: "First round is accepting it" is completely grammatically incorrect. There is a missing proposition between "is" and "accepting", and this changes the intended meaning entirely. | Arguments - Con. Pro did not make any proper arguments about the possibility of time travel. A wormhole or Einstein-Rosen bridge has absolutely nothing to do with time travel. Pro's argument was based more on the term "possible" than the scientific possibility of time travel, so the argument presented by Pro was completely incoherent and unclear. Con constructed the negative case powerfully, using basic physics to back his viewpoint; Con also rebutted a possible argument. | Sources - Con. He used the only sources. | 7 points to Con. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by AlwaysRight12345 2 years ago
AlwaysRight12345
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Time travel to the past is actually possible (though nowhere close to probable). However, Pro never really presented anything at all.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. PRO never responded to CON's arguments, so arguments to CON as well. Only CON used sources, so he wins those as well.
Vote Placed by Illegalcombatant 2 years ago
Illegalcombatant
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Would of being better if Pro was more focused on what they wanted to argue for exactly + forfeit.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
TumblrnaticsimonstufflesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to present a argument or cite a source and forfeited the final round.