Instigator / Con
0
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#3183
A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
A stopped clock: A clock in which its hands don't move by itself in relation to the rest of the clock, thus losing its intended purpose. I am sure most of you guys know what a stopped clock is.
A day: Limited to 24 hours regardless of the condition. Said clock is intended to rotate full around once per 12 hours.
BoP is shared. Pro needs to prove the resolution right while I need to prove it wrong. Concession = loss. Forfeiture = loss. Unrelated insulting = -1 conduct. Not taking the debate seriously = -1 conduct. Syntax errors existent, but readable = -1 S&G. Syntax errors existent to the point of not being readable = -1 conduct + -1 S&G.
Have fun.
Round 1
Thanks, fauxlaw, for accepting this debate.
Argument 1: Why would anyone “consider” it?
Every time I read this saying on the net or on paper, I think about an old man who sits in his room all day, watching TV, reading, eating, etc.. And every 12 hours he would check upon his old beloved and stopped clock, cheering up and down because it finally matched the generally-accepted time. Day after day.
Now, why would any of you consider this normal and regular behavior? Does anyone do this whatsoever? My short answer is: There simply isn’t any proof that ANYBODY does so in history and there isn’t proof that inspecting a clock 2 times a day and consider it correct is the normal to-go behavior for humans. In fact, to common sense, most people, if not all, would either throw the clock away, go to the local repairing shop, put it in a drawer, or buy a new one. Neither I nor anybody in history as we know it would rather place it up high in the room as if it is a moving clock and not a stopped one, and stare at it for hours on end and wait for when the times match every 12 hours or so.
Of course, my opponent could just refute by saying “There is no proof that there ISN’T anybody who lives life like this”. However, that doesn’t work as it is common sense that absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence, and that is not any stand proving that there is in fact somebody in this world who inspect stopped clocks at least two times a day instead of just replacing it with a new one that moves.
A stopped clock has lost its meaning. A clock is meant to display time, and a stopped clock does not display time as it is supposed to. It has lost utility, in other words, no one would be expected to use it to display time, There is no evidence that anybody considers a stopped clock a viable device for displaying time, and there is no expectation that anyone would use a stopped clock for that purpose.
A stopped clock, in its normal and regular sense, would be expected to have nothing paying attention to it, because it has lost its purpose. Of course, some grandfather clocks that have been made decades ago by magnificent woodworkers that have been worn out by the time you would see this debate would be stopped yet still being paid attention to, but that is far from the entire collectivity of “stopped clocks”. There is no evidence, nor expectations that would have it considered correct, let alone being considered at all.
Sub-argument 1.1: Oxymoron
According to reliable definitions, a “stopped clock” is barely a clock at all.
[1]Merriam Webster: a device other than a watch for indicating or measuring time commonly by means of hands moving on a dial
[2]Wikipedia(reliable to the most basic extent): A clock is a device used to measure, verify, keep, and indicate time. The clock is one of the oldest human inventions, meeting the need to measure intervals of time shorter than the natural units: the day, the lunar month, and the year.
[3]Cambridge: a device for measuring and showing time, usually found in or on a building and not worn by a person
[4]Oxford:A mechanical or electrical device for measuring time, indicating hours, minutes, and sometimes seconds, typically by hands on a round dial or by displayed figures.
From everything above, we can see that many sources agree on that the fact a clock working is a vital component of it being a clock. A stopped clock loses its purpose, thus it is not even a clock at all if we adhere to exact definitions.
In the end, not only is a stopped clock not considered to be correct, it would technically not be even considered to be a clock at all.
Argument 2: Exceptions and Counterexamples
The resolution asks for a generalization akin to the statement “A swan would be considered white”, which assumes any swan that is considered to exist to be white in color. Of course, that is not true, as we know there are black swans, some probably being locked in local zoos even. In the end, one counterexample to the resolution statement is already enough to disprove it.
Time Zones
If a car is currently just a bit east of the western border of the state of Georgia, prepared to drive westward after the stopped clock on the car matches the accepted time in the Eastern Time Zone of America, and ending up in Alabama less than an hour later... Congratulations, you made the clock match the generally-accepted time two times in an hour, which means that it is possible to make a stopped clock, supposedly still a clock, displays a real time, and being considered as crazy as you are, “right” 3 times a day. You could even drive between the border two times a day, which means you could make it right 4 times a day. Or, you can skip an hour driving from the west of the eastern state border of Alabama eastward to Georgia less than an hour from the displayed time and Boom: You end up in Georgia passing the displayed time of the stopped clock, making it possible to make the stopped clock “right” 1 times or zero times a day!
The time-zone map is here[5]. You can do the same for every other border but I am too lazy to state all of them.
Too Broken
Supposedly if a clock suffers an impact so obscure yet destructive that the hands are knocked curved pointing to no number on the clock or knocked to be detached from the rest of the clock, it displays no possible and achievable time, thus making it right zero times a day. Keep in mind, clock hands are still indeed clock hands, but if they are detached or point to no number, the time is impossible. Hypothetically, if one argues that broken clock hands, or clock hands that lose their purposes are not clock hands, then with the same logic, the clocks aren’t even clocks, making the foundation of this hypothetical rebuttal rumble. Either we go with utility, and we don’t even arrive at this point in the argument because the statement is proven fallible because a stopped clock is not a clock; or we go with identifiability, in which stopped clocks are still clocks and broken clock hands are still clock hands. Both way it is a Con win.
Conclusion
l There is no reason for anybody to consider a stopped clock “correct” consider it has lost its ability to tell time.
l According to exact definitions, “stopped clocks” aren’t even clocks due to them not being able to tell time.
n This would mean that the topic statement is oxymoronic and carry no practical meaning, thus not being correct.
l Even if we do consider a stopped clock a clock, the topic statement asks for ANY stopped clocks to be right two times a day, which is false.
n You can maneuver between time zones to make the stopped clock right more than or less than two times per day.
n Stopped clocks can be broken in a way in which it displays an impossible time(Min. hand pointing at 6, Hr. Hand pointing to 12) or it doesn’t display any time at all(clock hands falling off or curved to point to no number).
l In the end, even if we consider a stopped clock a clock, there are still possible scenarios where it is not right two times a day.
Sources
[1]Clock | Definition of Clock by Merriam-Webster
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock
[3]CLOCK | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
[4]https://www.lexico.com/definition/clock
[5]https://www.nationsonline.org/maps/US-timezones.jpg
Note: The conclusion is a bit confusing due to a copy-paste of an older version of MS Word. I am here to explain.lnllIs equivalent to this:
Thank you for reading. It is your turn, Pro.
Resolution: A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day
I Argument: By definition
I.a Con, having initiated this debate, has declared, by definition, that a clock has but minute and hour hands, but no second hand.[1] However, even if a second hand were present, which, under normal circumstances, would cycle through each rotation 1,440 times in each day, is, itself, also frozen in place. It’s position is immaterial to the Resolution in that the clock would still, twice daily, render the correct time.
I.b Further, Con has defined a day as being a 24-hour period “regardless of condition,” which I take to mean that although in reality, Earth’s day, being the amount of time for the planet to complete one full rotation on its axis, and that this rotation is actually a period of time that is slightly less than an exact 24-hour period.
I.c Moreover, the duration of one rotation is, in fact, milliseconds in variation.[2] We are, for debate purposes, to consider one day to be a period of 24 hours, without variation; being part of the “condition” established by Con.
I.d Con declares, by definition, that the two primary hands of the clock [excluding a second hand], in normal function, which has, at present, been interrupted completely, each make a full rotation over a period of twelve hours, or, one-half day. Thus, over a full day’s 24-hour period, the hands, in normal operation, fully rotate twice.
I.e Said clock has, in fact, stopped, for reasons not explained, other than that the hands do not move relative to the rest of the clock. Whether a gear has broken or dislocated, thus failing to drive the movement of the hands, or a battery has failed, thus providing no power to drive the timing mechanism, or there has been a general power failure, or whatever other possible assignable cause, the clock has, in fact, stopped its function and the hands are frozen relative to actual passage of time.
I.f It is not indicated by Con where, in fact, the hands are positioned in their relative rotations. The position of each hand is immaterial to the Resolution. As the Description does not indicate that the hands, themselves, are the root cause of the failure causing stoppage, it must be given that the hands are each properly attached and located at a rotational position, each, together, establishing an arc relative to some repeatable starting point, such as the 12 o’clock position, thus rendering a time passage from exactly 12:00 midnight, or 12:00 noon.
