Books are better than Movies

I will first attack my opponent's arguments then I will state my own. 1. Books are portableYes, books are portable, as are movies. There are portable DVD players, portable chargers, portable everything now-a-days, so this is not a valid point. Also, the points about movies being asked to be turned off or affecting others do not damage the argument that movies are just as good if not better than books. For example: the book is not asked to be turned off when the airplane takes off and when it lands; the book is not prohibited at school and will be taken away if the teacher sees it; the book’s screen does not glare in bright light, rather, the reader benefits from the bright light; and the book does not need headphones to wear or else people will be distracted by your movie. In addition, the book does not require batteries or other power source, which hamper the rage of the movie. If we assume this argument even valid, my arguments would be as such: Just as my opponent states, one may wear headphones with a movie and the experience will then be silent. However, paper does make sound and can cause irritation to neighbors as well with the constant flipping of pages. Also, when near avid readers one is typically expected to be quiet and is not allowed to talk. However, when someone is using headphones and watching a movie one may talk because the concentration and experience of the watcher is unaffected.2. Books are made into movies, not the other way aroundThis point can also be thrown out. An example of a movie-turned-book is The Dead Poet's Society. Thus proving that movies can be turned into books as well, this argument is also void.3. Books engage one’s imaginationThis may sound like a lot of hard work, but, trust me, it’s not. You do it naturally. Here is an (imperfect) analogy: telling a story with a book and movie is like a basketball game. With the movie, you are in the stands watching the game unfold. You may get the benefit, if you can afford movie tickets, of being in the crowd, but that is it. When you read a book, it’s like you are actually in the game. You actually in the middle of the action. You are more engaged. While I do admit that you cannot control the outcome of the book, the analogy still stands: would you rather be actively engaged or on the sidelines, where your mind can drift more to getting more popcorn than the to the plot. While the analogy is interesting, it completely misrepresents both movies and books. For starters, the classic book Where The Wild Things Are: the book itself does very little to provide any symbolism or background and leaves very little to the imagination. There are no margins for one to look into. However, the movie offers lots of emotion and dark undertones that let the imagination run. With the movie, one can make parallels and delve into the meaning of things. However, with the black-and-white of the book, one is left with nothing to speculate. This is the reason why plays and musicals are written. We could choose to read the script—it is an option—however, people will choose to see the play and maybe later if they are interested or performing it read the script. Also, building upon my arguments against my opponent's previous contention and the current one, here is what one reads on wikipedia about the musical/play Phantom of the Opera: Le Fantôme de l'Opéra (English: The Phantom of the Opera) is a novel by French writer Gaston Leroux. It was first published as a serialisation in "Le Gaulois" from September 23, 1909 to January 8, 1910. Initially, the story sold very poorly upon publication in book form and was even out of print several times during the twentieth century;[1] it is overshadowed by the success of its various film and stage adaptations. The most notable of these were the 1925 film depiction, Ken Hill's 1976 musical at the Theatre Royal Stratford East followed twelve years later by Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1986 musical, and Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher's 2004 film. As read above, if it weren't for the visual adaptations of the book, there would be almost no audience for this book. This story only became popular after it was made into a musical and then a movie. 4. Books are longerRegardless of the amount of enjoyment my opponent received from his book, seven hours is a lot more time-consuming than an hour and a half. It is much more practical to invest a small period of time in the enjoyment of some medium of entertainment rather than seven hours. Far more people will indulge in movies than literature because of its ridiculous way of consuming time. In the year 2006, 1 in 4 adults read no books at all. Whether it is because they are occupied with families or work, this statistic proves that movies are much more efficient than books as they consume very little time. Now I Will State My Points1. Not Everyone Can Process Information In NovelsMy opponent's case assumes that books can serve to everyone. However, he is mistaken. Not everyone in the United States is literate, and not everyone in the United States is able to read and write in English. In Brownsville, a high percentage of first-generation Hispanics are unable to read or write in English and 43% of students are ranked as low English proficient. While books cannot cater to those who are not literate in English, movies allow them to experience entertainment in the English language.2. Movies Are More Present In Society & AccessibleLast year, 80% of families in the US did not buy or read a book last year. Statistics show that 42% of people who graduate from college never buy or read another book again. Books are not as present or accessible in society today as movies are. On a survey taken by US citizens on their favorite entertainment mediums, the survey showed that TV was the favorite followed by the internet. Books were in second to last. . http://www.nea.org...http://drpezz.wordpress.com...http://hotforwords.com...http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...