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

Are pencils better?

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
SiliconeValley has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 102 times Debate No: 97039
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SiliconeValley

Pro

As things evolved, I always think that pencils are better for some reasons:

1. They are able to erase easily, with any eraser you handed on.
2. You can use it almost entirely, which means better value than pens.
3. Not-so-frequent refills compared to traditional ink pots pen.
4. Constant writing.
5. Fast but not ugly writing (for some people)

So what are the cons saying? Argue me soon!
Zaradi

Con

Hi! As a fervent pen-lover, I'll take you on.

I'll tackle your arguments first while showing that the criteria you bring up actually show pens to be the better writing implement. To start with, though, I argue that it's the burden of proof for each of us to provide reasons for why our side, pens for me and pencils for you, are, on balance, the superior writing implement compared to the other side. So let's get started!

You argue "They are able to erase easily, with any eraser you handed on."

First, Erasable ink is a thing for certain pens (http://pilotpen.us...), which makes this argument non-unique. It's something we both can do.

Second, I argue that the ability to erase things is a bad thing to possess whenever doing written work because it encourages a lack of thought and caution when doing your work. If you possess the capabilities to just undo anything you write to change it, you are less likely to put much thought into what you write down -- you can always just go back and change it, after all. Pens, on average, do not provide you with this capability, which forces people who use them to put more thought into exactly what they write down -- it's much harder for them to go back and undo what they've written down without making a mess of the paper they're writing on. This means people who write with pens are more likely to put more thought into the work that they do, which would lead to better quality work on average.

You also argue "You can use it almost entirely, which means better value than pens."

First, this doesn't make any sense. Use what almost entirely? The graphite in the pencil? The same can be said about the ink in pens.

Second, this isn't even true to begin with since at a certain point it becomes hard to even sharpen and write with a traditional pencil - the wood gets so short that it becomes difficult to hold and even more difficult to later sharpen when needed. This problem doesn't exist in pens.

You also argue "Not-so-frequent refills compared to traditional ink pots pen."

First, there's zero warrant provided for this claim, so there's zero reason to believe that this is true.

Second, I argue that pens actually last longer than pencils do. The average Bic pen has an average life span of two kilometers worth of writing (http://www.bicworld.com...). If we put the size of the average letter at .5cms, that means in two kilometers we could have around 400,000 letters in an average Bic pen. With the average word being around 5 letters (http://www.wolframalpha.com...), that means the average Bic pen will last for 80,000 words. Which is a long time.

You also argue "Constant writing"

First, pencils have constant writing sure...until the graphite breaks. Then you have to re-sharpen it, and then that lasts until it breaks again. Each time it breaks, it also decreases the life of the pencil because you have to re-sharpen it, which wastes some of the pencil. You never need to re-sharpen a pen, nor will the pen tip ever break.

Second, even if you want to make the argument about mechanical pencils, the graphite in those can still break, which means you need to push out more graphite to write with. And when that eventually runs out the pencil becomes usless until you put more graphite into it, which happens far more often than you have to put more ink into a pen. So pens have far more consistant writing.

You then argue "Fast but not ugly writing (for some people)"

First, the keywords here are "for some people". Writing style differs from person to person, meaning that there's going to people who write very neatly with pens as well as people who write very neatly with pencils. This argument is non-unique.

Second, I argue that because pens are more consistent writing impliments, they are also faster -- because the tips of pens will never break, while the graphite in pencils can, you will be able to keep writing for longer than pencils will be able to, which means you'll take a shorter amount of time to write something with a pen than with a pencil, thus making it faster.


-------------

To conclude, I've shown how each of the five points he brings up proves that pens are far superior to pencils. Your turn ^_^
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.