I.g Therefore, according to the Resolution, at whatever position the hands happen to be, it is a readable time, such as 6:23, positioning the longer minute hand between 4 and 5 on the clock face, and the shorter, hour hand between the 6 and 7 on the clock face. We realize that, according to this clock, as defined, ignorant of whether the actual time is before or after noon, the time may be representing A.M. or P.M.
I.h It must be concluded, given all these conditions, I.a through I.g, established by, or at least deduced resulting from the Description and definitions offered by Con, that the Resolution is correct: Twice, daily, the clock hands indicate the correct time, by definition.
II Argument: By practical application
II.a Con’s Description begins with commentary about the clock’s physical attributes, i.e., it has “hands.” Therefore, we must conclude we are observing the condition of an analog clock, and, therefore, not digital. Therefore, all the argument I, above, is directed toward this attribute: the typical clock in existence prior to the digital age, or, roughly, prior to 1970s, although this distinction is not really relevant since, even in the digital age, analog clocks are still being produced.
II.b Further, Con argues by Description that this clock has lost “its intended purpose,” which we must conclude means it is non-functional. In terms of function, can it even be described as a “clock” rather than some other device?
II.b.1 This is a relevant question, however, I would argue that, by the scope of the Resolution, even though the “clock” no longer “functions” as such, enabling our continuous information stream from it to advise the time of day, just in case that information has important consequence to us, it will still point to the correct time of day twice per day. As described above, R1, I, the importance of the clock’s ability to inform the time of day at most twice per day is still reliable, if only for those two specific moments, twelve hours apart, in each day.
II.b.2 Moreover, that the clock cannot do so in any other moments in time during any day is immaterial to the Resolution, since the Resolution does not specify a requirement that the clock perform “its intended purpose” every moment of every day.
II.c It must be concluded, given all these conditions, II.a through II.b.2, established by, or at least deduced resulting from the Description and definitions offered by Con, that the Resolution is correct: Twice, daily, the clock hands indicate the correct time, by practical application.
III Rebuttal: Con R1: 1. An old man and his stopped clock
III.a Con begins his I argument with an old man, sitting in a room with a TV, reading material, and food. There is also a stopped clock, which, twice a day, pleases the old man because the clock is reflecting the correct time. Whether or not we should consider this scenario; the Resolution prevents its occurrence. There is no internal perception of a perceiver within the Resolution, so I ask, in response to Con’s argument, why, indeed, should we consider this as either normal, or abnormal behavior by an old man, or, a young man, or woman, or child?
III.b Con predicts my argument by saying, “There is no proof that there ISN’T anybody who lives life like this.’” Well, one reason is as noted above: why should I? As noted, the scenario is outside the parameters of the Resolution. This is Resolution creep. This condition will be revisited.
III.b.1 Pro further argues, “There is no evidence that anybody considers a stopped clock a viable device for displaying time.” I have already rebutted this claim by arguments R1, I, and R1, II, above. By both definition and practicality, I have demonstrated exactly the claim of the Resolution, that “A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day.”
III.c Con concludes this first argument by noting the clock “has lost its purpose.” Yes, it has, except… as the Resolution declares, “two times a day.” I hold Con to his Resolution verbiage in its entirety and exclusivity. Con cannot conveniently ignore the fact that, twice daily, the clock, though not representing the correct time in 86,398 seconds of each day, it does reflect the correct time in 2 seconds of each day. And it does this with, or without, an old man in the room to witness it, a book and food, notwithstanding. To consider any of these additional elements is Resolution creep.
III.d Therefore, the Resolution is true.
IV Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: 1.1 Oxymoron
IV.a Con’s “oxymoron” is anticipated by my question in R1, II.b, whether a stopped clock can, indeed be called a “clock” by definition. But Con did not define a “clock” in his Description; but only a “stopped clock.” To declare, now, a Resolution keyword as merely a “clock” as Resolution and definition creep, and I declare that a foul, not an oxymoron. I happen to agree with Con’s several definitions of “clock.” In fact, I’ll depend on them, even though I disagree with their late entry.
IV.b The interrupt, the “oxymoron,” to apply Con’s word, is that in each case [there are four definitions offered], no definition excludes the point of the Resolution that a clock may only meet its “intended purpose” twice daily. It still does so, faithfully, even in unintended purpose; a non-clock, if you will, by Con's declaration. But the device, even in unintended use, is, still, obviously a clock. It is Con who tagged the clock by definition in Description, which must be the premium definitional use within the four corners of this debate, with a descriptive adjective, “stopped.” Con cannot now remove the adjective, even to make an oxymoronic argument. This is Resolution creep.
IV.c Therefore, the Resolution is true.
V Rebuttal: Con’s R1, 2: Exceptions and Counterarguments
V.a Con wants us to accept, again, that “stopped clock” is not really the functional object of the Resolution, but merely “clock.” Consider Con’s example: “A swan would be considered white.”
V.a.1 Such an example begs substitution of the keywords of the Resolution, to wit, “A clock would be considered stopped.” But Con, himself, has not defined a clock in this manner. In fact, even by shifting “stopped clock” for “clock,” Con has not offered a single definition supporting this claim of a typical clock being stopped. Therefore, Con’s example fails to support his argument by definition, even if it creeps.
V.b Con argues time zones. I declare these objects as being irrelevant to the Resolution, as they are not considered objects within the scope of the Resolution. This, again, is Resolution creep. However, consider that, even with time zones, the clock is not described as time-zone capable, thus, regardless of time zone, it will still render a correct time twice daily.
V.c Con argues “too broken,” i.e., now the hands of the clock are, themselves, bent. I submit that bent is not “broken,” nor even “too broken.” Therefore, Con has, again, engaged definition creep, because, though bent, at the vertex of an arc formed by the two hands, they are still directed in a proper angle of the arc.[3] Thus, the bent hands do not alter the fact that, though stopped, twice daily, the clock still renders a correct time of day.
V.c.1 Therefore, the Resolution is true.
V.d Con finished argument with l, n statements [*-statements, which are still oxymoronic, even with explanation [?]:
l There is no reason for anybody to consider a stopped clock “correct” consider it has lost its ability to tell time.
Yes, there is, as explained, R1, I, II, III. IV, per the Resolution.
l According to exact definitions, “stopped clocks” aren’t even clocks due to them not being able to tell time.
Wrong, as explained, R1, V, they tell the correct time twice daily, per the Resolution.
n This would mean that the topic statement is oxymoronic and carry no practical meaning, thus not being correct.
Wrong, because both statements above are false, so is this third, per the Resolution.
l Even if we do consider a stopped clock a clock, the topic statement asks for ANY stopped clocks to be right two times a day, which is false.
Wrong, the Resolution does not ask for any stopped clock [indicating a greater quantity than one], but a stopped clock [indicating a singular clock]. There is a distinctional difference, and I insist on holding to the verbiage of the Resolution, which is true. Otherwise, we allow Resolution creep.
n You can maneuver between time zones to make the stopped clock right more than or less than two times per day.
Wrong, we cannot maneuver between time zones as, within the four corners of the debate and its Resolution, there are no time zones. However, even if time zones were a designated element of the Resolution, the clock, as described and defined, does not include a feature of time zone tracking. Therefore, the clock in any time zone, will still, twice daily, reflect the correct time of day, per the Resolution.
n Stopped clocks can be broken in a way in which it displays an impossible time(Min. hand pointing at 6, Hr. Hand pointing to 12) or it doesn’t display any time at all(clock hands falling off or curved to point to no number).
Wrong, because now Con introduces elements of the Resolution that are not included in the Resolution or Description. This is Resolution creep. Further, Con’s Resolution creep adds “broken” to the “stopped” condition. While breaking my have, in fact, caused the stoppage, we are told, by Resolution, that the clock has merely “stopped,” without added condition. Thus, Resolution creep.
l In the end, even if we consider a stopped clock a clock, there are still possible scenarios where it is not right two times a day.
Wrong, because, as immediately above, Con introduces elements to the Resolution that are not included in the Resolution or Description. Con, himself, refers to the “stopped” object as a “clock,” and to declare now that the object is not a clock, merely because it has stopped, is Resolution creep. The presence of “stopped” in the Resolution, by English syntax, can only refer to the clock, and to no other word in the Resolution.
I conclude that Con has not successfully demonstrated that the Resolution is false.
Round 2
Rebuttal 1: Clock Hands.
