The Instigator
Defro
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Dennybug
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should abandon the practice of printing books and resort to using E-books

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 1 vote the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,912 times Debate No: 44628
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Defro

Pro

I believe that we should abandon the practice of printing copies of books and resort to using E-books. I believe resorting to E-books will benefit society as a whole, including but not limited to economically, environmentally, health-wise, etc.

First round is NOT for acceptance. Con is to state his or her position (which is con) and commence the debate by stating his or her points.
Dennybug

Con

Before we begin I'd like to state that the topic of this debate has been expanded. agreed upon by Pro and Con via skype.

-We should abandon the practice of printing Books and resort to using E-books-

Pro and Con have agreed that by books we mean ALL Written texts such as
-Novels
-Magazines
-Newspapers
-Religious texts such as (Holy Bible, Quran, Tripitaka etc.)
-Textbooks
-Childrens Books

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm Dennis, I will be representing the Con to this topic. The main points I will be arguing on are, Books provide easier accessibility in certain conditions also accessibility to Books in comparison to E-readers, Books are cheaper than E-readers and also the negative effects E-books would have on society.

1. Books are accessed easier.

If you go anywhere without readily available electricity outlets/inlets, you will be relying on your E-readers battery life which may not always be convenient depending on the amount of time you spend away from civilization, a book will not lose power ever, you could backpack through the Himalayas and your Book will still be 100% accessible. Also, if you a traveling or camping in areas with rough terrain/weather an E-reader can be easily damaged/worn/scratched of course this can be refuted by saying books are just as, if not more prone to weathering/damage/tears or terrain issues, however with the price difference between the two, it is more than fair to say that if you are away from electricity and going to be away from proper storage required for your E-reader to stay functioning properly and effectively than a book is THE way to go!

2. Accessibility to E-readers compared to books in a Macro Setting

When you're dealing with institutions that have a high demand on books such as Schools and Churches, It is very difficult financially for everyone to have their own Laptop/Ipad/Kindle etc. To use for reading and marking textbooks. It is a lot more convenient(Also much cheaper) For everyone to have a printed hard copy to use as a reference for their curricular studies which you can take home as you please, mark and highlight.

These are the first two topics I am covering in this round, I will be posting more. I look forward to your rebuttals and also arguments of your own.
Debate Round No. 1
Defro

Pro

I shall now proceed to my rebuttal, followed by an addendum.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rubuttals

Books are cheaper than E-readers

*Note that I have not yet mentioned E-readers. Certainly, books are much cheaper than E-readers, but the E-books themselves are much cheaper than books. It is possible to get a 20 dollar book for 5 - 10 dollars. This is because it is much cheaper to produce E-books than it is E-readers.

**Furthermore, if the world was to adopt the use of E-books and abandoning printed books, the costs for E-books would be EVEN CHEAPER, some amounting to less than a dollar.

***Now, concerning the costs of E-readers. A quick search on the web found that a Kindle Wifi, 6" Display (the type that most people buy) costs 69$. A 2 GB Kindle can hold around 1400 books. A Harry Potter book costs around 15$ - 20$, depending on which book in the set. Some even cost over 20$. The average Harry Potter E-book costs around 8$. The average American reads 17 books a year. Note that this is limited to the United States and there are countries in which their average is higher. This means that a person would spend 240$ a year on books while an E-book user will spend 136$, assuming that they did not borrow any of these books from a library. Therefore, the E-book user SPENDS 104$ LESS. Now if you subttract the cost for the E-reader, which is 69$, you get 35$. Therefore, by buying an E-reader, you spend 35$ less in a year! And after a year, the 69$ IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR, so you spend 104$ less every year after that!

http://www.amazon.com...

****
Also, note that in Economics, there is a Law of Demand. The Law of Demand states that when there's more demand for a product, the price for the product will decrease.

Currently, only 5% of readers read E-books by using E-readers. If the world was to adopt the use of E-books instead of printed books, 100% of readers would use E-readers, therefore it's plausible to say that THE PRICE FOR E-READERS WILL DECREASE BY 95%, therefore Kindles that cost 69$ would cost 5$.


you will be relying on your E-readers battery

*Battery should'nt be an issue. A Kindle 2 (which is outdated because they have better, newer Kindles now) can last 2 weeks with wireless turned off, that should be plenty of time for you to get down from a mountain and back into civilization. Also, they have recently manufactured a SOLAR POWERED KINDLE. Furthermore, Inductive Charging (aka Wireless Charging) has recently been integrated into our society. It makes it possible for people to charge their electronic devices without a chord. Economists predict that within 15 years, whole cities will be converted this way so that your electronics will be charged ALWAYS as long as you are in the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org...;


of course this can be refuted by saying books are just as, if not more prone to weathering/damage/tears or terrain issues

*Con has refuted himself, saving me the energy to refute him and rendering his previous point (about E-readers being easily damaged) useless and unneccessary. However, I will still refute, it. My phone, for an example, is a Sony Xperia. It is waterproof and able to survive a fall from a five story building. I'm sure they can do the same with an E-reader.

It is a lot more convenient(Also much cheaper) For everyone to have a printed hard copy to use as a reference for their curricular studies which you can take home as you please, mark and highlight.

*You can take an E-reader home as you please as well. In fact, it would be MORE CONVINIENT to carry a light-weight device home than to carry multiple heavy books. Also, it is possible for many E-readers to mark and highlight their text. Not only that, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDO THEIR MARKS AND HIGHLIGHTS AS WELL. My AP English teacher teaches us with an ipad, where all of this is possible, and he says it's much more convinient because it's lighter and better organized.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Addendum

I have refuted every point Con statements about books being more convinient and more cheaper. Con has also refuted his own statement about E-readers being easily damaged.
__________________________________________________________________________

I shall now make 2 points:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By adopting the use of E-readers and abandoning printed books, we are helping our environment

- One 10 inch diameter tree makes sixty 100 paged books. In the United States alone, around 300,000 new books are published. Each published book will have hundreds or thousands of copies made to be distributed. Note that these are just books, EXCLUDING MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS. Note also that this is JUST IN THE UNITED STATES.

-In our world of environmental crisis, one of the biggest problems we face is deforestation and the lack of trees, which are neccessary for many ecosystems to survive and thrive. By not printing books, I estimate that we can save around 50 million trees each year from being cut, therefore preventing and prolonging environmental disaster.

http://bhplnjbookgroup.blogspot.com...;
http://en.wikipedia.org...;


Adopting this policy of E-reading encourages and guarantees econmical and technological benefits

-By adopting this policy of E-reading, governments are forced, if not encouraged, to make beneficial adaptations to society such as the Wireless Charging previously mentioned.

