Time Exists

Introduction I thank my opponent for this debate, and I welcome him to the website Rule Violation The rules outlined in this debate state that the first round was for acceptance, and not for an opening argument. However, since my opponent is new to this site, I ask voters to let that one slide. Addressing My Opponent's Arguments "Time is only an idea it does not exist. You cant touch time, nor taste, hear, smell, or see time." - Con Even it it was true that we cannot touch time, taste it, hear it, smell it, or see it; we all experience the flow of temporal becoming, and measure time on a daily basis. "The idea that time is real is just an accepted idea among most people and that is taught to children in order to demonstrate difference in moments." - Con The problem with this argument is that it is self-refuting. It basically states that there are moments that differ, but the very word "moment" presupposes time exists by definition: "A very short period of time" - Webster[1] "A very brief period of time" - Oxford[2] "A brief, indefinite interval of time" - FreeDictionary[3] To say there is a difference in moments, is to also say that time exists. Thus, this argument actually proves my position if we are to take it seriously. However, we cannot even really do that, as his arguments are just bare-assertions with no real explanation to support them. My Argument In Favor Of Time Existing A simple thought experiment can prove that time must exist. Lets say that yesterday we both went to the same McDonald's separately and went through the same drive through, with you occupying the space in your car right outside window 1, and me also parking my car outside window 1 at the same drive though as well yesterday; why didn't we fuse together if we occupied the exact same space? We had to be separated by something, and the answer is that we we separated by time. You got McDonald's at in the morning at 9:00am for breakfast, and I went there at 11pm to pick up a late dinner. Since we were in the same spot and we didn't meet, then something must have been separating us. This is what we call time. Thus, time has to exist or else in the scenario we would fuse together or meet in some way because we were in the exact same spot. Relevant scenarios like this happen all the time that we can test. For example, go outside for a walk. You will step on brick A, and the person behind you will probably step on brick A. Since you occupied the same spot and didn't meet, you must have been separated by what we all know as time. I presented a well tested and easy experiment anyone can do to prove that time exists. Take your mouse off of the mouse pad and replace it with your wallet, then replace the wallet with the mouse pad. Now, the wallet and mouse occupied the same space and didn't meet. If object A occupied the same space as object B and they didn't meet, then something else must be separating them. Thus, we can deduce from that experiment alone that time must exist, because time is simply that which separated the objects, even though they shared the same space Conclusion Con's arguments were bare-assertions, and self-refuting. I showed that there must be something separating two objects that shared the exact same space if they didn't meet or get fused together, this is what we label "time". Since there is strong evidence of time (the strongest of all that we can feel it passing right now), I think the resolution has been established. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...