I.f It is not indicated by Con where, in fact, the hands are positioned in their relative rotations. The position of each hand is immaterial to the Resolution. As the Description does not indicate that the hands, themselves, are the root cause of the failure causing stoppage, it must be given that the hands are each properly attached and located at a rotational position, each, together, establishing an arc relative to some repeatable starting point, such as the 12 o’clock position, thus rendering a time passage from exactly 12:00 midnight, or 12:00 noon.
What? There is nothing in the description nor in the definition that suggests the clock hands are ON the clock dial well and good. If the clock hands fell out on its own and moved not even a single millimeter afterwards due to the clock not operating anymore, it technically fits the definition of a stopped clock due to that the clock hands are not moving relative to the clock hands and is thus defunct.
Assuming that a stopped clock must have its hands attached to the rest of the clock is never confirmed by the definition nor the description and is baseless. Pro's defense for invalidating a fallen-off-hands clocks is that there is no indication of that the hands themselves cause the problem, which is flawed considering there is nothing related between the two. The fact the clock is intended to rotate every 12 hours is unrelated to the topic statement due to the clock already losing its function.
A hands-on-clock stopped clock is technically equally functional(not) as a clock compared to one where the clock hands has fallen off, as even if the "clock" shows a possible time, it would take an external time-telling source to tell that it is the time for it to be correct again, which would render the "clock" useless.
Wrong, because now Con introduces elements of the Resolution that are not included in the Resolution or Description. This is Resolution creep. Further, Con’s Resolution creep adds “broken” to the “stopped” condition. While breaking my have, in fact, caused the stoppage, we are told, by Resolution, that the clock has merely “stopped,” without added condition. Thus, Resolution creep.
Wrong, because this arguments conveys the idea of that a broken clock is not a stopped clock. There is no "degree" of that "broken" is further than "stopped". Any "clock", as long as it is stopped, no matter how broken it is, is thus considered a stopped clock by definition. The description never specifies that the fact the clock hands aren't moving causes it to stop, it just says The hands are not relatively moving and The clock lost its purpose. What satisfies the two criteria shown? A broken clock. Just because an unintended condition is introduced to the debate, doesn't mean anything with it violates the pre-determined criteria. In fact, in this case, the special example given does not violate the criteria for a "stopped clock". (Also, for
I.g Therefore, according to the Resolution, at whatever position the hands happen to be, it is a readable time, such as 6:23, positioning the longer minute hand between 4 and 5 on the clock face, and the shorter, hour hand between the 6 and 7 on the clock face. We realize that, according to this clock, as defined, ignorant of whether the actual time is before or after noon, the time may be representing A.M. or P.M.
However, this is only part of the picture.
Hypothetically, the 3 clock hands(if there is three) can point ANYWHERE in the clock's outer circumference. Now let's imagine a clock where the minute hand is just between the 22nd and 23rd minute mark. The second hand points upwards towards the number 12 and nothing is moving. The clock would simultaneously be in X:22:30(Min. hand) and X:??:00(Sec. hand), but is in neither due to the clock hands pointing in a conflicting way. This stopped clock is right 0 seconds of the day. The time displayed is not only not meant to be achieved by a real, working clock but it cannot be read properly either.
There are cases where the times are not only not possible on a real clock but cannot be interpreted to be any correct and existent clock. Go ahead. Call that possible. I am curious how any of you can rationalize this clock placement without changing the structure of time itself or the time-telling system the clockmakers use.
Rebuttal 2: Time Zones and Correctness
Let's first consider what exactly is "right".
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact11a: being in good physical or mental health or orderb: being in a correct or proper state12: most favorable or desired : PREFERABLEalso : socially acceptable
These are some of the right definitions I could find in which would have its meaning, or a closely related meaning useful for this resolution.
Overall, the "correct time", or the "right time", is basically the time considered to be true, what is considered to be factual, and the time to be considered acceptable and preferable.
V.b Con argues time zones. I declare these objects as being irrelevant to the Resolution, as they are not considered objects within the scope of the Resolution. This, again, is Resolution creep. However, consider that, even with time zones, the clock is not described as time-zone capable, thus, regardless of time zone, it will still render a correct time twice daily.
What determines the "correct" time of a specific place? The Time Zone and the Local Time determines it[2]. It determines the official time, which is the accepted and preferred time of an area. If Pro, for some reason suggests that just because something is not time-zone capable the time for it must be constant as if in the same time zone even if it maneuvers around Earth, it is not. The correct time is determined by where you are, not what you are. Being a clock does not change the rules of time in a place. If you go to the UK, the correct time is along the UTC +0; if you go to Mainland China, the correct time is always UTC+8, no matter who you are and what you are.
Especially since a clock itself isn't sentient: If anything, the AI aids the functions of the clock or aids the function of the device which contains a clock. A clock cannot understand time zones, and a clock has no individual sense of time whatsoever. So, it obeys regular time, which changes depending where you are, and if you go from Georgia to Alabama in less than one hour, the official or right time changes in a way that you can make a stopped clock match the correct time two times in an hour, thus making a stopped clock right zero to four times in a 24-hour period. I will restate: The right time changes depending on where you are and crossing time zones will give you the chance of making a stopped clock correct for more than or less than 2 times per day.
Others
Wrong, because, as immediately above, Con introduces elements to the Resolution that are not included in the Resolution or Description. Con, himself, refers to the “stopped” object as a “clock,” and to declare now that the object is not a clock, merely because it has stopped, is Resolution creep. The presence of “stopped” in the Resolution, by English syntax, can only refer to the clock, and to no other word in the Resolution.
The barebone English Syntax isn't enough for the entire language and we cannot determine if a "stopped clock" is a clock or not.
The fool's gold, by basic syntax means the Gold belonging to the fools'. However, this is not true. The fools' gold is not gold at all, but rather a cheaper mineral that looks like gold. The same could be said about many things: "Victoria's Secret" is not a secret, and a "fake iPhone" is not an iPhone. By the logic presented by Pro, a fake iPhone, regardless of what it could be, must be an iPhone, and the Fool's gold must be gold owned by fools, instead of a mineral that could fool people for gold.
In short, the term "stopped clock" refers to a thing as a whole. It is a term and has a distinct meaning. It doesn't have to be a clock. The description doesn't prove that it is a clock either, considering I have just proven at least 2 cases where a stopped clock does not fulfill its job any second in the day, thus the qualities given after "clock" means that a "stopped clock" is a clock, modified, to the point where it cannot be considered a clock anymore.
Conclusion
- There is no specification that a clock with its hands fallen off is excluded and/or is not a stopped clock.
- Just because a clock is broken doesn't mean it is not stopped.
- There are examples of a stopped clock not yielding an identifiable time, let alone being possible on a working clock.
- The right time is determined by where you are, which means that even if the clock doesn't understand time zones as a concept, the correct time still changes if you move the clocks beyond time zones, thus making it possible to make a stopped clock correct more than or less than 2 times in 24 hours.
- Since there are stopped clocks that works for zero seconds of the day, it thus cannot be said that a stopped clock works.
- Thus, the description doesn't make a "stopped clock" a clock since what is after the term is a definition that prevents it to be a clock.
- The term "Stopped clock" can be treated as an individual term with distinct definitions just like other terms like "Fools' gold" or "Victoria's Secret".
- Thus, a stopped clock can be considered to not be right two times a day.
Sources
Resolution: A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day
I Argument: By definition, v.2, and Rebuttal, Con’s R2: Clock hands
I.a Con, having initiated this debate, has declared, by definition, a “stopped clock.”[1] In R1, Con attempted definition creep by removing “stopped clock,” and substituting “clock;” i.e., a clock in proper operation, and provided four separate sources of definition of this altered keyword of the Resolution. In R1, although I disagree with the addition of this definition creep, I agreed to Con’s definitions. However, as I rebutted in R1, IV.a, and V.a.1, Con failed to define “clock” in the Description definitions and cannot now shift either the definition, or the Resolution, to any other clock but one “stopped.”
I.a.1 I accepted this debate on the basis of the Resolution, as originally and currently demonstrated, and the Description, including pertinent definitions, as originally demonstrated. That acceptance freezes the Resolution and Description [plus definitions] as demonstrated before the debate began. Con cannot perform Resolution or definition creep, but has done so in both R1 and R2. I declare this a foul.
