books vs movies
Debate Rounds (5)
I thank Pro for an interesting debate topic. As Con, I will do my best to prove movies are better than books. Truthfully, I more like the idea of a book, but will try to talk about a larger, objective scale.
Refutations on Pro's arguments:
"Before movies were ever made books and writing were the only ways of spreading stories."
This argument, however, means nothing and doesn't prove the superiority of books. We can see that, as technology advanced, and more modern ways of solving the common day problems are often better than the older ways. Let's take mail and electronic mail for an example. The latter obviously has many advantages over the other, in that it is instant, can include a variety of additions, have attached pictures or whole documents to them and so on.
"Books like movies tell a story and put a picture in our heads allowing us to imagine we are in the story but books have been doing this for much longer and they have been doing it much better. Books don't provide you with a permanent picture they allow you to use your imagination and picture the characters and settings like you want to."
Pro, again says that just because books have been there longer, they're superior, which I have proven wrong in the past refutation. Then, Pro says books have made us imagine things better. I say, "define better". I believe that a book will never offer a picture as clear as a movie, unless the reader has visualisation skills that make him live through the boo like a movie. The last sentence makes no sense, as the book will always be the same, no matter how many times you read it. Of course, you can imagine characters in different ways, but I don't see how this would me the reader enjoy in any way.
(For all the comprehending, vocabulary, spelling things)
I agree on the point that book makes the reader think more, but I refute it by say the movies do too. While he books may offer a larger vocabulary, movies offer something else. The voice of a language. And millions of language learners are finding help in movies of the language they are learning. Why? It simply gives them the sense of how the language sounds, how it works, and they might even pick up the accent. Additionally, reading movies with subtitles can help with fast reading and, although to a lesser tone, movies also introduce the watchers to brand new words and help them enlarge their vocabulary. This doesn't totally nullify Pro's point, but makes it understand why it is not such a big advantage.
"without literature movies may not even exist."
While this isn't explained as all, and is added to another sentence so that it doesn't make sense, I'll still explain why this is not true. While literature certainly does take part in the movie industry, the industry doesn't rely on it. A bigger percent of movies are not based on books. From everyday experience, one can clearly deduce that most movies are based on scripts. Therefore, movies would still exist and continued to be made without books.
"Characters in books are much more relatable and enjoyable because although the author may give us information about them we come up with the ultimate picture of them in our heads and gather our one ideas about them, in movies we are given the characters and they leave less to the imagination."
Pro says that books leave more place for imagination when it comes to characters than movies do. I, however, believe it is the same. Many people have very different opinions on the same character, was it a movie or a book. If anything movies do, is not describe the characters as detailed as books do, which would normally leave more space for imagination. Pro says as if books are dynamic, while movies are static, in all senses. This, however, I have proven wrong.
Tension in movies:
I believe it is commonly known that movies can create more tension upon the watcher than books. They're thrilling, fast-paced and dynamic. They can leave the watcher desperately wondering what will happen next more so than books can. Books cannot describe things in such a tone.
Time needed to watch a movie/read a book:
While some may like talking long times to read a book, most people are busy today and are working on their career as the no. 1 thing in their life. As such, a movie, lasting commonly around 120 minutes is more appealing to them than taking days to read books, which can be time consuming.
All in all, I have proven Pro wrong in many of his points and made mine along the way, with an addition of why movies are better. Thus, I have as well shown movies are superior.
Refutations on Con's arguments:
"I believe it is commonly known that movies can create more tension upon the watcher than books. They're thrilling, fast-paced and dynamic."
While this is an interesting argument there is no real proof that this is true. Movies may give the audience a visual picture and the music may foreshadow what is going to happen next, but these things don't make movies more "thrilling, fast-paced or dynamic". Books use punctuation to convey emotion like excitement, but ultimately it is the plot or the story line that we as an audience find thrilling or dynamic. People can get just as much enjoyment from a book as they can from a film. In books we may even see more complex parts to a character, most times in books we understand the plot even better because it is easier to see into the characters head. In books there is sometimes more writing about what the character is feeling and as an audience we may understand why the character acts the way he/she does. The whole point of a book is to tell a story, but in movies sometimes the story losses its intensity or thrill because the focus is more on the visual effects. For example in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie an entire scene was added that was not in the book, the book itself was filled with action but the one action scene with the chasing of the dragon in the movie that was added actually took away from the intensity and thrill of the story, that scene dragged the movie on because the information needed for that scene to happen never was revealed in the actual story.
