The Instigator
UnStupendousMan
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Books are better than Movies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
UnStupendousMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,133 times Debate No: 19980
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

UnStupendousMan

Pro

Full resolution: Books and/or literature is a superior form of entertainment than Motion Pictures

Rules:
-First round is ONLY for acceptance and defining terms. Actual arguing begins Round 2
-Burdon of proof is shared; I must show that books are better than movies, while my opponent must show that movies are better than books
-8,000 character limit
-Otherwise, standard rules apply

Definitions:
-Books: a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers http://dictionary.reference.com...

-Literature: writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography and essays http://dictionary.reference.com...

-superior: of higher grade or quality http://dictionary.reference.com...

-form: a particular condition, character, or mode in which something appears http://dictionary.reference.com...

-entertainment: something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement http://dictionary.reference.com...

-motion picture: a sequence of consecutive pictures of objects photographed in motion by a specially designed camera and thrown on a screen by a projector in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of natural movement; a play, event or the like presented in this form http://dictionary.reference.com...

For simplicity, I ask that we refer to "books" and "movies" as the two mediums that we are discussing.

I hope for a good debate!
WriterSelbe

Con

I assume the first round is for acceptance. Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank WriterSelbe for accepting. And yes, the first round was for acceptance; I thought I clearly expressed that R1.

Books are better than movies. Most people who has read a book and seen the movie realizes that the book(s) was superior to the movie(s). However, this is not the purpose of the debate; rather, it is looking at books generally and movies generally. As such, i move to my first argument:

1. Books are portable

With the introduction of the smartphone, tablet computer, and portable CD player, one is tempted to say that books are just as portable as movies now. This is not the case. There are many cases where the movie just cannot go where the book can.

For example: the book is not asked to be turned off when the airplane takes off and when it lands; the book is not prohibited at school and will be taken away if the teacher sees it; the book’s screen does not glare in bright light, rather, the reader benefits from the bright light; and the book does not need headphones to wear or else people will be distracted by your movie. In addition, the book does not require batteries or other power source, which hamper the rage of the movie.

While I do admit in dark situations, the book is virtually useless and it is hard to wrangle with expensive book lights, the book is, on average, more portable than its counterpart. More portability allows the reader to enjoy books more than movies.

(While I’m ahead, I’ll mention e-books. E-books exhibit many of the problems seen above, but most books still come on bound paper. So, therefore, that argument is void.)

2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

Harry Potter, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and Pride and Prejudice. What do all these books have in common? They were all made into movies. With the exception of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which is loosely based on Blade Runner), there is no books that were based on books and were not written solely for the purpose of popularizing the movie and making the movie more money. There is much more flow the opposite way; in fact there are four [1] movies that are now playing (in Cinemark theaters) or coming soon (to Cinemark theaters, want to clear up) that are based on books. (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [2], Sherlock Holmes [3], The Adventures of Tintin [4], and War Horse. [5])

This clearly demonstrates the difference between book and motion picture. Because movies are often adaptations of books, then that shows that movies need the book industry to help prop them up. Which is not a sign of superiority of the movie.

3. Books engage one’s imagination

Both books and movies tell you a story. However, they differ in how they tell you the story. Movies show you the story; books allow you to use your imagination and interpret it.

This may sound like a lot of hard work, but, trust me, it’s not. You do it naturally. Here is an (imperfect) analogy: telling a story with a book and movie is like a basketball game. With the movie, you are in the stands watching the game unfold. You may get the benefit, if you can afford movie tickets, of being in the crowd, but that is it. When you read a book, it’s like you are actually in the game. You actually in the middle of the action. You are more engaged. While I do admit that you cannot control the outcome of the book, the analogy still stands: would you rather be actively engaged or on the sidelines, where your mind can drift more to getting more popcorn than the to the plot.

There is also a second thing that can not be expressed with the analogy above: the interpretation aspect. In a book, your imagination can do a lot of work in making that thing so scary, while in the movie it just looks like a prop or computer animation. In other words, the movie has a limited budget for it to look as best it can, and it sometimes it does not look very good at all; your imagination has an unlimited budget to make the thing look absolutely marvelous; which makes the book a better format.

4. Books are longer

This may sound counter-intuitive but this is a beneficial quality to books.

