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

Here we go:1. "Con continues to completely ignore my arguments in favor of the idea that this a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one."I did not ignore it, I disagreed with it.2. What Galileo actually did was roll balls down inclines to see how fast they fall. He found that when friction wasn't a factor, the balls fell at the same speed regardless of their weight. Also, it was Copernicus who realised that Aristotle's "absolute rest" idea was flawed, as it doesn't fit with the Earth orbiting the Sun. Galileo just turned it into a formal statement about the nature of motion itself:"A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at a constant speed unless disturbed."http://en.wikipedia.org...Physics was not worked out by pure thought. It was worked by about 500 years of experiments. Pro is either unaware of how Science works, or is misrepresenting it in order to win this debate.3. "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."Notice, however, that I still addressed their claims in the light of modern Physics, which is more than most scientists would do.4. "Con, instead of addressing this argument, glibly dismissed it in a single sentence.""If you know the facts, you don't need to read the fiction." - ConThat was a brilliant line I came up with. I think I'll recite it every time somebody pontificates at me."... no A-theory would adopt Einstein's interpretation of special relativity..."Science is supported by evidence, while Philosophy is "pure logic and thought". Science trumps Philosophy every time. Whether philosophers accept this or not is irrelevant."I spent time explaining why the thought experiment was not inconsistent with the B-theory of time."It is possible that I have misunderstood/misapplied the B-theory of time and its interaction with Special Relativity. However, this is irrelevant, as Pro loses the debate if either A- or B-theory cannot be correct.5. Newton's Flaming Laser Sword states:"Anything that cannot be settled by observation is not worth debating."Pro, like most philosophers, has comically missed the point of NFLS. No razor is an absolute arbiter of truth; it is merely a tool to discern sensible arguments from stupid ones. I find it funny that I can say that in layman's terms, and yet philosophers still don't understand it.Also, the fact that NFLS is technically philosophical does not invalidate its point: that the subject of Philosophy is inherently a waste of time. The capital letter is important, I think. One can have a philosophy, but that's not the same as Philosophy, which is the study and comparison of philosophies.I should point out that Newton's Flaming Laser Sword isn't actually relevant to the debate premise. It's a tangent, and you are welcome to ignore it. 6. "Con makes the assertion that pointig out the physical scales and conditions at which special relativity applies is just "hair splitting"."Pro's entire paragraph (the one the above sentence is quoted from), and the point it tries to make, is completely irrelevant. I used Special Relativity to show why A-theory is not correct. At no point did my explanation involve non-inertial reference frames, gravitational singularities, or quantum mechanics - which are the limits to Special Relativity. Therefore, the fact that Special Relativity is not complete has no bearing on my argument."Con dismissed all of this argumentation in one sentence as an "appeal to ignorance"... [I asked] him to identify where my argument uses this fallacy."Pro is correct, it's not Argument from Ignorance. It is actually a Nirvana Fallacy. Pro is implying that the implications of Special Relativity should be ignored because Special Relativity doesn't explain anything. This is ironic, given that Pro said in Round 1:""Not able to" refers to the current state of physics, not the practice of physics in principle."It doesn't matter that a theory has limits, provided it works in the context it's used in and is still taught as scientific fact.Pro seems to be labouring under the delusion that this debate is about the epistemological abilities of Physics."... not the practice of physics in principle."Which makes Pro's Round 1 quote somewhat confusing. If we're not discussing the practice of Physics in principle, then we are not, as Pro has repeatedly claimed, discussing "the Philosophy of Physics". Thus the only thing that matters is what the science of Physics has to say about the nature of Time.7. "Therefore, the burden of proof is upheld."I'm not sure what proof Pro thinks he's presented. An article in which scientists test A- and/or B-theory would have instantly won him the debate.My burden of proof was to show, using Physics, "whether or not A or B theory is true." I attempted to debunk both, because neither is a scientific theory, and therefore neither is worthy of consideration when dealing with scientific concepts like Space and Time. I have definitely shown that A-theory doesn't work. I think I could have done a better job with B-theory. Perhaps I should have approached it using the Uncertainty Principle - the uncertainty is a fundamental property of matter and not a problem of epistemology, so how "real" the past, present and future are would be limited by how uncertain the system is. However, as this is the final round, it would be unfair to spring that upon Pro now.Nevertheless, the wording of the debate only requires me to disprove one of A- or B-theory in order to meet my burden of proof. I have met that burden of proof, to the standards that could reasonably be expected in a DDO argument. Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. Therefore, I win the debate.I would like to thank Sargon for setting up this debate, and for his prompt replies. I would also like to thank all of you for reading and voting on this debate.Enjoy the rest of your day.