The Instigator
ani_mess
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

have we use Internet more than books?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,841 times Debate No: 18073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

ani_mess

Con

Hi my opponent, I'm a freshman so do not be so severe=)))
There is a view that books have more reliable information. Since ancient times all tried to write or how you capture, the fact that the rock carvings and inscriptions.
It is just a start=)
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate ani!!

My opponent seems to be arguing two things: that books are used more than the internet and that books are more reliable sources of information than the internet.

==Rebuttal==

R1) Books are used more than the internet

Go to any college campus today and you will see that this is not the case. Students are FAR more likely to employ online sources than printed sources. This is a positive thing.

A study by Harel (2003) called the students of today the "three-X's generation" because they learn by "eXploring, eXpressing, and eXchanging ideas. In this way they differ from previous generations that learned from books." [1] A study by Yifat Kolikant of Hebrew University found that students in public school are more likely to pursue computer-learning outside the classroom because they perceive this type of learning as more useful than book-learning and rote-memorization of information within the classroom. [1]

Kolikant explains why computer-learning is preferable, "Resnick and other scholars contend that instead school could and should move beyond information, a phrase that assumes that the citizens of tomorrow who live in a rapidly changing world where knowledge ages quickly do not have to be taught specific information as much as how to effectively consume, create, and communicate knowledge (Papert, 1993, 1996; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003, Brown, 2002). Computer and Internet technology should be central to the new pedagogy because of its potential for engaging in an intellectual partnership with humans by sharing the intellectual load and thereby extending human intellectual performance (Salomon et al., 1991; Pea, 1985)." [1]

In today's world, with the internet, facts are at our fingertips. It is no longer necessary for a student to memorize every single piece of information and keep all these pieces of information in their heads in order to be educated. We do need to know basic information, but we can forget more archaic facts because we can Google those facts if we forget. In this way, computers and the internet are used as an extension of our brains to make us smarter.

So when we learn from books, we have to memorize everything we read because we may not ever be able to find it again. When we learn from computers, we know that we merely need to be able to find the information again online, if we ever need it. This is a more realistic method of learning. Watch the show "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" and you'll soon realize that we don't retain very much information that we learn from books.

The second problem with this is what "more" means in the phrase "books are used more than computers." My opponent likely means more in a temporal sense - that books were used for longer periods of time (before the internet existed). This seems obvious. My opponent even references cave paintings, which technically aren't "books" (defined as objects with paper and bindings).

However, the most important argument to remember here is that more people exist today than during cave-man days. Since we have billions of people using the internet today versus the few thousand elite scholars who had access to books for much of human history, clearly the internet is used more.

Books are relatively expensive and very few people use them (which is why we created public libraries). If anything, the internet has made books MORE accessible. Many universities, like USCS, have projects to digitize their entire library collections so they will be available online (for free). In this way, the internet expands access to material.

If we look at the habits of Americans, very few read books. "In 2004, a National Endowment for the Arts report titled "Reading at Risk" found only 57 percent of American adults had read a book in 2002, a four percentage point drop in a decade." [2] 43% of Americans don't even TOUCH a book after they graduate (or drop out of) high school. Furthermore, a Gallup poll found that among those who do read, the top choices are religious texts and science fiction. [2] This puts a damper in my opponent's argument that people use books to learn; few people read non-fiction.

R2) Books are more accurate than the internet

This is almost nonsensical because many books now appear online, either as a fully-scanned PDF, or parts of the book are references by a variety of different sites. So more and more, books = the internet.

However, there are sites on the internet, like mediafire blogs, that are not great sources of information. However, the ancient texts that my opponent references aren't great sources of information. Until VERY recently in the scale of human history, printing presses were used almost exclusively to print the Bible, which is not exactly a treasure trove of accurate information. Most ancient Greek texts, like Plato, were woefully inaccurate about how the world worked. For example, Plato believed that all matter was made of four elements: air, fire, earth, water. Look at any periodic table (online) to see how wrong he was.

Conclusion: not all internet sites are accurate. Not all books are accurate.

However, user-generated content can often be more accurate than printed sources (the wisdom of crowds). Chris Anderson points out in "The Long Tail" that for online music sites, it would be very difficult to use the classic (book) model of publishing - to have an editor do a "review" of every individual song. It's a lot easier for iTunes, for example, to track user-data to see which songs are the most popular, or to look at users who enjoy a particular genre or artist and track what other genres or artists they also enjoyed. Ebay or Amazon would have a very difficult time hiring an editor to review every single product and seller - using hundreds of user-generated reviews is going to be far more accurate.