In order to prove this point, I took out a favorite book of mine (The Disappearing Spoon by Sam Kean, which is nonfiction) opened it to a random page (pg. 146) and timed myself reading that page. I got 1:28.9; in other words I took one minute twenty eight and nine tenths of a second to read a page. The book, excluding “notes and errata” is 348 pages long. Doing some simple rounding and multiplication, I got 448.92 (from 348 * 1.29) which is more than SEVEN HOURS LONG. No one contiguous movie (that was successful) is that long.

However, I enjoyed The Disappearing Spoon so much so that I put it along with my favorite books. If I got the same level of enjoyment out of that book, minute per minute as a film (I am going to use Up as my example) then I got 449 minutes of enjoyment out of The Disappearing Spoon while I only got 96 minutes [6] of enjoyment from Up. The book took about five time longer than the film, which means I got five time the amount of enjoyment from the book rather than the movie, which means that the book is superior.

This, coupled with the previous points, allow me to say that the resolution is confirmed.

Good luck to my opponent.

[1] http://cinemark.com...

[2]http://www.barnesandnoble.com...

[3]http://www.barnesandnoble.com...

[4]http://www.barnesandnoble.com...

[5]http://www.barnesandnoble.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
WriterSelbe

Con

I thank my opponent for his prompt reply. I will first attack my opponent's arguments then I will state my own.

1. Books are portable

Yes, books are portable, as are movies. There are portable DVD players, portable chargers, portable everything now-a-days, so this is not a valid point. Also, the points about movies being asked to be turned off or affecting others do not damage the argument that movies are just as good if not better than books.

For example: the book is not asked to be turned off when the airplane takes off and when it lands; the book is not prohibited at school and will be taken away if the teacher sees it; the book’s screen does not glare in bright light, rather, the reader benefits from the bright light; and the book does not need headphones to wear or else people will be distracted by your movie. In addition, the book does not require batteries or other power source, which hamper the rage of the movie.

If we assume this argument even valid, my arguments would be as such: Just as my opponent states, one may wear headphones with a movie and the experience will then be silent. However, paper does make sound and can cause irritation to neighbors as well with the constant flipping of pages. Also, when near avid readers one is typically expected to be quiet and is not allowed to talk. However, when someone is using headphones and watching a movie one may talk because the concentration and experience of the watcher is unaffected.

2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

This point can also be thrown out. An example of a movie-turned-book is The Dead Poet's Society. Thus proving that movies can be turned into books as well, this argument is also void.

3. Books engage one’s imagination

This may sound like a lot of hard work, but, trust me, it’s not. You do it naturally. Here is an (imperfect) analogy: telling a story with a book and movie is like a basketball game. With the movie, you are in the stands watching the game unfold. You may get the benefit, if you can afford movie tickets, of being in the crowd, but that is it. When you read a book, it’s like you are actually in the game. You actually in the middle of the action. You are more engaged. While I do admit that you cannot control the outcome of the book, the analogy still stands: would you rather be actively engaged or on the sidelines, where your mind can drift more to getting more popcorn than the to the plot.

While the analogy is interesting, it completely misrepresents both movies and books. For starters, the classic book Where The Wild Things Are: the book itself does very little to provide any symbolism or background and leaves very little to the imagination. There are no margins for one to look into. However, the movie offers lots of emotion and dark undertones that let the imagination run. With the movie, one can make parallels and delve into the meaning of things. However, with the black-and-white of the book, one is left with nothing to speculate.

This is the reason why plays and musicals are written. We could choose to read the script—it is an option—however, people will choose to see the play and maybe later if they are interested or performing it read the script.

Also, building upon my arguments against my opponent's previous contention and the current one, here is what one reads on wikipedia about the musical/play Phantom of the Opera: Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (English: The Phantom of the Opera) is a novel by French writer Gaston Leroux. It was first published as a serialisation in "Le Gaulois" from September 23, 1909 to January 8, 1910. Initially, the story sold very poorly upon publication in book form and was even out of print several times during the twentieth century;[1] it is overshadowed by the success of its various film and stage adaptations. The most notable of these were the 1925 film depiction, Ken Hill's 1976 musical at the Theatre Royal Stratford East followed twelve years later by Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 musical, and Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher's 2004 film.

As read above, if it weren't for the visual adaptations of the book, there would be almost no audience for this book. This story only became popular after it was made into a musical and then a movie.

