The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Newspapers are Outdated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 6/16/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,978 times Debate No: 34812
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




It is always said that what is old is gold. So I would like to start my debate by saying that No Newspapers are not outdated as there are many advantages of using newspapers. And if a person is not using a newspapers to update himself then he/she will be using any device to do so, such as television, internet, smartphone, etc.
But I believe that newspapers are the best option to get yourself updated and the reasons are:-

Today also 12,681,472 newspapers are printed everyday in UK (according to ABC figures for the nationals in November this year and for the regionals in the Jan-June period this year).

The 68 English regional dailies (mornings and evenings) together sell 2,085,116. The nine Scottish dailies sell 735,002; the six Welsh sell 183,131; and the three Northern Ireland titles sell 137,230
So is there any reason to print so many newspapers per day. Yes, because they are the cheapest source to get yourself updated but devices are not cheap. We can buy them in thousands but a newspapers can be bought for not more than 5 rupees.


If we compare devices with newspapers then obviously newspapers will not harm the eyes as an electronic devices such as smartphone and television will.Because TV set emits "cathode rays" which damage the eye directly.


To read a newspaper you don't need anything else (ELECTRICITY).But you need to recharge a device to read or to listen the news. But what if you want to read/listen news through devices but they are not charged and you have no source to charge them then in that case I think that a newspaper will be helpful.

So at last I think that newspapers are not outdated.


I thank Con for creating and allowing me to accept this debate, and hope we both enjoy it.


Con asserts that it is cheaper to update yourself on recent events by buying a newspaper than it is by buying an electronic device. Lets break this down in 2 ways.

Firstly for a one off update of news

Newspaper - You would need to purchase a newspaper at least once. This could set you back anything from 40p to £1.50 or even higher[1], depending on the paper that suits the information you want to be updated on, and the day of the week. Say we go with a cheap paper, at 50p, to give Con the benefit of the doubt that we don't fancy the expensive papers. The total cost would therefore be 50p, for a one off update of recent news.

Internet - I will use the UK as an example, firstly because I stay here, and secondly because Con used UK figures in his examples, so I want to keep things consistent. In the UK, Ever person has been granted the right to access the Internet by the Government, for free. This mean local libraries, colleges and other outlets provide free Internet access to acomodate this. This is in keeping with their recent updates to benefit systems making online job searches mandatory rather than offline ones. This means, for a one off update of recent news online, the cost is 0p.

Newspaper 50p, Internet 0p.

Now lets take it on a yearly basis, with updates daily or more if possible.

Newspaper - AT minimum, you would have to purchase a daily paper. We'll take the 50p cost again, however Saturday and Sunday papers can cost the better part of £2. So over a year your looking at £182.50, this is before the added Saturday and Sunday costs, and any evening paper costs if you want to stay further updated.

Internet - Again, you could use the free method by going to libraries etc. But I want to show that you could even have Internet, anytime of anyday, anywhere you want, to update you on news for cheaper than a daily newspaper. First we need a device to access Internet, say a tablet. You can get them cheaper, but for quickness, PC World currently have one for sale for £49. You also need Internet, Giff Gaff do tablet pc Internet goodybags for £5 a month pay as you go which would total £60 over the year. As its mobile broadband and works from a mobile phone signal, you do not need any landline or additional costs. This totals £109 and leaves £73.50 towards the cost of charging up your tablet. Now I can't say for sure the exact amount it will cost to charge this tablet, but according to the Electric Power Research Group it only costs $1.36 a year to charge an Ipad[2]. Convert this to pounds and its 87p. When we take this off from the total, the final amount comes to £109.87.

Newspaper £182.50, Internet £109.87.

Therefore, Even with buying your own device, it is cheaper over a year to update yourself via Internet. This means Cons claim that newspapers are a cheaper way to update yourself is false.


Cons second claim it that newspapers do not harm your eyes, compared to tv sets and smartphones which do harm your eyes.

Firstly, Cons source is a forum post, not an article or published paper by anyone in a respective field.

As for the claim itself. Old TV's used CR tubes, which used beams of electrons tightly focused on the screen to create an image. The electrons hit a phosphorus wire mesh screen. This wiremesh is also used as a faraday cage or shield, which prevents these electrons form going any further.

The actual image that you see is light generated from the phosphor. Unless Con is saying that letting your eyes see light is harmful, Cons point here has failed. As for newer TV's and smartphones, they are made with lcd screens etc. Which also do not emit cathode rays and have not been proven in any way to be harmful to the eyes. Con also took his claim on tv sets and applied it to smartphones without and evidence that smartphones emit cathode rays either.

The only harm from tv or smartphones close to relevant here, would be strained eyes, which is just as likely from reading small writing in a newspaper.

To sum up, Con must prove that old type tv's are infact harmful, that new types of tv's emit this same harmful ray, that smartphones do the same, and that this harms eyes. Until then Con has failed to meet the burden of proof on this claim, and the claim does not stand.


Con claims that the lack of a need for electricity helps establish that newspapers are not outdated. This is like saying smoke signals do not need electricity, but phones do, smoke signals are not outdated as a way to communicate.

Con also states "what if you want to read/listen news through devices but they are not charged and you have no source to charge them then in that case I think that a newspaper will be helpful." We could just as easily say, what if we wanted a newspaper but the shop is closed, I think a tablet pc and Internet would be helpful."

Shops have specific opening times, whereas electricity and the Internet is 24/7. So if anything, this is a reason to update yourself to Internet from newspapers. Con has not made a point that backs up the resolution in this part.


Both the Newspapers and the news in them are outdated by definition.
Outdated is defined as 'out of date' and 'obsolete'.[3]

Newspapers have to be produced. That is, a story must surface, a writer must then write about it, after that an editor must edit it, it then has to go through layout, design and printing, after which it must be delivered to the shops, and then on to the customers, who then read it.

Say this person has both a newspaper, and a tablet. The newspaper may very well tell a recent story, but any updates since the 2nd stage of that process will not be in the next days paper when this person goes to read it at breakfast. However, if at the same time they switch on a tablet pc, every update from that point until now can be at the reader, with updates as he finishes his morning tea. He could even interact with other people talking about it and ask specific question to find out even more information on the story. Therefore, at a news level, newspapers are outdated compared to tablet pc's. For this reason they are also obsolete.

As for the newspaper itself, it is an old invention, that in its print form has not evolved or changed in recent times, whereas online news has and is constantly evolving and finding new ways to engage people with news and information, meaning by definition, newspapers are outdated.


It costs more for a newspaper.
Tablets, PC's and TV does not hurt your eyes anymore than newspapers.
Electricity and Internet is an advantage for news over shops with restricted hours.
On top of these, newspapers and their articles are outdated by definition.

Debate Round No. 1


deepak7g forfeited this round.


Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
I almost accepted this.... I'm thinking about it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Valladarex 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, also good arguments by pro.