-This benefits the technological world because it allows for more possibility. For an example, a problem in mobile robotic technology is that the robots they make are highly energy dependent, and must always be plugged into a power source or have a very strong battery, which runs out over time. If they were plugged in, their mobility is limited. Wireless Charging easily solves this.

-Because this is in the economics genre, I will discuss about economics a lot. In economics, the three factors of production are: land, labor, and capital. Land refers to not only the site of production, but also natural resources such as oil, coal, and wood. Wireless Charging benefits the economy because it provides a better quality of physical capital and more land. Physical capital are things such as computers and other machinery. It provides more land because now that no wood is used for books, there is more wood available for the production of other products. And it does not affect the factor of reading at all because of E-books.

I will explain how this policy will increase and improve human capital in future rounds.
Dennybug

Con

First off my apologies to Pro for being late on the response, I had some real life obligations keeping me from properly replying, due to this, I will only be refuting and not adding any new points of information.


Rebbutals -

of course this can be refuted by saying books are just as, if not more prone to weathering/damage/tears or terrain issues

*Con has refuted himself, saving me the energy to refute him and rendering his previous point (about E-readers being easily damaged) useless and unneccessary. However, I will still refute, it. My phone, for an example, is a Sony Xperia. It is waterproof and able to survive a fall from a five story building. I'm sure they can do the same with an E-reader.

I would like to point out to Pro, that my point here was to compare the value of E-readers compared to books if one of them were to be damaged or break.




*Note that I have not yet mentioned E-readers. Certainly, books are much cheaper than E-readers, but the E-books themselves are much cheaper than books. It is possible to get a 20 dollar book for 5 - 10 dollars. This is because it is much cheaper to produce E-books than it is E-readers.


This statement is innacurate, in this arguement pro implies that books are around 20 Dollars. Most book sales go for around 10-15 Dollars if you purchase them new out of a store. However millions of people purchase their books on Amazon, which not only have discounted prices but also an option to purchase used books, Which millions of people do. Used books on amazon can go from 3-6 Dollars and most of them are in great condition.



Unfortunately I have run out of time to reply to this argument, I still have a lot to say. and I look forward to stating my opinions in the next rounds, I strongly believe that Books should not be abolished for the use of E-books and I look forward to stating more points Against E-readers, and For Books!
Debate Round No. 2
Defro

Pro

*First off I would like to point out that Con's first point in his rebbuttal is not a rebuttal but a clarification, and I concede to his comparison between E-readers and books.

*Second, I would like to say that playing League of Legends is not a real life obligation that should keep you from replying to this debate medium, that has graciously given you 3 days time to post. Furthermore, I reminded you of the debate approximately 1.5 - 2 hours before your time expired on skype, therefore you have no valid excuse.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals

"pro implies that books are around 20 Dollars. Most book sales go for around 10-15 Dollars if you purchase them new out of a store."

-I did not imply that books are around 20$, I simply said that you can get a 20$ book for less if you buy the E-book version. Furthermore even if the average costed $10 - $15, you still save more money by using E-readers and buying E-books.
-Con has made a statement not backed up by any source. In a recent statistical study by "School Library Journal", it is shown that the average price of books range between 6$ to almost 30$, depending on the intended age of the book and whether or not it was hardcovered. If you determine the average by adding 6 with 30 and dividing that by 2, you get 18$ as the average book price in the United States, which is around 20. However, it is safe to assume that adults buy more books than children because children recieve most of their books from school and don't buy them. Therefore, it is also safe to assume that the 18$ can be bumped up to 20$.
SLJ2013 AvgBkPrice chart web SLJ’s Average Book Prices 2013


"also an option to purchase used books, Which millions of people do."

-The purchasing of used books is irrelevant in this debate. This debate suggests the abandoning of printing of books, not what to do with books that have already been printed, like used books for an example. If my suggested policy of E-books are enforced, there will still be books in the world, used books, and they will obviously be sold and bought still. What this debate concerns with is the printing of books, other words, new books.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum

E-books guarantee Economical and Technological Benefits
-Con has yet to address my previous point that adopting this policy of E-reading eoncourages and guarantees economical and technological benefits. I understand he lost track of time, hopefully he will address this in the next round.

E-books are more Eco-Friendly
-I repeat my most important point of all: Printing books destroys a large number of trees, trees that, in our age of environmental gobal disaster, we must preserve as much as we can. This not only benefits us, but prevents the destruction of many animals' homes and source of food. Trees are very important for the world, and we are killing a lot of them for our personal needs.
-Printing books contributes to deforestation, which is harmful for us.
-About half of the world's tropical forests have been cleared
-Forest loss contributes between 12 percent and 17 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions

*After knowing the devastatingly harmful effects that come with deforestation, does con truly believe that killing trees and critically harming the environment which will eventually lead to harming mankind to make heavy books is better than saving trees and having each person being able to carry hundreds of books in one light-weight device? If so, explain yourself.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://forestry.about.com...;
deforestation


E-books are more convinient
-Books are heavy and limited to themselves. E-readers are light and can carry hundreds of books.
-Books are tearable. E-books are not.
-While both are vulnerable to water, it is possible to modify E-readers to be water resistant, like they do to many electronic devices.
-Books require light. E-books don't, in fact you can even adjust the brightness to your preference.
-Books are much harder to copy and send. E-books are much easier to copy and send digitally.
-Books take up more space
-Books can weather and get dirty. I doubt you'll ever find a moldy E-book.
-It is more inconvenient and expensive to by books.

More Human Capital for the Economy
-Because E-books are very easily accessible, it promotes and encourages people to read more, thus increasing and improving the average quality of knowledge and intelligence of society. This provides the economy with more human capital, which are the skills and knowledge possessed by an individual or a population. More human capital increases economic efficiency.

Availability of Wood
-If this policy is enforced, there would be more availability of wood for the production of other goods. This does not mean it cancels out the amount of trees saved by enforcing the policy.

Tax Reduction
-Many books are shipped overseas. As mentioned by Con, millions of people buy books on Amazon.com and have them ship the books to their homes. If the E-reading policy is enforced, the cost of shipping will dramatically reduce due to no physical books being shipped. This means the government won't need to fund their postal services as much and reduce the funds, thus reducing tax.