I.b By rebuttal on this point, since Con’s R2 introduced still further creep, to wit, “There is nothing in the description nor in the definition that suggests the clock hands are ON the clock dial well and good,” is an incorrect statement:
I.b.1 As I noted in R1 rebuttal, Pro defined the clock as merely “stopped,” not “broken,” which can only be interpreted as having the hands in place, but stopped. There is no “broken” mechanism or parts of the clock; the clock and all its parts are intact, or they should have been defined otherwise; such as: “broken.” Again, I hold Pro to the Resolution, Description, and definitions as originally given.
I.b.2 Pro says, further, “If the clock hands fell out on its own and moved not even a single millimeter afterwards due to the clock not operating anymore, it technically fits the definition of a stopped clock due to that the clock hands are not moving…” But this also amounts to Resolution and Description definition creep because merely by breaking off, the hands, have, therefore, “moved” from their intended place even more than “a single millimeter” just by virtue of their breaking off, which was not a condition of the Resolution or Description. Therefore, Pro has engaged Resolution creep.
I.c Pro tries to further this flawed argument by saying, “Assuming that a stopped clock must have its hands attached to the rest of the clock is never confirmed by the definition nor the description and is baseless.” This is incorrect logic, based on the precise verbiage of the Resolution and Description definition of a “stopped clock,” to wit, “A clock in which its hands don't move by itself in relation to the rest of the clock.”
I.c.1 If the hands “don’t move,” they also do not break or fall off because they would then have moved from their intended position, fastened to the center post of the clock mechanism, and from their intended functional movement. Pro has, therefore, defeated his post-definition argument by the definition, itself.
I.c.2 Therefore, all the rest of this “Clock hands” rebuttal in Pro’s R2 is baseless and wrong, because all of it is subsequent to Pro’s violation of his own definition of a “stopped clock.”
II Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Time zones
II.a This entire section of Pro’s R2 rebuttal is null and void because time zones are not featured in Pro’s Resolution, Description, and definitions.
II.b Further, relative to time zones, even a functional clock that is incapable of time zone distinction still normally operates by movement of the hands through the half-day, twelve hour cycle, repeated twice, daily, so Pro’s Resolution/Description creep by argument to allow for time zones is immaterial to the Resolution as given.
II.b.1 We must assume, since Pro made no mention of time zones in the Resolution or Description, that the old man in his room with food and a book, and, now, a stopped clock, that he had the clock adapted to his local time zone and not another prior to the stoppage. Otherwise, his clock would have been rendering the wrong time even while it was in functional condition prior to the stoppage.
II.b.2 By Resolution, however, prior to stoppage, the clock was rendering the correct time. Now, post-Resolution, it still renders the correct time twice daily, regardless of time zone.
II.b.3 Therefore, the balance of Pro’s rebuttal on this point is just additional fluff; meaningless to the four-cornered scope of this debate. Therefore, the Resolution holds: twice daily, the stopped clock renders the correct time.
III Rebuttal: Pro’s R2: Others
III.a Pro says, “The barebone English Syntax isn't enough for the entire language and we cannot determine if a "stopped clock" is a clock or not.” If this statement is true, why, then, did Pro bother to offer definitions at all, let alone challenge this debate? Pro has defined a “stopped clock.” I accept his definition. That Pro now wants to creep from that definition by declaring that English syntax, alone, cannot be reliable to the entire language defeats his entire argument, nay, his entre debate, and this website, regardless of to what that argument may creep toward. “What beast,” then, “slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”[2]
III.b “Fool’s gold” then. Pro claims his definition of “stopped clock” may not be a clock at all. One can play that semantic argument, and it is trying to attempt the tactic, and having rebutted the point in my R1, I, II, but it is a fool’s errand. Yet, syntax reliability, or not, Pro’s own definition is, and I quote:
“A stopped clock: A clock in which its hands don't move by itself in relation to the rest of the clock, thus losing its intended purpose. I am sure most of you guys know what a stopped clock is.” [bolded for emphasis]
III.b.1 I believe we have all just been taken for fools, gold suddenly withdrawn, by taking Pro at his word. We “guys” apparently do not know what a stopped clock is, after all, because Pro creeps the definition to the point of declaration that it is not a clock, at all. Caveat lector.
IV Conclusion
IV.a To conclude R2, I believe we have all been taken for a ride through a wonderland of semantic fantasy, and syntactic disruption. “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves…”[3] Thank goodness we have at hand a Resolution and Description to depend on, since, regardless of Pro’s claim, English syntax is, in fact, rather well organized, and dependable, and I think we really do know what a stopped clock is. Being merely stopped, and not the crept broken, the stopped clock does, indeed, render the correct time twice daily, every day. You’re on time, and the ride is over.
To Round 3, my friends.
Round 3
I. Dropped points
Pro has barely even touched on the point of that a stopped clock can be displayed in a way in which not only it isn't possible to be achieved by a regular, working clock, but cannot be interpreted to be any possible time either. A clock with its minute hand pointing exactly between the 22th and 23rd mark while its second hand is pointing towards 12(all hands stopped) isn't readable considering elements of the clock are both in X:22:30 and X:??:00, but actually neither due to the conflicting nature of the locations the clock hands are pointing to.
This isn't rare either. In fact, the same class of unreadable stopped clocks contains at least 1440 individual cases (24*60), with all 1440 of them having stopped minute hands in-between two consecutive minute marks and second hands pointing towards 12. One cannot simply ignore a class of ≥1440 cases of unreadable clocks that would be right zero times per 24 hours and dismiss it as impossible, especially since theoretically clock hands should be able to point to any direction in a circle.
This point still stands with no response. Theoretically, it is 100% possible to make a stopped clock display contradicting, impossible and unreadable times, making it right not two, but zero times a day.
Remember, you can always shift the minute hand half a tab over so it can still show the correct time, making the clocks with the example above shown still indeed being able to function as clocks even if a stopped clock is still a clock. That, however, doesn't mean it has to present a readable time, as shown by the example above. You can always just shift the clock hands with, well, your hands, which isn't moving by its own, as you, the outside force, affect the clock without it trying to move. A clock is a clock, and a stopped clock, as a clock, can still be correct zero times a day without it being broken at all.
II. Broken
No matter if the clock is broken or not, as long as the clock hands don't move and it loses its purpose, it is stopped. Just because the clock is stopped doesn't eliminate the possibility that it is broken.
Check the arguably reliable definition for the term "stopped"[1]. Nothing prevents a scenario where the clock hands are smashed out right after the clock stops due to a huge impact against the ground from being a stopped clock, as as long as the clock hands don't move, it is a stopped clock, no matter if the clock wore off on its own or by impact. Neither is there any framework that prevents a broken clock from being a stopped clock: Con is putting himself in a cage he imagined.
After the impact, the clock hands simply do not move unless there is an event such as earthquake or tsunami taking place which is by no means common. A clock with clock hands dropped off of it still would be a stopped clock.
In fact, the original quote says:
“A clock in which its hands don't move by itself in relation to the rest of the clock.”
Does the definition mention anything about the moment the clock stopped working as intended? The answer is negative. All it is regulating is the present, as implied by a term of present tense, "don't". All in all, as long as the clock hands aren't moving, it is a stopped clock, no matter if the clock hands are inside or outside the clock.
III. Time Zones
Pro is arguing that because a functional clock is still functional prior to the malfunction which leads to the stop, it must be assumed that a functional clock, if actually functional, must be functional at all times, which leads of him asserting that time zones don't exist. The problem? THEY DO. If we are to consider a clock objectively existing, then time zones are as objectively existing as a clock: Unless we talk about solipsism, the whole world obeys those borders we call time-zones.
Then again, arguing that just because Con did not put that time zones exist into the description section, is equal to this
>Enters a debate called "Cars should not have suspensions" with it defining what cars are and what suspensions are>Opponent states that cars not having suspensions would lead to them being extremely unstable in dirt roads>States "There is nothing mentioning dirt roads existing in the description so we must ignore this argument!"
Yep, that is what Pro's argument looks like. Time zones are just as existing as car suspension, dirt roads, and clocks. Denying existing things just because the description didn't mention it is as absurd as the example presented above. In case if you want to deny time zones' existence, just ask the Russians, the Chinese, the Australian, the British, and the New Yorkers what time it exactly is, simultaneously.
Also, look at this quote:
II.b.1 We must assume, since Pro made no mention of time zones in the Resolution or Description, that the old man in his room with food and a book, and, now, a stopped clock, that he had the clock adapted to his local time zone and not another prior to the stoppage. Otherwise, his clock would have been rendering the wrong time even while it was in functional condition prior to the stoppage.
