Time exists.

Pro is a perfect example of a disingenuous debater. At no time did I ever say a concept of time doesn't exist. He's merely redefining his debate in public because his reasoning was defeated as fallacious in another forum.. However, since he had to change his argument to fit his own opinion so as to seem as if the debate in the other forum was something it wasn't, I will continue a rebuttal. He says...If clocks don't measure time, then they are useless. We have many examples of functioning clocks that record time. Since the burden of proof for this debate is shared, Con needs to provide an example of a working clock that does NOT measure time. If he cannot do that, then he has no evidence for his claim that clocks don't keep time. I currently have a clock on my wall with a low battery, it isn't keeping time accurately, althought it is working. There, a clock that is working that isn't keeping time, anything else?. And the "quote" functioning clock is ambiguous , as my clock with a low battery is still functioning. "If clocks don't measure time they are useless" So I assume you are claiming that before clocks were invented then sundials , that also "measured" time, (whatever measure is suppose to mean), which are not clocks are useless in determining time. Therefore by your reasoning there was nothing to keep time because a sundial isn't a clock. Sundials had shadows that moved in a circle. The movement of those shadows were eventually expressed with hands on a clock. After all , that's why the hands on a clock move in a circle. Increments were added to define the position of the shadow at any given moment. According to pro, if all the clocks on planet Earth ceased to function properly then the original shadows that were tracked would no longer be a viable way of measuring time. His assertion, if clocks don't measure time then they are useless is preposterous. Clocks aren't necessary to "measure" time. Time was "measured" long before clocks were ever invented. Pro has also refused to offer any physical evidence whatsoever that clocks are connected to anything other than electricity or springs or gears or weights. The claim that clocks "keep time" is not proven and a fallacy of ambiguity. Exactly how does something "keep time"? Where does it keep it? How can I find time in a clock to see if my clock is keeping it somewhere? And please provide evidence once again that because human beings built mechanical devices that those devices prove there is such a thing as time and these devices "keep track of it".. The beginning definition of time is known as a fallacy of ambiguity as it doesn't address the conundrum when words like past and future are used in such a vague manner. It is a proven fact that applying "time" to these words create known contradictions. Example.... It is currently 1pm. In Texas, Nov. 24, 2015 on a Monday. By definition 1am Nov. 25, 2015 Sunday is in the future from Monday. At the exact same moment it is 1am Nov 25, 2015 Tuesday in the Philippines. If i Cali my friend in the Pines and talk to her, by the definition pro presented for time, I would be talking to someone in the future. This is preposterous. Hence the opening definition of time is ambiguous in regards to what constitutes past and future when time is applied to it. The contention that there is such a thing as confusing time with time zones is another example of an equivocation fallacy. Pro is now trying to change the fact that the clocks in the Philippines and the clocks in Texas aren't "keeping time to give order to events ". They are merely showing a "time" in a time zone. First time is defined as measuring events. Now using dates which are used to define when events occur, as my example above shows, no longer applies and creates a contradiction. "Clock as working as they are suppose to"... he is referring to time dilation experiments and is simply attempting to claim knowledge of something that hasn't been proven. As stated, prove clocks are connected to time. Show me the physical evidence that a mechanical device determines the movement of time. Show evidence not assertions. In 1971 these experiments showed effects on clocks, not time. It is a known fact that humans cannot build 2 perfect examples of the same device. It is a known fact that numerous places on Earth affect instruments. But this is all pointless as pro has not given one scintilla of evidence that mechanical devices are connected and represent anything that is remotely existent, I.e. time. He merely makes an assertion that "clocks are useless if they don't keep time". Time as a concept exists, but that doesn't mean that clocks are connected to anything other than something that exists in the mind. I.e. it isn't existential. Pro has no consistent idea of time to present. Pro has no proof that clocks are connected to "keep track" of anything existent. The title says time exists. Then he defines time in an ambiguous way which isn't conducive to logical discourse. Time is merely a mental construct and by definition cannot be changed or slowed down or sped up regardless of what is done. Clocks can be affected by velocity, as other things can also, it doesn't mean relativity proved anything about time. It proved something about clocks.