The Instigator
landerdanger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AngelofDeath
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

We should use the 24 hour clock instead of a 12 hour clock

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AngelofDeath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 778 times Debate No: 75895
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

landerdanger

Pro

I think that we should use the 24 hour clock because it is easier in my opinion. We don't need all of that AM PM crap. There are 24 hours in a day so why not just use the numbers 1-24 to represent the hour. It's called military time. Airports, The military, etc. use the 24 hour clock! The reason we have AM and PM is because people can't fit 24 NUMBERS on a circular piece of metal or paper for crying out loud! Just make the numbers smaller to make it fit on a clock. Or even better; GET A DIGITAL CLOCK THAT USES MILITARY TIME!!! It would eliminate the AM/PM system. I remember as a kid I would find it difficult to know whether it is AM or PM especially at 12:00 where it would transition from AM to PM or PM to AM. So let's be the generation that will ALWAYS use the 24 hour system therefore the AM/PM crap is history.

I hope you will agree with me.
AngelofDeath

Con

I would like to thank Pro for this interesting debate, and may the odds be ever in your favor. Since Pro is arguing for change, BoP is on him. I am assuming Pro is arguing for 24 hour analog clocks, since 24 hour digital already exist.

>There are 24 hours in a day so why not just use the numbers 1-24 to represent the hour.<
Very interesting question, why not? Well, it seems to me that Pro has forgotten about minutes and seconds, and he has only focused on the hour aspect of the analogue clock. There are 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute. Because it is 60, it goes into 12 evenly and therefore we have 5 minutes between ever "hour" segment of the clock. However, if we were in fact to change 12 hours to 24 hours on a clock, then we would have uneven minute and second measurements around the circumference.

>The reason we have AM and PM is because people can't fit 24 NUMBERS on a circular piece of metal or paper for crying out loud!<
What Pro claims here is not true. Twenty-four numbers could fit perfectly well on both "a circular piece of metal" and "paper." The reason that we do not, however, is because as I stated before 60 is divisible by 12 but not by 24.

>GET A DIGITAL CLOCK THAT USES MILITARY TIME!!!<
Pro's urging to get a digital clock further proves why we do not need a 24 hour analog clock. Since we already have digital clocks, analog clocks are going out and there is no need to change them if they are becoming obsolete anyway. To change them now would be pointless and time consuming.

>I would find it difficult to know whether it is AM or PM especially at 12:00<
This is irrelevant to our debate today, as there are many difficult things that as humans, we have to deal with. Calculus, for example. Just because it is difficult does not mean we should abandon it for, say, algebra or geometry. Plus there are tricks to remembering what time is AM and what time is PM. 12AM is midnight; 12PM is noon. The trick I learned growing up was Arise at Midnight, you will Pass out at Noon.

>So let's be the generation that will ALWAYS use the 24 hour system therefore the AM/PM crap is history.<
This sentence does not make sense. If we are alive right now as this generation, we won't be "always" using the 24 hour system since we still use the 12 hour system. The second half of Pro's sentence starts with therefore, but does not have the proper punctuation, nor does it make sense in context of the sentence. See proper use of therefore here: http://grammarist.com...

VOTE CON!
Thanks again to my opponent for this opportunity to debate something completely irrelevant to modern technology and backing his arguments up with 90% opinion.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
==============================================================
>Reported vote: Lumberjay85 // Moderator action: Removed<

3 points to Con (arguments), 1 point to Pro (conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was well developed. She was able to successfully argue and refute. Pro receives conduct points because Con felt that need to criticize Pro's grammar. One minor grammatical error and one source related to said grammatical error is not sufficient to award either debater grammar or source points.

[*Reason for removal*] Too generic on arguments. This RFD says nothing specific.
===================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BadGuy72 2 years ago
BadGuy72
landerdangerAngelofDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argument was better and made more sense
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
landerdangerAngelofDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro`s use of vulgar language leads con to have conduct
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
landerdangerAngelofDeathTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an obvious, objective win for CON. She was able to demonstrate not only that PRO's arguments were backed with nothing more than bare assertions, but to provide what would be the strongest point in the debate: that the primary reason that we use the 12-hour system is that 60 is divisible by 12, but not 24. Further, her point on the absence of utility in adopting a new analogy clock - while PRO essentially conceded that analogs are obsolete - was also unrebuted, and an extremely strong impact. Therefore, she wins arguments. As always, more than happy to clarify this RFD.