4. Books are longer

Regardless of the amount of enjoyment my opponent received from his book, seven hours is a lot more time-consuming than an hour and a half. It is much more practical to invest a small period of time in the enjoyment of some medium of entertainment rather than seven hours. Far more people will indulge in movies than literature because of its ridiculous way of consuming time. In the year 2006, 1 in 4 adults read no books at all. Whether it is because they are occupied with families or work, this statistic proves that movies are much more efficient than books as they consume very little time.

Now I Will State My Points

1. Not Everyone Can Process Information In Novels

My opponent's case assumes that books can serve to everyone. However, he is mistaken. Not everyone in the United States is literate, and not everyone in the United States is able to read and write in English. In Brownsville, a high percentage of first-generation Hispanics are unable to read or write in English and 43% of students are ranked as low English proficient. While books cannot cater to those who are not literate in English, movies allow them to experience entertainment in the English language.

2. Movies Are More Present In Society & Accessible

Last year, 80% of families in the US did not buy or read a book last year. Statistics show that 42% of people who graduate from college never buy or read another book again. Books are not as present or accessible in society today as movies are. On a survey taken by US citizens on their favorite entertainment mediums, the survey showed that TV was the favorite followed by the internet. Books were in second to last.

http://www.nea.org...

http://drpezz.wordpress.com...

http://hotforwords.com...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...



Debate Round No. 2
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response. I would like to ask her to use in-line citations in the future. I will defend my points and then attack my opponent’s.

1. Books are Portable

My opponent reasons that portable DVD players and portable chargers makes movies as mobile as books, and therefore allows the point to be invalidated. Which is obviously not the case, considering my points. She does not reference the other situations where the movie is sidelined: in airplanes, classrooms and in bright light. Also, we have all been in situations where we have an electronic device that was low on battery power and we were not in the vicinity of a portable charger. The book can clear airplanes, classrooms and bright light with ease while the portable charger for the book remains a laughable joke, because books do not need charging.

Continuing with my opponent’s rebuttal, she says that headphones will make the movie silent to neighbors. However, in addition with the utter oddness with seeing headphones in a public space, many people do not wear headphones, and thus annoying the people around them.

Also, when has the turning of pages, a relatively quiet event compared to modern life, caused anybody distraction? It took me a minute and a half to read one page (see my experiment with the length of the book) so it would take me three minutes to read two pages, and make that oh so annoying (sarcasm implied) sound of flipping the page.

Finally, headphones are a turnoff for people talking to them, and it may be harder to get a headphone-wearing person’s attention than a book-reading person.

My argument stands.

2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

My opponent just gives one example of a movie being adapted into a book; however, that one example does not invalidate my point. The movie industry leans on the book industry with all the movies that have been adaptations. I have listed five books, plus two series, that have been turned into movies (Pride & Prejudice, Harry Potter series, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the Sherlock Holmes series, The Adventures of Tintin, and War Horse) and can probably list a dozen more books that have been turned into movies, easily (starting with Jaws, Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, and The Golden Compass); while my opponent can only list two, and probably not a lot more that isn’t fan fiction or to further the profits of the movies. My point stands.

3. Books engage one’s imagination

For starters, Where the Wild Things Are is not supposed to be read into. IT IS A KID’S BOOK! It written for those who cannot understand symbolism or background, would it be a classic if it did? Anyway, this is one example, which does not contradict the majority of books and movies; it would be like saying “Most of the time it is not December” and somebody else saying “It is currently December, thereby my opponent’s reasoning is false.” There are many examples to the contrary, most notably the Harry Potter series, which any fan of the books can tell you.

Continuing, my opponent serves to shoot herself in the foot by listing The Phantom of the Opera as an example of how this point is wrong. I do not see how this disproves the contention it is listed under, and it further proves Contention 2; if it was not for the book, where would the play, and eventual movie, be? The movie industry, and apparently the theater industry, relies heavily on the book industry for ideas. This contention stands.

4. Books are longer

Yes seven hours is a lot more time consuming than an hour and a half. But this is not a problem with the book’s portability, which has been shown to be not only portable but more portable than movies. However, one traditionally and usually needs to see the movie in one piece, unlike the book, which can be read in chunks. This means that it is more awkward trying to see a movie rather than to read a book.