People all the time comment on reading a book saying "It's a page turner" or "I can't put the book down" If people are entertained or find a story thrilling they are going to continue to read and they have similar feelings to those watching a suspenseful scene in a movie. Just because we can see the characters or there is music queuing us in on spikes in the movie doesn't mean that those people reading a book aren't surprised, or don't find some parts of the story fast paced or dynamic. The author of a story uses things called style and tone to draw the readers in, change the mood and in a thrilling, suspenseful story the reader is going to be just as thrilled or surprised as someone watching a movie. Con says that movies are more fast paced and thrilling than books but I believe that they are the same. Both books and movies are suspenseful, thrilling, and dynamic and I have proven his argument wrong.
"While some may like taking long times to read a book, most people are busy today and are working on their career as the no.1 thing in their life."
Con is right, people are very busy today and although movies take a shorter a amount of time to watch, this is just a preference for some people. Just because someone is busy doesn't mean they don't have time to read a book. Books are portable, they can be taken with you places; compared to carrying around a portable dvd player or a tv a book is much more portable. Yes, I know you can watch movies on your phone and other devices but those things also lose battery a book can be taken to the doctors office waiting room, on the train, the subway, they can be taken anywhere and can be read without any type of battery power or inconvenience to others. I would argue that books taking more time to read is a good thing because it prolongs the enjoyment you get from the story. With movies you watch them in a shorter amount of time but then the enjoyment is over, with a book you're money and your entertainment goes farther, you can read for days and read whenever you have time you don't have to clear and hour or more to read like you do to have to watch a movie.
Con brought up a valid point with books taking longer but his argument is based solely on the fact that people are busy, yes although many people are busy, there are some that don't have jobs. In a time where the economy isn't as great as it could be there is a lot of unemployment and while those people I'm sure spend a lot of time looking for new jobs and working hard there are some people out there that aren't spread so thin and aren't so busy that they can't read a book. I have proven Con's argument false.
1.People aren't as disappointed in books as they are in movies. In books you can't be disappointed by special effects because you make up them up in your head and of course they come out the way you imagine. Same with the characters chosen to play the parts, in movies the character might not fit the part as you have imagined or they may have even ruined the role with bad acting, but in books once again we visualize what we want. While reading a story its almost like we direct a movie in our heads, we visualize the characters and we decide how we see things.
2.Movies have to cut out some of the complexity of a story, movies leave out the thoughts in characters heads, they don't include long dialogues. Movies have to be fast paced because if they weren't the audience would fall asleep within the first few minutes. In books we can see inside the chaacters head, we can understand why the character acts certain ways or does certain actions. The length of a book allows for us to ponder and understand the character and being able to put the book down and read it whenever we have the time allows us to understand and expand upon some of the more complex scenes.
Thanks to Pro for a strong argument.
Refutations on refutations:
First, I have to say that Pro, although he talked about some of my arguments, he has as well failed to do so with the most. I take it as the Pro agreed with my points meaning most of his are now invalid. Now, to continue:
1. Pro says that people aren't as disappointed in books as they are in movies. I disagree, here. There are as many bad books as there are bad movies. People usually look at the popular movies/books, or ones requested from friends, so disappointments are kept at minimum. Most of these disappointments come from movies that are adapted to books, which I, already stated are a minority. Of course, we can see things differently in books, but it doesn't mean they're superior to movies. Either way, one person cannot see a book in two ways, and it would be odd if it did. Therefore, I don't see a bad point in here.
On another note, I say his talk about special effect has little to no value, since people can't visualise so strongly that it seems like a movie, unless they are hallucinating. Special effects can never be perceived as detailed as movies offer them.
2. Pro says that movies are worse than books because they have less time to explain certain things, unlike books do. I say this doesn't make any superior trait, as movies are never meant to be complex. When one goes to see a movie, he anyway doesn't look for long explanations of scenes, so it doesn't matter. Furthermore, some movies actually do manage to pull this off, especially with good acting. Truly makes you understand every thought in the character's head.
