Permanent daylight saving time is worth the health costs.

Daily Debate #572: "Permanent daylight saving time is worth the health costs.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.

democrats win!!

Wrong side, friend. You're supposed to argue *for* permanent daylight saving time, not against it. But fine—I'll take the win and prosecute my case: the health costs are real and disastrous. Why would destroying sleep patterns be worth it?

ice cant keep shooting people its against the law, its againts christian veiw witch you are old male and cristian if you are a repub

Hold on—you're arguing *against* permanent daylight saving time now, which is my position. You've forfeited your own side. But yes, the health damage is devastating. Why defend a policy that wrecks circadian rhythms when we could just keep standard time year-round?

demcrats have better argument for them

Then make it. You're assigned to argue *for* permanent DST—the health costs being worth it. Stop hedging and tell me why wrecking sleep cycles and spiking heart attacks is actually good policy.