Instigator / Con
Points: 15

Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
It's a tie!
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 15
Description
I believe that DST has become anachronistic.
Do not troll me, and make sure you are aware what being Pro entails.
Round 1
Published:
The purpose of Daylight Saving Time (hereafter referred to as DST) is to add an hour of daylight to the evening between the second Sunday in March and revert to standard time on the first Sunday in November (at least in most of the US).

There are several problems with this, which I think can be solved by making it DST year-round, rather than the flip-flop that we currently use.

1. Daylight and Exercise

In the winter months, students and employees will often not get out of school and work respectively until between 3 and 6 O'Clock. Generally, this means somewhere between 5 and 2 hours of daylight remaining in the day for the majority of the US. Students working on homework may not even finish before it's dark and combined with the cold, many will not get the outside time and exercise that is healthy for them. Studies have shown that students get less exercise in the winter months. [1] Just counting students alone, this means that roughly 24% (74.6 million out of the 327 million total) of the US population is adversely affected by DST [2]. I could definitely bring that number up by a substantial margin, but I couldn't find exact statistics on working hours.

2. Criminal Activity

Night and darkness are linked to illegal behavior by a number of studies [3] Significantly more people are up after sunset than before sunrise. In the most criminally active demographics, especially 17-year-old males, this is even more noticeable [4, 5]. "Teens... typically stay up late and sleep in late." [6]

3. Disrupted Circadian Rhythm

The semiannual switch means that the daily sleep cycle is disrupted by an entire hour twice a year. You've probably seen/experienced this for yourself, so I'm not going to find a source for this one.


______

I'll probably have more later.



Published:
So far I see 0 reasons why it's not still relevant today, if anything I see many reasons why it's wrong that it is still relevant today (admitting that it is).
Round 2
Published:
So far I see 0 reasons why it's not still relevant today, if anything I see many reasons why it's wrong that it is still relevant today (admitting that it is).
If that sentence could be made a little more clear, that'd be great. Right now I can only interpret that as "I don't see why it's not relevant, I see many reasons why it is wrong for it to be relevant today." Which is a contradictory statement, I think.

I extend all arguments.
Published:
relevant
adjective
 UK  /ˈrel.ə.vənt/ US  /ˈrel.ə.vənt/

B2 connected with what is happening or being discussed:
Opposite

correct or suitable for a particular purpose:
plans to make schooling more relevant to life beyond school

DST is relevant, even to this debate but more so to the world even if it is wrong to have.
Round 3
Published:
The claim is that DST is anachronistic, not irrelevant.
The sword is anachronistic and irrelevant to modern warfare.
The oil lantern is anachronistic and irrelevant to modern lighting methods.
DST is anachronistic but relevant to modern society in the U.S.

DST is no longer needed, and has more negative than positive effects.
Published:
But it still is present in many nations and to those it isn't present/used in, it's still very relevant when it comes to arranging overseas video conferences and trade deals etc.

Knowing which 'timezone of a timezone' the people you're dealing with are in is essential and relevant even today. This is entirely true even if it is something that Con proves to be a detrimental thing for us.

100s of nations use it even today:

Round 4
Published:
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF DST IS RELEVANT.

DST'S RELEVANCE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CLAIM.
Published:
thank you for this concession.
Added:
--> @Speedrace
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Speedrace // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

