Instigator / Pro
Points: 12

Weekends Should be 3 days Long Instead


The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 16
Weekend: the end of the week
Day: A full rotation of the earth relative to its axis
Round 1
Oxford study says 3 day weekend would make people happier and more productive. (,tentative%20benefits%20to%20this%20system.) The logic is that the balance of work and rest is better, allowing people to do their job better. This has been shown in real world examples: 
"Utah implemented a 3-day weekend for state employees. After 10 months, they were able to save $1.8 million in energy costs. Other companies, like San Francisco based startup iBeat, used the 3-day weekend to recruit top talent. The 3-day weekend has also been linked to reducing time off requests by 9% and increased overall productivity. KFC Japan was able to retain more employees, particularly stay at home moms, after implementing a 3 day off initiative." (

Vacations do not fix the problem. It's been said that 87% Americans prefer the 3 day weekend, as they tend to work longer and harder after the vacation anyways, putting stress on their productivity. "Americans forfeited a collective 212 million vacation days in 2017, equivalent to $62.2 billion in lost benefits." It would be better for the companies to simply give them three day weekends instead. 

People are able to make up for the days that they weren't working. When working is more focused on a few days, they're encouraged to do more, as they have more time to rest. It only seems logical that the weekend should be three days long.

I am arguing weekends should be standardized as 2 consecutive days, like how it is now. 

A 4 day work week may add an extra weekend; however, it will make a weekday 10 hours of work instead of the normal 8 hours. This can be stressful for some people; in fact, some people are already finding an 8 hour work week stressful.

Rebuttals (also a part of my Argument)

PRO says “The logic is that the balance of work and rest is better, allowing people to do their job better.”

This doesn’t really make sense. Sure, it will add another weekend; however, the “balance of work and rest” is not balanced during work days.

A 40 hour work week crunched into 4 days makes 10 hours of work and 14 hours of everything else. Assuming there are 8 hours of sleep, that is only 6 hours of rest, instead of the 8 hours of rest that will be there on a 5 day work week.

A 10 hour work day is also bad for health. According to Augusta Statz on, “Those who reported working 10 hours or more had a 29% greater risk of having a stroke in their lifetime”. According to David K. William on, “The risk of heart disease increases markedly by 67% for people who work long hours compared to people who work the standard 7-8 hours a day”. This means a 10 hour work day is not only bad for one’s work/rest cycle, but also for their health.

PRO says “When working is more focused on a few days, they're encouraged to do more, as they have more time to rest.”

Who says that they were focused? According to Chris Weller on, “Some research has found people can only concentrate for about 20 minutes at a time.” This means that even if the work day was extended to 10 hours, workers may not be focused when working. 

I look forward to your arguments in the following rounds.

Citations (APA style):

Statz, Augusta. “This Study Says Working A 10-Hour Day Increases Your Risk Of A Stroke.” Simplemost, 21 June 2019, Accessed 31 July 2020.

William, David K. “10 Reasons You Should Stop Working Long Hours Today.” Lifehack, Lifehack, 18 Sept. 2013,

Weller, Chris. “Forget the 9 to 5 — Research Suggests There’s a Case for the 3-Hour Workday.” Business Insider, 26 Sept. 2017, Accessed 31 July 2020.

Round 2
My opponent is moving the goal post and inferring that you must keep the 40 hour overall rate and disperse it across only 4 days. There's no support that the companies that gave a three day weekend forced their workers to extend their hours. Changing the work day from 8 to 10 hours is of course a bad idea. I already stated before that even losing 8 hours that the workers could have spent in the 5th day compensate for it with the more productive 32 hours spent across the four days. That's why it's increasing productivity. My opponent isn't making sense here and is making inferences that are contradictory to the examples that I already listed.  

Pro says
My opponent isn't making sense here and is making inferences that are contradictory to the examples that I already listed.  
You did not specify that. All you said is that a 3 day weekend is good, it saves energy, increases productivity, and there are less requests for time off in round 1.

Pro says
I already stated before that even losing 8 hours that the workers could have spent in the 5th day compensate for it with the more productive 32 hours spent across the four days. 
Things I would like to say:

  1. Think about it: there are already people in most jobs to ensure a worker is productive. There are ways such as progress reports, time-cards, and meetings.
  2. Employees are paid by the hour. A job will be reduced by 20% due to this.
    • Sure, there is the idea of paying them the same. However, I previously said that there are many ways to ensure a worker is productive. So, why would you make a $30 per hour job into a $40 hour job? This could decrease a business's profits. I'm not trying to be greedy here but this method could have some drawbacks.
Also, please define "should" in the title: is it a mandate or is it optional? I assume you said it is a mandate.

With a three day weekend, not only are you impacting businesses but you are also impacting schools.

Schools have to cover an entire year's syllabus in about 9 months. If you say that 1/5 time is another weekend, you are essentially making school even longer (about 11.25 months)

Also, you can't "skip" school like you can "skip" a business.

I look forward to your argument in the next and final round.
Round 3
Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this last round. With this, I am unable to provide additional rebuttals to PRO's argument.

Let me use this round to sum up.