Furthermore, my opponent’s data was from 2006, meaning that the data was more or less out of date. Plus, 3 in 4 Americans read books, which is obviously a greater percentage than those who do not do not, 1 in 4. Which means that people DO find time for reading books. This argument stands.

Now I will rebut my opponent’s points

1. Not Everybody Can Process Information In Novels

Though I do make the mistake of assuming that everybody is literate, I do have exception with this point. My opponent makes the same mistake she has repeatedly made throughout her case: one exception does not nullify the whole point. According to Wikipedia [1] world illiteracy has fallen [2]; so much so that the number of nations who have a literacy index of at least 80, yes 80 percent outnumber those who do not have at least 80% literacy. In addition, she also makes the mistake of assuming that if one cannot read English, one cannot enjoy literature. Which is obviously wrong. This point is rebutted.

2. Movies Are More Present In Society & Accessible

I will divide this rebuttal into three sub-rebuttals to handle each statistic.

a) While the statistic stands, the author goes on to say, “reading is one of the most enjoyable past-times there is.” The author goes on to defend reading, and calls for people to read fun books. The statistics are for the author to further her point. This sub-point backfires.

b) Same source as A, with the added rebuttal that 58% of college graduates DO go on and read another book, which is a majority. Therefore, a majority of college graduates have books in their lives, which completely goes opposite of the point. This sub-point is rebutted.

c)This point rebuts itself: not only is TV [3] not considered a movie (ask him, he’s not ; ]), the least favorite medium was the motion picture. So the book is more popular than the movie. This sub-point is rebutted.

With 2 out of 3 sub-points rebutted, I say that I can round up and call this point rebutted.


All in all, I have affirmed the resolution: that books are superior to movies. I wait for my opponent’s response.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.debate.org...

WriterSelbe

Con

Thank you for your response.

1. Books are Portable

My opponent reasons that portable DVD players and portable chargers makes movies as mobile as books, and therefore allows the point to be invalidated. Which is obviously not the case, considering my points. She does not reference the other situations where the movie is sidelined: in airplanes, classrooms and in bright light. Also, we have all been in situations where we have an electronic device that was low on battery power and we were not in the vicinity of a portable charger. The book can clear airplanes, classrooms and bright light with ease while the portable charger for the book remains a laughable joke, because books do not need charging.

Needing a charger for a portable DVD player is comparable to needing a light for your book. Both need something or other in order to function correctly. Seeing as the two are evened out here, again, the argument is void.

Continuing with my opponent’s rebuttal, she says that headphones will make the movie silent to neighbors. However, in addition with the utter oddness with seeing headphones in a public space, many people do not wear headphones, and thus annoying the people around them.

Seeing as my opponent was the one who brought up the functionality of headphones and the requirement of their usage, I find this irrelevent. As my opponent said that one would have to turn off their movie upon landing, one would have to shut their book upon landing unless they wanted to fall down the stairs of the plane. Also, if I really wanted to, I could go off on the little annoyances one might encounter when someone is reading a book just as my opponent has with movies and planes:


    • Getting the attention of a person reading a book can be/is just as hard as getting the attention of someone watching a movie. When they are engaged in the activity, they feel less inclined to listen and distracted.
    • Books can give paper cuts. Many people can receive paper cuts from books while the watching of a movie cannot give you papercuts.
    • Myopia can be caused by/more prevalant due to constant reading due to the close proximity at which one must focus. (http://www.agingeye.net...) However, television is viewed at a distance which does not cause any damage to eyes. Both reading and the watching of television can make eyes tired, however.


2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

Seeing as I already disproved this collective and exclusive contention, my argument stands. However, I will provide that two very popular movie/television series (Star Wars, Star Trek) have been made into popular book series, so again, this argument was long disproved. As I've disproved this point, it is void and irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing.

3. Books engage one’s imagination

My example of Where The Wild Things Are does matter. The movie was more engaging to the adult minds and minds of the youth, making it more engaging to the imagination. My opponent's consistent analogies prove nothing.

The movie industry, and apparently the theater industry, relies heavily on the book industry for ideas. This contention stands.

Not at all. I proved that the Phantom Of The Opera was a failure of a book and the movie industry saved it. The book medium was far less appealing than the novel format and earned much more in revenue than the book if it earned much at all. The book owes its popularity to the industry. The movie was better.