Dennybug

Con

*In response to Pro's previous concerns about my real life obligations, I would like to point out they are not his buisness, and that I was not making an excuse. Simply apologizing. In order to reply to a debate properly, you need to research as well as think about how you write, which certainly takes longer then a game of league of legends. So I will please ask Pro to stay with the debate, and not how he feels about Pathos and Ethos

*I apologize to Pro for not making clear that I wanted to clarify, It is my first time debating online. However I'm sure that it wasn't too difficult to understand I was clarifying and not refuting.



Rebuttals



-I did not imply that books are around 20$, I simply said that you can get a 20$ book for less if you buy the E-book version. Furthermore even if the average costed $10 - $15, you still save more money by using E-readers and buying E-books.
-Con has made a statement not backed up by any source. In a recent statistical study by "School Library Journal", it is shown that the average price of books range between 6$ to almost 30$, depending on the intended age of the book and whether or not it was hardcovered. If you determine the average by adding 6 with 30 and dividing that by 2, you get 18$ as the average book price in the United States, which isaround 20. However, it is safe to assume that adults buy more books than children because children recieve most of their books from school and don't buy them. Therefore, it is also safe to assume that the18$ can be bumped up to 20$.


Im not clear on what Pro is trying to argue here, or how it helps his arguments. However I will assume that he is refering the price between E-Books and Printed books. I would like to point out that not everyone buys hardcovers for $20 Infact the majority of printed books buyers purchase Paperbacks due to their price differences and also the convenience which reading with a bendy books provides. I will provide 3 Websites which backs up my statement that Paperbacks are vastly more popular than hardcovers.

http://www.goodreads.com...
http://askville.amazon.com...
http://observationdeck.io9.com...

Now I'd like to refer back to the chart which pro has graciously provided, Looking at the Paperback price ratios you can clearly see that Mass-Market paperbacks, (Which would include high end retailers such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble) Sell for $5-$7 for All genres.

Now that I have explained and provided reputable sources that:

-Paperbacks are purches a lot more.
-Mass market paperbacks with sell for $5-$8

I would like to go on and explain my main point in this rebbutal which is that E-books also cost around $3-$5, Which in comparison to paperbacks is only slightly less if not equal to the price of an E-book.


Using the amazon bestseller list for Kindle books I have concluded this.

http://www.amazon.com...;

Yes, there are e-books which sell for as little $1, However my point here is that the majority of the books are at least $5 and some even dipping into the $7+ which is equal to buying an actual printed paperback book.

So, my Conclusion is that Printed paperback books(Which make up for about %80 of printed book sales, as seen in the links provided above) Are Slightly more, if not equal to the price of E-books.
So to say that we should abolish printing books because E-books are $2 less is a far-fetched statement.

My main point in this rebbutal is that: New Printed Paperback books are slightly more if not equal to the price of a Kindle E-book. When you argue that we should abolish printing books because of the $2 difference, People will just go ahead an buy paperbacks over an electronic format which you cant really own.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2.

"also an option to purchase used books, Which millions of people do."

-The purchasing of used books is irrelevant in this debate. This debate suggests the abandoning of printing of books, not what to do with books that have already been printed, like used books for an example. If my suggested policy of E-books are enforced, there will still be books in the world, used books, and they will obviously be sold and bought still. What this debate concerns with is the printing of books,other words, new books.



I would like to say that my statement here was taken out of context, and treated as a point on its own, I only used this statement to build on my other rebbutal which is that Books are not significantly more expensive then E-books. As proven in my first rebbutal New paperbacks can be compared to the price of buying a Kindle book.

To say that buying used books is not irrelevant at all, when Pro argues that E-books are much cheaper. I was providing a very valid point to his argument, when this is taken into account

http://www.skipmcgrath.com...

I will quote the website above.

Over $8 Billion worth of used books sell in the United States every year –and more and more of them are being sold online. Over $2 Billion worth of used books are sold on eBay and half.com alone. Amazon won't release their figures for used books, but analysts estimate sales to also be over $1 Billion a year in the US. And of course there are the English-speaking overseas markets. Last year I sold books to customers in Singapore, England, Canada, and Australia and even to India –and overseas customers pay even more than US customers.

So stating that E-books are significantly cheaper than books isnt a factual statement at all. and that saying printing books needs to be abolished because books are so expensive isnt true either.

As provided with the links above, You are paying about the same maybe $1-$3 more tops (and this is not even taking used books into account) For paperbacks. People will generally go for something physical they can own over an Electronic format.



3.

E-books are more Eco-Friendly


So, pro has argued that we are using too many trees for our personal needs, I completely argee with pro, However the percentage of deforestation that contributes to paper production is quite miniscule.
I do not think this would be cutting the problem by its roots(no pun intended)

http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org...

The website provided above is very informative about the problem which deforestation present, I do agree completely it is a problem, however to prove my concerns or lack-of in this case I will quote a section on this website.

Going by the statistics compiled by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agriculture is the most important cause of deforestation on the planet. While subsistence farming accounts for 46 percent of the total deforestation in the world, commercial agriculture is responsible for 32 percent. Other prominent causes of deforestation include logging at 14 percent, and fuel requirements at 5 percent

So, 14 percent of trees are sold for pulp and construction matierials, lets say we split this number in half, and conclude that 7% of deforestation contributes to paper production.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

The website above calculates how much a 60Ft. tree with a diameter of 1Ft. they come up with the answer of 80,500 sheets of paper, now. that is A LOT of books. we are losing hundreds of thousands of trees to Subsistent farming, and commercial agriculture.

Furthermore, I'd like to make a very important point to Pro's argument. Paper can be recycled

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.epa.gov...

33% of paper we use today comes from recycled paper.
33% Comes from woodchips and sawmill scraps (Result Commercial agriculture)

and 33% from deforestation.

---------------------------------------

Now that I have made clear the statistics for actual paper production, as well the percentage of deforestation contributing to paper production. It becomes clear that Pro is using a huge problem(Deforestation) and pinning it on a small contributing factor(Paper Production)

Stopping the production of woodpulp, would not stop 7% of deforestation, instead it would open up more trees to be cut down for the use of Commercial Agriculture or Subsitent farming.

A much better solution would be to increase the amount of paper we recycle, this way we are creating a way for us to keep recyclying what we use.

