Resolved: Freezing time would destroy many aspects of the world

Preliminary Matters:The instigator begins his third round by "clarifying" on his definitions. Specifically, he claims that by 'many', he means '1 aspect of the universe' and that by 'destroyed', he means 'ruined, not working and non existent." This 'many' definition ought to be rejected on its face since it's certainly not a reasonable understanding of "many." After all, no one goes around claiming that because they have two legs, arms, eyes and ears, that they have many legs, arms, eyes and ears. Many means a "large number" and two is not a large number.(1) However, even if you are to buy his definition, his case still fails.Contender Case Contention (R3): Time preserves all!The instigator provides no counter to my position that time preserves the world, thus you are to presume that he concedes to it.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (1) (R3): Ten Second Time FreezeThe instigator openly concedes to the error of his contention here, thus you are to accept the error of his contention as true.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (2) (R3): The Earth and HeatThe instigator openly concedes to the error of his contention here, thus you are to accept the error of his contention as true.Rebuttal to the Instigator's Case (3)(R3): Never be able to Unfreeze TimeThe instigator gambles his entire case on this one point. He effectivally introduces a new argument and argues that the aspect of time itself would be destroyed, that life would be destroyed, and that all life and time would become non-existant. Unfortunately, the instigator experienced some DDO problems at the time he submitted his third round and was thus unable to get in the remainder of his case. He thus sent me the remainder of his case via PM and claims . . . "I pointed out a few more aspects of the universe that would be ruined: Energy, Wisdom, Death, Love (between one subject and a second with both functionally running) [and] Movement." [Present vs Future]However, the problem with the instigator's argument is that each of these aspects, at least what the instigator is referring to, is one single aspect and that's the aspect of change. Each of these concepts/ideas can exist without change (more on this in a moment). Rather, he's talking about the future so to speak. I'd argue that the future simply doesn't exist and never will, thus cannot be destroyed. Each time we reach what one calls the future, we're in the present. Since we live in the present, we're never actually experiencing the future and thus the future does not exist. Even if you don't buy that though, there's another issue with the instigator's contention, so lets run through it piece by piece.[Existence in the form of Knowledge]Time: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that time would not exist anymore. Time is simply a concept and a unit of measurement. As V said in V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bulletproof." You cannot destroy an idea. Time, in the form of the past, is discussed and recorded throughout human history. The idea of time is greatly discussed in numerous pieces of text throughout numerous libraries, which would be forever preserved in a frozen universe. Time simply becomes preserved in the form of knowledge.Life: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that life would be destroyed. As I pointed out, all existing life would be preserved. Moreover, like time, the idea of life is greatly recorded throughout the world and would also be preserved in the form of knowledge.Energy: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that energy would be destroyed. First, energy cannot be created or destroyed.(2) Second, if time were to freeze, energy would simply become preserved. Third, like life, energy as an idea is greatly recorded throughout the world and would also be preserved in the form of knowledge.Wisdom: The instigator is incorrect to conclude that wisdom would be destroyed. Wisdom exists in a great deal of text and readings throughout he world. Were time to freeze, wisdom would be eternally preserved.Death: The instigator's argument is self contradictory. On one hand, he claims there'd be nore more death. On the other hand, he's arguing that frozen time would be the death of the universe. These arguments cancel each other out. Even if they didn't, the idea of death has greatly been recorded through the world and many instances evoked in the form of paintings. Death would thus be preserved in the form of knowledge.Love: The instigator in incorrect to conclude that love would be destroyed. The idea of love has greatly been recorded throughout the world and in many instances evoked in the form of paintings, plays, poems, etc. Love, even between subejcts, would thus be preserved in the form of knowledge.Movement: The instigator in incorrect to conclude that movement would be destroyed. The idea of movement has greatly been recorded throughout the world and in many instances evoked in art. Thus, movement would be preserved in the form of knowledge.[Change is but one aspect]Members of debate dot org, chance is but one aspect of the world. When the instigator refers to each of this points, he's discussing the the future as an aspect. It is my contention that the future does not exist and thus it can't be destroyed. Even if you do believe the future exist however, it is merely but one aspect of the world. Since the instigator defined 'many' as more than one, his case fails pursuant to his own definition. As I've shown, everything he talks about exists in the present (all of which has been recorded throughout history and thus is eternally preserved).[The Wrath of Semantics]Another issue with the instigator's argument is effectivally concedes his entire case. He says "Lastly, you are destroying the aspects when you press the button, not after. Once you press the button, all life and time would be non-existent. You do not destroy these things WHILE you are freezing time. " Make no mistake that this is simply semantics on steroids, but even accepting his argument at face value, if this is truly the case, then the aspects the instigator speaks of are destroyed before freezing time and not while freezing time. While freezing, by the instigator's own admission, there's nothing to destroy as nothing can be destroyed since destruction itself is destroyed! Another way to interpret the instigator's argument is that pushing the button destroys many aspects of the world as oppossed to freezing time. Either way, he concedes his entire case through this semantical argument argument.Conclusion: Great justice demands that you vote CON.Thanks for the debate!Best regards,Logical-MasterSources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.goodreads.com...