4. Books are longer


However, one traditionally and usually needs to see the movie in one piece, unlike the book, which can be read in chunks. This means that it is more awkward trying to see a movie rather than to read a book.


A movie can be watched in chunks. Thanks to the functionality of DVD players, DVD stopping places can be remembered. Saying that one method is more awkward than the other is an opinion and not a fact. Also, the statistic stated that they do not buy or read books. The statistic did not state whether or not the people who bought their books proceeded to read or let alone finish them.

1. Not Everybody Can Process Information In Novels


My opponent makes the same mistake she has repeatedly made throughout her case: one exception does not nullify the whole point. According to Wikipedia [1] world illiteracy has fallen [2]; so much so that the number of nations who have a literacy index of at least 80, yes 80 percent outnumber those who do not have at least 80% literacy. In addition, she also makes the mistake of assuming that if one cannot read English, one cannot enjoy literature. Which is obviously wrong. This point is rebutted.


My point cannot be obviously wrong seeing as I made a perfect point and never once stated that if one cannot read English that one cannot read at all. Seeing as the national language of the US is English, the more accessible language is English. As the United States is a melting pot, the world of literature is less accomodating in our country to minorities. In most third-world countries, the adult literacy rate is below fifty-percent. Thus (http://thirdcinema.blueskylimit.com..., http://www.culturalsurvival.org...), the film industry is far more accessible, prominent, and is just better for conveying powerful messages than literature.

Also, the statistic also stated that '50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.' This means that taking the example you gave earlier, Pride & Prejudice (9-12), would be entirely inaccessible to 1/2 of the population. Anyone at that reading level wishing to understand it would have to see the movie. The movie would be better because it is more accessible.

2. Movies Are More Present In Society & Accessible

a) While the statistic stands, the author goes on to say, “reading is one of the most enjoyable past-times there is.” The author goes on to defend reading, and calls for people to read fun books. The statistics are for the author to further her point. This sub-point backfires.

The author states only an opinion, not a reliable source. The statistic can be proven and based off of, and while I see no problem in stating that reading is fun, I have only to prove one thing: Movies are better than books. I don't have to prove which is more fun or which makes more money, though movies definitely do. I just have to prove movies better than books--whether I prove it through which is more accessible or affects the population more at this current time.

b) Same source as A, with the added rebuttal that 58% of college graduates DO go on and read another book, which is a majority. Therefore, a majority of college graduates have books in their lives, which completely goes opposite of the point. This sub-point is rebutted.

While they go on to read another book, my opponent cannot state how many. While most every person who has graduated college has been to a movie or several, this states that 42% of students never read another book. My opponent underestimates the graveness of this statistic.

Now, let's look at movie statistics (http://www.natoonline.org..., http://www.natoonline.org...): In 2007, US and Canada sold 1.4 billion tickets, averaging almost five tickets per citizen. How does that compare to books?

c)This point rebuts itself: not only is TV [3] not considered a movie (ask him, he’s not ; ]), the least favorite medium was the motion picture. So the book is more popular than the movie. This sub-point is rebutted.

Definition disproves this: A story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture.

Television is considered a movie by definition. Statistic proven. Unfortunately, I have run out of room in my accurate quotation, so I have to conclude my arguments for this round. I anticipate your next response.
Debate Round No. 3
UnStupendousMan

Pro

I will again defend my points and then attack my opponent’s.


1. Books are Portable

I will affirm this point with a series of sub-points.

A) My opponent's would be a valid point if not for the fact that the DVD player needs the charger much more than the the book needs the light; but they have very different functions. A comparable object to the book light is a device used to block the sun, and, therefore, reduce glare. Both book lights and glare-reducers are expensive, unwieldy, and unnecessary. These cancel each other out. However, a charger is necessary for the DVD player to run. Books don’t need chargers. You can take a book anywhere while a DVD player is limited to it’s battery life, bright light, and the classroom. My opponent has not addressed these two situations that I have described. This sub-point stands.

B) My opponent attacked two of the points where I have said that the book is more mobile than the movie: with headphones and on airplanes. I will start with airplanes first.

My opponent points out that when on an airplane, one has to put up one’s book as well as one’s movie; however, she did not mention the hassle of putting away one’s movie while the plane takes off. She completely ignored that. And, you still have to put up you electronic device, ma’am, earlier than your book. This sub-point stands.

