Instigator / Pro
12
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2207

Weekends Should be 3 days Long Instead

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

TNBinc
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
16
1534
rating
5
debates
80.0%
won
Description

Weekend: the end of the week

Day: A full rotation of the earth relative to its axis

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Reason:
Arguments: Both had strong arguments, however, PRO did not have strong evidence nor a clear and logical argument as to why removing 8 hours from a 40-hour workweek would have significant benefits towards productivity, pay, and output. CON had a well-backed response to counter. PRO also forfeited the final round.

Sources: Both provided sources.

Spelling and Grammar: Tie

Conduct: As PRO forfeited, point for CON.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Pro argued productivity increase, not necessarily hours reduction, and Con charged, but Con's argument assumed that Pro's argument would require hours lost by employees without demonstrating that both hours and productivity would suffer for the 3-day weekend. Since Con could not successfully rebut by the claim of lost hours never implied, not the benefit to the company of improved employee productivity, Pro wins the the points.

Sources: All Pro's sources supported the notion of a 3-day weekend with benefit to both employees and companies. Con had no sources beyond those claiming the increase to 10-hour days, which was an assumption not entertained by Pro. Prto wins the points.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro lost the point for forfeit of last round. Point to Con

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

P1: PRO states why 3-day weekends will benefit humans' lives using studies.
C1: CON states, although people might be happier, people will need to work longer shifts, which defeats its own purpose.

P2: PRO ditched sources and claimed that work shifts could change and 10H shifts aren't fixed.
C2: CON then refutes saying that if we have 2 day weekends, not only that humanity will be more productive, people will be more willing to be productive.

R3: PRO forfeits, CON claims victory.

Arguments: Overall CON has the better argument. More productive, more work done. Working 8H shifts for 5 days is still indeed better than working 10H shifts. PRO sort of moved the goalpost saying that work no longer needs to be fixed whatsoever, while CON sufficiently countered saying that in order to make human society sufficiently productive, people must work longer shifts if so.

Sources: Tie. Both parties only used one round of sources.

S&g: Tie. Good job.

Conduct: CON wins it as PRO forfeits the final round.