Furthermore I'd like to illuminate the different uses for paper, as provided by http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • For representing value: paper money, bank note, cheque, security (see security paper), voucher and ticket
  • For storing information: book, notebook, magazine, newspaper, art, zine, letter
  • For personal use: diary, note to remind oneself, etc.; for temporary personal use: scratch paper
  • For communication: between individuals and/or groups of people.
  • For packaging: corrugated box, paper bag, envelope, wrapping tissue, Charta emporetica and wallpaper
  • For cleaning: toilet paper, handkerchiefs, paper towels, facial tissue and cat litter
  • For construction: papier-mâché, origami, paper planes, quilling, paper honeycomb, used as a core material in composite materials, paper engineering, construction paper andpaper clothing
  • For other uses: emery paper, sandpaper, blotting paper, litmus paper, universal indicator paper, paper chromatography, electrical insulation paper (see also dielectric andpermittivity) and filter paper

So it is not fair to say that books are the main reason for woodpulp consumption. Stopping book printing you are only cutting a tiny thread in a huge problem, and that there are many more effective ways to deal with deforestation than blaming it on the production of books.

unfortunately I have run out of space during this round. I look forward to the response of Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Defro

Pro

*I would like to tell Con that his personal business is very much my business if it affects the debate, as he has had an obligation to this debate since the moment he told me he wanted to debate over this subject on the phone. Also, it is very much an excuse, especially since he lied about having real life obligations preventing him from posting when it actually was a computer game. And now he's saying that he didn't have time to research for the debate, which he could've done if he had not played League of Legends.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

*I don't believe you know what Pathos and Ethos are. If you wish to learn more about them I suggest you join my AP English Language and Composition class in school.

http://courses.durhamtech.edu...

Now, proceeding to the debate.
______________________________________________________

Counter-Rebuttals


"New
Printed Paperback books are slightly more if not equal to the price of a Kindle E-book. When you argue that we should abolish printing books because of the $2 difference, People will just go ahead an buy paperbacks over an electronic format which you cant really own."

-Con has conceded that e-books are cheaper than books. Obviously, there are books that are cheaper than E-books, but almost EVERY E-BOOK IS CHEAPER TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PHYSICAL BOOK. Therefore, I stand corrected by saying that E-books are cheaper, and Con has proven nothing. Furthermore, Con has forgotten that I've made a point concerning their prices, stating that if a policy that abolishes printing books is enforced, the price of E-readers will decrease radically. Therefore, from this, it is plausible to say that THE PRICE OF E-BOOKS WILL DECREASE RADICALLY also.

-Therefore, in the long run, you save much more money by using E-books instead of printed books.

-What do you mean by "you can't really own?" Please elaborate.

-"Own" means to have control over something in your possession. If you have an E-book, you own it. You can open it up or exit out of it. You can show it to your friends and if asked they will aggree that you own it. It is physically encoded into your E-reader,
like a book is physically placed in a bag, that is with you and not with anyone else the most. If bought online with a credit card, there will be a record saying you bought it and own it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


"To say that buying used books is not irrelevant at all"

-The subject of used books most certainly is irrelevant to the subject at hand. If you will notice at the title, it says "printing books", not "printed books". My suggested policy of E-reading will not abolish all books that have already been printed. If my suggested policy were to be enforced, nothing would happen/change for printed books.
-Therefore it is not fair to mention used books to support your argument, especially since used books are not a part of this argument.
-I don't understand why you quoted the sales of used books, as they are irrelevant to the printing of books.


"conclude that 7% of deforestation contributes to paper production."

-That is still A LOT OF TREES saved. According to the site below. In 2008, there were 6,456,789,877 trees in the world, roughly. 7% of that is roughly 451,975,291 trees. According to the second site below, the oxygen a normal human being breathes is supported by roughly 6 or 7 trees. The "7%" that Con mentioned potentially could've supported 75,329,215 people!

http://www.npr.org...
http://sciencefocus.com...


"paper can be recycled"

-Yes, paper CAN be recycled. But are you suggesting we should make up for the resources used to make books for printing BY RECYCLING BOOKS??? If so, then what's the point of having books when you are going to recycle them, permanently abolishing the text in the book?

-Recycling paper uses money, time, effort, and other materials. According to the site I mention below. Soap and Water is used to wash the ink from the paper in the recycling process. Water is wasted in recycling! Water is another important resource that we humans and other animals in the environment need!


-Know that the government spends money on recycling. If we don't need to recycle paper as much because of E-books, the governent spends less money on recycling and can spend more money on other aspects, or even REDUCE TAX.

-Recycling paper does not change them back into trees.

-If everyone used E-books, WE WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO RECYCLE BOOKS. This would save the money, time, and effort mentioned earlier, and even reduce tax.

http://www.recycling-guide.org.uk...;


"subsistence farming accounts for 46 percent of the total deforestation in the world, commercial agriculture is responsible for 32 percent."

-This is irrelevant to the debate. We are not talking about farming. Nevertheless, I would like to inform Con that unlike subsistence farming, the amount of deforestation would easily decrease if we switched to E-books. Subsistence farming is farming enough feed you and your family. You can't deny them of food, therefore it is difficult to reduce subsistence farming, because it would leave people starving.

-However, a great way to reduce deforestation would be to adopt my suggested policy of E-reading. We cannot do much how subsistence farming influences deforestation, BUT WE CAN do much about how printing books influence deforestation.

-When there's a problem like deforestation, shouldn't we do something about it by adopting this policy of E-reading, rather than complaining about how other things affect deforestation more and not doing anything, because we cannot do much about those things?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals

"I'd like to illuminate the different uses for paper"

-Con has clearly misunderstood the subject at hand. I did not say we should stop producing paper, but stop printing books. In doing so, the production of paper decreases, and not completely eradicated as suggested by Con. The production of notebooks, drawing paper, cardboard, paper calenders, A4 paper, toilet paper, paper bags, etc, will remain the same, because they are not "Printed Books"


"It becomes clear that Pro is using a huge problem(Deforestation) and pinning it on a small contributing factor(Paper Production)"

-This is a huge understatement.

-Paper Production is not a small contributing factor. As mentioned by yourself, it's 7%. Percentage-wise, that does not seem like much, mut as established above, that 7% is A LOT of trees (451,975,291).

-I am not pinning anything. I am simply saying that if paper production is reduced, so is deforestation. Never in this debate have I said that it is the ONLY contributing factor or even the BIGGEST contributing factor.


"Stopping the production of woodpulp, would not stop 7% of deforestation, instead it would open up more trees to be cut down for the use of Commercial Agriculture or Subsitent farming."

-This is not neccessarily true. Once trees are cut down for their wood, the land left would have been used for agriculture already, therefore the amount of agriculture would not increase.

