Instigator / Con
15
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#953

Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant

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
6
Better legibility
3
2
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
15
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

I believe that DST has become anachronistic.
Do not troll me, and make sure you are aware what being Pro entails.

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

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

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