I will admit to bringing up headphones. To save space, I will agree that points about headphones are irrelevant.

C) As for the little annoyances:

-I will admit that getting a reading person’s attention is just as hard as getting a headphoned person’s attention, but just that. They cancel each other out. This argument is void.

-I concede paper cuts; but really, paper cuts?

-For all of you who did not know, Myopia is nearsightedness. I, myself, am nearsighted and have to wear contacts to correct that. However, the article [1] says that even though there is a correlation, [and I quote] “Proving causation is much more difficult. To better understand and study the effect of visual environment on the developing eye, research in animal models is underway. Overall it seems environmental factors do play a role - how much? - we do not know as of yet.” So, with correlation not equalling causation, or at least considerable causation, this argument is void.

To finish this, I will say that, with most of my positions validated, and the only concession being paper cuts (come on!) this entire argument stands.



2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

My opponent misunderstands this point. According to Wikipedia [2] there is roughly equal amounts of original screenplays and adaptations of books. Read that again. This means that the movie industry needs the book industry (and books like The Lightning Thief, I am Legend, and A Christmas Carol) to produce a little less than half of it’s profits. Originality makes something of a higher grade; books are much more original (and another example will not prove me wrong, because there is so little film-to-book adaptation) medium than the motion picture is. This argument stands and can only fall when my opponent can show me that the book industry also leans on the movie industry as heavily or more heavily than the movie industry.



3. Books engage one’s imagination

Where the Wild Things Are does NOT matter. The average age of the person who is reading Where the Wild Things Are is of the age where that person is starting to read. Do you think they can understand backstory? Also, according to the director [3] the adaptation was NOT supposed to be a, quote, “children’s movie.” So he was aiming at a different audience than the audience that first read the book. (I must point out that I am talking about age groups, not the actual people.) Plus, the original concept has been expanded so much, that the movie is more or less “a movie about childhood” (also a directorial quote, same source) that is original in plot with only passing in similarity to the short picture book. Where the Wild Things Are =/= Where the Wild Things Are.

Also, I, honestly, find the example of the Phantom of the Opera quite silly. All this proves is that, without the book, there would be no movie or musical. If one person liked that book so much that he turned it into a movie then obviously the book is an inspiring medium. The movie, I have to say, is much less inspiring. Also, it’s not December most of year round if it is December today; likewise, one counterexample does not disprove the whole argument. And what does this have to do with the point it is listed under?

To conclude this point, I have to lay out two examples where the book was more inspiring than the movie: Harry Potter and The Golden Compass. I will do the Boy Who Lived first.

If your argument stands about the movie being better than the book, then it would stand that the Harry Potter movies would continually get more money. This is not the case.

Here is a chart I drew up:

Movie Gross

Movie 1: $317,575,550

2 $261,988,482

3 $249,541,069

4 $290,013,036

5 $292,004,738

As you can see, the movies were a mixed bag [4]. This makes one question about the superiority of the movies.

The answer to your question is three words long: The Golden Compass. According to Wikipedia [4], not only was the critical reception largely not positive, the film was a flop and it was expensive enough for Time Warner to merge Warner Brothers and New Line Cinema, which created the film adaptation of the book. Sequels have been canceled.

My argument stands.



4. Books are longer

While it is possible to watch a movie in chunks, it is traditionally, and more likely, to be that movies are going to be watched more or less all at once. One does not start watching a movie in the morning and finish watching it in the evening. It is not the medium for that type of enjoyment; the book is.

Also, I have proven that a book can exceed the enjoyability of a movie fivefold, but my opponent has not addressed this.

My argument stands.

I will now attack my opponent’s case.



1. Not Everybody Can Enjoy Information In Novels

My point cannot obviously be wrong seeing as I made a perfect point about most of the world is literate. Here are some areas with over 80% literacy: The United States, China, South America, and the former USSR. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa has over 50% including Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa having such marks. Also, the language that the movie could and will greatly hinder the understanding. Also, there is a reason why the national language of the US is English: most people in the US speak it. If a person is low English proficient, then that person will also not understand movies in English. I can also apply this point to Pride & Prejudice: if the characters speak above the level of an eighth grade level book, then those people would not understand Pride & Prejudice the movie as well.