-Agriculture requires soil condition that is suitable for farmland. A lot of times, even if all the trees in an are were to be cut down, it could not be used for agriculture, therefore people use it for wood products such as paper.

http://www.ehow.com...

-However if it were to happen, it would not as bad as trees being cut down to be made into books. Agriculture means planting different crops and plants. Plants that convert C02 into Oxygen just as effeciently as trees, while books can't. Agriculture can also mean planting trees. If agriculture and farming increases, that just means that there are more bellies in the world that can be filled.

-While there are no environmentally beneficial gains from agriculture, there are economic and social gains, whereas printing books have no gains that can't be replaced and/or improved by resorting to E-books. Tell me Con, would you rather more bellies in the world are fed, or have mankind read physical books, that can easily be replaced by E-books without any negative impacts on the world.


"Stopping book printing you are only cutting a tiny thread in a huge problem"

-Again this is an understatement. We've already established that book printing is not a tiny thread. Plus, isn't cutting a thread from a huge problem good?

-Furthermore, what about the technological and economical benefits from "cutting this tiny thread?"
_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Con continuously attacks my statement that not printing books is good for the environment. In fact it really is, and he has conceded to it.
***No printing books = less paper production = less deforestation or more bellies fed.

*He deliberately ignores my proposal on how resorting to E-books will bring technological and economic benefits. He also fails to address my proposal of tax reduction. Therefore I will assume that he concedes to all this.

*Con endlessly defends my statement about how my suggested policy is good, which I refute, and he ends up conceding my refutation. Yet he doesn't make many valid statements himself about why books are more beneficial than E-books or why my suggested policy is bad.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Addendum


*I will not add anything new for now. But I will breifly state the points I've made that are still unaddressed.

-E-books will bring about economical and technological benefits.
-E-books are more convenient.
-My suggested policy of E-reading can reduce tax or allow the government to fund something else more effeciently.
-Resorting to E-books can increase availability of wood for other products.
-It brings more human capital to our economy, which is beneficial.

Dennybug

Con

*I'm not sure what exactly Pro is trying to prove, I'll put it quite simply, If i'm in a test period during school where I have to take tests and do a lot of schoolwork, I obviously do not feel like going to debate about E-books. It was a quite simple apology to Pro for giving a short reply, it wasn't an explination or an excuse trying to make something up, Which he doesn't grasp. It wouldn't even matter if I was playing league of legends, this is just a friendly debate. I could also argue that This isnt a serious debate and if I'm bored, Obviously my obligation is to go play league of legends.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebbutals -

-E-books are more convenient.

This is a subjective opinion rather than a factual statement. People have different needs, As an Online Homeschooler I can personally say that reading from an online textbook is not more convenient for me. Staring at a screen all day can be quite tedious and head splitting. Books are quite light already, And the weight of books is definitely not a serious concern in modern day society. The main concern with books being too heavy is mostly in highschools, and kids are not getting heartattacks from lugging their books from one classroom to the next. Many Online books do not provide a highlighting or bookmarking feature. some E-readers dont have these options either.

I would like to say that only one Kindle is being manufactured that comes equipt with backlights, and that a $6 Book with a $2 flashlight is definitely cheaper than a $190 E-reader that comes with a fancy light.

Furthermore, most people wont be bringing their fancy E-readers to Grampas annual fishing trip, Or their Scout Camp-outs, Or when they backpack through a country. Because it is easier to spend $15 for some old fashioned litterary entertainment, rather than buying a kindle, setting up the charging functions, buying the books.


Availability of Wood

Pro was arguing how deforestation was a big problem, and then he makes a point stating that if we stopped printing books we would have more wood avaliable for other goods?

I would like Pro to please clarify on what he means by more wood for other products. I think that saving trees is an ideal way to overcome deforestation.

Tax Reduction

Pro has argued that we spend too much money on shipping books overseas, I'd like to point out that once we stop printing books, We will start shipping E-readers overseas. Thus neutralizing his brilliant plan to stop the shipping fees that books are bringing to us.


Technological and Economical

So, I reviewed Pro's statement about Technological/Economical benefits, In short he is stating the following:

-By adopting this policy of E-reading, governments are forced, if not encouraged, to make beneficial adaptations to society such as the Wireless Charging previously mentioned.


He goes into detail about robotic charging, as well as if we changed to E-books we are saving more resources. I have already refuted this however I will cover it again in counter rebbutals.

I would like to state that Wireless charging is a very primitive concept thus far, and has not yet been adopted into modern day society, it's convenience and accesbility is still in the works.

Pro has offered no proof or studies that by Adopting E-readers we'll be "encouraging the government to research wireless charging" Rather he has made a wild prediction about what will happen. and Has not backed it up with a single piece of evidence.

Con also said that he would expand on why it would increase Capitol and yet no point has been made thus far (Round 4)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Counter Rebuttals

Con has forgotten that I've made a point concerning their prices, stating that if a policy that abolishes printing books is enforced, the price of E-readers will decrease radically. Therefore, from this, it is plausible to say that THE PRICE OF E-BOOKS WILL DECREASE RADICALLY also.

I dont understand Pro's logic here he has stated that the price of E-readers will drop dramatically because everone will start buying E-readers. This is exactly why the price wont drop radically so. Because everyone will need them it is the perfect opportunity for large scale electronics companies to take advantage of the abolishment of printing books. I would like to ask pro to please present studies that apply to this situation and its circumstances, or a similar one. As we can see with Mobile Phones and Computers. the need for them increasingly goes up, and SO DOES THE PRICE.

The subject of used books most certainly is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Pro has refused to take this as a serious point, However I would like to explain this point again because I certainly think it has its merits.

Pro argued that one of the reasons we should abolish printing books is because E-books are much cheaper.

I argued that this is not completely true, there are many ways to find printed books which are cheaper or equal to the price of E-books, such as usedbooks, or massmarket paperbacks.

He argues that it's irrelevant to the topic of actually printing books. However I disagree when you make a direct statement about the price of E-books compared to printed books.

to say that we should abolish printing books BECAUSE E-books are $2 less is ridiculous because you're not even factoring in the point that people will need to actually buy e-readers, which MANY people in third world countries will not be able to do, I will make a point about this later.


-That is still A LOT OF TREES saved. According to the site below. In 2008, there were 6,456,789,877 trees in the world, roughly. 7% of that is roughly 451,975,291 trees. According to the second site below, the oxygen a normal human being breathes is supported by roughly 6 or 7 trees. The "7%" that Con mentioned potentially could've supported 75,329,215 people!