The clock would render the wrong time in another time zone to the time zone that his clock is adapted to. Yes. Just try to have lunch at 12AM in the US because "I came from China, my clock is showing Chinese time! It has to be correct because it is functional" and see the reactions of the people around you. Chances are that nobody would believe that you are really having lunch and nobody would believe it is 12PM just because your clock says so. Due to international borders and time zones, it is your clock that would be considered wrong, not the rest of the world.
In other words, when you bring a functional clock into a different time zone without adapting it, IT IS CONSIDERED WRONG. Nobody would consider 4PM local time 8PM unironically just because their watch they brought from their home in another country said so.
Assuming that time zones don't exist is baseless, and assuming just because a functional clock is functional and correct so time zones don't exist is equally as baseless. The clock doesn't determine the time, they follow the official regional or zonal time. Time zones exist and "correct time" is different for people in different time zones. What is that? When a person and his beloved little stopped clock enters a different time zone, he and the stopped clock obeys the correct time in the new time zone he just entered. All in all, the clock can be right 0-4 times a day because it is the governments making laws about what time zone each state is in and the correct time varies by state and country and place, and the time is not determined by an old man with a clock. The time is certainly varied across the world, and it is certainly not unified with the world being one big time zone.
Conclusions
- There is stated nothing that prevents a broken clock from being stopped and there is nothing preventing a stopped clock from being broken.
- Thus, a stopped clock with its hands fallen off is indeed still a stopped clock due to the hands, although fallen off, still not moving.
- The definition only ensures that the clock hands aren't moving(present tense), but not that the clock hands aren't moving prior to the present, enabling hands-fallen-off stopped clocks being stopped clocks as long as the hands aren't moving.
- Hands-fallen-off stopped clocks are right 0 times a day.
- Pro has dropped the point about clocks displaying impossible times, and a non-broken(for example, just out of batteries) clock can achieve that just after an external force(for example, your fingers) applying the hands into those positions. This device can still operate in the future.
- Time zones exist and you cannot simply deny their existence.
- All in all, when you move between time zones, it is entirely possible for a stopped clock to match the correct time 4 times a day.
- The resolution is still proven to be false.
Sources
Resolution: A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day
I Argument: “Considered:” the past participle
Since this debate has become a semantic consideration:
I.a The literal operative word of the Resolution, considered, is a verb, a past participle, formerly rendered before its noun,” according to the OED, and “is used in an absolute clause.”[1] Its noun, of course is the clock, rendered, itself, as “stopped,” specifically, by definition, and not “broken,” as Con has, in the past three rounds, attempted to creep the definition beyond its original rendering. I have charged, and continue to charge this as a Con foul.
I.a.1 Before Con renders a rebuttal, I will admit to having entertained a “broken” condition of the clock in my R1, I.e. However, please note that the potential was couched as a supposition, and not as an absolute condition, by saying, “Said clock has, in fact, stopped, for reasons not explained, other than that the hands do not move relative to the rest of the clock.” [bold for emphasis] Logically, that is as far as the argument can be taken, since Con did not bother to mention “broken” as a clock condition in the Resolution and Description. Con cannot creep to that consideration now. The consideration will be revisited, but don’t count on it being uncovered.
I.b Being, grammatically, a word in an absolute phrase, the past participle’s noun, and its associated adjective, cannot be altered.
I.c Therefore, the consideration can only be as the Resolution is concluded: that the said “stopped clock” is right, that is, even though being stopped, but not legitimately crept to broken, it renders the correct time of day twice per day, being, as I have argued, and Con has not disputed the point over three rounds, that said clock is analog, therefore ignoring the distinction of A.M. and P.M., fully rotating twice per 24-hour day.
I.c.1 Whereas, Con would have us believe, for example, a consideration regarding an old-school, yet digital video cassette recorder [VCR] which time of day has not yet been set by the owner from the factory default. It flashes “00:00,” typically in red led, and Con would call this condition “broken.” No, it is merely unresolved from the factory default. That clock, too, is merely “stopped.” Advanced as it is from our old man’s analog clock, its time message, too, is considered correct, twice daily if it is, as well, a simple twelve-hour clock. It is midnight, or noon, in any time zone around the world, and faithfully renders that time, even while lacking the proper setting by the owner as the user instructions describe. Caveat lector.
II Rebuttal: Pro’s R1, R2, R3: the clock is broken
II.a Pro has attempted to creep the definition of “stopped clock,” to “broken clock,” as if no obstacle to creeping the definition, or Resolution to this extent, exists. I have suggested, above, R3, I, such an obstacle by way of the Resolution’s operative word; a past participle; an absolute.
II.a.1 I have demonstrated in R1 and R2, such creep violates the seriousness of the debate, which Con has, by Description, prohibited, to wit: “Not taking the debate seriously = -1 conduct.” Con’s R3 has not healed that wound.
II.b Further, as I have demonstrated in R1 and R2, such creep violates the syntax of Con’s Resolution and Description, which Con has prohibited, to wit: “Syntax errors existent, but readable = -1 S&G.” Con’s R3 has not healed that wound, either.
II.c I charge that to insist the Resolution and Description be crept to the degree so demonstrated to date by Con in three rounds violates conduct and legibility [formerly spelling and syntax], specifically by the rules as defined by Con.
II.d Con claims in R3 that just because a clock is stopped, this does not mean it is not also broken. Wrong, according to the Resolution, and Description, the “stopped clock” includes that we all know what a “stopped clock” is, and there are considerable assumptions demanded by this lack of detail. Does that mean we can allow that the cookie-dough god-monster of planet Chocolate has drizzled melted chocolate on the clock mechanism, and that added weight, when dried, has broken a hand from the clock? Perhaps that is the reason for Con’s missing hour hand in his first R3 argument, but I don’t buy it, simply because the definition is of a “stopped clock” and not a “broken clock.”
II.e Con offers definitions of “stop,” which do not all apply to a timepiece. Con gave us precision in R2, defining selected definitions of “right,” [see below] even though 3 of his 5 selections do not apply, either. Where is Con’s precision, now? Are we to apply “to cover over and fill in [a hole or a crevice]? No. The Resolution is rather precise, and it’s conclusion is, after all, a decisive ability to render the correct time twice daily, or not at all, but qualified by the all-important perception of consideration. If the hands are covered, or are missing, what consideration is necessary? None.
II.f Con quotes his original definition of a “stopped clock:” “A clock in which its hands don't move by itself in relation to the rest of the clock…” and then argues for hands broken off the clock, rendering it unreadable. The problem with that suggestion of breakage, as I have previously argued in R2, I.b.2: “But this also amounts to Resolution and Description definition creep because merely by breaking off, the hands, have, therefore, “moved” from their intended place even more than ‘a single millimeter’ just by virtue of their breaking off, which was not a condition of the Resolution or Description. Therefore, Pro has engaged Resolution creep.”
III Rebuttal: Con’s R2: Time zones and correctness
III.a In R2, Con presented a “correctness” argument by Merriam-Webster citation, offering us the various meanings attributed to “right:”
3 conforming to facts or truth: correct
The stopped clock renders 12: 05, which is correct twice daily
10 acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact
The stopped clock acts and judges the time to be 12: 05, which is correct twice daily
11.a being in good physical or mental health or order
Being stopped, for whatever reason [not defined in Resolution or Description], the clock within the four corners of this debate cannot meet this definition as
described by Con in Resolution and Description, therefore, this definition of “right” cannot be applied in this debate.
b being in a correct or proper state
Being stopped, for whatever reason [not defined in Resolution or Description] this definition of “right” cannot be applied in this debate for the same reason
as #11.a, above.
12 most favorable or desired: preferable, also: socially acceptable
This condition, this consideration, violates the conditions set in the Resolution, i.e., that “a stopped clockis considered right two times a day.” Therefore,
the clock does not meet the “most favorable, desired, preferred, or socially acceptable” condition of this definition, and, therefore, this definition of “right”
cannot be applied in this debate because it violates the Resolution’s “stopped” condition. That condition cannot be crept to allow this definition to hold. In
fact, by Con’s creep, the clock is even further outside of a preferred condition by Con’s alleged “broken” condition.
III.b Therefore, the only two acceptable definitions of “right”, by Con’s own restrictions by his Resolution and Description, are 3, and 10. Both definitions are satisfied by the Resolution’s “right two times a day” consideration. I refute the others as non-applicable within the four corners of this debate; corners Con established, and must now be held inviolate by Con and Pro.
