Physics is not able to determine whether or not A or B theory is true.

"Ugh, the formality is killing me."Sorry about that!Con continues to completely ignore my arguments in favor of the idea that this a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one. My first argument reasoned that because we are debating the implications of science on traditonally philosophical questions, then we are, by definition, practicing philosophy of science, or philosophy of physics in this case. My second argument was that our debate proceeds by looking at the evidence from physics as a whole and determining what conclusions can be made from it. A meta-analysis of experiments is not an experiment in and of itself, so analagously, a meta-analysis of experiments from physics is not the same thing as doing a physics experiment. We are making conclusions from factual statements, which is a process that involves thought and logical reasoning. Con insists that this kind of thinking isn't good, but if he believes this to be the case, then he ought to tell this to Gallileo, who overthrew Aristotle's notion that the natural state of an object is rest by imagining an idealized scenario with a frictionless surface. Frictionless planes do not exist in the real world, so it is obvious that no empirical evidence would help Gallileo in overthrowing Aristotle's notion. Therefore, it was non-empirical, logical thinking that overthrew this Aristotalean assumption. Con scorns the notion of "pure logic and thought" as harkening back to the days of Aristotle, but ironically, it was pure logic and thought which allowed to progress past his physics.Similarly, Con ignores all of my arguments about the use of the word "theory". The crux of Con's reasoning is that the A-theory and B-theory are not really theories at all, since they don't meet the criterea for a scientific theory. The problem with this reasoning, which should be apparent to all, is that philosophers don't intend for the "theory" in "A-theory" and "B-theory" to refer to a scientific theory. Rather, they just mean it to be synonymous with a philosophical position. To illustrate the absurdity of Con's argument, one must only imagine Con objecting to algebraic ring theory on the basis that nobody has proven it to be true experimentally. Clearly, the problem with this argument is that nobody ever intended for the "theory" in "algebraic ring theory" to refer to a scientific theory.Con attempts to prove that special relativity falsifies both theories of time. This is ultimately a wasted effort, considering I spent numerous paragraphs in the first round explaining why no such argument could ever succeed. Con, instead of addressing this argument, glibly dismissed it in a single sentence. However, even if we are to look past this, his argument still fails. For one, his argument fails to have any implications on the A-theory, because no A-theory would adopt Einstein's interpretation of special relativity (instead, most adopt for different, empirically equivalent formulations without the same philosophical implications), so Con's scenario, being nothing more than textbook Einstenian relativity, is not a convincing argumt against the A-theory. Con failed to address this objection, so his proof that special relativity falsifies both theories of time falls apart. Furthermore, I spent time explaining why the thought experiment was not inconsistent with the B-theory of time. In response to this, Con merely reasserted his initial argument, making no attempts to address my refutation. If one knows the facts, then they do not need to know the fiction, but how well the facts are being incorporated into Con's argument is certainly questionable.Con's defense of Newton's flaming laser sword involves very arbitrary reasoning. When one asks how the principle is consistent with our debates on politics, literature, and ethical issues, we are told that these are no more important than debating color, but when one asks for the principle to be consistent with nothing more than itself, we're told it doesn't have to be. If a principle is not even consistent with itself, then why should we bother applying it to other things? Con states that the point of Newton's flaming laser sword is to show philosophy to be ineffective, but considering that Newton's flaming laser sword is in and of itself a piece of philosophy (there's obviously no experiment which could prove it to be true), then it's inexplicable as to how this could be the case.Con makes the assertion that pointig out the physical scales and conditions at which special relativity applies is just "hair splitting". While this is a rhetorical statement rather than an actual argument, I'll take the effort to explain why this isn't mere hair splitting. Noting the incompatibility of established physical theories, such as the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum mechanics, is not hair splitting. The incompatibility between these two theories is the motivation behind a major field in physics and theoretical physics. Any attempt to find a grand unified theory, such as string theory or quantum gravity, is born out of the incompatibility between the two theories. The notion that it is just a trivial observation is absurd. Furthermore, the fact that any established physical theory only works on certain physical scales and conditions is not hair splitting either. As Miles Donahue (a critic of mine) pointed out in a prior debate, "The reader needs to understand that Quantum Mechanics, the other pillar of modern day physics, is incompatible with General Relativity. But they’re equally successful theories, and thus we must seek a deeper theory of the world, a quantum theory of gravity which marries General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, General Relativity breaks down when used to describe phenomena below the Plank length, a size the universe possessed near the Big Bang." One cannot make the argument that "Special relativity is true, therefore X is true", or "Special relativity is true, therefore Y is true", because special relativity is not, in a sense, true.Let's use the example of quantum physics. Quantum physics is incompatible with the example that Con gave in his earlier rounds. Alain Aspect’s experiments with Bell’s inequalities are the prime example. Aspect's experiments with Bell's inequalities demonstrate simultaneous causation with spatially distant photons. The measurement of one photon causes the other photon to instantaneously take on an anti-correlated spin. A measurement of particle A causes an instantaneous change at particle B, which requires absolute simultaneity. This is inconsistent with Einstein's interpretation of special relativity due to the fact that such instantaneous causal correlations require absolute simultaneity.‘’The notion of non-local causality, discussed by Bell, requires a criterion of absolute simultaneity which has some absolute significance: it is seem that a cosmological basis for a universal measure of cosmic time resolves this problem...’’- S. J. Prokhovnik, physicist (Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 33)‘’[But] I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare thought that there was an aether-a preferred frame of reference...’’ -John Bell, physicist, talking about Alain Aspect’s experiment (Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 31)‘’We have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to...absolute space and time...’’ - Karl Popper, philosopher of science (Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 73)I devoted several paragraphs of my first round to upholding my burden of proof. Con dismissed all of this argumentation in one sentence as an "appeal to ignorance". Considering that he provided no justificaton for this assertion, I could do nothing more than explain the argument once more, and ask him to identify where my argument uses this fallacy. Unfortunately, he has declined to even address this issue in his last round, so my argumentation in favor of the resolution stands on that ground (and more). Therefore, the burden of proof is upheld.