Resolved: Freezing time would destroy many aspects of the world

Greetings DebateDotOrg. My name is Logical-Master and I'm here to preside over today's debate! Today, I will demonstrate to you that not only would "freezing time not destroy many aspects of the world", but that it wouldn't destroy even a single aspect. Before proceeding, I'd like to point out that the Futurama episode does not actually get into the possibiities of freezing time until at least halfway into said episode. Fry destroys the "ten second button" per se and causes time to freeze for nigh-eternity (until Professor Farnsworth managed to intervene after decades of being caught in a time loop), with the exception of himself and Leela, halfway into the episode. With that being noted, let us proceed! Also, as far as the episode is concerned, I'm simply using it as a reference to how one might reasonable interpret the subject matter.With that being said, onto the debate!Contender Case Contention: Time preserves all!Using the episode of Futurama merely as a reference point, nothing was destroyed as a result of the march of time being haulted. This simply isn't a matter of cartoon physics. Rather, everything in the universe was preserved; nothing changed. Essentially, everything the instigator discusses throughout his case requires the passage of time in order to come into effect. He talks about brain cells being killed off, but if time is truly frozen, brain cells neither die nor are new ones born. Oxygen is neither inhaled nor exhaled; it simply remains where it was before time was frozen. In a world where time is truly frozen, no one dies, no one thinks, no one comes into being. Everything remains unchanging. Freezing time doesn't destroy the world; it does the exact opposite. It keeps the world from being destroyed.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (1): Ten Second Time FreezeThe instigator admirably attempts to demonstrate his position by speaking directly on how time was frozen in the episode of futurama. His argument is well researched and that should no doubt factor into your decision as far as reliable sources is cocerned. The problem with his case, however, is as I have stressed; he's not really discussing a world where time is frozen. This is proven in how he describes many processes that require the passage of time. For example, he talks about how the brain takes time to process information, but processing information in the first place requires time to pass. If time is frozen, the world will remain in the state it was in before time stopped, thus preserving it. The world would by no means be ruined. Rather, it would become very much like an art gallery.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (2): The Earth and HeatThe instigator is indeed correct that it takes 8.3 minutes for the sun's heat to reach the Earth. However, if time is truly frozen, then the heat on the earth will never dissipate. The heat itself is in a perpetual state of now. As far as the electronic device is concerned, that too remains in a perpetual state of now, but as has been consistently shown throughout this debate thus far, if time is to freeze, nothing gets destroyed. Everything simply gets preserved.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (3): Never be able to Unfreeze TimeThe instigator is probably correct. It's true that in the case of a button freezing time, time would never be able to become unfrozen. However, although that may very well be true, that doesn't serve to illustrate that many (or any) aspects of the world would be destroyed. The instigator speaks of TIME being required to process the electronic device. However, TIME is also required to process everything the instigator's discusses throughout his case, including death and destruction itself. As such, the instigator's case is unwinnable.Nonetheless, I look forward to a promising third round!. . . and that'll do it for now.