Because, as we just saw, aggregated sources smooth over individual errors and anomalies, Wikipedia is surprisingly accurate. A 2005 study by Nature found that Wikipedia had the same number of serious errors in it as Encyclopedia Britannica and concluded that the articles were as accurate as the print sources were. [3]

So not only does the internet have many of the same exact sources (books now published online), but even user-generated content can be surprisingly useful in a way that editorial content is not.

Negated.

[1] http://www.ifets.info...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ani_mess

Con

I would not use any resources, because I have some problems with my computer and I think that it is not fair because if we had a real debates there would not be an oppotunity to use an Internet.

So,yes I am agree that now peop use Internet everywhere, but I think that we do not have to forget about books. people to lasy and selfish, just to stend up and go to the librory. In the internet there are a lot of sources which are not reliable like Wikipedian, where everybody can write everything, then some sites are specifically designed to confuse people just for fun. There is also used slang that not everyone can understand. Not yet each person have the opportunity to afford laptop with Internet so when (for in univercity) asked among of material of homework and you have no way to quickly and easily find it not so fast, sudents can not always sit in internet cafes or ask their friends.Internet means the bin in which everyone can write anything (such as Wikipedia).

Yes, I know that every university uses the internet, but not in every country, I live in Kazakhstan, and not all of us here uses the Internet, moreover, not everyone can afford it.It all depends not only on their studies and people but also by the economic situation in the country. In our case, Kazakhstan may not yet be compared with the United States, Britain, Canada, etc.

It is not a secret that computer harm the eyes and posture, because we are in the mornings as we go in retual Nat, all references Sites distract us and the work is delayed for 6-7 hours, which could end in just 3 hours. Everybody knows about the dangers of computer n not so lazy to go all meee where else, all talk and no zhiuyu through Nat, internet make us be zombies!
so I can say Choate book is safer not only for the brain but also for health =)))
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks ani!

Oh you're from Kazakhstan! Here is a tribute to your wonderful country ------------->

==Rebuttal==

R1) Unfair that I used the internet

My opponent claims it's unfair that I used the internet to research because in a "real" debate I couldn't do that. Firstly, in a real in-person debate, I would have been given the topic ahead of time and would have done all of this research ahead of time anyway. In addition, this site is an online debate site and all users use the internet to research. Lastly, my opponent should not be using the internet to research; she should be using only books if she truly believes in her resolution, so I don't understand this complaint.

R2) "So,yes I am agree that now peop use Internet everywhere"

Essentially my opponent concedes her first point - she agrees that Internet is used more often than books.

R3) "people to lasy and selfish, just to stend up and go to the librory"

This proves that people don't read books, which is precisely my point. If anything, I turn this argument against by opponent since digitizing books and placing them online makes people more likely to read them.

R4) "In the internet there are a lot of sources which are not reliable like Wikipedian"

I already cited a study by Nature, which is unrefuted, that reviewing 24 Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica articles, each had the same number of serious errors and Nature concluded that Wikipedia was approximately as accurate as Britannica (a printed source). I already explained that when you aggregate individual information you smooth out inconsistencies. My opponent never responded to my analysis from The Long Tail, which found that user-generated content, like Ebay reviews, is much better than the classical editorial publishing model (for books,etc).

R5) "some sites are specifically designed to confuse people just for fun"

The same is true of books. The book "Go the F%Ck to Sleep" is designed to look exactly like a children's book, even though it is not. Ancient Greek texts are designed to make people believe in Zeus, even though he doesn't exist.

Okay, sure the internet has more bad content, but The Long Tails explains that this is why Google is so important - to sort the good from the bad using advanced search bots. Users do need to take the internet with a grain of salt and know how to properly research, but generally if you stick to the first page of Google results, you'll be looking at good sites.

R6) "There is also used slang that not everyone can understand"

Books use slang as well. Some authors use an enormous amount of slang. If anything, the internet is easier to understand for a native English speaker than a book, since many of the books we read in school are in more ancient English or are translated from another language (like Camus).

R7) "Not yet each person have the opportunity to afford laptop"

This may be true, but even people who don't have a computer can use the internet at the library. My school library constantly had students on all of the many computers that it housed.

A 2005 study by Seagate found that 76% of Americans owned at least one computer. http://askville.amazon.com... And this number is still increasing.

R8) Kazakhstan isn't very wealthy

Firstly, with the advent of netbooks and student loans, nearly all students can afford a laptop. In fact, buying an internet enabled Kindle is actually cheaper than buying textbooks, since Kindle offers discounts of up to 90% on textbooks.