III.c As rebutted previously [R1, V.b, and R2, II] time zones exist outside the four corners of this debate as established by Con’s Resolution and Description, and are, therefore, irrelevant.
III.d Con alleges in R3: “Pro is arguing that because a functional clock is still functional prior to the malfunction which leads to the stop, it must be assumed that a functional clock, if actually functional, must be functional at all times, which leads of him asserting that time zones don't exist.” I challenge Con to cite exactly where, by round and paragraph [I number them all for easy reference], I said “must be functional at all times.”
III.d.1 I have only argued that a stopped clock reads correctly only twice per day, not “at all times.” I did say that it will read correctly, twice per day, in all time zones. However, it seems obvious they will not do so in all t/zs simultaneously, but then, even a functional analog clock will not display time in all t/zs simultaneously, so the argument is absurd, start to finish.
III.d.2 I have argued in R1, R2, and now in R3, that time zones are irrelevant simply because they are not mentioned in the Resolution or Description.
III.e Con concludes by this: “All in all, when you move between time zones, it is entirely possible for a stopped clock to match the correct time 4 times a day.” Since time zones are irrelevant to the Resolution, this comment appears to have no purpose. Appears. And because this may only be true if one moves to another time zone west, but not east of the original location. Apparently. Not to mention that Con has just admitted the Resolution is true, twice per day, in a single time zone. Caveat lector.
IV Rebuttal: Con’s R3: Dropped points
IV.a Con renders a “dropped point” [from which round is the following first rendered:
“A clock with its minute hand pointing exactly between the 22th and 23rd mark while its second hand is pointing towards 12(all hands stopped) isn't readable
considering elements of the clock are both in X:22:30 and X:??:00, but actually neither due to the conflicting nature of the locations the clock hands are pointing
to”
other than in this R3?] Fine, It’s a new argument of R3. I’ll treat it as such:
IV.a.1 First, Con specifies a second hand [not specifically called out in Resolution or Description, which I first pointed out in my R1, I.a], but manages to drop mention of the hour hand. Yes, under that condition, the time would not be readable, but that is not a condition that is adequately defined in the Resolution, nor the Description.
IV.a.2 Con’s definition of a “stopped clock” refers to “hands,” and one must conclude that those hands, on an otherwise functional to purpose, but now stopped clock, since the stoppage is the cause of loss of purpose, that the “hands” must refer to the minute and hour hands, at least, since purpose would still be functional in that mode were the clock functioning normally.
IV.a.2.A Therefore, Con has engaged, once again, Resolution and Description creep, and this entire argument is thus negated as not relevant to the Resolution.
IV.a.3 Further, I will rebut the notion of an “in-between” position of the minute hand as a creep of refinement of the Resolution’s “…right two times a day,” considering that Con has imposed a 24-hour day, “regardless of condition.”
IV.a.3.A In my R1, I.b, I.c, I allowed the 24-hour imprecision, acknowledging that in reality, the correct day’s length is slightly less than 24 hours, to wit, it is 23 hours and 56 minutes and 4.0916 seconds[2] [± fractions of seconds, due to “wobble” of Earth, and other factors], which is a greater variance than Con’s attempt at precision “in-between the 22ndand 23rdmark” by a factor of… well, Con cannot now creep back to a more precise day’s length in time just to argue his 30 seconds of variance. Compared to his Description, to which I will hold Con responsible, he has allowed the variance of nearly 5 minutes by his argumented lack of precision. Caveat lector.
V Conclusion
V.a To conclude R3, I believe our ride has been stopped and dropped, broken and zoned. However, Con’s final word is worth repeating: “All in all, when you move between time zones, it is entirely possible for a stopped clock to match the correct time 4 times a day.”
To Round 4, and a continuation of the mystery tour of our old man’s stopped clock.
Round 4
Time Zones
Upon close inspection, there is zero objection to the contention that time zones have an objective reality and that time zones determine the correct time of a given location, meaning that by this debate, Pro admits that Time Zones exist and work in the way it does, meaning that Pro dropped the point.
As to the two variations to the definition filtered by Pro:
3 conforming to facts or truth: correctThe stopped clock renders 12: 05, which is correct twice daily10 acting or judging in accordance with truth or factThe stopped clock acts and judges the time to be 12: 05, which is correct twice daily
Pro still failed to acknowledge that the time is determined by time zones and further, local or national governments(who determines what time zone(s) the country will be in, etc.), and the "correct" time varies. The stopped clock does not determine the time, nothing in the description, topic statement, or anything in the real world can support Pro's notion on this statement.
The stopped clock renders 12:05, and thus matches the UTC time of 12:05 in England. However, it does not match the UTC+8 time in Tangshan, China, because the correct time in Tangshan, while it is 12:05 in England, is 8:05. However, if you bring the stopped clock to China in what is considered 4:05 in England, it would be right as that is 12:05 in UTC+8.
This is how the world works. Unless my opponent proves that the world utilizes not the time zone system but is in one great unified time zone, the world works as it is and the clock can be correct when you go across time zones 4 times a day, for example, if you wave back and forth between Alabama and Georgia. In the end, even if those definitions are true, the time varies and is not determined by a stopped clock, and a stopped clock can be right for more or less than 2 hours.
Pro has no objection on how time works or how time zone works nor objects the reality that time zones have. Even if Pro says that it is not mentioned by the description, it would be as absurd as entering a debate that says "Cars should have suspensions" with the terms in the topic statement defined and nothing else, enough for a debate; then refute the argument of "Cars without suspensions would be really hard to drive on dirt roads" with "You didn't say that dirt roads exist in the description". Just because the definition doesn't specify doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, the lack of specification means that it is nothing to claim that it doesn't exist either, in which, something else takes place(for example, common sense, as of extremely many debates that have taken place, Almost none of them introduce no new idea outside of the topic statement or the description). Pro assuming that time zones or second hands are irrelevant is technically themselves setting unnecessary framework for the debate, as there is no specification that second hands aren't a part of a clock, or that time zones are irrelevant(short answer, it is.).
- Conclusion: Time zones exist no matter you want them to exist or not. There has been zero specification on that time zones should not be considered and yes, time zones exist(no rebuttals). Time is determined by the government of the location which obeys time zones, and not determined by an old man nor his stopped clock. The existence of working time zone borders means that you can have a stopped clock be correct for 0~4 times in a day, and not restricted to two(no rebuttals on that).
Impossible times
I have provided an example of an impossible display of a clock. Impossible to be interpreted to be any possible time, but still possible on any non-defunct clock, as simple as twiddling your fingers on the clock hands(Not moving on its own, there is an outside force applied by your finger if so)
Out of all the things Pro could have argued, what did he argue? That second hands aren't mentioned and is thus irrelevant. Did Pro deny that second hands don't exist, or at least isn't a part of any stopped clock? No. Pro argued that there isn't a predetermined condition that allows second hands to exist. This, however, is a problem. The lack of specifications means not that, but there isn't a predetermined condition that eliminates any clock with second hands to be a stopped clock either!
Common sense, some clock have second hands, and some clocks can stop, and there definitely are clocks that are stopped with second hands. That is 100% possible. The reason I dropped the hour hand is simply: it doesn't matter, and there is a reason for that. No matter where the hour hand is, as long as the minute hand and the second hand is placed in a certain way, the clock becomes impossible to interpret and achieve. There is nothing in the topic nor the description mentioned against this scenario, this 100% achievable scenario.
More than that, making supports to a pre-made point should not be considered against the rules. Even if you were to consider a stopped clock with only a minute hand and an hour hand, having a clock in which its hour hand points right in between numbers, and the minute hand towards 12, and you have a contradictory clock(simultaneously between ??:00 and ??:30, with the hour hand not specified as long as it is right in between 2 numbers), one impossible to read, but one possible to achieve on a stopped clock that was functional. Pro never refuted that examples like this is not possible, but merely that the description didn't mention that is possible, which, again, read my analogy about car suspensions and you will know.
No, this argument is not new.
Hypothetically, the 3 clock hands(if there is three) can point ANYWHERE in the clock's outer circumference. Now let's imagine a clock where the minute hand is just between the 22nd and 23rd minute mark. The second hand points upwards towards the number 12 and nothing is moving. The clock would simultaneously be in X:22:30(Min. hand) and X:??:00(Sec. hand), but is in neither due to the clock hands pointing in a conflicting way. This stopped clock is right 0 seconds of the day. The time displayed is not only not meant to be achieved by a real, working clock but it cannot be read properly either.[R2]
- Conclusion: Second hands can exist and be useful on clocks and thus to consider them irrelevant(especially that we are talking about ANY stopped clock, and a stopped clock with a second hand is possible) would be baseless. The clock hands can be arranged in a way in which no correct time can be interpreted from it in any part of a day, and Pro did not refute the possibility of this kind of scenarios, only to say that the description did not consider such a scenario, which, the description did not exclude either.
