Reading is more fun than watching a movie
Debate Rounds (5)
Also, we can carry books anywhere, maybe when you are waiting for someone at a local cafe, and for travelling. Do books need recharging at all? No. Does reading a book requires a headphones? No. Carrying a laptop around is a hassle. And yes, we can watch movies on our phones, but but when the picture is that small, I have to wonder what the point is.
She has to break the subjective barrier and show that reading is superior to movies. This is her burden and with the issue being entirely subjective she almost has not shot. Read is more fun to who? This is generally applied on a on balance level, but with box office sells and how many people go the movies and watch things, along with TV we can clearly see that the mast consensus is movies are better. So if this is an on balance stance the debate ends there.
2) Visual Graphics
Graphics are the best part to movies, as it's actually fun to physically see what is going on. Being able to watch and see special effects and sharing the moments with friends and family, is a major advantage.
3) Movies are quicker
It gives you a pretty good idea what happens in a book in nearly 1/10 of the amount of time it would take to read it. It could take you nearly 20 hours to read a book while movies sum up the book in a hour and a half with great effects and entertainment.
My adversary has the BOP to show that books are better than movies, which is an impossible stance as it is subjective
1)I also agree to what you said: "box office sells and how many people go the movies and watch things", but I believe that you are also aware of the best-selling books everywhere, not only movies are being viewed mostly.
2) Stating that you are a fan of graphic in movies, some people prefer the surrounding to be formed in their minds. The book makes you the director. There are never bad special effects in books because you create the images in your own head and they come out flawlessly.
3)"Reading books takes longer than watching a movie" is a phrase that people often say when you open up this kind of topic. Some people would argue that it isn't an advantage to be time consuming but in terms of the cost to enjoyment ratio I would very much like my enjoyment to go for more than an hour or two.
Of course movies can be viewed with a group, but is there a law stating that you can't share books at all?
You open it, you read it.
4)What I hate in watching movies sometimes, is that characters do not mind about grammar, while reading, improves your language.
Also, people say, books hurts trees, but then you'll not have education. How can you study without a book?
They are for entertainment, so do not worry about "It could take you nearly 20 hours to read a book while movies sum up the book in a hour and a half with great effects and entertainment." Therefore if you are finding a good source of fun like reading a story, you wouldn't bother about how long it gets. You just want the fun.
Reading is for everyone, but not every book is for each. "Read is more fun to who?" To anyone who appreciates it.
She also agrees that movies are watched a great deal by many people. This is a topic about fun, and since we can logically conclude that most people go to the movies to watch because they are fun, that is a point in favor of me. People would not simply go to go , they have to have some sort of entertainment value for them to go. My adversaries BOP is to show that books are of a *grater* fun.
Some people don't visualize well. Movies help them see what is in their imagination and thus it is really enjoyable.
She says longer is better I disagree. Where someone does not have the time to read a book, they can go watch a movie and get the general idea along with fun graphics and depictions of what happened in 1/10 the amount of time.
Learning about grammar and new words is a educational benefit. That does not add value to fun, as that is what this debate is about. The rest of her points are also non sequiturs
C) Why I will win this debate
My adversary has given herself an impossible BOP. She has to show books are *greater* than movies, and she has did nothing but assert that thus far. Therefore she has not affirmed the resolution with validity.
Reading your argument, do you actually think that you made a better argument? I believe that you haven't proven your side also. You only talked about: Movies are less time, and that people watch it.
I understand, less time, sales, graphics. But have you seen what I was talking about?
More time, more fun (Which you disagree, understandable, It looks like we seek different kinds of entertainment). This is where movies fall short, even with the advent of advanced CGI (Computer Generated Imagery). The problem is that everything is pretty much given to you on the a silver plate. You don"t have to imagine what the characters look or sound like or what the surroundings look like.
This can also can limit the scope of a movie, especially if the budget is somewhat limited. CGI can be incredibly expensive and so can on-location shooting so unless an ambitious movie has solid financial backing, it will not be made or, if it is made, it may be clearly a "budget flick". Very good movies try and leave certain scenes to the imagination and the effect is always that much more powerful.
I only cut proved my past statements, I'm fully aware of the redundancy, and I apologize for that.
