are books better than TV
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
Zero points raised in round 2 and zero rebuttals, I await round 3 with eager anticipation.
Kat_13 forfeited this round.
ContraDictator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 7 months 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:||3||0|
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
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.