Alright so Pro has misunderstood the calculations on this website, I will quote the actual figures provided by the website which pro has cited.

"there were 400,246,300,201 (more or less) trees on our globe. (That's over 400 billion, for those of you who have trouble working through the commas.)"

"It's a cool question, and easy to calculate. Nadkarni looked up the world's human population as of Dec. 31 and found that on that day, we numbered 6,456,789,877?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, according to:

http://understory.ran.org...

We use 3-6 Billion trees a year.

My deduction about 7% of trees used on woodpulp paper is the annual rate.

so, 350million is the annual rate of trees we use for paper production(Out of 400billion)
I would like to point out that this is for paper production, not only books, the actual paper used to make books is a tiny percentage of this.

By stopping the practice of printing books we are NOT saving 350million trees, because we are still using paper for a huge variety of things. I agree with Pro's point about deforestation being a problem, however Paper production uses mainly

Paper production does not disrupt rainforests, which other applications of Deforestation does.
Pulppaper is produced from a variety of different trees, NON of which can be found in rainforests which are the Jewels in Forestry and Ecosystems.

These are the trees used in Pulpwood production, I quote this from Wikipedia.

spruce, pine, fir, larch and hemlock, and hardwoodssuch as eucalyptus, aspen and birch.[9]



-------------------------------------------------------

I would like to add two more points.

Electricity is not a free resource

electricty is not an unlimited resource, when we abandon the practice of printing books, sure we are saving a precentage of trees, however when you have to power billions of E-readers on a daily basis, Where does this energy and electricty come from? Well probably MORE TREES. unfortunately E-readers have batteries and run on electricty. Books do not run on electricty at all. We are using WAY less electricty printing books than we would charging and charging billions of E-readers on a daily basis.

How do people in under-developed countries get E-readers as well as public instituitions?

When we abandon the practice of printing books, where will public schools and churches get E-readers? they certainly dont grow on trees, they are costly. Pro has argued that with his theory of supply and demand their prices will decrease radically. I beg to differ, because when E-readers are the only option we have, It is up to Electronics companies to determine the price. and they certainly wont be dropping it by "as much as 95%" as pro suggests.

Pro also stated that we'd be saving the government money by changing to E-readers because the books we use take up too much postal funding. However as soon as we switch over, we'll need to pay for E-readers to be shipped overseas.

Debate Round No. 4
Defro

Pro

*1.) I wanted viewers to know that you lied about having "real life obligations." because I know for a fact that just a few hours before you posted your argument for round 2, you were playing league of legends.

*2.) And now you're also either lying or trying to misguide any viewers by saying you have tests and schoolwork. I know for a fact that I was way more busy than you that week because I had SATs and you DIDN'T. Plus, I take two Advanced Placement courses that require me to spend at least 3 hours a day studying for (which I sometimes don't because I procrastinate but that's not the point). You are homeschooled and I know for a fact based on what you've told me that your school curriculum is much lighter than mine and that you were not as preoccupied that week than me.

*3.) Of course I don't care what you do with your time, so you don't need to apologize, but giving a fake excuse is not okay. Fortunately, you are my best friend, so I know all this, but if it were someone else, you woud've gotten away with lying, which I'm sure is something worth a few points reducted.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Counter-Rebuttals

"Books are quite light already, And the weight of books is definitely not a serious concern in modern day society."

-Con is deliberately forgetting the fact that while individually, books are light, mulitple books together are heavy and inconvinient, a problem E-books can solve as it can hold hundreds of books in one light device.

"the weight of books is definitely not a serious concern in modern day society."

-
This is a huge understatement. The weight of books DEFINETELY IS a serious concern in modern day society, you just don't know it because you're homeschooled. In elementary schools, because of the heavy books in their bags, their spines are damaged and deforming as they grow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;

"The main concern with books being too heavy is mostly in highschools"

-I proved this to be wrong in my above statement about elementary students having damaged spines.

"kids are not getting heartattacks from lugging their books from one classroom to the next."

-No, most kids do not get heartattacks from lugging their books. But if they didn't have to lug their books due to E-books, doesn't that prove that it's more convinient?

"Many Online books do not provide a highlighting or bookmarking feature. some E-readers dont have these options either."

-This is not true and I've mentioned this before. Again, Con has made a statement that is false. Several E-readers have this feature!!! Furthermore, the most used app for Apple and Android devices, Adobe Reader, HAS THIS FUNCTION. My teacher uses this to teach us sometimes, and it is more convinient because you can even undo your highlights. Con is clinging to the fact that there are few E-readers without this feature without considering the fact that, if my suggested E-reading policy was enforced, all E-readers would most likely have highlighting functions.

http://www.dummies.com...
https://itunes.apple.com...


"only one Kindle is being manufactured that comes equipt with backlights"

-One kind of kindle has been manufactured, but there are THOUSANDS of that model being manufactured. Plus, Kindle's aren't the only E-reader. Ipads can be used as E-readers and they certainly have backlights.

-Con fails to contemplate on the future if my suggested policy were to be enforced.

-
If in the future we abandoned printed books and switched to E-books, it is likely that ALL E-READERS WOULD HAVE BACKLIGHTS due to the demand on backlights to improve convinience. This is tied to my point about technological benefits.

"most people wont be bringing their fancy E-readers to Grampas annual fishing trip"

-That is because most people don't USE E-readers. But for the people who own one, they would bring one rather than a book because it carries hundreds of books inside. A good example of this is our good friend Micah (a mutul friend we both know). He brought his book on several campouts that we've been to.

"setting up the charging functions"

-Con is twisting and exagerating the process of charging an E-reader. Is it really that hard to plug something into a socket or to leave something out in the sun to charge from solar energy?

"Pro to please clarify on what he means by more wood for other products."

-I can see why Con is confused as I seem to have contradicted myself. However, I haven't. I did not say abolishing printing books will reduce deforestation, but that it will reduce paper production. No matter what products we cut off to save wood, the wood we save will always be used for something else. But by printing books, we are NEEDLESSLY wasting wood. We don't need printed books if we have E-books. Therefore, the wood we save can be used for other things that would not be a waste.

"once we stop printing books, We will start shipping E-readers overseas."

-Yes, but we would ship less E-readers than we have shipped books. Because every E-reader can carry hundreds of books.

-Con has either deliberately ignored or forgetten my statements about recycling. If we didn't print books, paper recycling would reduce. Recycling is funded by the government. If recycling is reduced, TAX IS REDUCED.

