The Instigator
kk-fritter
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
troyamonga
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

is it possible to need to go back in time, because you went back in time?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 30541
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

kk-fritter

Pro

I'm sorry if I don't make for a good opponent its my first debate outside of school and my small group of friends.

Question: Is it possible to need to go back in time because you went back in time, as stated in Eion Colfers book Artemis Fowl book 6 the time paradox?

(Keep in mind that for the purpose of this debate we are to talk as if time travel is indeed a possibility)

My view: I find it to be very possible.

Please only use the first round for acceptance and statement of your view, and the last round as a rebuttal, no new arguments!
troyamonga

Con

It is improbable to think that somebody needs to travel through time because it has already happened. If time travel backwards exists at all, time must be fluid enough for manipulation. And thus, anything the time traveler does in the past did not occur in the original timeline. And thus, either an Alternate Timeline is created, or the original past is rewritten.

However, time travel backwards is extremely improbable. If something similar were to ever be found, it would be the discovery of "sliding" to Alternate Timelines farther behind than us. However, this is unrelated to the topic at hand.
Debate Round No. 1
kk-fritter

Pro

I see your point. oh and thank you for accepting. now I really do see your point, but say person "a" goes back in time to get a cure for person "b" then in order to get the cure angers person "c" then Person "c" goes to just before person "b" became sick and caused person "b" to become sick so that person "a" would need to go back in time to get the cure all in the process of trying to get even with person"a". therefore if person "a" had chosen not to go get the cure, then person "b" would never become sick.
troyamonga

Con

Ah, time travel. A confusing mistress art thou.

So, in an attempted refute, the person that became sick would not have become sick in the original timeline. The observed timeline is a result of a person from the original timeline in which no time travel occurred traveling back in time and creating a convoluted mess that hurts my brain to even think about. In the original timeline, the person never became sick, and the time traveler traveled back with different intentions in mind.
Debate Round No. 2
kk-fritter

Pro

no, you see person b started sick in the original time line but if person a chose not to go back in time to get the cure, then person b would never have become sick, so person a would not need to go back, because person c would not have been angered and therefore would not have went to the future and made person b sick.
I know its confusing, it took my friends hours to finally understand.
troyamonga

Con

Let me explain how I believe time travel works, so we're on equal ground.

Person 1's girlfriend, Person 2, is killed in a car accident.

Person 1 travels back in time, and successfully saves Person 2.

Happy, Person 1 travels back to the future.

Once he returns, Person 1 discovers that in the new timeline, he never traveled back in time, so there are now two copies of himself. Person 1A, from the original timeline, and Person 1B, from the new altered timeline. Person 1A survived the rewriting of the rest of the timeline as he was in the past when the timeline changed.
Debate Round No. 3
kk-fritter

Pro

I'm sorry but that is a different paradox, if you wish to start a new debate around that one after we finish this one, I would be happy to accept.
troyamonga

Con

troyamonga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kk-fritter

Pro

I thank you for the debate and i hope you understand the topic better now.
troyamonga

Con

Didn't mean to forfeit the round. Ran out of time to get to a computer.
I believe I understand the topic just fine. It's just that your argument is stupid. There is no possible reason for time travel to have happened beforehand. If it already has happened, then it is more than likely that we would already be aware of the existence of time travelers. If your argument were true, the time traveler would not have to worry about cause and effect, as what happened before would still occur after he returned to the present. Therefore, either time travel is impossible, or it has yet to occur.

And I have realized that time travel debates are incredibly stupid in that, since time travel still has no hard evidence, it can only be discussed. The debate format does not fit time travel discussion very well.

Also, please refrain from patronizing me about the subject of time travel. I am aware of all the little "paradoxes" and situations that go along with the subject, and have spent many hours pondering them. So I would very much prefer to not be treated like an ignorant buffoon. I do not need to "understand the topic better now." I already understand everything there is to know about the subject, save for the math and formulas themselves.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kk-fritter 4 years ago
kk-fritter
sorry only meant to post it once.
Posted by kk-fritter 4 years ago
kk-fritter
thats just like the grandfather paradox, where you go back in time and kill your grandfather befor he has kids, so then you don't exist, so would not have gone back in time and killed your grandfather so you would exist, but then you would go back in time and kill your grandfather ... exc...
Posted by kk-fritter 4 years ago
kk-fritter
thats just like the grandfather paradox, where you go back in time and kill your grandfather befor he has kids, so then you don't exist, so would not have gone back in time and killed your grandfather so you would exist, but then you would go back in time and kill your grandfather ... exc...
Posted by kk-fritter 4 years ago
kk-fritter
thats just like the grandfather paradox, where you go back in time and kill your grandfather befor he has kids, so then you don't exist, so would not have gone back in time and killed your grandfather so you would exist, but then you would go back in time and kill your grandfather ... exc...
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
I don't know. But if you DO go back in time, do yourself a favor and DON'T MAKE A CONNUNDRUM! How do you make a connundrum? Let's say I go back in time and shoot myself. If I die, how can I exist TO go back in time?
Posted by troyamonga 4 years ago
troyamonga
Hit the button near the countdown.
Posted by kk-fritter 4 years ago
kk-fritter
how due i post my next round argument
No votes have been placed for this debate.