Time Travel, to the future, is possible.

My opponent's last response was disrespectful and deceitful. Argument by authority is a logical fallacy. He would have us assume that just because he tags "and this is supported by people with credentials", it must be the truth. "1. Con's first mistake is to offer no sources decrediting the idea of Time Dilation and/or the possiblities behind Special Relativity. He simply argues with his own logic. Unless he is a credited physicist or mathmetician, his argument is irrelevant." I have offered a valid, logical counterpoint which he has absolutely refused to address. Given that all of these scientists judge special relativity to be true based on the notion that time can be objectively measured by clocks, of course special relativity works out. BUT CLOCKS DON'T WORK THAT WAY. I don't need a doctorate in physics or mathematics to make a logical counterpoint that completely disrupts this entire debate. If my opponent cannot counter my notion that time doesn't exist the solid way he assumes it does, then he himself has no basis for his argument. Thus, my argument is *very* relevant and his dismissal of my argument on the grounds that I do not have credentials he is pleased with is an AD HOMINEM ATTACK. This is a logical fallacy and unacceptable in debate. I repeat, it is necessary for this debate for my opponent to address my counterpoint. "2. In his assertion that Time Dilation is something we don't have, he uses the example of the clocks on the ground and in the airplane, his assumptions that there are barometric conditions and other variables that effect the mechanisms by which clocks work, that argument may stand. Though I never referenced time travel here on Earth." I needn't limit myself. The whole concept of special relativity is founded on the experiments on earth, since none so far have been reproducible to preferable proportions in space. Therefore, my pointing out a MASSIVE LOGICAL FLAW in the preliminary experiments is of utmost importance in judging the validity of this concept in general. "Mr.Avdeyev is the greatest time traveler to date. Mr.Avdeyev has travelled to the future by about one fiftieth of a second. Thats not much, but it is a stop. A journey of a thousand years must begin with a fraction of a second." Begging the question fallacy. There is no legitimate proof that Mr. Avdeyev has actually aged a fiftieth of a second. Is there a little meter on his forehead that says his body age has increased by a fiftieth of a second? Is there biological evidence in his cells? The answer is no. It's just that based on flawed logic and inaccurate scientific experiments, that's what the numbers calculated into. In reality, Mr. Avdeyev probably hasn't aged at all, because of that singular flaw I mentioned. My opponent has a moot point here because the only way this piece of "evidence" can help him, is if he proves what he is debating. Thus, circular logic, begging the question. "3. In conclusion, the con has not offered any arugments to disprove the resolution, that "Time Travel, to the future, is possible". This is not an argument on Special Relativity." Incorrect. I have offered an argument which you deemed invalid. Of course, your judgment was fallacious and my argument still stands. For clarity, I will repeat it. ***************************************** If you stick a thermometer in someone's mouth, the level of the mercury will change because of constant laws regarding temperature, volume, and pressure. If you then stick the thermometer in ice water, the level of mercury will decrease similarly. My opponent and the supporters of time travel ERRONEOUSLY believe that a clock works the same way. You cannot stick a clock in dilated time, and compare it with a clock in non dilated time and see a difference. Clocks simply don't work that way, they don't measure time. They just keep ticking over and over again. So clocks are not capable of measuring TIME DILATION, thus, any sort of experiment that has been done so far that says such is INVALID. My opponent obviously does not have an answer for this, even though it is a simply logical flaw in his argument. I ask my opponent to kindly STOP citing scientific concepts drawn from this fallacy UNTIL he can respond to my counterpoint. Otherwise, this debate is decided in my favor.