Time exists.

Since the forums are separate from this debate, and cannot be considered part of it, Con's accusation of fallacy cannot be part of it either. Con should consider himself lucky, as he's avoided misconduct on a technicality. Paragraph 2: Insufficient power would affect the mechanism of the clock. Thus, a clock with a defective battery cannot be considered fully functional. This should be blatantly obvious. Paragraph 3: I never said that clocks were the only method of keeping time, nor that the malfunction of all clocks would affect sundials. Con's argument is thus a strawman fallacy (and I've just explained why). Paragraph 4: Con seems to be operating under the impression that Time is a physical entity stored in the clock. I don't know how Con jumped to this conclusion, since it's incompatible with the definition of Time provided in Round 1 (which Con agreed to use upon accepting the debate challenge). The phrase "keeping time" is a figure of speech and is widely understood, so I don't need to explain it (it is Con's responsibility to ensure that he understands English). Paragraph 5: If Con had an issue with the definition of Time I provided, he should have queried it before accepting the debate. Since he accepted the debate, and therefore accepted the definition, it is too late to challenge the definition. The problem of Time Zones has already been addressed. The points that Con raises now have been asked and answered. Paragraph 6: Con demands that I prove the connection between Time and change (specifically, the change measured by clocks). Since Time is the order and duration of events, and we can observe that events have order and duration, we therefore observe Time. This should be self-evident. I remind Con that the burden of proof must be met by both parties, and that he has yet to disprove a connection between Time and the order/duration of events. Paragraph 7: Again, Con needed to query the definition of Time prior to accepting the debate. Con may also be confusing velocity with acceleration: all objects experience inertial resistance when they speed up or slow down, but objects that are stationary or moving at a steady rate do not. In fact, Relativity is based upon the observation that moving objects and stationary objects behave exactly the same, provided they are not speeding up or slowing down. If the difference recorded by clocks was due to anything besides the contraction of time within a steadily moving frame of reference, then that would mean that velocity has an impact upon the mechanism of the clock. This would make Relativity unfounded, since it would be built on an incorrect assumption. Since, to the best of our knowledge, Relativity is indeed correct, we can make the inductive argument that its initial assumption is correct, that clocks are slowed by time contraction, and that Time therefore exists. Con has to prove that this assumption CANNOT be correct, or else that a simpler explanation (that doesn't involve Time) accounts for ALL the observations predicted by Relativity. I doubt that Con has the means to do this. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject. Con has one last chance to prove his case and disprove mine, and then we commence with voting. Thank you to everybody who's followed this debate.