Is reading good for you
Debate Rounds (3)
Con gets to argue that reading is good for you and why. NO 1st round acceptance.
My other argument is that reading and writing is a way to communicate between humans that is better than verbally. Without books how would we learn anything? I mean it could mean that we would turn into like the Greeks and how each port and city had different stories to a particular legend would you want the stretched story that is a little different or the absolute truth?
Without Reading and Writing our lives, past experiences, future evolutions could be completely different because without reading how could we document new or old findings that could alter human expansion? And have others learn it as well. Without reading and writing you and I might have never came to this world.
POINT 1. Public schools in general have desks and, for many kids who sit in the back of the rooms, have to strain their eyes anyways just to see the whiteboard/blackboard/Smart-board. The kids go home, do their routine--which may include watching TV, where they could be damaging eyes (that is a controversial subject)--and then the kids have homework which most of the time includes reading. This is another place where the kids hurt their eyes yet again.
POINT 2. It is very easy to overlook (see what I did there) the fact that, if you are reading without enough light, your eyes will be effected for the worse later in life because of straining. This is a problem for a lot of people, adults and kids, and it is a factor for why so many people have glasses.
POINT 3. Reading at an early age effects their eyesight later in life. Is it good when kids learn to read at an early age? Particularly girls, since not many boys find interest in reading at an early age, like to read aloud to themselves when they are very young and take eager practice to learning new words. This is where #2 (above point) comes in. If they do not have enough light and are practicing--sometimes hours a day--at as early as 3-4 years old, reading can't be very good for you. In other--Asian--countries most schools do not allow kids to be taught to read until a certain age, for different reasons, but for one because it starts to slowly destroy your original eyesight. CONCLUSION: children shouldn't be taught to read at as early an age as below 6 years old. (That's an opinion of course, but that's what we're debating here.)
REBUTTAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT:
You are arguing that the technology and engineering part of reading is good, the part which advances society, but the debate here is about YOUR experience with reading and if it's healthy for you. The reason that the debate is not about what you were saying is because I agree with you on that.
Your POINT 2 is disregarded because most people our days will have Kindles and IPADs to read. Or they are by a lamp or snuggled under a tree. Also why are glasses so bad? Well if people call you 'Four Eyes' I'd get it but our days most people have glasses and it's in the "norm' " pretty much and they don't really cause problems other than how they cost and if they break.
:POINT 3: I agree with kids not allowed to read at a certain age but there's a difference between Asian countries and America and that difference is. . .
We have junk TV and they don't so put it this way: would you rather them learn their ABCs or watch Ben 10 and Barbie?
My other thoughts on bad eyesight is that later (duh, Ben everything will happen later because you know we're 'merican)
we will have technology that will fix our eyes and maybe even progress them even farther. We are already getting started because I saw this one guy have a robot eye that can take videos.
My own views on reading: I love to read and not only has it made me the way I am but it also made me realize that there is a god because I read the Bible and many myths and what I realized is that they are practically the same other than some settings or names so they aren't really that different. If you want me to give some examples just ask though they won't have anything to do with reading mostly Theism vs. Atheism.
Back to you. . .
JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.
ben671176 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters practiced good conduct. S & G - Tie. Both debaters practiced proper spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro focused solely on the potential for harm from reading in regards to vision. Con presented a case that covered the benefits of reading in a manner that touched on both socioeconomic benefits, but also the history and value that comes with knowing how to read and communicate via written language. In terms of rebuttals, Pro failed to provide any solid rebuttal. There was an attempt to twist the resolution out of it's original context by Pro, but Con quickly shut that down. On the flip side, Con provided rebuttals for each contention raised by Pro. Sources - Pro. Pro was the only one to utilize sources throughout the debate. A word of advice is to always utilize sources to strengthen your points, and never forfeit a debate. Even if your opponent does. Simply type in - "Extend arguments." Good job to both debaters.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.