This point is rebutted.



1. Movies Are Present In Society & Accessible


a) I agree that we have to prove our own points. If I have strayed away from that, then I apologize.

Anyway, because the source was an opinion piece, and the author did not list her sources, then this sub-point can be nullified.



b) Though I may underestimate the graveness of the statistic, it still stands that a majority of people have books in their lives after college.


c) Definition disproves this; the broadcasting of a still or moving image via radiowaves to recievers that project a view of the image on a picture tube [6] is clearly not a movie. A movie can be on TV, but TV cannot be a movie.

This point is rebutted.

Vote PRO.

Sources are in the comments

WriterSelbe

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now defend my arguments and attack his.

1. Books are Portable


A) My opponent's would be a valid point if not for the fact that the DVD player needs the charger much more than the the book needs the light; but they have very different functions. A comparable object to the book light is a device used to block the sun, and, therefore, reduce glare. Both book lights and glare-reducers are expensive, unwieldy, and unnecessary. These cancel each other out. However, a charger is necessary for the DVD player to run. Books don’t need chargers. You can take a book anywhere while a DVD player is limited to it’s battery life, bright light, and the classroom. My opponent has not addressed these two situations that I have described. This sub-point stands.

Unless my opponent has some feline ability to see in the dark, we will all agree that it is physically impossible to read a book with no light source. Regarding the point about the necessity of a charger to the DVD player, paper is a necessity to the booking industry, however, electricity isn't directly responsible for much of the deforestation. However, this entire point in general is irrelevant to the debate as it only distracts from the important arguments, regardless of the fact that I've already proved this point void. As for me not addressing this argument, I already have addressed his arguments and I will say it again: both have certain things they need to function properly. There's no movie without energy, and there's no book without paper.

My opponent points out that when on an airplane, one has to put up one’s book as well as one’s movie.

Firstly, I'd like to address the unlikelihood that someone would get on the plane with a movie already playing on some portable device that forced them to have to turn it off and turn it back on when the plane is in the air. Also, the turning off of the movie is as simple as shutting the device. I ignored nothing. I just gave less time to arguments that held less leverage in the debate and distracted from important arguments.

I will admit that getting a reading person’s attention is just as hard as getting a headphoned person’s attention, but just that. They cancel each other out. This argument is void.

Yes, indeed it is, as the irrelevant arguments I provided on the annoyances of books proved all of your arguments on the annoyances of movies on an airplane void.

“Proving causation is much more difficult. To better understand and study the effect of visual environment on the developing eye, research in animal models is underway. Overall it seems environmental factors do play a role - how much? - we do not know as of yet.”

Let's carefully re-examine the evidence provided by my source (http://www.agingeye.net...)

Myopia has been correlated with the amount of school-work and level of educational attainment. The process continues into the third decade of life with graduate students, microscopists, and military conscripts becoming more myopic with more near work.

This is followed by the quote of my opponent. They only state that they do not know how much reading affects the eyesight. It specifically states there is a correlation, meaning that reading causes damage to the eyesite of those suffering from myopia.

2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around

To conserve my remaining characters, I will not directly cite his preceding argument. However, he states that the movies wouldn't be able to thrive without the books. Again, I state that in the example I provided of The Phantom Of The Opera that the story wouldn't have thrived without the movie industry.

This argument stands and can only fall when my opponent can show me that the book industry also leans on the movie industry as heavily or more heavily than the movie industry.

As I had stated before thus already disproved, both Star Trek and Star Wars were made into popular books that benefited the book industry, so this whole point has been long void.


3. Books engage one’s imagination

Again, my opponent begins to attack my point on the movie Where The Wild Things Are being a deeper movie than novel as an argument to his original contention yet prior to this argument persisted with his irrelevant point about airplanes.

Where the Wild Things Are =/= Where the Wild Things Are.

It's based off the book. Where the Wild Things Are = Where the Wild Things Are and was more successful and imaginative than the childrens' book. Another point negated.

Also, I, honestly, find the example of the Phantom of the Opera quite silly. All this proves is that, without the book, there would be no movie or musical.

As I already previously argued and entirely disproved, The Phantom Of the Opera was a failure of a novel as it could not communicate its message in the novel format. It owes its popularity and fame to the theatrical and movie adaptations.

The movie, I have to say, is much less inspiring.


