The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Nothing is inherently a waste of time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
VanillaisLove has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 293 times Debate No: 102137
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




//We are restarting this debate. VanillaisLove forfeited last time due to other commitments but is kind enough to agree to restart. We will just copy paste the arguments already delivered and then continue from there.//

This is a short debate. You only have 24 hours to respond to the latest arguments and a maximum of 2000 characters per round. Please do not forfeit any rounds.


Looking forward to a good debate :)


//I'd like to thank Shade for asking me to do this debate again. Thanks for letting me retake it without being offended or getting mad at me for exceeding the time limit. Good luck, again.

Hello, I accept your debate. I am for Con, and will therefore be arguing against the notion that nothing is inherently a waste of time. Best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1


Everything that you do today can be useful to you in the future, often in ways that you never expected.

Many people seem to think that hobbies are a waste of time. Let's say a scientist enjoys public speaking in his free time. Twice a month he attends a Toastmasters club to practice. His daily activities most of the time in the lab, does not involve speaking to a crowd at all. Sure, maybe in a year, he will probably speak in front of an audience once during a research convention. But that's it.

By any logic, the scientist's hobby is a complete waste of time. It doesn't translate into any rise in income. It does not gain him any followers on social media. He's not going to win any public speaking tournaments soon. By any measure, there is no way to quantify how exactly this hobby is useful to him.

However, in a person's life time, you never know when exactly some skills could be useful to you in the future. The scientist, with a polished skill of being able to speak in public, could potentially find a new line of work. Without that skill, he could open doors he never even thought of before. Imagine if he had never had this hobby. He probably would not even have the ability to imagine working as something else.

My second argument is that something which makes you feel good or something which interests you is, by itself, already worth doing. Success can never just be measured by income. Being happy, meeting friends, and challenging yourself to be better every day is also a big part of life. When a person tells another person that what he is doing is a waste of time, often, that person is just measuring the action by the amount of money it can produce.

However, what cannot be measured should also be taken into account. When a person is happy, this motivates him to be a better individual every day who can contribute something to the society. Imagine if everything we do which does not directly translate into money is a "waste of time". That would be a sad life.


Pro's logic is quite frustrating. They haven't clearly explained a few things, which I will point out in my following arguments.

First off, they have not established which actions fall under the category of "nothing". Would everything count as not being a waste of time, as long as it satisfies your own happiness? Their side tries to explain that doing good in your free time can help to develop a person's abilities, and thus would designate him as a contributor to the welfare of society. But if I were to, say just sit on a chair and do nothing but stare ahead, would this be considered as something that hones one of my talents? I find no purpose in doing the example I have stated. It seems to me that Pro wants to narrow the subject matter to be only about hobbies. If so, they have not stated it, and the notion itself implies a limitless viewpoint.

I will have to agree about the scientist's leisure activity of public speaking. Yes, he does what he enjoys doing, and yes, this hobby improves his speaking skills. It boosts his confidence and widens his possibilities. I concede to the fact that a public speaking hobby is NOT a waste. By definition, a "waste of time" is something which proves to be useless in the long run. The opposite of this would, therefore be interpreted as something which provides both personal and societal profit.

However, Pro does not seem to notice that personal gain does not necessarily equate to societal improvement. Let's take the hobby of playing video games. One may argue that video games can have good effects and may even lead to futures in the programming industry. I will have to agree with that. But, it can cause one to overindulge in the recreation and thus cause loss of focus. Students can apply to this reasoning, with online gaming being the norm in today's society. They lose track of their studies, something which can broaden their careers. One must have a hobby which benefits both himself and society, and must balance between both.
Debate Round No. 2


Con attacks me by saying that I have narrowed this debate down to only hobbies. I admit that I did not define the topic but to be fair, in a short debate like this we should use the "most reasonable definition". I have already alluded in my Round 2 arguments that "nothing" here refers to any action. That is why I started out with "Everything that you do today can be useful to you in the future, often in ways that you never expected." I was in no way limiting this to just hobbies.

EVEN IF this debate is just about hobbies, then perhaps Con should rebut me on that. Since I am Pro here, I do have the advantage of scoping this debate and Con should take me up on that definition by arguing how some hobbies are a waste of time etc.

Instead, Con spends an entire paragraph agreeing that the scientist's hobby, although seemingly useless, is in fact not at all a waste of time. Hmm, ok.

Regarding the example of someone sitting down in a chair, that too is beneficial and not a waste of time. Although it seems that he is not improving himself nor the community, by virtue of him enjoying that activity, he benefits from it in terms of happiness. Perhaps, he gets to destress from the hustle and bustle of day to day activities. This of course is assuming no-one is actually forcing him to sit in a chair.

Con's problems:
1. Something beneficial does not necessarily have direct benefits to the individual or society. Rather, the benefits are abstract or indirect. I have already said this in Round 2 but Con seems to have not read it.
2. This debate is not limited to hobbies but EVEN IF it is, Con should try to rebut me on that if he can. As Pro, I get to take this debate any reasonable way. I think that the direction I have taken is fair and is not at all a "truth bomb". Con can and should have argued on my terms but instead chooses to deflect direct confrontation.
3. Overindulgence is the fault of the PERSON not the activity. The activity itself is beneficial and not a waste.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 11 months ago
I wasted everything..Or not...There would be no difference...What did I waste ?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.