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

Print ( Books, newspaper, novels) is a thing of the past.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 86168
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I have gone to places and houses of people who have rich libraries and thousands of books on many subjects and by many authors. Moreover, I am not seeing the print industry dying in any way. In fact, it is flourishing and people still like to open 20-30 pages of their newspapers everyday.
We read 10 printed words and we begin to see images. I feel print is beautiful and lively. And all this technology , Kindles and Apps are downright spoiling it. I am against them.


The internet first came into force around the 1990's. This means that the only children that have grown up with it are 25 years old. With this information we can day that the newspapers have not felt the full effect of this shift and therefore any facts about the non decline are irrelevant.

What is relevant is the fact that phones can read the text to you easier while you are driving, kindles are more efficient and use loses electricity then lights and these devices can store hundreds of books and still be portable. These devices are more durable and better then books and manuscripts. Overall the technology is leads likely to be wrecked and is easier to access. This means that the decline of the newsprint industry is imminent.

There has been a transition. Playboy will no longer post nudes as I is too easily found on the internet. Mcleans and almost all modern magazines and newspapers at now available online. This spells the downfall of the newspaper and the rose of technology. It is for these reasons that this resolution will and must Stand.
Debate Round No. 1


I myself am part of these 25 years you mention. And I am still not taken in by the fact that these years are irrelevant. Technology is bad for many reasons. The toll all these devices are taking on our eyes is immeasurable. Children aged 3 and 4 years have to use glasses that 70 year olds do. And once you lose these devices, then getting them back is usually impossible.

Also, every country isn't so developed and rich. I am from India, and I know when it comes to reading, even millionaires here read newspapers brought fresh to them from the press. The smell fresh pages and printed newspapers have is something you can never experience with texts and technology. Everyone cannot afford devices and when it comes to educating themselves and making themselves aware, even poor people use books and newspapers.

One will never wish to make their personal diaries personal Word documents. We all NEED paper to make us feel alive, to make us feel nostalgic seeing those slightly yellowed pages.
Even people who I see having 5 Apple devices go to the stands and buy magazines.

Roald Dahl used to only write on yellow pages in pencil. So does Ruskin Bond. Their writings will never be rich if they type.
And when technology finally becomes too much for humanity, I am sure all of us will go back to our grass-root levels.


Thank you for your wonderful speech. Before I move onto my speech, I will first refute and rebut a few points of my opponents. First off my apologies if you are part of the generation that didn't grow up with technology, but what I am stating is since the people growing up with technoligy as it is now have only begun to mature I the past few years, there is no concrete data about the effects of technology on the industry as the majority of the working population is still firmly ingrained in the past.

I would like to point out that if used properly, screens do not take a tool on eyesight. Also if books are read in a dark background or with bright, or unsuited light, it can also cause eye damage. Millionaires are not really valued into this equation being as that if you are very rich, it also will mean that you are eccentric and can also afford to do what you like with your money. We do not NEED paper to make us feel alive. I feel just as alive typing this retort as I would writing it with pen and paper, and it takes me less time to type then it does to write. Just because two very good writers prefer pen and paper when they write does not mean it is good. Also their writings are not produced by hand, they are typed up and produced digitally.

Now that I have refuted my opponents points I will move on to my constructive speech. First off books can only be read by one person at a time and only a certain amount of copies are printed. If I lose a library book, then that copy of the book is no longer at the library for others to read. You cannot take away a online copy of a document, given as there are many websites that will host it, and It can be directly downloaded to your computer. Also certain manuscripts, there are only one copy of, and only scholars can read. Using technoligy, anyone can read these manuscripts and never have to risk breaking it or ripping the pages. A book can be burnt, lost and waterlogged, although the same can be said for a phone, people are much more careful with their technoligy then they are with one copy of a book.

Online copies of books are also cheaper, as it takes a lot less money to distribute and to obtain. This means that I can buy three books for the price of one paper book. Also the fact is that with a digital library, stores my purchases on the cloud. If I lose my phone, my purchases always come back to my next device. This shows that even if you lose your copy of the book you can re obtain it for no cost, unlike a paper copy.

This is not to mention the environmental impacts of cutting hundreds of trees for one day's edition of a newspaper, that after being read once, gets left on a subway seat, or thrown away. It is simply not economically or environmentally viable to use paper copies.