Broken
As I have said, The description did not rule out any possibility of a clock being broken, and according to the definition of "stopped", a broken clock, as long as its hands isn't moving, it is a stopped clock(no rebuttal on that, no matter how hard I look). A stopped clock can be broken, vice versa. There is nothing ruling out that a broken clock is a stopped clock or that a stopped clock is a broken clock. Nothing in the description rules out that. Pro is just playing by his own framework which is not supported by the description nor the topic statement. That framework is unnecessary.
A broken clock is a stopped clock if it is stopped by definition. If its hands fell out of the clock dial and aren't moving, the clock is a stopped clock and since it displays no time, it is right zero times a day. The description did not rule out such a possibility and Pro cannot argue that a broken clock isn't the same as a stopped clock, since by definition, a broken clock is a stopped clock if it isn't moving. Any clock that isn't moving is a stopped clock, even if it is broken. There is no contention on the definition.
Does that mean we can allow that the cookie-dough god-monster of planet Chocolate has drizzled melted chocolate on the clock mechanism, and that added weight, when dried, has broken a hand from the clock?
Not quite: If only one of the hands is broken, and it still rotates, it is not a stopped. It is a stopped clock only if the hands aren't moving.
But this also amounts to Resolution and Description definition creep because merely by breaking off, the hands, have, therefore, “moved” from their intended place even more than ‘a single millimeter’ just by virtue of their breaking off, which was not a condition of the Resolution or Description. Therefore, Pro has engaged Resolution creep.”
The clock hands don't seem to be moving after they settle down, so I don't see any problems with it. As long as the clock hands settle down in relation to the rest of the clock, it is a stopped clock by definition.
I.c.1 Whereas, Con would have us believe, for example, a consideration regarding an old-school, yet digital video cassette recorder [VCR] which time of day has not yet been set by the owner from the factory default. It flashes “00:00,” typically in red led, and Con would call this condition “broken.” No, it is merely unresolved from the factory default. That clock, too, is merely “stopped.” Advanced as it is from our old man’s analog clock, its time message, too, is considered correct, twice daily if it is, as well, a simple twelve-hour clock. It is midnight, or noon, in any time zone around the world, and faithfully renders that time, even while lacking the proper setting by the owner as the user instructions describe. Caveat lector.
No. Pro is confusing the "broken" and "stopped" conditions. A clock that twitches back and forth would be a broken clock but not a stopped one. A clock that out of battery and thus stopped with no sign of being broken would be "stopped" and not "broken". As for the electric device described in the piece of quote above, it is not broken and only stopped. This is different from a broken stopped clock that has its hands dropped out and hasn't moved since, because it is both broken and stopped.
As for the precision in the definition, all the definitions that apply to a timepiece means something along the lines of "not moving", which is exactly what it is: not moving. The description gives the exact same thing.
- Conclusion: A broken clock is a stopped clock as long as the hands aren't relatively moving. A broken clock can be a stopped clock, vice versa. Saying that the two are mutually exclusive is wrong and not hinted by any part of the topic or the description. The description did not rule out a broken clock to be stopped, or vice versa. A clock with its hands removed would still be a stopped clock if the clock hands are not relatively moving, and it is right zero times a day since it displays no time.
Final Conclusion: Pro did not prove the resolution to be correct and Con has proven it wrong. There are many cases of a stopped clock being right for not two times day, and there is nothing in the description that rule those examples out. If you find Con's argument more convincing, then please vote Con!
Thank you for reading.
Resolution: A stopped clock would still be considered right two times a day
I Rebuttal: Con’s R1 – R4: Time zones
I.a I’m sorry that Con believes a rebuttal with which Con disagrees is a dropped argument, but, that is the nature of rebuttals; they are supposed to disagree with an opponent’s argument.
I.a.1 Let’s consider reality. That stark reality is that the subject of our debate, “a” stopped clock, can only be in a single time zone at one specific time, or, at most, two if it happens to locate directly on the arbitrary border of two times zones. Arbitrary, because rational consideration says any given person may not be aware of the exact location of a time zone border.
I.a.2 If Con wants to insist, as proposed in R3, that a stopped clock may, in fact, be specifically located in two time zones, then Con has violated the Description definition of “A day: Limited to 24 hours regardless of the condition.” By that definition, the day cannot be, with an added time zone, a 24-hour day. It is now, arguably, a 25-hour day, because two time zones cannot occupy the same 24 hours. That China, an expansive country that, by all other national conventions, would occupy 5 time zones,[1] is just a single time zone is sufficient evidence of the previous statement.
That is, unless Con also wants to admit he has violated known physics laws of spatial reality that an object the size of the subject clock cannot be demonstrated to occupy two separate locations, such as two time zones, simultaneously, unless it happens to be exactly coincident with the border of two time zones. How likely and reasonably considerable is that?
I.a.2.A Yes, there is such a concept known as “quantum superposition,”[2] i.e., the phenomenon of separate, simultaneous location, but, to date, [we presume the debate subject occurs in our month and year] this is only possible for objects the maximum size of a mass of 2,000 typical atoms, the typical atom being 10^-10 meters in size.[3]
I.a.2.B Lined in a row, 2,000 atoms would be a length of roughly 1cm.[4] Bundled in a mass, at most, it would occupy no more than a diameter of 2mm. That is a prohibitively small clock to consider rendering the time of day for a reasonable person’s judgment, particularly for an old man whose vision is likely not precise, and who, in any event, has, by Con’s crept argument, only the clock, food, and a book. An atomic magnifier? Is that resonable? No.
I.a.3 Even if a person is that sufficiently savvy to know an exact time zone border, they either choose one zone to go by for purposes of knowing time of day, or, they have two clocks; one per t/z. Either way, the Resolution clearly identifies a single stopped clock [“A stopped clock…”], so, this theory is defeated.
I.b Further, try as Con might, the time zone subject is immaterial and irrelevant to this debate because of the condition described in I.a – I.a.2.B, above.
I.b.1 Con insists, “Time zones exist no matter you want them to exist or not. There has been zero specification on that time zones should not be considered…” Yes, I acknowledge time zones exist, but, again, the time zone subject is immaterial and irrelevant to this debate.
I.c Con then argues various locations: England, and China, fully 8 time zones apart. This is but additional creep over adjacent time zones, which only accomplishes a still further expansion of Con’s defined single day’s duration [it becomes fully 32 hours in length], when the Resolution, as stated, by reasonable consideration of readers, [a Resolution factor] assumes a singular location, having a 24-hour day limitation, by definition, and that being, by Con’s additional creep, an old man’s rather limited residence. Are we sufficiently familiar with creep, yet? Con’s argument fails, and the Resolution holds.
I.c.1 I accused in R3 that Con has dropped the violation of definition by his expanded day’s duration with his multiple time zone argument, thus my emphasis of it now.
I.d Con attempts still further creep by allowing that I might say, "Cars without suspensions would be really hard to drive on dirt roads" by way of rebutting my rebuttal of Resolution creep [“broken” vs. “stopped clocks” or “time zones”]. Though this example fails, because, though hard, cars without suspensions did drive over dirt roads, and it does not alter the fact that I have demonstrated that Con’s time zones only achieve expansion, and therefore violation of Con’s defined day’s duration, which yields a failed argument. I will address “broken” further below.
II Rebuttal: Pro’s R3, R4: Impossible times
II.a Con appears fixated on a second hand, arguing that I said a second hand was not stipulated in the Resolution, and that, therefore, I claim a second hand does not exist.
II.a.1 Wrong, I rebutted in R1, I.a that a second hand is immaterial. It does not matter. What reasonable consideration is given to a second hand in the typical need to consult a functional clock? Do we reasonably verify that it is 12:05, to use Con’s time reference, or do we look at a clock with a second hand, and conclude at a glance that it is 12:05 and 42 seconds? Absurd, because just in the additional consult, we must acknowledge the second hand has moved on an additional few seconds. Absurd; we typically, reasonably ignore consideration of the seconds passing by. It’s 12:05. Period.