Defending my arguments:
Pro explains that I am wrong and that books can be just as thrilling. He again talks about complexity which I already said isn't a valid argument, as no one watches films for deep story line, even if some movies manage to pull it off. I agree that sometimes movies focus too much on visual effects, but it's only occasional. Now, to further prove my argument is right, I will talk about action movies. Today, they make up a large percent of movies. And these movies are (unless severely dumb) all three of what I had mentioned. Books will never be able to portray action as movies do. They can't explain gunfire scenes in a way that movies do. Such thrilling scenes books will never explain in the wanted detail. Now, Pro talks about added scenes, which have no place in refuting my argument, and talks about movies based on books. I won't talk about these.
I agree with Pro on his point that people that are busy still have time to read books, but this does not make them prefer them. I also agree with the portability of books and movies. As for the prolonged enjoyment, I say it's a matter of tastes. Someone might like to read a story for a long time, but someone else would prefer seeing the whole story in a much shorter time.
Con's story about unemployment makes sense, however, youth unemployment rates are generally much higher than unemployment rates for all ages.  If Pro argues that most of the youth today studies full-time, and makes no sense to call them unemployed, then those who study part-time are usually not the hard-workers. We know that most of these people around the age of 20 generally more like the idea of movies, and often associate books with school, which they (usually) dislike. You'd more often hear "Hey, come over at my place, let's watch a movie or something!" than "Hey, come over at my place, let's read a book or something." A majority people, however, are employed these days, so this argument doesn't hold high value. "Let's go to the cinema!" is as well a more heard sentence than it's reading counterpart. The youth today finds far more enjoyment in movies than in books.
I have managed to defend my arguments and prove some of Pro's wrong. I still stand by my point that the movie is overall superior.
1. Of course people can see a book in two ways, what is so weird about interpreting symbolism, moods, characters, and themes in different ways. I could read a book and my friend could read a book and both of us may see different meanings to the story or interpret it differently. With movies you may be able to interpret things slightly differently as well, but not as well because as stated before movies present the audience with a permanent picture. I can't look at a black dog in a movie and say the dog is brown because both me and the rest of the audience saw that the dog was brown; but in a book it might say "the dark creature in the woods ran swiftly past me" After reading that I could come to a few conclusions the creature could be a dog, a cat, a wolf, a bear, etc... and it could also be several colors, maybe black, brown,gray, etc... Books are meant to be interpreted differently and to be imagined differently from reader to reader, movies don't allow for as much imagination.
The special effects do have a point in this argument. What are special effects? They are the illusions or optical and mechanical effects used in theatre, movies etc... They are used to add to the story like say there is a fire scene in the movie, the fire, the smoke and the characters in the fire may all be illusions, they aren't going to actually have the stars of the movies in a burning building or 2ft away from an exploding bomb. The visual effects are what allow scenes that can be easily described in a story come to life without putting hollywood's stars in jeopardy. In a book the effects can be described or we could just picture them because we are given some details that lead us to assume. We can't be disappointed by them because we visualize them, but in movies they might be bad, they might be unbelievable. Not just in comparing the books to their movie counterpart but in the sense that we could watch any movie and be disappointed by what we see, where in a book we take the details we are given and make our own mental picture.
3. Movies may not be meant to be complex but they are expected to tell a story and be comprehendible, movies can't use flashbacks like books do, they do use them in some cases and they do work out in some movies but in many cases we don't get the full idea of the story or we might be confused while watching a movie with too many flashbacks because they are trying to give us information that we will need later but they end up dragging on the plot and losing the thrill or suspense.
"No one watches films for a deep story line"
Con writes that no one watches films for a deep story line, this is just a preference, some people do watch movies for the plot and the symbolism, movies aren't just all about the visual aspect. Like books movies try to convey a story if a movie didn't have somewhat of a deep storyline the audience would be lost and same for books, there is just some information that is needed to understand a story and without them in both books and movies the audience is lost. That is why books are better, because they can go into full detail, and they can flashback because people can put the book down and analyze what they just read. Movies on the other hand try to shove the story down your throat and are too quick to get to the climax.