It is for these points that I believe as side Pro that this resolution must and will stand. Thank you, and I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your argument.

You first said that manuscripts can be accessed on Internet which is better. Dear sir, they are called manuscripts for a good enough reason leading to them having only one copy. It makes them authentic and precious enough. Do you think a person will like reading the manuscript when it does not feel like one? I don't think so.
You also mentioned that online copies are cheaper. If you would have noticed the recent trends, you would see that in fact they aren't. Coupled with Internet charges, use of electrical energy and your device itself, printed books are much much cheaper. You just need to go buy them. Everyone cannot have a WiFi connection at home because people aren't simply born with it.

You also stated that 'It is simply not economically or environmentally viable to use paper copies.' and I will prove your statement factually incorrect.
You are aware of the recent global climate fiasco. Printing has a one time carbon footprint. Digital media requires energy each time it is viewed. Printed material can be recycled and is less harmful than electronic devices. Digitals need to become more sustainable in nature.

You also stated that once you lose a book, you can't find it in the library. Well, it isn't the only place where you get books. You have numerous shops, stands, helpful-lending friends who you can borrow it from. Books can never die.

Internet text is not in any way permanent. An add that comes into cyberspace is lost in a short time, whereas if you get a tea stain on your book you will always remember how.
Also, print seems so legitimate and credible. The fear we have of spams and viruses does not make us feel like clicking so many links but with books and newspapers, they do not come with a hazard warning. There is no danger with an add print. (Yay!)

A study shows that people read digital screen text 20% " 30% slower than printed paper. People are involved in reading printed material more. Even after these so called 25 years you mentioned. Us fanatics have immortalized it well enough.

And the biggest reason why print is an advantage is because you can reach it anywhere, any time. Even if you don't have a signal and the world has broken down you can still pick up the newspaper and know who has dumped who in Hollywood.

Technology cannot stand without print.
But print can stand without technology.

Thank you.


Thank you very much for your final argument. I will now conclude the debate by rebutting your points, and finishing up with a conclusion, so lets begin shall we.

You mean to tell me that I should go to Ireland, stand in line for an hour, and pay my admission, to look at a glass case, which inside sits 2 pages a day of the Book of Kells?
I really don't think so. I can download it and then read the book of kells (which is just one example of this sort of thing) a precious manuscript anywhere I want.

My point of it being cheaper is that you do not buy your phone solely for the books, internet charges can easily be avoided as most people have unlimited internet or can go to a place with free wifi, and the electricity is already used to charge your phone anyways, it is a minimal increase.

You do not need to have wifi at home, as you can simply download the book and then you have it anywhere offline. Basically the book is stored in the memory of your device and is then recalled at any time.

Energy can be made to be renewable. Since your phone is already going to be recharged anyways, it is not a waste of electricity as you would be using it anyways. Since the electricity is already going to be used, your argument is invalid because it is less of an impact then tree cutting.

My point of losing books is that the copy is gone forever. Using technology I can recover my copy and have it downloaded to my phone again, or I wouldn't lose the copy altogether, as it is stored digitally.

I would ask why internet text is not permanent. If I type it and place it on a USB stick and multiple places, it will not disappear. If something is placed on the internet, it will be spread far and wide, until it cannot be lost as it is in too many places.

You state that you can read a book faster. If I use a digital reader then it will allow me to have it read to my while driving, and other places. It allows me to read it faster in a way so that I can read it anywhere, and have it read to me.

Technology is the evolution of print!
Print is mortal!
Technology is immortal!

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Blade0886 8 months ago
Eh, tbh, books and newspapers at the very least are still relevant(novels are books, so I put them in that category). Phones reading the text while you're driving? Not only is that extremely dangerous(for the same reasons why calling while driving is prohibited and dangerous), but it also not allow you to fully appreciate the story you're "hearing", in this case, since you're multitasking your attention to the road and the phone, and prevents you from only thinking of that story you're reading/hearing. Kindles are practical, but won't have the feel a book has. A kindle is bland, monochrome and not harmonious to look at. A book can have customisable options such as the cover, a particular police format, images fit in-between the text, etc etc... Plus, the durability of those things are up to debate. A book will never "malfunction" if you drop it on the ground, while a Kindle can. Both are very sensitive to deep water exposure, and the only real way to damage a book beyond reading is ripping off a page.
No votes have been placed for this debate.