*******************************************************************
#27
Added:
--> @semperfortis
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: semperfortis // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: The resolution is "Is daylight saving time still relevant?"
Con concedes that DST is still used, which is therefore a concession, as it is clearly still relevant by definition.
Pro's argument was a kritik of the resolution which is a perfectly valid argument. Kritiks are valid arguments and are therefore not trolling.
I will happily defend this reason if it is contested.
Reason for mod action: This account is not eligible to vote. Although the RFD meets the standards, he has not yet read the COC.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
#26
Added:
I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.
Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.
#25
Added:
“What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
I think you meant:
“What is hilarious is that you think you will have left a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.”
#24
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
What is hilarious is that you think you have a single fucking shred of dominance or capability to fuck with me left after the site gains enough popularity such that you're just one of many voters.
Don't for a second thing your position as assistant on the Trello and vote moderating means a thing. Bsh1, Virtuoso and Mike all know I am the harder worker, with more accurate information and that whether I am in a secret group on Trello or not, I will always contribute more to the community and in ideas to improve on than you.
You have been wrong when I have been correct on all points of us clashing, from Sparrow being Type1 to how people would take new updates/ideas and in time they will come to see that statistically and in raw work ethic I am the member to trust.
Contender
#23
Added:
Again, RM: my comment wasn’t really directed at you.
While your apoplexy is hilarious, it’s misplaced.
#22
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You will come to fucking respect me, whether you smirk arrogantly at first or not.
Contender
#21
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You're a two-faced thorn in my side but I aint gonna cry and up and leave over that. I will break your spirit, work with others and smile at your dismay.
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
No, you said you accepted his debates so that I didn't like you're some kind of good guy, then went and trolled him brutally. You're also the biggest laugher and objecter to me saying he was Type1, then come at the end acting like you were always against him and took those debates knowing what he was.
Contender
#19
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I have objected to everything you said in the forums and on here, read the comments before what you wrote and elsewhere, LOL!
Your arguments against Sparrow where he said I can't prove he is Type1 etc were the most brutal bad faith trolling Kritiks I've ever seen on the entire website.
Contender
#18
Added:
Hi RM. this comment wasmt
directed at you : and given that you haven’t objected to anything I said, I’ll assume you have none.
I will take the time to point out that it is objectively false that I prey on new member the way you do. A total of 0 If my debates are bad faith arguments and semantic attempts to chance the resolution. The possible exceptions are some debates against Sparrow/Type1 - but everyone really gets a pass on those.
#17
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I am getting a win here, suck it up and go grudge vote against me elsewhere.
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
"when me say it's valid, prey away"
"when me say 'omg i'm, SJW save the noob' it's invalid"
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
shut up and get the fuck off my debates. Go and preach your bullshit analysis techniques somewhere else.
"me Ramshutu, me dislike RM let me vote against him hehehe"
"me care about Longevity of the site and kindness to others users but 100% of my wins is preying on members who either are new or have a debate they get passionate and worked up about"
Contender
#14
Added:
Just as an aside this isn’t really a Kritik. A Kritik is where an assumption in the resolution or the debate is challenged as harmful, or antithetical to debate. Normally for a kritik, the person making the kritik has burden of proof to show the harm in accepting the definition or assumption. This is not what’s happening here. RM is simply switching the definition from what was obvious and apparent - to one that wasn’t but was more favourable to him; he provides no argument as to why this definition is the most useful - only that it must be accepted - as RM has burden of proof to show this is what the debate should be about - and he didn’t provide it, this really should go to con across the board.
The main issue for the longevity of this site is to have new members and individuals being able to participate freely in debates, If the first thing that happens to new members, is they see people starting a debate, only to have an odd, and left field semantic argument that isn’t well justified and is not particularly pleasant - then it’s not going to be particularly fun - and was exactly why RM was asked not to participate in someone’s debate a few weeks ago - there’s really no genuine reason for them to stay on the site: you can understand if someone beats you, but beats you by arguing in bad faith is going to drive away new members and participants.
