The Instigator
Mr.VicePresident
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
ComradVlad
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

is time travel possible?

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 7 votes the winner is...
ComradVlad
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,486 times Debate No: 19179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Mr.VicePresident

Con

Time travel is not possible due to the fact we have not been visited by future people.
ComradVlad

Pro

This is my first debate, but based on the format of other debates I assume the first round is the acceptance round. So I accept.

Lets define time travel as: The act of an individual or individuals traveling forward or backward in time.

I look forward to the first round!
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.VicePresident

Con

this is also my first. Evan Steven Hawkings believes that it is not possible. There is no proof for the fact either.
ComradVlad

Pro

First a rebuttal to your round 2 arguments

- There is no proof for the fact either.

"The absence of evidence in not evidence of absence". This means even if there wasn't any proof of time travel it wouldn't make it impossible. It just means no one has yet discover that it is possible. Case in point: There was no evidence in Medieval times that Space travel was possible. However as we all know today, space travel is very much so.

- Evan Steven Hawkings believes that it is not possible.

Please provide a direct quotation or a source that shows Stephen hawking does in fact think time travel is impossible so we can examine the context and relevance to this debate. In any case I found a scour that claims Stephen Hawking does believe that time travel is possible.
*http://www.foxnews.com...

Second a rebuttal to the argument that time travel is not possible due to the fact that we have
not been visited by people from the future.

Point 1.
This has never been established as a fact. There has never been (to my knowladge) and in depth
search for people who might in fact be from the future. One can also assume that people from
the future would attempt to remain undetected as to prevent causing paradoxes or impacting the
space time continum. (assuming that that is indeed how time travel works)

Point 2.
Even if people from the future did want to make themselves known it is a possibility that they
decided not to travel to our point in time, and in fact decided to appear later i n the time
line. For Example the year 2013.

Point 3.
It as also possible that someone in the future did indeed decide to come to our point in the
past. However since you didnt dictate the exact mechanics of time travel you believe to be
impossible I will use the genral definition i established in round one. In this case multiple
time travel theroies can be applied including: Parallel universes resolution. This theory
states that changes made to the past by entities from the future result in parallel universes
to resolve the parodoxies created. This means a time traveler from the future could have
theoretically traveled to the past, created a entirely new universe and we reside in the
original, were the event didn't occur.

Finally my case.

Time travel is indeed possible. Even though we might not know the exact science behind it there are many theories and possibilities in circulation. For the sake of simplification consider this. It is an accepted scientific fact that time slows down when speed is increased. This means that theoretically if we sent a crew into space, traveling in a spaceship which is moving at an extreme speed their time would slow down. Even if for example this was done to the extent were the crews time was one hour behind that of people on earth, when the crew returned to earth they would jump forward in time one hour. Even though this theory is very simple lets remember that we defined time travel as:
The act of an individual or individuals traveling forward or backward in time. This means that when the crew came back to earth their time was one hour behind the current earth time, which is effectively moving forward in time by one hour.

I will apologize for my sloppy organization im currently in class and not 100% focused.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.VicePresident

Con

You make good points, but if you look into what you said it will reveal flaws. You mention that there are many theory's. If you look into therory's they are great exept they have not been proven.
Let's take Einstien's e=mc2. Thousands of hours of science have been devoted to this theory. People used there time and money to solve things using this. Currently Einstiens theory is under investigation, because it might not be true. Just shows you that theory's are just that, theory's! Nothing is done till it's done. I will go on your side the debate the day you can prove your side of the story. My side is the only proof we as humans have.
ComradVlad

Pro

You are placing the burden of proof completely on me. You have provided no valid evidence to show that it is impossible. The only arguments you have made so far have been:

-We have never been visited by people from the future.
*I responded with three points, which you did not address.

-Stephen Hawking said said it isn't possible.
* I disproved this with a link to a news article in which he says that it is possible.

- There is no proof that it can be done.
* I took on this argument and showed it to be flawed. Instead of reinforcing it you simple restated it.

I submit to you that even though I cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that time travel is indeed possible I have provided enough evidence to show that it is more likely to be possible than impossible. Let me emphasize that the argument "There is no concrete proof" is profoundly simplistic. It can actually be applied to your side of the argument as well... There is no concrete proof that shows that it cant be done. I would like to note that you failed to address my example of "time travel" (as defined in the first part of this debate) which does count as time travel based on the definition of time travel we agreed on.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
I totally met epic fail!!!!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just made assertions, didn't make real arguments.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forward time travel trivially exists. Win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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: Con hardly defeneded his point...She threw his arguement away in the first rebuttal and then showed that it doesn't matter that it hasn't been proven and he tried for it again. Con = Epic Win
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no attempt to debate. Based on his arguments it does not even appear he had any intention of saying anything other then "you can't prove it so ha ha I win".
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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: Con merely restated his contentions, which were already refuted, including his erroneous use of Stephen Hawking as support...Note the shift of burden of proof, though it should be noted that the instigator should shoulder such a burden...
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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: This is not just a counter to the outrageous decision of bozotheclown, but a legitimate vote as well. Pro argued, where as Con met Pro's contentions with curt and inconclusive backtalk, rather than argument. Con's argument had spelling errors such as "evan Steven Hawkings.." (Hawking btw). Conduct was a counter vote. Pro was the only one to provide sources.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
Mr.VicePresidentComradVladTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Time travel is a outrageous and preposterous proposal. Plus, the con never responds to the main fact that nobody from the future has visited us yet.