"Books will never be able to portray action as movies do"
Con says books can't portray action as movies do but he's wrong. Say you are watching a movie and a fight scene breaks out, one guy kicked another and the one that was kicked falls to the ground. Yes this is very visual and we completely comprehend what just happened in this scene but books can allow us to picture it just as well as if we were actually seeing it. For example "Suddenly, one man ran out from the side of a tall, eerie building and sprung on his innocent opponent from behind. With one powerful roundhouse kick the innocent man was sent plummeting to the ground." The adjectives that writers use and the tone and style they write with evokes emotion and stimulates the mind to visualize what they are reading. I could picture a man falling to the ground after getting kicked, it is the way the author writes that allows us to visualize the action taking place. If books weren't able to portray action every book ever written would have very little thrill, or they would all be one genre which would be boring, so clearly that is not the case.
Con then brings up the argument about unemployment, I never used youth in my example and if youth are studying full or part time then I wouldn't consider them unemployed. I'm a bit confused as to how the topic of youth unemployment fits or supports cons argument but I will continue to support my arguments. Con writes that youth like the idea of movies more than books and they associate books with school. I disagree, I think it is just preference. There are many younger people that I'm sure prefer to read, If we are talking about movie adaptations of books especially, many have said that the Harry Potter books and the Twilight books were much better than the movies. Youth liking movies more isn't much of an argument it is more so a preference, In social situations with friends of course they are going to want to watch a movie unless someone wants to read a book aloud but that doesn't make movies better than books.
1.Books allow for a narrative voice to fill in gaps and give the reader necessary information needed to understand the story. Movies might have to drag on or explain so much more because there is a lacking of a narrative voice.
2.Books encourage imagination and a creative mind, while movies do quite the opposite, they present one perspective. Especially in movie adaptations of books, for example now Hermione Granger is Emma Watson etc...
Amazing argument. I'll still argue for my point.
1. Pro says that people can see books in different ways. I agree that movies do this to a somewhat lesser extent, but, all in all, it proves nothing. Interpreting things in different ways only results to arguments between people who have taken perceived the same words in a different way. And the same thing happens to those who watch a movie. One might think a certain character portrayed in the movie is bad, while another one might think the opposite. This argument simply proves nothing, and means no superiority.
Pro, as well, used this sentence as an example: "the dark creature in the woods ran swiftly past me"
If this was portrayed in a movie, considering it is a wood, a swiftly passing creature couldn't be recognized as well. I mean, seriously, identifying the color and look of something that would appear in one second on a screen is nigh impossible, especially if it is in wood, which blocks light. Therefore, this sentence means nothing, and even if it was right, it wouldn't be proof of books over movies.
2. Now, Pro talks about special effects. I agree, they are a part of a movie that can be bad, but really any part of a movie could be bad. As well as every part of a book could be bad. A book/movie is consisted of many parts. Dialogue, Plot, Special Effects and so on, all are parts that make a movie. It is meaningless to say that each one of these could be bad and pose it as an argument, unless the problem strongly persists through today's movies. And, I don't believe it does. Today's movies have very good special effects, in general, and I am not displeased with the last few Sci-Fi movies I've watched.
On a larger scale, this argument would make as much sense as "A movie can be bad". I could as well say "The dialogue in a book can be bad, therefore, books are inferior." And bad writing can as well result in poorly described special effects in books, so I, overall, don't see this as a valid argument.
3. "movies can't use flashbacks like books do" I just want to describe how laughable is this. Movies, in my opinion, portray flashbacks far better than book. Either way, they are rarely confusing. While creating flashbacks in movies, usually signs are added to notify people of such. A simple heading saying "Two years ago..." or sepia/blurred effect of the movie very well makes the person understand they are watching a flashback. Very rarely are they not introduced, and if they are, watcher can figure it out. There are also books that present flashbacks without any notifications, so that they can confuse people. These cases are also rare. I agree flashbacks can take away the thrill in a movie, but this happens only sometimes, and usually, for someone who wants to enjoy the film, they just make him understand everything better, making a scene better. Their function is the same as in books, and is only done in a different way. Therefore, the flashback argument doesn't make any sense at all. As for telling the story and being comprehensible, movies do that, so I don't see the point in this, especially since Pro's only way of proving this was the flashbacks which I explained are wrong.
4. Indeed, the books use the narrative voice to explain the reader information. However, a number of movies also has the narrative tone, especially in the start, where it explains the starting plot or similar. And most of the plot is discoverd from the dialogue, if there is no narrative tone. There is no need to drag on in movies just to explain things and it almost never happens. This isn't really a problem.
