Time is a measurement of spin.

To begin this round, I will refute my opponent's previous statement, that I failed to prove anything. My opponent did not refute anything that I have proved in the earlier rounds, and thus he himself supplied no proof. He just created a hypocritical statement. But in order to please my opponent, I will analyze my entire debate after my next two paragraphs. My opponent mentions leap seconds, however he mentions them far too late. He had adequate time (2 rounds) to accurately refute my second contention. As I mentioned last round, by not doing so, he has shown that he agrees with it. Thus, his current false refutation is not able to actually refute my second contention. But I am still allowed to use his own words in order to better prove my side. For instance, my opponent mentions that we must keep adding a leap second to have time remain relative to the Earth's rotation. Also, my opponent agreed that a cesium atom can be used to measure a second. Let's combine the two fact's and we can see that we are forced to update the Earth's rotation to time based off of the radiation of a cesium atom. This clearly shows that the cesium atom, not the Earth's rotation, is actually the measure of a second, and thus a day. My opponent challenges me to "prove that the spin of the Earth has nothing to do with time and that clocks that record time have no spinning or rotating mechanisms within them." This a false challenge, as it does not target the main idea of this debate. Firstly, I have already shown in that the Earth's rotation is not the basis for measuring time. I do not need to prove that it has nothing to do with time, because I have already completed this debate by showing that time is not a measurement of spin. Secondly, clocks do contain rotating mechanisms, however this is simply a common, inexpensive way to show the length of a second. Note that the rotating mechanism is not the basis or the measurement for time, but simply an interface. Finally, my opponent bringing up clocks is very much a stretch, as he hasn't ever said anything about a rotating mechanism being related to spin. I will being showing the impacts of my arguments, however first I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped my repeated argument about time being arbitrary and his own contentions. Also, as I mentioned previously, he dropped my second contention. Basically, this late into the debate, he has shown that he is unable to refute either of my two contentions or refute my refutations. He has completely agreed to everything in this debate. Now, I will show what it is important. The importance of my first contention is to show how seconds, hours, and minutes are the result of a rather random division of the larger chunks of time into smaller bits of time. They were created without measuring the spin of the Earth and thus have no basis in spin. Next, I would hope that this debate's voters will stand me copying an earlier edition of how my second contention has impact in order to save time and prevent me from accidentally contradicting myself. "I quoted Wikipedia, showing how the rotation of the Earth is slightly off due to the moon and tidal effects. This shows that the original length of time form a day and a year are different then when the were created. Note that I admit days and years are created off of spin, but prove that since the current days and years are not the same length as they were when they were created, they are not the measuring spin anymore." Finally, since my opponent did not continue to refute my refutations to his contentions, this has shown that he is unable to come up with an argument for why his contentions are good. My opponent has already lost this debate due to the fact that he has no contentions, were as I have two contentions that he has agreed with and cannot refute. Thank you.