The Instigator
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kernel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/22/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 92991
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

lord_megatron

Con

They all tell me you should be aware of the happenings around us. I tell them that since current events don't affect me and I don't affect them, then why shall I fill my head with unuseful knowledge? No answer.
Kernel

Pro

I accept the debate and look forward to hearing some of your arguments.

Newspapers provide information about what's happening around you, and around the entire world. "Why should I fill my head with useless knowledge?" Who says this knowledge and awareness has no use? The articles published in a newspaper can affect you, to the contrary of what Con is suggesting. We need to have a sufficient understanding of what's happening around us, which can be achieved through newspapers. We can't just go about our daily lives with no care for the world and its events. If we do this, we'll be like young children, where the street we live on is all we know.

The information contained within a newspaper can be practically useful. You can keep up to date with politics, find a job you may want to apply for, and many more. I'm not talking about reading the entire newspaper daily, as that wouldn't do too much good. I'm talking about reading parts of it, the parts that relate to you and can benefit you. It's also not a good look to show little interest in the world around you. We all have opinions, and how can we share them if we don't know what's happening in our own country?
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Con

Pro gives me the awareness argument which I already rebutted. While it may be useful for job applications, there are far more ads online and job applications are only a page of the newspaper. It is better to gain knowledge about politics by reading first-hand speeches of the candidates or going to their rallies rather than relying on a biased, edited, censored media opinion.
Pro argues we must make and express opinions on current events. Isn't that what debate.org is for? Furthermore, why form an opinion about a subject you don't care about?
My argument as that we have finite memory, and we must utilize it efficiently. Filling it with thrash will block out useful knowledge and all we will remember is unuseful stuff.
Pro says to read parts that relate to you, and not read it daily. I say that it is rare to find parts relevant to you, and therefore not read it at all. And anyways, the resolution accounts for the the full newspaper.
What do I care if some jet crashed into a mountain somewhere around the world? The common man doesn't do much charity, and I don't see what other action we can take on such things.
What do I care if the taxes moved up 5 percent? When I am buying stuff the shopkeeper would tell me anyways, then why read it from a newspaper?
What do I care if an endangered lizard died? I hate lizards anyways.
Newspapers are filled with irrelevant and unuseful knowledge, and therefore we must not read them unless absolutely bored and useless. I hate it when they come up and say "knowledge is power". I say "RIGHT knowledge is power" Suppose if I am a rocket scientist and I know about all the endangered species, will that help me? No, it won't. As Sherlock Holmes once said "What do I care if the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun, so long as it doesn't make a pennyworth of difference in my work" While it of course would make a difference, he meant that the knowledge about the Earth and Sun didn't make a difference in less work. Same case for the newspaper.
Kernel

Pro

It's human nature to be curious and to explore beyond our immediate surroundings. The 'awareness' argument which Con so easily dismisses is a part of what it is to be human. If you aren't curious about the world and what's going on, then what are you really doing? Con questions "why form an opinion on something you don't care about?" Well, we are all citizens of a nation, and it's our duty to formulate an opinion and make sure we contribute. If you really don't care about politics and the country and world you live in, then that's you. The topic is "reading newspapers is practically useful for the common man" and I'm sure the common man does care about the world. The common man has a lot to gain from reading newspapers and just because Con thinks the information in the newspaper is useless, doesn't automatically mean everyone else does too.

Furthermore, Con suggests that the knowledge gained from newspapers can't help us. However, you don't have to read what doesn't affect you. There are many parts in their that are relevant to us, to the contrary of what Con suggests. There are certain categories in a newspaper where we can access the information and knowledge that we want to and that's relevant to us. For example, there is business, opinion, sport and many more sections of a newspaper. We don't have to read the entire newspaper if we're only looking for certain parts.

A newspaper helps to create social awareness about various subjects such as abortion, child labour and more. We are urged to take action and and voice our opinion, which is one of our greatest rights as citizens. Newspapers are very useful for the common man and are read, and utilised by many people.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Con

Curiosity- No human is actually curious enough to research individual topics, but yet would read that article in the newspaper? No, I think people read newspapers when they are bored.
Opinions- Pro says making an opinion is our duty. But Pro doesn't justify how making an opinion helps the common man. Suppose I just make an opinion "I am pro child labor". What will the common do about it? Nothing.
Read parts- This debate was about reading the full newspaper. I can just read the date of the newspaper and thrash it and say"newspapers are useful because they remind me of the date" Utter nonsense.
Social media- I believe that social media is a more accurate and fast method of delivering information than the newspaper. We must give up the newspaper and start using social media. This will save trees and ink as well.
Social awareness- While we may form an opinion about terrorism, child labor etc., the common man usually doesn't take action on it and sometimes may not even voice their opinion. Furthermore, no common man can express their opinion on the newspaper without money, while on social media we can easily comment.
Sport section- Sport section is for entertainment, which isn't practically useful.
Kernel

Pro

Kernel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mysery// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, so Con gets conduct. Pro did make some persuasive arguments for reading the newspaper, but did not prove that it was practically useful; therefore, con wins argument for proving the keywords at hand.

[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both sides. Just stating how the voter perceives the outcome of each side's general points and what they either failed or succeeded to do is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JustVotingTiedDebates// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point for forfeiting.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conduct only votes based solely on forfeits require that the debater in question forfeited half or more of their rounds. In this case, the debater only forfeited one round. The voter may award conduct on this basis, but must also assess arguments, and either choose to award argument points to explain why they are not awarding them.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.