The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Is reading good for you

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 819 times Debate No: 56760
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Seriously, I started reading at age four and have read all my life, which lead to writing, which led to looking at words so often. Now I have to get glasses and the straining of eyes, at an early age, might be a factor of why. I think reading is fun, in SOME cases, but it strains your eyes and that is not good for you...but then again where else do you get great, creative juices?

Con gets to argue that reading is good for you and why. NO 1st round acceptance.


The health issues you are describing are in fact debatable on how far they could progress to worsen, but truly reading is the biggest leverage you could have. What if you couldn't read it would be a way for the government to clamp on you. Just like what happened in history. Like for example: Egypt. The men that learned to write became wealthy and well respected. Would you be the scribe in a palace or an illiterate slave working in the quarry? Never mind that, another example is how kings tricked their people in doing what they want by changing the bibles contexts and the people didn't know because they didn't know how to write.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


So you are arguing that reading makes better communication and I am arguing that the fact that it strains your eyes is quite dangerous and a reason why so many people have glasses/contacts.

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.)


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.



This debate is on wether or not reading is good for you. I explained how it contributes to society. But it seems like you are angry on how it destroys your eyes. You also point out other objects/activities destroy your eyes like TVs and computers. Many people would be angry at you for putting TVs and books in the same category because most people would agree TVs hurt your eyes and brain more.

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. . .
Debate Round No. 2


JasperFrancisShickadance forfeited this round.


ben671176 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jesusfan 2 years ago
Reading is very important. If you look at all the great writers they always read a ton. Reading gives you a good foundation in history, writing, poetry, and a lot of other things. Yes, it may hurt your eyes, but I'd rather have my eyes hurt than be at a disadvantage. My family focuses a ton on reading, and my siblings all agree that it was beneficial.(That says a lot, there's twelve of us.)
Posted by anthocurran 2 years ago
Reading is good for you for eg if you had to go to the shop and you cant read you will not know what to get so my opinion is reading is good for you
Posted by Jikpamu 2 years ago
I can't believe people are really debating whether reading is good for you...

OF COURSE IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
No, the question is "Is Reading Good for You" I'm "for" the fact that reading isn't. OK, yeah, it is pretty confusing.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
Shouldn't you be con? It is kind of confusing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
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.