5. Pro mentions that books encourage imagination and movies don't, but fails to bring a reason to this. Again, the perspective thing makes no sense. One can perceive either a movie or a book in a different way from another. This isn't restricted only to books. Pro even less explains why movies do the opposite. The Emma Watson comment isn't explained.
Defending my arguments:
1. I agree I've made a mistake here, by saying that line. Perhaps, I should have said "for a very complex story line". He also continues by explaining how movies do this, and I agree. Then he says that books are better because one can analyze what they read, in order to understand. And movies, obviously, cannot do this, and confuse the watcher. Now, the watcher can do the same, but not in the same way. He could simply ask his friend who's been watching the movie with him or who's watched the movie before about what happened. Ultimately, if the watcher is so confused, he could use the remote to go back to the point and see it again. If he's in a cinema, he could simply ask someone next to him, or a friend, if he's with him. Even so, movies aren't usually fast paced enough to lead to such confusion.
2. Pro explains books can explain action in the same way, which, I have to disagree with. While certainly, books can use adjectives, tone and style, to make us live through a scene, they cannot do this in the same way as action movies do. Visual stimuli are far more detailed than a line of text. "A picture tells a hundred words." people say, and most agree with. While books can certainly do a good job in showing action, they still will never be on par with movies, which happen much faster and are more thrilling. Most action-lovers would prefer watching movies over reading books. I don't think this needs source, it is pretty much everyday experience. The genre "action" is often merged with the "adventure" when it comes to books. It is simply because books cannot portray more raw action, that movies can. Therefore, I've proven movies portray action better than books, and that they can be more thrilling.
3. I brought up youth unemployment as a reason to why most youth would prefer books. If they do not study at all, it probably means they are not very hard working. Thus, they probably dislike school. And, as such, probably dislike books. As with the preference, I'd say movies are far more popular in the youth today, making them a better part of entertainment. Especially in the high school. I agree this is mostly preference, so I won't talk about this further.
Again, I have explained why Pro's arguments are invalid, and mine are, defending my point of a Con.
Defending my arguments:
Con tries to argue my point by writing "Interpreting things in different ways only results to arguments between people who have taken perceived the same words in a different way." Why is arguments between people over different perspectives a bad thing? These arguments on perspectives make books even better in my opinions because you can discuss books with other readers, offer up your perspectives and analyze the story in different ways, you might even share your love over the story with someone else, reading a book and discussing your opinion with someone else makes the book more enjoyable. All in all I'm not quite sure where con was trying to go with that argument.
Con then uses my example of "the dark creature in the woods" he says that in a movie if we saw a dark creature run through the woods we wouldn't be able to tell either. This argument is a bit laughable because in the movie you are actually seeing the creature and although it may be running fast you physically see the color, the shape and the environment the creature is in. Im sure in the movie it isn't that hard to see a dog on the screen and know its a dog. I was using the example of the creature to prove that a vague description (the creature) allows us to make our own mental picture, for example in a movie a dog is on the screen but in a book creature could be multiple things and that leads to imagination.
Con argues that every part of a book could be bad like special effects are bad. I was using the special effects example to prove that in books we use imagination to picture scenes and if these books were made into movies these scenes would have special effects, but in the book we couldn't be disappointed by the special effects because we imagined them. Like I stated earlier movies leave you with a permanent image, so if you see a bad special effect you are going to be slightly disappointed or less convinced of the story line.
Con states "There is no need to drag on in movies just to explain things and it almost never happens." This is almost in support of my argument because if movies don't explain things or don't give enough information about the plot like books do then this would be a reason as to why maybe movies are less superior or confusing even.
Con writes "Pro mentions that books encourage imagination and movies don't, but fails to bring a reason to this." This argument is invalid because I think most of my arguments in the past rounds have focused on books encouraging imagination by allowing the reader to picture the characters, and how movies present an audience with one perspective. This even ties to my argument involving "the dark creature". Books present you with descriptive adjectives but it is up to our imagination to draw up a mental image of those descriptions.
"He could ask his friend who's been watching the movie with him or who's watched the movie before about what happened."
Con wrote this and it just proves that movies don't allow audiences to use their minds and come to their own conclusions. Books allow readers to take a break and think through what they have read. Also I'd like to mention that if you are turning to the person next to you in a theatre to ask them about a movie, you are probably missing out on what is currently happening maybe even making you more confused, and probably annoying your friend.
