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

*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. 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.