II.a.2 However, we have a stopped clock. The stoppage includes the second hand, apparently. So, the Resolution, ignoring the time zone argument and the broken clock argument [they are themselves, rebutted separately], the clock reads 12:05, and is thus correct, twice daily, per the Resolution.
II.a.3 However, Con proposes that either the second hand, or the minute hand, or both, are, somehow, in an impossible position to read time correctly, even with a stopped clock:
“Common sense, some clock have second hands, and some clocks can stop, and there definitely are clocks that are stopped with second hands. That is 100% possible. The reason I dropped the hour hand is simply: it doesn't matter, and there is a reason for that. No matter where the hour hand is, as long as the minute hand and the second hand is placed in a certain way, the clock becomes impossible to interpret and achieve. There is nothing in the topic nor the description mentioned against this scenario, this 100% achievable scenario.”
II.a.3.A Read that carefully. An hour hand “doesn’t matter?” I will take exception to that, and so would any reader in reasonable consideration of the time of day. But Con goes further: “the minute and second hand is placed in a certain way.” How are they “placed” such as to render impossible time reading without their being manipulated by an outside force, and not by the intended rotational movement of all hands? Con disallowed this happening in his R3, 4th paragraph on “Dropped points.” What, I am accused of dropping the point, and told I cannot be an outside force, but Con is allowed to be an outside force? I take exception to that argument; a failed argument. I refute the argument out of hand. Which leads to the next absurdity: “broken” by outside forces.
III Rebuttal: Con’s R1 – R4: Broken, broken, broken, broken clock
III.a Likewise, Con’s “broken clock,” no matter how Con wishes to wiggle and creep, is a condition of “outside forces,” and it can only be by outside forces, given Con’s definition of a “stopped clock.” It is, therefore, an illegitimate creep.
III.a.1 Through 4 rounds, Con’s clear preference is to argue a “broken clock,” and not simply a “stopped clock.” I suggest that if that was always Con’s intent, the Resolution and Description definition should have been a “broken clock.” Con chose, instead, to commit Resolution and Description creep. I have declared that a foul since R1, and have defended my rebuttal against it in four rounds as being a violating matter of chosen semantics over specified definition.
III.b Review: in every round, Con has avoided argument and defense of the “stopped clock” definition.[5] I have demonstrated that Con’s effort to call a stopped clock with broken hands, the which have clearly moved by virtue of breaking; a condition Con specifically has argued is not the case. However, Con has failed to substantiate any explanation how broken hands are not moved hands, contrary to the definition. Observe the quoted definition attached to citation [5]. Caveat lector.
III.c Now, Con argues the hands simply “fell out of the clock dial and aren't moving.” Well, then, we are dealing with another law of physics that has magically interrupted, because I suppose the hands are floating, having defeated gravity. But Con admits they “fell;” they did not defeat gravity. Therefore, they moved, in spite of Con’s claim otherwise. However, Con also claims the clock is stopped, simply by virtue of the hands no longer in rotation. Apparently, the clock mechanism still functions; we just do not see time passing by virtue of missing hands.
III.c.1 But, I do not accept this definition of “stopped clock” because it does not fit Con’s definition of “stopped clock” simply because the hands did move by an outside force: gravity. Therefore, the argument fails. By definition, the Resolution holds.
III.d Con still insists that since the hands fell, and then are not moving, his argument holds. However, Con cannot ignore that the falling was not a normal function of the hands of the clock; an outside force somehow breaks them from the center post, and only then did they fall, a movement no matter how badly Con wants to ignore it.
III.e Con says, “No. Pro is confusing the "broken" and "stopped" conditions. A clock that twitches back and forth would be a broken clock but not a stopped one. A clock that out of battery and thus stopped with no sign of being broken would be "stopped" and not "broken". As for the electric device described in the piece of quote above, it is not broken and only stopped. This is different from a broken stopped clock that has its hands dropped out and hasn't moved since, because it is both broken and stopped.”
III.e.1 It is Con who has consistently ignored the distinction between stopped and broken, for all of Con’s arguments of breakage speak to interventional forces outside of a clock’s normal, functional, internal mechanism. Any condition wherein the hands of the clock break away and fall from the center post are outside a clock’s normal operation, period. And hands that twitch are still moving, not "stopped." In any other condition, the hands remain intact, and even if twitching, there are still stopped from normal function. Con would otherwise have us believe that it could happen that we open our mouths and our tongues could fall out. Is that a reasonable consideration?
III.e.2 Con would have us believe that just about anything could happen. I suppose we could allow for that, suspending all disbelief – the function of fiction – but, Con did place a qualifier in the Resolution; one that is an absolute, as I argued in R3, I: “Considered” the past participle. In addition, by definition in Description, by Con, of “Stopped clock,” he offered “I am sure most of you guys know what a stopped clock is.” That is an offer of reasonable consideration. I hold Con to his words in the challenge of this debate, and, therefore, demand to know if it is a reasonable consideration:
1. that hands simply fall off a clock,
2. that a stopped clock is an oxymoron, not even a clock, at all
3. that a clock is not just stopped, but “too broken”
4. that we consider not “a” stopped clock, but “any” stopped clock
5. that we maneuver the clock through various time zones
6. that a stopped clock is broken sufficient to render impossible time
7. that possible scenarios exist that were not sufficiently definable to define
8. such as, that, somehow, a functional clock suddenly stopped, and its hands are suspended in the disbelief that they no longer exist
9. that an hour hand is irrelevant to tell the time of day
10.that 3 o’clock hands can point anywhere
11.thatEnglish syntax isn't enough for the entire language and we cannot determine if a "stopped clock" is a clock or not.
There are more, but the point is made. We’ve been taken for a ride.
IV Rebuttal: Con’s R3 Reinvented Resolution
IV.a Saving best for last, let’s review Con’s attempt to seal his argument of time zones by creating a new Resolution; one that entirely supports my BoP, and even expands on it. Note, in particular, that to make the point, the broken clock has been retired in favor of one merely stopped:
“All in all, when you move between time zones, it is entirely possible for a stopped clock to match the correct time 4 times a day.”
IV.a.1 All in all, the statement, even in excess, is entirely my BoP; that a stopped clock is still a match for rendering the correct time of day, not once, and not even just twice, but potentially four times a day. Okay, if Con insists, I’ll let it ride. Such a good ride, after all. Home again, and the old man is a happy man.
I thank you for you kind attention, and ask for your vote.
[2]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-molecules-exist-in-two-places-at-once-in-unprecedented-quantum-experiment/
[4]ibid
[5]https://www.debateart.com/debates/3183-a-stopped-clock-would-still-be-considered-right-two-times-a-day “A stopped clock: A clock in which its hands don't move by itselfin relation to the rest of the clock”
Saw this in my Quality Debates sidebar and it reminded me of this
https://img.ifunny.co/images/530c5d2b8f20bbcce052fb67b02889a4b03217fa7f71d3d3391e220ffa0293a6_1.jpg
So that is twice a day if anything. Most clocks are 12 houred.
Lol... that is what he said.
It is 6 AM and 6PM, not 18AM.
Nope. Once a day.
AM vs PM
bippity boop
Seriously, 3 days left with no votes? Neither I nor fauxlaw want a no-vote tie again.
vote bump
You are fast.
Probably better to have ditched the description and stuck with stopped clock.
Having argued this from one side, though I honestly cannot currently recall if it was in Debate, or in Forum, I'll play. Good luck, Intel. This will be fun. Enjoy
I'm very incompetent when it comes to philosophical debates, but I'm highly interested in watching how this turns out!
I think Pro can out kritik and semantically abuse the resolution vs Con, it's just gonna be time and effort demanding.
I'd take this back when I loved debating but this is becoming a real dried up pastime for me.
The whole 'been there done that' and 'so what if I win, for all I know nobody will vote and if they do then so what' vibe is becoming a real demotivating factor. I'm enjoying other hobbies more now, as well as studies/job/life
Not if you construct another trap.
I just like to have a little info on my opponent's angle. Not gonna just walk into a trap if I can help it.
Do I look like I have any idea what you are arguing for? Exactly. This is what debating is.
I am interested, but it feels too iffy not having any idea what you're going to argue, so I'll probably pass.
My angle is a 360 no scope(ideally) --- just like a clock.
I know that you aren't getting a lot from what I say here, but here is a hint: My argument, might be similar to fauxlaw's, from what I have read of his.
I might be we willing to accept if I had an idea of your angle. I don't see why a clock wouldn't be right.
Interested?