"Visual stimuli are far more detailed than a line of text. A picture tells a hundred words."
I am going to prove this false by saying yes a picture does tell a hundred words, and what are books made of? Words. Visual stimuli are detailed, but going back to my other argument they don't lead to creativity and imagination, a line of text can describe a picture, words can describe pictures, and descriptions in words allow us to visualize in our heads these descriptions but once presented with a visual stimuli you can't imagine up a character or setting that has already been presented to you. I also think Con's argument that "it is simply because books cannot portray more raw action, that movies can." is false. Con doesn't support this belief with much reason, yet I believe I have provided several examples involving the use of punctuation and adjectives to prove Con wrong.
"If they don't study at all, it probably means they are not very hard working. Thus. they probably dislike school." This argument is just a very vague opinion. Just because a youth doesn't study at a college or take up classes part time or full time does not mean they aren't busy or hard working. Also con writes "Id say movies are far more popular in youth today." whether this be true or not it is not sufficient enough of an argument to prove that movies are superior, that would be like me saying older people enjoy reading books more than watching movies therefore books are superior.
Books stimulate the mind more. They make you think more, you need to be able to read, comprehend, and you become more robust in vocabulary. Books are better for all ages, reading often at a young age will improve reading skills for students later down the line, and reading at an older age keeps the brain stimulated. Reading encourages the use of reading, grammatical, and vocabulary skills and it helps us maintain those skills.
SarcasticIndeed forfeited this round.
I will further argue past points from con's round 3 for this round and I will conclude my argument in the end.
"Visual stimuli are far more detailed than a line of text."
Con brings up this argument and I agree to some extent, visual stimuli are detailed, but they are also permanent. This goes along with my imagination argument, If visual stimuli is presented we can not argue much against what we just saw. When we see a black dog we see a black dog it would be harder to argue against it and you can't imagine a character like you can in a book. In a book if there is a description of a black dog, we may have been told it is a black dog through detail but we can still imagine size, and what type of dog it is.
I have given several reasons as to why books are superior to movies the main ones being:
They encourage imagination
They encourage reading, stimulation in the brain, and improve upon grammatical and vocabulary skills
Books allow narrative voice to fill in gaps without dragging on
Books are more detailed, and don't leave parts out of the story
Books are completely portable and can be read whenever you are available
Con has offered up arguments like Books take longer to read, youth prefer movies, and action is portrayed better in film, but all of those reasons are a matter of preference and don't necessarily prove that books are inferior to movies.
I thank con for a great debate and I hope to read his refutations/conclusion to the debate if he finds the time for round 5.
First, I want to say I'm sorry I wasn't able to complete my argument for the 4th round. Fortunately, I have the time to do it now. I, as well, recognize some mistakes I've made in the 3rd Round, and am looking forward to fixing them and, once again, try to prove that movies are better.
1. Pro says that books are better than movies since they inspire arguments on perspectives and make people discuss their impressions on the book. This, argument, however, has no real value, as it is the same with books. People often argue about some points, what do they think actually happened during the movie, or their thoughts on a character. All of these equally exist in both movies and books, so they cancel each other out.
2. Now, about the sentence, I was simply explaining how some things in movies cannot be seen in total either, and if it was in a wood, especially during night, we still couldn't identify the creature. It was not meant to be a serious argument, and just means that not everything in movies has to be shown right up. There are often mysteries, conspiracies that are hinted and make the watcher think of what just happened. One might think a certain character in a movie is bad, and only hiding his true colors, while another might think the otherwise. It's not right to say that movies are "permanent pictures" and that they lead everyone who watches them to the same conclusion. Books are as well "permanent words", they won't change no matter how many times you read them. Therefore, this argument makes no sense.
3. Now, about the special effect, I do accept I've made a mistake there. However, Pro clearly talks about examples where movies are based on books. Now, I've already stated that these movies don't make up a majority, and I know they can turn out bad and not as one predicted, but this doesn't work with other movies. Pro's case works only if we have something that was created before the movie to compare with the actual movie. It is quite normal that some adaptations are a disappointment, be it either a movie based on book or vice versa, as they don't really fulfill what the original author wanted to do. This argument, therefore, is not really valid, and I don't see how this is a superior trait of books.