Irrelevant and opinionated.

The answer to your question is three words long: The Golden Compass.

Might I add that the book received mass media attention and infamy after it was announced that there was a movie in production. The only reason the book was made such a big deal was because they announced that there would be a movie and the objectable content of people killing Christians was deemed objectable by the pope so the movie was boycotted.

Movie Gross

While I admit the chart is visually appealing, no contrast is made to the sales of the movies to the sales of the books, so the chart is only a nice effort at proving a point. Also, seeing as my opponent provides no sources following his citations as he required of me in-round, I'm inclined to believe this is a chart of DVD sales rather than a combination of DVD sales and Box Office reception. Point void.

1. Not Everybody Can Enjoy Information In Novels


Also, there is a reason why the national language of the US is English: most people in the US speak it.

However, there's a larger market for the dubbing of films to Espanol. Mostly best-selling or books that sell quite well are translated. Also, stating that the United States consists mostly of English-speaking people without statistical evidence holds a slightly xenophobic undertone.

If a person is low English proficient, then that person will also not understand movies in English.

The 2007 version of the movie was dumbed down to suit consumers. No point here.

Anyway, because the source was an opinion piece, and the author did not list her sources, then this sub-point can be nullified.

I have several sources stating the exact same thing. The source I listed under that specific line only held one person stating the statistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://hotforwords.com...
http://www.pickthebrain.com...
http://www.productivity501.com...

b) Though I may underestimate the graveness of the statistic, it still stands that a majority of people have books in their lives after college.

Now, let's look at movie statistics (http://www.natoonline.org......, http://www.natoonline.org......): In 2007, US and Canada sold 1.4 billion tickets, averaging almost five tickets per citizen. How does that compare to books?

While 100% of the population have movies in their lives, only 58% of college graduates have books, a grave statistic my opponent neglected to argue. My argument is validated.




Seeing as I have validated all of my arguments and refuted those of my opponent, I conclude this debate, thank my opponent for his stimulating arguments, and urge a negative ballot.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lord_Logic 2 years ago
Lord_Logic
Yeah! Go Calvin and Hobbes!
Posted by Glerpknox 2 years ago
Glerpknox
I propose a solution to this debate.

Movies with subtitles.

Then you get to read while you watch!
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 2 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
Awesome debate. Like it.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 2 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Sources:
[1] http://www.agingeye.net...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www2.canada.com.saskatoonstarphoenix...
[4] The Guinness Book of World Records 2009
[5] [accidentally listed under 4 again] http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
[6] http://followthereader.wordpress.com...
Posted by UnStupendousMan 2 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Actually... no. I have to go to bed. Sorry Writer for having you wait more than an entire day. : (
Posted by UnStupendousMan 2 years ago
UnStupendousMan
To all readers: As of 10:29 pm Central standard time, I am nearing the end of getting my case done! Sorry to have procrastinated all day from this!
Posted by UnStupendousMan 2 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Again, rats. I got the wrong font size. I will not be surprised if voters give my opponent S/G.
Posted by UnStupendousMan 2 years ago
UnStupendousMan
Rats. Started reading over and found a grammatical mistake.

It should be "will NOT be taken away if the teacher sees it" (In point 1)
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
I knew this would get snatched up. Interesting topic.
Posted by kyro90 2 years ago
kyro90
I would accept this debate if I was against you, but I am totally agreeing
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by esisCOA 2 years ago
esisCOA
UnStupendousManWriterSelbeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pros arguments supported his claim meeting his BOP
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
UnStupendousManWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments even sources to con though as she had more and hers where more reliable.
Vote Placed by LiberalHoyaLawya 2 years ago
LiberalHoyaLawya
UnStupendousManWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I give the argument to Pro for the simple reason that Con misunderstood that the burden of prove was equally shared. Pro made valid generalizations that supported his argument (i.e., MOST books are better than their film adaptations; books are adapted into movies MORE OFTEN than movies are adapted into books), but Pro only countered with anecdotal evidence (i.e., SOME films are better than their original books; SOME films are adapted into books, etc). Pro met the burden of proof; Con didn't.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
UnStupendousManWriterSelbeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets the argument point because Con's argument about books not being accessible is ridiculous. They're accessible people are just too lazy to read now days but that her argument was ill concieved. Point for Pro.