"Wireless charging is a very primitive concept thus far"

-That's my whole point! By integrating E-books everywhere, wireless charging will advance, which will benefit our society.

"he has made a wild prediction about what will happen."

-My prediction cannot be backed up by evidence because it deals with the future. In fact, NO PREDICTION CAN BE BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE. But, like you said, I go into detail about it based on my decent knowledge of Business and Economics, logically explaining why I think it would work, while you didn't explain why it couldn't work.

"he would expand on why it would increase Capitol and yet no point has been made thus far"

-I coudln't cover this topic because you got side tracked and focused on deforestation, thinking it ws my only point.

"I would like to ask pro to please present studies that apply to this situation and its circumstances, or a similar one"

-Apparently, Con is blind. In roud 2, I presented a graph that explains how the more demand a product has, the more the prices drop. It has been proven to work on every free-market based economy in the world. I will post it again. Trust me Dennis, you don't want to argue with me about economics, I'm currently taking an economics course and I know what I'm talking about.
economics3.gif
http://www.investopedia.com...;


"Computers. the need for them increasingly goes up, and SO DOES THE PRICE."

-Where's the proof to this? Actually, computers' prices went up because more people are buying tablets and mobile phones, which means less people are buying computers which makes their prices go up. THIS SUPPORTS MY ARGUMENT.

http://news.cnet.com...


"to say that we should abolish printing books BECAUSE E-books are $2 less is ridiculous"

-This is not my only point...I've made about seven other points that when combined with the fact that E-books are cheaper makes my suggested policy valid.

"you're not even factoring in the point that people will need to actually buy e-readers, which MANY people in third world countries will not be able to do,"

-What are you talking about? It was one of the first things I addressed! I proved that in the long run, perhaps a year even, the cost of buying E-readers and E-books is actually less than buying physical books. Even for people in third world countries, they will save money. Also, integrating technology into third world countries is a key step to urbanization.

"We are using WAY less electricty printing books than we would charging and charging billions of E-readers on a daily basis."

-Con deliberately ignores the fact that ELECTRICITY IS A MORE ABUNDANT RESOURCE THAN WOOD. Electricity can be gathered from the sun, which we have a lot of. In fact, this would encourage more solar panels to be installed, which is a step to a more eco-friendly world.

"they certainly wont be dropping it by "as much as 95%" as pro suggests."

-No, but it will drop a lot according to the supply and demand chart all economist know.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

*First off, props to my best friend Dennis for completing his first debate! I'm proud of you buddy. I honestly expected you to forfeit the second round, but you committed, which was good, though you lied and gave a false excuse, which was bad.

*I urge everyone who viewed this debate to vanquish all bias ideas they have on this issue and vote purely on debating skills. I personally am not pro, but decided to do so to have a debate with my buddy. Go Pro!
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Reasons to vote pro/Reasons not to vote con:

-Con did not establish anything in round two due to the lack of time. Regardless of what his excuse was, he still did not accomplish anything and wasted his turn. Please don't show him empathy because it is his own fault.

-Con has not made any of his own points as to why resorting to E-books is bad, while I did. He only made points as to why books are good, which I countered.

-Con either deliberately ignores or forgets points that I've made. For an example, in round 4 he requested me to show him evidence/proof/studies that support my point. Which I have done in the 2nd round with my graph.

-For the entirety of round 3, he focused mainly on only one of my points, as if he had forgotten I had made other points.

-I had to remind him that I've made other points so that he'd finally address them in round 4.


Dennybug

Con

Counter Rebbutals

Con is deliberately forgetting the fact that while individually, books are light, mutliple books together are heavy and inconvinient.

Yes, I agree carrying more than one textbook is a strain, however the only place we are needed to carry around textbooks is in school. Con has made a point about heavy backpacks causing spinal deformities in elementary schools. His source was the dailymailUK which is an unreliable and biased website who blow everything out of proportion in order to get more ratings. The main concern in kids having "spinal deformities" which is a fancy word for imbalanced postures is Playing too many video games, watching TV, playing on mobile phones and tabloids, and sure, carrying around textbooks for 7 hours. Once we switch to E-readers kids will be spending even more time bobbing there heads out. You might think, reading from books and E-readers are the same thing. However they are not, books can be bent and twisted and they can be taken into bean-bags and other seats. with E-readers you have buttons and touch-screen functions which restrict how you can hold and read them.


-This is a huge understatement the weight of books are definitely a serious concern in modern day society

So con has made this argument by stating that heavy books are the cause of spinal deformities in children, and that I do not know about this subject because I am homeschooled. He has provided a biased and unreliable source, the DailymailUK itself doesnt provide any reliable sources simply stating that "experts say" and "Studies show" The main cause in "spinal deformities" AKA poor posture, is from playing tabloid and mobile phone video games, and watching too much TV, sure heavy rucksacks are part of the problem however not the root of it. Another study done by DailymailUK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Also states that back posture is coming from heavy rucksacks, video games, and too much TV. and they go on to say:

Don't drive your child to school, as their walk forms an important part of their daily exercise regime



Mr Saunders also criticised physical education classes. "People are having to play football, or jump on and off boxes and climb ropes. If t'ai chi or yoga was introduced, I think it would make a massive difference. We know children today are far more stressed than 20 years ago, and something like this would really help them.î

So, they contradict themselves and say HEY LET THEM WALK TO SCHOOL! IT'LL GIVE YOUR KIDS EXERCISE after complaining about the weight they are bearing.

and they have also completely solved this epidemic by getting a Yoga instructors opinion. Which goes to show how un-informed and pretentious the DailymailUK really is.

I proved this wrong in my above statement about elementary students having damaged spines.

No, most kids do not get hearttacks from lugging their books. but if they didnt have to lug their books due to E-books , doesnt that prove that its more convinient

Alright so the past four rebbutals Pro has made aren't proper Rebbutals, he is simply dissecting my Whole point which was that Books are not a great deal heavier. Repeating himself multiple times and making the above two Rebbutals which are not even valid arguments and dont make a whole lot of sense. He has simply repeated himself without contemplating my argument.


Con has made a statement that is false, if my suggested E-reading policy was enforced all E-readers would most likely have highlighting functions.