4. Again, I can see this as a case of Pro talking of movies based on book. We most commonly, only know whether a plot gives enough information if we compare it to something that it is adapted from. I don't know really many, if any cases where movies that weren't based on books leaved chunks of plot unexplained, as this would be a fatal mistakes. Films are made so that they can explain enough plot (usually more) so that the watcher can fully enjoy it. This was a response to the narrative tone, but Pro doesn't talk about it, but only a sentence I added to my argument on it. Therefore, I believe he has agreed with my point on the topic and makes the narrative tone an invalid argument.
5. This is another mistake I've made. Pro indeed posed reasons as to why books encourage imaginations, however, it's not like movies don't. I've already stated this in some of the previous arguments, and different opinions on unexplained mysteries in movies, which makes the watcher imagine of what the truth is, and people usually have very different opinions. While I do agree books encourage imaginations to a bigger extent, I do not see what true superiority comes out of this. Pro didn't explain why more imagination is better, but only said it is good. Therefore, this argument is as good as invalid.
6. Yes, I agree books have more accessible ways of analyzing the information, but that's why movies don't often try to confuse the watcher, relating to more simple ways of telling the story. It is not that common that one is confused while watching a movie, especially if he is in a calm ambient which lets him focus on the movie. The reason to all of the cases under which one is confused is most likely a distraction, much like when reading books. Therefore, as long as one tries to keep as focused on a movie as he can, he most likely won't be confused.
7. Pro again talks about imagination which is active during the reading of a book, but again, doesn't bring reason as to why it is good. I still want to defend my point of visual images being more thrilling. One can read a book slowly or read the words very fast, it is up to him, but the words will never explain the situation as fast as a movie can. Let's say we have this example:
"Lee tries to punch Chan in the face, but his attack was blocked. Chan kicks him in the face, knocking Lee onto the floor."
(I do understand that is not a very artistic example, but that's not the point) As one reads this, he might take some time to imagine this. One cannot imagine while reading sentences, but has to make a small pause to play out the scene in his/her head. As he/she continues reading, she will have to make that small pause to imagine what he's read. It's simply because our brain needs time to process what we've just read. This is not the case with movies. The whole scene could happen in as much as a second, and the scene rapidly continues, while he doesn't need pauses to understand what happened. Our minds just take in the stimuli, quickly recognizing what happened. This brings far more thrill than books do. Of course, a book may bring great interest in the reader, leaving him hungry for the next scene (which movies do too), but it will never bring the fast-paced, action thrill movies can.
8. I've made just a big mistake here, I apologize. Pro has the full right here.
9. Pro says that books expand upon vocabulary, and greatly improve one's skills. Movies really do the same, just in a different way. I already said they offer sound and pronunciation of words which books can't. This can be of great importance to any language learners. It is estimated over a billion people learn English today . And this is only one language. In most language courses, learners are advised to watch the movies on the language they are learning, because it makes them "hear the language", understand how it works and take some of the accent. Apart from this, the book also helps one improve his grammar and vocabulary by listening to dialogue, or even spelling if one watches a subtitled movie. While books do this a bit better, movies offer the aforementioned goods that books will never be able to. Therefore, this argument holds little value, and talks about another good quality of movies.
Comments on Pro's conclusions:
"They encourage imagination"
Pro has said this on many occasions, and I managed to explain how movies do too. Either way, Pro didn't bring a reason as to why this is good.
"They encourage reading, stimulation in the brain, and improve upon grammatical and vocabulary skills"
I've already discussed these, and explained how movies do the same, also having some other qualities.
"Books allow narrative voice to fill in gaps without dragging on"
Some movies as well have this narrative voice. I've also noted that the dragging on happens very rarely.
"Books are more detailed, and don't leave parts out of the story"
I've already explained that this only has some power if movies are based on books, something we can compare them too. I've noted this is a minority of movies and that it is expected for the adaptation to be worse than the original.
"Books are completely portable and can be read whenever you are available"
I concede this point, but movies can as well be portable, to a lesser extent
Once again, I have managed to prove majority of Pro's points as wrong and explained qualities movies have over books, namely the better thrill and sound used while learning languages. Thus, I believe I have proved superiority of movies.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
Research this debate: Reading