"Some people could not visualize". A moment of silence for them. They missed the great part. So that very much applies to reading a book. After all, you only have a sheet of paper with some ink on it, yet it enables one to be transported to different times, different countries and even completely different scenarios. This explains why books are "that" great for me.
Why is it good to stimulate one"s imagination?
Well, the human imagination is just like a muscle, so it"s a case of "use it or lose it". Nobody has the choice to completely stop using their imagination, but they can become so reliant on crutches that they cannot walk on their own two feet. Many people have this experience when they go back to reading books again. At first they cannot seem to create a vivid picture and follow the story line but with enough perseverance they find that their imagination can create a far more realistic and enjoyable experience than any movie.
From here, let me continue my argument.
Movies are often made for an audience that are impatient at best and highly critical at worst. With this in mind and combined with the fact they cost a great deal of money to produce and need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible after being released due to the heavy investment, movies tend to be much faster in pace than books in order to satisfy their demanding viewers.
I'm also a fan of wonderful movies like The Hunger games, but I simply like reading more.
A book can be created by just one person. A movie usually demands at least another, because at its core, movies are collaborative art forms and can use the talents of others while books draw on the singular style and voice of one author. It is for this reason that movies can fail due to the involvement of other people. Their collective failures can sink the efforts of well-meaning actors and directors. And since all the elements in a film are important, failure of the various departments in a movie project can affect the end result. Most movie audiences don't care an ounce about these difficulties - nor should they. However it does make the average movie less likely to succeed due to production difficulties.
"Hey this is not included in the subject you must tell why read is of greater fun" I expect this from you, but I had to state that part.
By their very nature, movies require an electronic device with a screen just to view them. This immediately adds complexities related to formats, power sources, durability and price.
Books make your life simple. Modern life is already complex and we have hundreds of things to do and remember. Paperback books offer several advantages over many electronics. You can throw them in your back, drop them, leave them unattended while you go to the bathroom without worrying that someone will steal it.
So I guess it comes down to the fact that watching is a passive pastime while reading is an active pastime.
She notes this
"Movies are often made for an audience that are impatient at best and highly critical at worst. With this in mind and combined with the fact they cost a great deal of money to produce and need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible after being released due to the heavy investment, movies tend to be much faster in pace than books in order to satisfy their demanding viewers."
She notes there is a target audience for movies, and by acknowledging that a specific target audience likes movies more than reading, there is no way for her to hold up her BOP. She must then show that reading is more fun on an objective level in order to win this debate. She has openly admitted quite a few times that many people enjoy movies better than reading, so from there it's a short walk as she cannot uphold her BOP and show that books are objectively more fun than movies.
I do not mind about winning or losing at all, but I am satisfied to have proven my side. I do not mind if you think my argument is invalid; I cannot change people's minds.
My argument is valid, I believe; but you do not. I don't see your argument as valid also, for everything that you said was against me, you barely explained.
These are just a few of the main reasons why films and books will never be able to replace the other. They do not serve the same purpose as each other. And most of all, they aren't meant to.
Movies are for people who do not have much time at all, and books are for other people.
In either case, if you truly care for the arts, you should be aware that both authors and movie makers struggle to create. No matter how mediocre you eventually deem their outcome, each creator had spent a chunk of their lives in hopes of engaging you; the audience.
I know you would disagree (because that's what you always did in rounds 2,3,and 4) but one thing is for sure: You would continue loving movies as much as I adore them books.
Did we settle anything at all?
Still I know I spoke of what I believe, and that is enough for me. I do not mind losing nor winning at all. Once again, I thank you for the experience, and for giving me a wonderful debate. I can see you are wonderful because you have a job, and you work out. Probably by now I'd add you as a friend, and if you accept, you would be my first friend here. Have a nice day.
We can clearly see for now though, that to objectivity label something as better than something else is impossible because its routed in subjectivity. She herself acknowledge that people prefer movies are books thus negating the resolution. Thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: "Movies are for people who do not have much time at all, and books are for other people" Concedes some people like movies more, and the resolution required an objective truth. This means the answer is subjective, and some people like movies--resolution negated. Con wins.
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.