So pro is quite fond of throwing predictions out there and claiming them to be the exact counter to my point. Apple devices, androids and Laptops have highlighting functions. This means that all schools will need to provide the above for their students, which are not exclusive E-books. Many kids can take advantage of these Electronic Consoles and play video games instead. I ask you this question. Can all printed books be highlighted? YES! Can all E-readers Highlight text and make notes? NO! the ones that can have many other leisure features which include Games, Wifi, Social Networking etc. Does a printed book have Social network? No. it does not.


Con Fails to contemplate on the future if my suggested policy were to be enforced

it is likely that all E-readers would have backlights

So pro again goes on to predict the future, and then makes a point stating that I refuse to contemplate the future if the policy were enforced, anyone can make a prediction about the future and my prediction is that Electronics companies would take advantage of us, and that E-readers are a luxury which is not affordable in rural parts of the world.

yes I do agree E-readers would come with backlights if pro's policy were to be enforced and I also predict that this would increase the price of the E-readers. The

http://www.amazon.com...

Kindle paperwhite is currently the only kindle which has backlights and also comes in at a whopping 120dollars. People in rural parts of the world cannot afford to pay money for this especially not in a family full of kids. it's much easier for them to buy used books in their local communities.

http://appleinsider.com...



Most people dont use E-readers, they would bring one rather than a book, a good example is our good friend Micah he brought his book on several campouts we've been to.

So Pro has refuted himself in this statement, Correct he does bring his book with him, Micah's family owns an Ipad and he brings a book with him instead. I'm not sure where Pro was going with this point but he has refuted himself.



I did not say abolishing printing books will reduce deforestation, but that it will reduce paper production. by printing books we are needlessly wasting wood


So here con insists that he argued that we are just wasting trees needlessly this is a flat out lie, 2 arguments ago he was arguing how many people his %7 reduction would support. I will quote from his argument:

The "7%" that Con mentioned potentially could've supported 75,329,215 people!


Yes, but we would ship less E-readers than we have shipped books.

When this policy is introduced Billions of e-readers will have to be shipped out because every single person who wants to read will require this retardation in order to read the local newspaper. not only this but Of course electronics companies will update and create new models for their E-readers which of course means More shipping, and more money being wasted on E-readers. It is a completely broken cycle that we can already see happening in the elctronics industry today.

No prediction can be backed up by evidence.

This is a completely contradictory statement made by pro. A huge portion of his arguments have been made up of predictions. such as:

It is likely all E-readers will have backlights
Wireless charging will likely advance
According to the law of supply and demand they will likely reduce by 95%
It will likely increase capitol which means more income for society
this would encourage more solar panels to be installed.

Im sure there are others but these are off the top of my head.

apparently con is blind. in round 2 I presented a graph that explain howThe more demand a product has, the more prices drop.

Computers prices went up because more people are buying tablets and mobile phones.

Yes, so pro has provided us with a graph showing the law of supply and demand. and has stated that the reason tv's are getting more expensive is because of the demand on Tabloids. Let me remind you that the law of supply is a very broad law, and obviously there are many variables in it which can take place.

http://www.tgdaily.com...

the above website is stating how demand for tablets are on the rise! and I'd like to point out that so is the price. Ipads are getting more and more expensive by the model. Now of course they drop over time but is this because the demand for outdated ipads increases? nope.

There is a marketing stradegy which involves dropping the price of a product to try and increase the demand. I am very unfamiliar with economics unfortunately but I will try to use the graph below as a referance.



So, using this as a referance, and also applying the law of supply and demand, the ipad is dropping month after month because of a demand increase? I dont think that is quite right. If you look at the image it shows the statistic for the decrease in price after the Ipad 3 rumors came out. All of a sudden people hear about this brand new model3. and the Demand for Ipad 2 increases exponentially!

obviously there are many variables apply to the law of supply and demand which pro has not clarified on. thus making his argument invalid.

Pro has not supplied a diagram about how it would apply to eletronics or a product in similar circumstances as I pointed out in round 4.

Con deliberately ignores the fact that ELECTRICITY IS A MORE ABUNDANT RESOURCE THAN WOOD.





Electricity is harvested mainly from Non-renewable resources. As you can see we are currently getting 0.1% of electricty from our Sun. This is because Solar Energy electricty is an incredibly expensive process.

Our main consumption from electricity is from NON-RENEWABLE sources. this means they are gone for good. Woodpulp is a very renewable source. Most books come from trees which are planted for that exact purpose.



I'd like to thank pro for debating with me, I had a good time and learned a lot.

I'd like to state that I was not arguing that books are better than E-books as Pro was. simply that the perks E-readers and E-books have to offer are not significant enough to actually contemplate putting this policy in effect. Books are damaging the earth in a very small way, and that Pro's points of arguments can be applied to many other consumptions we have which are much more pressing.

Thank you

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
Jesus loves me.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Dennybug

1. I debate in things I believe in all the time, but I prefer to debate over a topic in which I have little to no opinion because I won't be biased like some people (wink wink nudge nudge).

2. Being a proper debater in this debate medium or anywhere for the matter requires you to appear sophisticated because it is polite and establishes your Ethos towards the audience. In real life, you may be a crude, lame, socially awkward, person who doesn't mind swearing in front of his mother or his twin sister and brothers, in DDO you must appear mature and intelligent. You know more than anyone that I swear more than anyone in the world, yet I've never sworn on this debate medium.
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
these are the comments, i can express myself without sounding like a have a ginormous stick shoved up my butt.

I mean, I shall be content with whatever I have needs to say as my proverbial shackles have been unchained, I am but a newborn child again in the world of opinions.
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
why are you never debating in something you believe? -_-
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Dennybug

Dennis stop taking this so personal. You know that I would never want books to be abolished. This is just a fun match between our debating skills, not between our ideals.

I told you not to swear =-=
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
Books are better! #sentimentalvaluefuckthehaters
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Nothing like two best friends arguing online :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DefroDennybugTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: So, it seems obvious to me by the end of the debate that Pro is winning the majority of the points in the round handily. The best response on environment comes from Con in R4, and it's too little too late. Cost arguments also go Pro, despite my perception that many of them are flimsy and he's ingnoring a few key factors (none of which are brought up by Con). The added economic benefits that come later are also flimsy, but not thoroughly addressed. So that's arguments. Pro also takes the edge on citations, as they were generally more prevalent and more appropriate. Conduct can't go anywhere, mainly because I think both of you showed bad conduct in the round. Pro, you need to stop making such a huge deal of what Con does with his time. I don't care if he played LoL, it's not important to the debate, and it gave you an extra round for extensive arguments. Con, don't be so dismissive about the debate as a whole. It felt like you were a few times.