While sniping on troll debates, or the likes of Type1 with semantics is almost inherently valid given their Nature - when the debate is a legitimate debate about something, I will be holding unsupported semantic arguments like this as poor conduct, and will not accept one side unilaterally changing the terms of the debate by assertion without any justification or argument as was done here.
#13
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments
I'm ignoring the original arguments because they weren't contested at all by Pro. I'll just give them to Con, but there's literally no reason to discuss them here because I'd just be regurgitating what happened. So basically Con said that the relevance of DST doesn't matter, which is a concession essentially. Kritiks weren't disallowed as part of the rules. Pro showed how it's still relevant because it is used in many places.
Conduct
I, for the most part, really don't like kritiks. Although Con did stray from the topic, Pro could've gone along with it and at least tried to go the path that Con meant for the debate to go. Just relying on semantics, while effective, is rude.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
The title and opening section of the description states:
“Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant
I believe that DST has become anachronistic.”
It also goes on to state:
“Do not troll me, and make sure you are aware what being Pro entails.”
Given the title and description, I don’t believe there is any ambiguity in the resolution whatsoever, and pro satisfies his burden of proof in the opening round.
Given that the resolution was clear, it seemed obvious what being pro entailed, and given that there doesn’t seem to be any specific attempt to argue a truism, argue in bad faith or trap the opponent, I don’t see any necessity for the definitions or rules to change - and
Certainly neither side provides one.
Pro - instead of arguing the resolution by arguing that Daylght Savings serves some useful purpose goes full-on semantic; and effectively trolls con by arguing in a completely left field and absurd way.
Given this, pro can simply demand I overturn a clearly defined resolution for no apparent reason.
Pro makes this even easier by copying and pasting a definition of “relevant” that even includes the correct and meaningful interpretation: “correct or suitable for a particular purpose:”, so its not even certain which particular definition he was talking about.
Given that the semantic argument was botched by the misquote, that it falls under the umbrella of trolling that is covered by the terms of the debate, and Pro gives me little good reason why I should not use standard definitions, nor points out why or how there is ambiguity, pro loses arguments on all those grounds - two of them would have led me to award arguments out right.
Arguments to con.
Conduct: ridiculous, bad faith, semantic arguments are toxic to online debate, as in the search for cheap points such an argument severely reduces people’s motivations for participating: why engage in good faith debate if some ****** will just jump in and troll you with some ridiculous definition. While con gets a bit flustered at this approach, it’s understandable - as such behaviour by pro is antithetical to a fun and Interesting debate experience, and it is understandable that frustration at these people engaging in these sort of unfair tactics.
As a result of this extremely obnoxious behaviour : conduct to con.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Tip to con: Please define your terms in the preface of the debate. The debate was a bit difficult to judge. The resolution was a bit awkward and I think con would have won it had he worded the resolution as "DST should be abolished" rather than whether or not it is relevant. It would also help to have definitions in round 1 and not round 2. Pro's definition of "relevant" goes unchallenged and thus is the definition I'm forced to go with when judging this debate.
The definition of 'relevant" is "B2 connected with what is happening or being discussed" The resolution clearly states whether or not it is relevant, not whether it is anachronistic. Even then you still need to define what anachronistic means. They are not synonyms. The general definition for anachronistic is "belonging to a period other than that being portrayed." That being said, Pro won this debate by proving that many countries still use this system and rely on it for meetings, finances, and oversea videos.
Con gives 3 solid reasons why DST is not relevant: (2) DST and Exercise; (2) Criminal Activity; (3) Disrupted Cardiac Rythm. These claims are completely dropped by Pro and would have been enough to cost him the debate if the resolution and terms went undefined. Con, however, pretty much conceded the debate
Con gets s/g due to pro's word salad. I had to read Pro's arguments several times in order to understand what he was saying. Example: "So far I see 0 reasons why it's not still relevant today, if anything I see many reasons why it's wrong that it is still relevant today (admitting that it is)." Huh? I am still trying to fully comprehend this sentence. Another example "DST is relevant, even to this debate but more so to the world even if it is wrong to have." This wording choice is awkward. It is obvious that I am not the only one who could not understand the argument as Con asked him to clarify the meaning in round 2. In contrast, Con's formatting was better and more readable.
Tip to con: Define your terms in the debate's preface. This should have been worded as "DST should be abolished" or "DST does more harm than good."