Causal Debate: It's better to be a night person than a morning person
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I designed the debate this way because it's easier to commit to it with the other commitments I have outside of this site. I realized that I have a problem with actually engaging in the debates I join. Because I keep joining a debate knowing that I have other demanding activities throughout my day, I often end up forfeiting my rounds, which isn't fair to my opponents who take time out of their day to give an argument. So, to ensure that I'm able to fully commit, I've made the debate only three rounds and the time for argument two hours so it can go by quicker. This is a causal debate, so personal experiences and opinions are encouraged. Evidence, while it can strengthen the argument, is not required. The point is to just have fun with this. Whoever wants to accept this debate, please let me know in the comments before you do, and make sure to accept it in the afternoon, since that's when I can access my computer. I don't want to accidentally forfeit.
Here are the definitions used in this topic:
Morning Person (noun)
Definition: someone who feels awake and full of energy in the mornings
Night Person (noun)
Definition: a person who likes the night : person who has the most energy at night
Idk what the actual hell happened in this debate but the last-Round sniping/onslaught attempt from Con makes me give the conduct mark on top of the other 2 to Pro.
Pro's argument had many holes in it, I can see that, however I am not Con I am a neutral voter. What Pro presents to me is a case for all the benefits for being awake at night when others are majority-resting.
This includes privacy, peace of mind and more.
The problem of why I didn't give sources to Pro despite all the additional argumentation is because there are 2 vaguely dumped in Round 2 and one is purely used for defense in the sense it proves there's much more to diabetes risk than being chronically prone to be awake at night.
Neither side mentioned the fact that being awake at night may not actually be combined with being asleep at day for a decent amount of hours to compensate. Pro never had to do this because Con never raised it.
In the final Round Con's onslaught is actually ridiculous in a way. Con acts as if the oneliner in Round 1 is supposed to win the whole debate even thought in Round 2 before Con 'extends', Pro explored all the other factors that matter much more to heart disease and diabetes, meaning what Pro did was say that maybe night owls don't fight the other things as much (which Con never mentions and so this is fully in favour of Pro).
There was really no debate in this 'debate' until the final Round and that's entirely on Con, making me give the Conduct to Pro because that was intentional, premeditated dirty play even as poorly executed as it was.
By extend, do you mean, you need more time for your argument?