Books are better than Movies

I would like to ask her to use in-line citations in the future. I will defend my points and then attack my opponent’s. 1. Books are Portable My opponent reasons that portable DVD players and portable chargers makes movies as mobile as books, and therefore allows the point to be invalidated. Which is obviously not the case, considering my points. She does not reference the other situations where the movie is sidelined: in airplanes, classrooms and in bright light. Also, we have all been in situations where we have an electronic device that was low on battery power and we were not in the vicinity of a portable charger. The book can clear airplanes, classrooms and bright light with ease while the portable charger for the book remains a laughable joke, because books do not need charging. Continuing with my opponent’s rebuttal, she says that headphones will make the movie silent to neighbors. However, in addition with the utter oddness with seeing headphones in a public space, many people do not wear headphones, and thus annoying the people around them. Also, when has the turning of pages, a relatively quiet event compared to modern life, caused anybody distraction? It took me a minute and a half to read one page (see my experiment with the length of the book) so it would take me three minutes to read two pages, and make that oh so annoying (sarcasm implied) sound of flipping the page. Finally, headphones are a turnoff for people talking to them, and it may be harder to get a headphone-wearing person’s attention than a book-reading person. My argument stands. 2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around My opponent just gives one example of a movie being adapted into a book; however, that one example does not invalidate my point. The movie industry leans on the book industry with all the movies that have been adaptations. I have listed five books, plus two series, that have been turned into movies (Pride & Prejudice, Harry Potter series, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the Sherlock Holmes series, The Adventures of Tintin, and War Horse) and can probably list a dozen more books that have been turned into movies, easily (starting with Jaws, Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, and The Golden Compass); while my opponent can only list two, and probably not a lot more that isn’t fan fiction or to further the profits of the movies. My point stands. 3. Books engage one’s imagination For starters, Where the Wild Things Are is not supposed to be read into. IT IS A KID’S BOOK! It written for those who cannot understand symbolism or background, would it be a classic if it did? Anyway, this is one example, which does not contradict the majority of books and movies; it would be like saying “Most of the time it is not December” and somebody else saying “It is currently December, thereby my opponent’s reasoning is false. ” There are many examples to the contrary, most notably the Harry Potter series, which any fan of the books can tell you. Continuing, my opponent serves to shoot herself in the foot by listing The Phantom of the Opera as an example of how this point is wrong. I do not see how this disproves the contention it is listed under, and it further proves Contention 2; if it was not for the book, where would the play, and eventual movie, be? The movie industry, and apparently the theater industry, relies heavily on the book industry for ideas. This contention stands. 4. Books are longer Yes seven hours is a lot more time consuming than an hour and a half. But this is not a problem with the book’s portability, which has been shown to be not only portable but more portable than movies. However, one traditionally and usually needs to see the movie in one piece, unlike the book, which can be read in chunks. This means that it is more awkward trying to see a movie rather than to read a book. Furthermore, my opponent’s data was from 2006, meaning that the data was more or less out of date. Plus, 3 in 4 Americans read books, which is obviously a greater percentage than those who do not do not, 1 in 4. Which means that people DO find time for reading books. This argument stands. Now I will rebut my opponent’s points 1. Not Everybody Can Process Information In Novels Though I do make the mistake of assuming that everybody is literate, I do have exception with this point. My opponent makes the same mistake she has repeatedly made throughout her case: one exception does not nullify the whole point. According to Wikipedia [1] world illiteracy has fallen [2]; so much so that the number of nations who have a literacy index of at least 80, yes 80 percent outnumber those who do not have at least 80% literacy. In addition, she also makes the mistake of assuming that if one cannot read English, one cannot enjoy literature. Which is obviously wrong. This point is rebutted. 2. Movies Are More Present In Society & Accessible I will divide this rebuttal into three sub-rebuttals to handle each statistic. a) While the statistic stands, the author goes on to say, “reading is one of the most enjoyable past-times there is. ” The author goes on to defend reading, and calls for people to read fun books. The statistics are for the author to further her point. This sub-point backfires. b) Same source as A, with the added rebuttal that 58% of college graduates DO go on and read another book, which is a majority. Therefore, a majority of college graduates have books in their lives, which completely goes opposite of the point. This sub-point is rebutted. c)This point rebuts itself: not only is TV [3] not considered a movie (ask him, he’s not ; ]), the least favorite medium was the motion picture. So the book is more popular than the movie. This sub-point is rebutted. With 2 out of 3 sub-points rebutted, I say that I can round up and call this point rebutted. All in all, I have affirmed the resolution: that books are superior to movies. I wait for my opponent’s response. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.debate.org...