Also, I agree, Kazakhstan is not a wealthy country. They are ranked 70th in terms of GDP, according to the World Bank, well-behind Libya. However, in extremely poor countries, lmany NGO's have developed an extremely cheap and durable laptop that they hand out to schoolchildren. The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative created a $150 laptop for example and Rwanda agreed to hand them out to all schoolchildren. http://www.pcworld.com... "Libya, Nigeria, Egypt and Ethiopia, among other countries, are also expected to receive the machines this month. Libya has agreed to work with the OLPC project to deploy the laptops for every school-age child in the country."

R9) Computer use hurts posture

This is not unique to the internet. Health professionals recommend that you get up and walk around every 30 minutes. There are also standing desks and exercise ball chairs that prevent blood from pooling in the buttocks and legs and prevent lower back stress.

R10) Lost productivity

The productivity gained from computers and the internet FAR outweighs any lost productivity from people getting distracted at work. Studies on Facebook have found that at most, people spend an average of 30 minutes on the site while at work per day. For this reason, many employers are now banning the site at work using firewalls.

==My case==

My opponent drops my argument that 57% of Americans never read a book, that putting books online has made them more available, that user-generated data can be more useful than publishing, that ancient texts are wildly inaccurate, that learning can now be centered around consuming and making sense of facts rather than memorizing them (because the internet complements our brain power thus making us smarter), and she drops the Nature study that Wikipedia is as accurate as a print Encyclopedia.
Debate Round No. 2
ani_mess

Con

Thanks for answering=)
I am glad that I have an Opponent with a objective point of view.=)
If to be honestly I do not know what to add. I think that we had already said everything, but I want to say that Internet is good, I am not saying:"Let's made a blow=))))" Internet is a part of our life and it is necessary for work and study, but do not forget about reading a real books, which have not so bad influence on our body.

Choose anything what you like: books, pod, Ereader or Laptop, it doesn't matter just do not forget to develop your knowledge and soul=)))))
bluesteel

Pro

I agree with my opponent - don't stop quenching your thirst for knowledge. Definitely read books, but also pursue the much more adaptive learning experience that the internet can provide.

Voters:

My opponent drops my argument that 57% of Americans never read a book, that putting books online has made them more available, that user-generated data can be more useful than publishing (Ebay user reviews), that ancient texts are wildly inaccurate, that learning can now be centered around consuming and making sense of facts rather than memorizing them (because the internet complements our brain power thus making us smarter), and she drops the Nature study that Wikipedia is as accurate as a print Encyclopedia.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicalThinker 3 years ago
LogicalThinker
Ani, I didn't say the language you use makes no sense; I said your argument makes no sense.
Posted by ani_mess 3 years ago
ani_mess
I AM SORRY!!!!!
But Logical thinker could said that I am a bad opponent and etc. in a more polite way....
And I did not know that Russian language are not readable...
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
I see a conduct violation already...Hehehehe...
Posted by ani_mess 3 years ago
ani_mess
as I had alredy sad that I am a freshman and do not be so rood, i am here to learn how to debate, and if you a so clever, may be we will argue on my language, Russian? я думаю тебе хватит ума перевести и понять, может я не так уж и хорошо дебатирую, но я точно не заслужила такого тролинга, так что пшол нах!
Posted by LogicalThinker 3 years ago
LogicalThinker
Con's argument makes no sense.
Posted by LogicalThinker 3 years ago
LogicalThinker
Pro is arguing against!
Posted by Kinesis 3 years ago
Kinesis
Con can turn this around
Posted by wjmelements 3 years ago
wjmelements
What is the resolution, I don't even.
Posted by LogicalThinker 3 years ago
LogicalThinker
Yeah, that seems obvious now. My brain cell and I are a bit tired.
Posted by Sketchy 3 years ago
Sketchy
@LogicalThinker I think there's sort of a misunderstanding...I'm not The Instigator/Con. We have the same avatar but we're different people.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
ani_messbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: concession, no sources
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
ani_messbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
ani_messbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con makes a baseless accusation of Bluesteel, that it was unfair for him to use the internet for the debate. S&G: obvious Arguments: Pro effectively rebutted Con's claims with both surveys and resources (giving him a point for reliable sources), as well as introducing counter-claims that refuted her point. Con also conceded to bluesteel's points as well, effectively giving the vote to Pro. Congrats to ani for facing one of the best debaters on this site.