The Instigator
Kat_13
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ContraDictator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

are books better than TV

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...
Kat_13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 380 times Debate No: 92356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Kat_13

Pro

First of all, I would like to mention that this debate is just for fun and should not be taken too seriously.

It is clear that books are better in many ways. during my three arguments I will be covering the following points: TV is bad for your brain, books don't get repeated, each book it unique, always 3D no glasses needed, you can read when you want and best of all there are no adds when you read.
Now, onto my first argument. TV is bad for your brain while books are the complete opposite. Studies have proven that watching TV can lead to premature death, reduced intelligence, can completely destroy imagination, impair child's growing brain, can increase the chance of brain disorders and worst of all it is addictive. Yes, maybe watching a show could be a bit faster than reading a book, but are you seriously going to save a little bit of time just to find out that you're going to die soon and your young child's brain isn't developing properly. When you read a book there is no damage done to your brain, if anything it makes you smarter by increasing your vocabulary and giving you a magnificent imagination. And don't forget, books can also be non-fiction including school textbooks, dictionaries and many more. And anyway, if TV was better than books why would teachers keep giving us textbooks. Why wouldn't they just make us sit there and constantly watch documentaries.
Another reason why books are better than TV is because there are no repeats. On TV when there is a series of shows there are often more repeats than there are new episodes. When someone flics over to their favourite show they are often found in the situation where they need to figure out whether or not they have already seen that episode. Meanwhile with books you don't have this problem. You either have read the book or you haven't which is easy to figure out by simply reading the title of the book. And that is why I believe books are better than TV.
ContraDictator

Con

Pro has conceded that TV is better than books at reducing brain capacity and speeding up one's death amongst many other things.

Pro has lost this debate as they've provided 2 significant ways that TV is better than books.
Debate Round No. 1
Kat_13

Pro

This debate was obviously about the benefits of reading books compared to watching TV. There was no need to be so literal. It was obvious what I meant. No one likes a troll.
ContraDictator

Con

Zero points raised in round 2 and zero rebuttals, I await round 3 with eager anticipation.
Debate Round No. 2
Kat_13

Pro

Kat_13 forfeited this round.
ContraDictator

Con

ContraDictator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
Kat_13ContraDictatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's only argument was that TV was better at reducing brain capacity and speeding up death. Con used semantics/trolling to get this argument. Pro argued that books have no ads, are not repeated and increase imagination. Con didn't rebut