Newspapers should be made online
Debate Round Forfeited
RNG_REKT has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||151 times||Debate No:||93252|
Debate Rounds (3)
Additionally, I'd like to ask if the resolved (Newspapers should be made online) means "Newspapers should ONLY be made online." My following arguments will be based upon that assumption, due to the fact that it will be too difficult to create an argument if the resolved was "SOME newspapers should be made online."
Also, I will admit that I read my news online. However, my opinion and habits should NOT be one of your arguments, nor should it be associated with any of your contentions. Failure to comply with my burdens will result in your forfeiture. Thank you.
First of all, I would like to say that many of the paper newspapers are far more accessible than the newspapers than the ones on the Internet. Now, I know what you are probably thinking: "What a f**cking idiot! It's on the Internet; of course it's more accessible than a paper newspaper!" However, think about the people without the access to a smartphone. About 1/3 of the population (of US) does not have a smartphone or other easily accessible connection to the Internet. If you wanted to get news, but you had little access to the Internet, where would you get news? If all newspapers were online, where would you get information about ISIS, or Trump, or sports? Any way you put it, it would be very inconvenient to get the news without a smartphone.
Additionally, the people without Internet access would just need to pay $1.50, and then they would get the newspaper. The newspaper (paper) contains all the important news, and it goes into details. Plus it has comics! Some of today's online newspapers are unreliable and incomplete, and looking at the news online is inconvenient and irritating. Instead of reading about the polls or the newest terrorist attack, you get bombarded with ads that are stupid and/or immodest. I personally don't give a f**k about 95% of the things that pop up on the screen when I want to read the news! I just wanted to read about the latest stupid thing that Trump said, but due to the inconvenience and stupidity of modern-day mobile newspapers, I find that searching for news online is saddening and irritating.
Furthermore, I would like to make the point that newspapers are not as resource-consuming "entities" as you seem to believe. Instead, many of the newspapers today are made from recycled and environmentally friendly resources. In fact, it is estimated that about 210 million trees per year are saved by recycling for newspapers! Newspapers might feel *a little* heavy, but much of that weight comes from an oily substance that covers the newspaper, not the actual paper. That's why the paper is so thin on a newspaper. Also, by paying for these supplies, it helps the economy and things!
Lastly, newspapers have swag and chill. This isn't much of an argument, but I'll introduce it anyway. I have yet to see a movie where the old guy looks up information/news on his phone. Nope, he always sits on a chair and then reads a PAPER newspaper. It's one of the most cliche movie themes that I have seen. In fact, if you see a movie in which the old person reads a phone for his news, you should tell me. It would be life changing.
Thank you for your time and consideration, judges and debater.
You say 1/3 of the population don't have smart phones or "easily accessible" connection. You forget that pc's, tablets and other electronic gadgets are still not dead. Moreover, you don't have any source to back this up, neither have you defined your terms. If by "easily accessible" connection your survey meant that it was 2g, then it doesn't count as I am still using a wifi with 500 kb/s speed, which is quite low.
Furthermore, you forget the issues in the paper newspaper as well. Suppose if the delivery transport got stuck in a traffic jam, or the company's driver met an accident. Where would you get your news then? In the internet, you can easily find a place with wifi and get it once more, but in the newspaper you would have to wait till the next day.
As for pop-up ads, I am sure news companies can be satisfied by keeping the normal ads that they have in the paper format, such as a product's advertisement or property dealers. There should be no pop-up ads, and this aspect depends entirely on the company and developer. Small banner ads are a more subtle and tolerable form of ads.
1.5 dollar is the price of the internet according to you, yet a monthly newspaper bill costs about the same or a little more, I think. At my place the bill is 2.25 dollars. Now, we can see which is cheaper. An ad-free version can be developed as well.
Moreover, you said "I just wanted to read about the latest stupid thing that Trump said" developers could easily invest time and develop a search engine once online is the only medium. You can't do that so fast in a newspaper, turning pages and scanning with our ordinary human eyes.
210 million trees that are "saved" were supposed to be cut down for newspapers! So, in fact you saved nothing! It's like I have a cake that I have to eat, but instead I find yesterday's leftovers and eat them, therefore I save the cake! It is just delaying the inevitable. Another point to add is that not all newspaper companies are environment-friendly. This depends entirely on the company's' management, funds and locality. And that oily substance must be some overly used up resource as well, and you haven't rebutted ink. Save paper and slow down global warming!
Trees used up
In addition to that, I found out this source that claims that the Sunday newspaper of the US uses up 500,000 trees everyday. Do I need to do the math? We will be saving all those trees if we stop paper production.
Firing my fusion cannon has a lot of cool too, yet we all know it isn't good. As for the old man reading newspaper, may I remind you that during his time there were no online mediums, and he finds it unnecessary to learn when his time on this Earth is nearly over. Furthermore, once paper production is stopped, the cool will fade off. And for those old school people, they can easily print it out at home if they wish to. We can't stop people from all that stuff, now can we?
Many newspapers are constricted to a region, such as Delhi times to Delhi and Times of India to India. Online, it could be shared around the world to all the curious viewers out there. It would also dramatically reduce transport cost, for there will be no more manual labor. Lesser Printing machines and offices would be needed as well.
Some newspapers come only in English, and others in the regional language. All these newspapers have different content. Online, we could have a flimsy but useful translation of the article.
Faster connection with the audience
In the case of newspapers, we have to wait until the next day to get the recent news, but with online reporting, we would have it instantly, as soon as the reporter writes it, it will be there.
Sometimes newspaper articles can't be too long as there is a limit to the number of pages a newspaper has. But there shall be no such limit on online newspaper apps. Furthermore, if I miss out on some issue and I lost the paper/dropped water on it, I would have to contact the archives to get it and pay extra. But online, everything is stored forever and I can easily have a look of the 2016 issue (in 2050) for history projects or simply remembering the old times.
People can react to different articles online, such as questioning the article's validity or expressing support for it/disapproval. With the paper, you can only contact the reporting agencies or discuss with nearby readers, which is not a great audience, as it is hard to put in all the efforts to find and contact the journalists, and it doesn't seem very realistic when you go up to a neighbor's home asking if he read the article in the newspaper. Online, a comment and like/dislike section could be easily made and discussions about these issues start taking place.
This is one of the longest arguments I have wrote, please don't crush it fully (this is also an opinion, not to be rebutted)
I was unable to find any rebuttal
You are a good debater, I must admit
But the current topic was too hard to debate against, regardless of our skill
You are good, though
Also, if it is possible, I'd like to see if you could come up with any new arguments from my point of view.
Now, I hope there's no strike back in round 3.
Thank you for this fun debate. Trust me, there are much better debaters than me on this site, and I am but an amateur.
I also had done this debate before (on this site only, of course) so I guess I had more time.
This is my other debate which was similar to this, for all the source needers out there-
As for arguments for your side, I would have brought up the eyesight point and electricity consumption, but then they could have been rebutted by pointing out paper also reduces blink rate and that printers utilize electricity.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.