The Instigator
qkrwlstn403
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zero
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Books are better than movies

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,436 times Debate No: 5133
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

qkrwlstn403

Con

because movie is acted out by living person live, it is way more entertaiining than dull paper books. It has cool action, sound effect, and also cool special effects.
Zero

Pro

Greetings to my fair audience as well as my opponent. Contrary to the beliefs submitted in the comment section, I would hope that this isn't just another spam debate. I'm slightly let down by the fact that my favorite character is no longer in control of the black knights, hence, this would be another let down. But in any case, let us begin.

My opponent states: "because movie is acted out by living person live, it is way more entertaiining than dull paper books. It has cool action, sound effect, and also cool special effects."

. . . but quite frankly, this is a highly flawed argument. The first two points will rebutt his argument and the third will be a point of my own.

1) First, it was never clarified as to what constitutes as being "better." Sure, my opponent could say that it is better in the sense that movies are more "entertaining", but then I could come back and say that books are better in the sense of being educational (reading comprehension and creativity to be precise), hence, my "better" would cancel out his better, thus suggesting that movies and books are equal, therefore negating the resolution.

2) But to go further in the ideas present in the above point, I would have to say that books in fact have far more potential to be entertaining than films as books force an individual to make good use of his/her imagination, therefore putting the ideas presented in said book within the individuals vision. Therefore, matters such as "bad acting", bad CGI, and such are never bound to be a problem for the reader at hand. Whereas in films, an individual cannot use his/her imagination and is forced to rely on what is presented in the film.

3) Films simply can't afford to present as many ideas, plot points, and sufficient character developments as books can. This is simply because films typically have no choice but to be conservative when it comes to the time limit (as lets face it, hardly anyone is going to want to watch a 10 hour movie. In all honesty, have often have you seen a film only to walk out and complain about it not having lived up to the standards of the book. This has happened quite often (Eragon, Narnia, The Bad Seed, as well as many comic book films are excellent examples of this).

Thus, I believe I've done my job in maintaining my side of the resolution. Based on the arguments I've submitted, it can most certainly be agreed that films are not superior to books. That is all for round 1.
Debate Round No. 1
qkrwlstn403

Con

Movies are more developed in like sound effects and also the special effects and would entertain the audience more than books that only has boring words on paper. Also, movies are much easier for the reader or the audience to understand the plots or the meaning, but for books, they can't show anything except words so they cannot express much like the movie does.
Zero

Pro

My opponent says "Movies are more developed in like sound effects and also the special effects and would entertain the audience more than books that only has boring words on paper."

Apparently, my opponent has not read a word of my R1. If he had, he'd know that I specifically went into covering how books still have more entertainment potential in spite of the fact that movies have CGI and sound effects. A book forces one to use his/her imagination, which is unlimited and never below one's expectations, whereas the same cannot be said for a film as the special effects are consistently a hit or miss for most films of today when it comes to the audience. In fact, this is the very reason Christopher Nolan insisted that there be a very limited amount of special effects in his recent Batman films.

"Also, movies are much easier for the reader or the audience to understand the plots or the meaning"

Not true. Since books completely rely on words, they can specify and give readers more of an understanding, whereas in films, not only will there often be many distractions (overuse of CGI, some hot actor/actress, etc), but they are often forced to limit themselves as explaining something would take far too much time (and time isn't of the essence for a film, which I explained in the previous round).

And that's pretty much all my opponent brought up in his last round. At no point does he address any of my contentions. Since all of these contentions demonstrate that the resolution is false, I ask that they be carried over to this round and that you note that my opponent has impeded this debate by not responding to them.

END OF ROUND 2!
Debate Round No. 2
qkrwlstn403

Con

qkrwlstn403 forfeited this round.
Zero

Pro

Zero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
http://www.debate.org...

Read my comment (first one).
Posted by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
Exhibit A: The Firm. Exhibit B: Who cares? Pro wins by default.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
This is how I look at it:

The act of watching movies is passive; there is little sacrifice attempting to complete a movie. And a lot of movies are pleasurable.

The act of reading books is active; there is a big sacrifice in attempting to complete a book. However, good books, in my opinion, are better than the best movies. The best books on the other hand, are just incomparable with any other type of pleasure.

I just finished reading "Atonement" by Ian McEwan. It was godly. I highly, highly recommend it.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
From the looks of it, my plot armor is stronger than yours right now.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
Ah, seemingly true, but you forget one thing.

I AM Zero. Not even the plot itself is a match for my tactics. :D
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Zero:
You cannot access the internet from the Sword of A.
You are making an illegal move :o
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
I should note that when I said "In all honesty, have often have you seen a film only to walk out and complain about it not having lived up to the standards of the book."

I meant to say "In all honesty, HOW often have you seen a film only to walk out and complain about it not having lived up to the standards of the book?"

That is all.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Spam, reported as such.

25 characters
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Every time someone says you don't like books, a kitten dies. I hope you are happy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
qkrwlstn403ZeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07