Newspapers should be made online
Debate Round Forfeited
tinkercharms 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:||8 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||194 times||Debate No:||93304|
Debate Rounds (3)
Con will be arguing all newspapers should remain offline and be a news "paper".
Forfeiting counts as automatic loss.
Start arguments in round 1.
I will be using my previous debates to bring up my arguments.
Who decides what is to change and what isn't? If it is wholly beneficial to society, why not change? Imagine when the internet was developed, someone said that they wanted old-school communication to continue and shut down the program. Then where would we be now? No internet, no electronic devices' connectivity, and no debate.org.
There are issues in the paper newspaper as well. Suppose if the delivery transport got stuck in a traffic jam, the company's driver met an accident or you are away from home. Where would you get your news then? In the internet, you can easily find a place with wifi again and get it once more even from remote places like Antarctica, but in the newspaper you would have to wait till the next day and be present at your registered address.
1.5 dollar is the price of the average internet connection, 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 online as well for a little more money, at least it would spare me the Pizza Hut pamphlet.
Moreover, developers could easily invest time and develop a search engine once online is the only medium. You can't do searching so fast in a newspaper, turning pages and scanning with our ordinary human eyes. Searches for Trump's speech or Barcelona's score would be aided that way.
Contrary to con's predictions, I believe that jobs will increase if newspapers are made online. All the old reporters and other people would still be working online to publish their articles, and a new team of web developers and coders will be added. Only thing that would be damaged is the manual transporting center, but there are many uses for transports except sending newspapers, and it will be balanced by the new web devs.
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. Newspapers also use up lot of ink, and is wasting another natural resource. Save the paper, the ink, the money and the Earth! (slow down global warming)
Another point to add is that not all newspaper companies are environment-friendly. This depends entirely on the company's' management, funds and locality. Therefore, newspapers are still damaging to the environment.
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.
Sources (My old debates on this topic)
Around 7.2 billion people on this planet, and over 4 billion of them don"t have the technology to even look that number up! That's 60% which is "General" Population, the number is grater than people who do have Internet.
While Internet may be cheaper average here is about $0.96 and the newspaper is about $2.5, Ads on the other hand are very unavoidable whether they are E-version or paper, that's how people make money, not everyone is aware of Ad-blockers and such, and NO website is automatically going to set up an ad blocker especially one in which is a Newspaper website! Developers do not need anymore aid in what they do, they already make more than average, we do not need to make the job easier for them. We can still look for Trumps STUPID speech, or The leafs score, through paper?!
Trees Used up?
Tress are dying anyway? The main cause of trees dying is not "death from harvest" it's actually "death from its environment". GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL BS.
Of course EVERYONE!! wants to save the planet.
Of course people THINK they are saving the planet, but they are not.
Today is cost us about $50 to $60 a ton to simply throw or trash away into landfills. To recycle, it costs THREE TIMES MORE. To send men to your house to pick up your and handle your recyclables costs $150 a ton.
All the newspapers I read; Local ones of course, and they ALL have global columns telling me about things that happen world " Hostage crisis leaves 28 dead in Bangladesh diplomatic zone" "Turkish official: Attackers were from Russia, Central Asia" were in the paper recently? Location is not an issue?Languages?
I'm just assuming here but I'm pretty sure, if you were in a 'French' country your newspaper is mmm? FRENCH?
mine is English?
the ones in INDIA? Hindi?
they are made to the language needed
As far as I'm concerned peoples reaction is different depending on the person, a like and dislike button, alright! because that is going to do so much for this world, what ever happened to discussing the news(paper) with co-workers, neighbors? now we come down to hey lets like and share on Facebook, we are loosing general social skills because of the Internet.
Many people are not educated either, and many don't want a newspaper subscription. I would assume that those who read newspapers know how to read and write, as well as have some money to spend on newspapers. Furthermore, newspapers going online would promote the use of internet and technology. Also, where's your source on the 4 billion? Does the 4 billion refer to internet subscribers or internet users? Cause 1 wifi can give help to many people, yet it is only one subscription officially. And 2 people sometimes use the same device, so that counts too.
Ad-free versions for every app are available for a little more price. It could be that ad-free monthly costs a few dollars more than the normal version.
Con hasn't rebutted my search option. Suppose I want to know about a certain crime that happened cause I am a detective. Why shall I waste time scanning the entire crime column, especially when the crime I am investigating is insignificant and not in the noteworthy list of media? A search bar in the newspaper is definitely beneficial.
I don't know what BS means, but I think you are not a believer in global warming, therefore I revert to the primary argument of timber. If we use up so many trees, soon there won't be any trees left, and therefore no timber and no paper. Furthermore, stopping paper production should lower the value of wood and paper as more trees are freed up, and we shall be able to buy manufacture and buy cheaper products.
Save trees, save resources! Recycling costs a lot, I agree, and that is why we should stop utilizing this obsolete resource altogether. Then shall be no need to start the cycle of newspaper production at all!
Not rebutted by con. Manual labor costs a lot.
Suppose if I want to read the Delhi Times cause I really like that newspaper, but I am gone for a shipment in Mumbai, what to do then? Online, I can open any newspaper from anywhere. Offline, I am limited. Consequently, every newspaper has different content, and reading a different version means we miss out on the one we wanted to read.
Con forgets about regional languages and foreigners/immigrants. Suppose I went for a shipment to France this time, and the damn newspaper is in French, then what? Google translate helps out online, Typing the paper out is madness. Or the fact that some places utilize multiple languages, and have different newspapers for each language. Some people forget their native language or don't know how to read or write it (like me), only know how to speak it, which is a disadvantage.
Okay go to your friend and say "Hey did you read the New York Times article on global warming? It is pathetic!" Come on, it is not necessary our co workers read the same newspaper, same issue, and same article. On the other hand, online we can find people to debate the article with, for it is a newspaper app and therefore there will only be newspaper readers. We can also give feedback to journalists.
Contrary to what con thinks, many developers struggle for money even today. Free apps, hacks, giveaway sites and other stuff severely impact business. It is a tough job to make an app, and even tougher to get an audience for it.
Points not rebutted by con
As we can see, con didn't provide any arguments for his side, only there were rebuttals to my points. Con's round 1 arguments have been refuted and con hasn't backed them up. Since this is the final round, and con's case remains weak, vote pro.
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.