The Instigator
lpdebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mitra.abhirupa
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Digital Books

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 38750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

lpdebater

Pro

In 3 parts, the affirmatives opening statement, followed by a small rebutal from the negative moving to the opening statement of the negative, the affirmatives rebutal and then after that a closing statement.

ok here we go:

Since the beginning of digital books in the 1970s many people have wondered wether it would be a good thing. A digital book is a novel or comic that is read off of a electronic device. Many e-book companies either sell an e-reader or put out an app. The resolution of this debate is that digital books are a good idea. I"m going to debate the affirmative. Digital books are a good innovation for multiple reasons. For starters it encourages readers and writers alike by making publishing easier and getting books much faster. E-books are also a good step forward because they are environmentally safer.
First, digital books are an improvement from paper books because they are encourage both self publishers and readers. The number of books sold on paper are diminishing and move to e-books. This is simply because reading a digital book is easier than a paper back. For example The Chronicles of Narnia an almost 700 page book can be read on an e-reader as light as light as 134 grams. Self publishing has grown with e-books manly because self publishing a paper back book can be difficult yet a digital book is much easier to read and is found faster because its so much easier for the reader to find.
Second, e-books are more environmentally safe. Most of our forest have visibly deteriorated. Most readers will go through maybe 2-3 books a month, which adds up. According to the Bureau of International Recycling, in 2010 the US alone used over 5 and a half 40-foot trees per person. A percentage of that is used in paper books. Carbon dioxide levels have rose approximately 35% in the past 50 years. Losing our forest to paper books is not an option.
My opponent my try to argue that digital books are a lose of culture. Many talk of the joy or smell of new books however the same arguments were made when the telephone was phasing the letter out. Digital books are moving us forward.
As digital books evolve, they should not be fought. Digital Books are going to save forests but also encourage people to read and write, one of humans greatest capability.
mitra.abhirupa

Con

I start by wishing my worthy opponent best of luck, and warning him that mere facts won't work for me.

Well as my most intelligent contender said that 'Digital Books are going to save forests but also encourage people to read and write, one of humans greatest capability.'; well these facts are not true and I am going to prove why.

Let me start with the most basic one... the fun that we have in flipping through the soft crisp pages of new books, its smell and the excitement in getting one, these are all being destroyed by these e-books. Can you keep e-books on your tummy and flip pages...its just quick reading and a total no no for bookworms like me. You cannot obviously stack e-books in cupboards and when you are depressed, take one out and read?!

Second point, well it can't encourage people to read, because even before the reader comes to the most interesting part, his eyes will start aching, we can't read e-books for a long time. 5 or 6 pages at a time and that's all, in these cases the reader often tends to loose interest, then what's the use of reading it? Coming back to ground zero...e-books do no good, but destroys are eyes step by step and the reader being pretty unaware of the dangers.

Third "Second, e-books are more environmentally safe.", how? My contender says that they save forest, read on. More e-books means more wastage of electrical power, leading to more generation of thermal and other power stations , more loss of electricity as per the relation V*I*t*t, more construction of transmission poles, leading to the depletion of forests and wildlife.

Well, I hope this has encouraged our worthy opponent to think on my lines.
Debate Round No. 1
lpdebater

Pro

Although It may be more fun to flip through the "soft crisp pages of a new book", that joy is going to exterminate the human race. As I said earlier, in the past 50 years our carbon dioxide levels have risen approximately 35%. As population grows, those levels will increase much faster. And the main way those carbon dioxide levels are kept from skyrocketing is by global forests. Yet in the US alone more than 56% of all forest are privately owned and at risk of being cut down. You have your choice, enjoy the thick warm soft feeling of a paper book while you can't go outside because there's no oxygen left in the world, or make the switch now to digital books, because its going to happen at some point.
My oppenent stated that digtal books are not enviormentally safe due to their consumption of energy. Yet as electronics in general move forward, more awarness has been made on the problems of thermal, nuclear, and other none renuable source of power. THis leads to many power companies starting to create grenner alternatives. For example, Con Edison paired with a renuable energy company and have been all around the streets of New York informing pedestrians. Digital books often also run on very little enrgy. And slowly but surely that little bit of energy will come from solar panels, wind turbines and other forms of cleaner energy.
My oppenent also tried to argue that e-books strain the eye when reading. Many digtal book comapnies such as amazon or barnes and noble, have made very low level lighting that in my own experience has never given me any discomfort. And e-readers are still just starting up, the telephone wasn't perfected from the moment it was envented neither was the lightbulb, we're still making improvemnt on the lightbulb to this day.
mitra.abhirupa

Con

Well huh, you repeat the same point again and again , this speech will be short but yet again I'll justify myself on what I had said.

1. "As I said earlier, in the past 50 years our carbon dioxide levels have risen approximately 35%. As population grows, those levels will increase much faster. And the main way those carbon dioxide levels are kept from skyrocketing is by global forests."
Well at no point did I deny the fact. But you never said that this is due to us reading books! Now let me say that. yes CO2 level is indeed increasing and it is because of this digitizing, that more trees are being cut and more paper being produced for printing purposes. I repeat STUDY has found that printing and thus requirement of paper has increased by leaps and bounds since a decade, all due to everything electronic.

2. Have you been reading e-books since years that you will be experiencing eye problems?
Well, the glare gradually effects our eyes, and obviously not in some days. and you said that "Many digital book companies such as amazon or Barnes and noble, have made very low level lighting that in my own experience has never given me any discomfort. "; this low lighting causes more harm to our eyes, and do you want me to prove this to you biologically?

Well I am satisfied that I have proved my point well enough. You may go ahead and try telling me something else instead of discussing on the same lines.
Debate Round No. 2
lpdebater

Pro

lpdebater forfeited this round.
mitra.abhirupa

Con

Okay, my opponent forfeited the round may be because he was unavailable. I keep to what I say and do not repeat the same points here again; but post some links that will prove and reprove my point.


http://www.pcworld.com...


http://www.theguardian.com...




Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.