Pro's said weekends should be extended to 3 days to help businesses making employees be more productive. Pro believes the work week should be 32 hours instead of 40 However, this has the following drawbacks:
  • There are already ways businesses can ensure employees are productive such as time cards, meetings, and progress reports.
    • I would like to add that tasks provided by businesses are analyzed by an experienced person in that field as to how long a task should take. The employee will have these many days to complete that task unless there is a legitimate exception.
  • Employees are paid by the hour, and making a business only work for 4 instead of 5 days per week will reduce the pay of an employee by 20%
    • Although there may be the solution of making an employee's be 5/4 (to compensate the same amount of pay for a 4 day work week as to that of a 5 day work week) that of normal, the business may lose money because the employees are being paid more than in a 5 day work week.
  • Schools will also be impacted with this. School is on average 9 months; if 1/5 of the school week is a weekend, school will be much longer (about 11.25 months).
    • One cannot skip school due to education gaps.

And lastly...

Vote CON!

--> @RationalMadman
Whim? You will document that. And I refer you to the current debate,
--> @fauxlaw
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
While the reasoning for the sources point was not thorough enough, the conduct and arguments points were allocated fairly enough to satisfy a borderline rating.
--> @TNBinc
Fauxlaw votes on whims, there's little guaranteed other than that if you stick to decent sourcing he doesn't vote against you for sourcing. He rarely ties points as opposed to the norm of tying most points that all other voters have. I'll vote eventually on this.
--> @TNBinc
1. Both abandoned sources after r1. But Con had more and better sources supporting his argument. You offered three sources, all saying the same thing: a 4-day work week is not a 40-hour work week, and you said a 40-hr work week is standard, but offered no evidence of that. Don't assume. Cite a source. It may be a standard, but a little research will reveal that most people do not work 40 hr/wk. You also said employees [implying all employees] are paid hourly. Once I finished school, I never worked an hourly wage. And after 20 years working for somebody else, I ran my own companies. Again, don't assume.
2. You assumed productivity is demonstrated by time cards and progress reports. Don't assume. Cite a source. As it happens, you're wrong on both counts and have obviously never had to run a company or demonstrate productivity. Your opponent was correct. There is evidence of higher productivity, and he showed it. Just because you put in 40 hours, or whatever, of "work" does not prove you are producing 40 hours of work. Look it up.
3. You assume 8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep, and 14 hours of other activity. That may be your schedule, but don't assume you're the norm. For over 50 years, I worked 12 - 16 hours, slept 4 hours, and the rest... But I love my work, so it's more play than work. I'm retired and still work. Don't assume. You cited none of your claims, and assume everyone is the same. Such a poor assumption.
3. You assume because your opponent forfeited the last roud that you had nothing to rebut. You did, but didn't. Such as the above issues.
--> @fauxlaw
Also, PRO ditched the sources in the 2nd round.
--> @fauxlaw
And also, when you say "PRO is arguing productivity increase, and I did not state anything about that", you are simply saying "I did not read CON's round two."
There are already ways to enusure productivity in business, such as time cards and progress reports
--> @fauxlaw
I did not really understand how PRO got the vote for "Better arguments" and "Better sources":
Let me start with "Better sources".
PRO had one round of sources, and I also had one round of sources. PRO unnecessarily blamed me as "not making sense" when it is really his fault. The American standard is a 40 hour work week, and PRO said nothing about changing it to a 32 hour work week in the first round, so it is indirectly said that all existing things would be the same in his argument, or a 40 hour work week. Also, if you are saying the previous sentence is "unjhustified" one could simply say "yeah lets change it so they do not have to go to work." That is what literally PRO is doing in the round two, and is blaming me for his own logical fallacy.
And what do you (fauxlaw) mean "I could not rebut the claim about lost hours?" I clearly stated in round two that it would also impact schools, and employees are paid by the hour, and the business would gradually lose money. In the school area, I clearly told PRO that you can't "skip" school like you can skip a business.
And this assumption was entertained by PRO because he did not say anything about changing it to 32 hour work week and blaming me; you aren't allowed to blame another for the mistakes of your own, so that would count against him for both argument and conduct."
Please take this in consideration for the voting, as I did not really understand how pro got Better arguments and Better sources, and your reasoning says I did not do things I clearly did in my rounds two and three.
--> @seldiora
BTW thats not what moving the goal post means in round 2.
--> @Crocodile
Wait whos that lol
--> @TNBinc
Welcome to the true successor of DDO
--> @Intelligence_06
--> @TNBinc
It matters not the vehicle, but the product. I don't know or care how efficient your method is. As long as you deliver your message in a way that is convincing, no one cares what format to use. As long as you deliver a pack of bricks, no one cares if you are driving a Volvo truck or a broken Ape. I have no say over whether your method is on-point or not because I do not write it like that. However, to my knowledge, it is pretty convincing. Since this is more about sources than logical rhetorics, I suggest you consult Trent0405. He has loads of sources everywhere he goes.
--> @Intelligence_06
Hey intelligence_06, is my argument like how one is supposed to write it? I posted it ~2 min ago.
--> @TNBinc
It is best to include objective sources, but if you got none then use personal examples.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
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.