Reading a book is better than watching a film

I've left my final round to be the best, and I have got many points to talk about which Con has helped me to bring up. So, thank you however I do not need Con's 'Good Luck'. Right let me start by building on the first point you made, you have started to mention TV series which is very different from a movie. TV series are much easier to follow and watch rather than a 5-14 long hour movie. I would just like to say that people can watch an episode for one hour and then wait to watch the next one. No-one would want to stop-start a film every hour into it. I would also like to say that a TV series is way easier to watch than a 5-14 hour film, also a TV series is nothing like a film because how do you know a 5-14 hour film goes into characters background and shows you minor details about that character which could actually turn out into a major detail about that character. Also I would like to ask, have you ever watched a 5-14 hour film? And the answer is probably a 'no' like the majority of people in this world. Many more books have been read then 5-14 hour film has been watched. Moving on, you said the fact that you can get Netflix on smartphone. What if people don't have a smartphone? What if they don't have a Netflix account? The easiest option for them would be to buy a book. Also people may not want to watch a film on their phones because it would drain people's phone batteries. The book doesn't have images unlike a film which is full of images and scenes which are made up by what other people think rather than the reader themselves, therefore their judgements have been made already for them. Con claims that you have to observe the way people are acting in a film however if you read a book and it told you about that character in extra detail you would be able to understand that fact that the character is acting that way. for an example of the films missing out details, as a studier of the book 'Of Mice and Men' in the book it shows a lot of racism and ageism however the film misses quite of a lot of this out and it misses out details about characters for example 'Curley's wife'. And I would just like to say this debate is not about films and books being as equally as good because the title of the debate clearly states 'Reading a book is better than watching a film'. I would like to build on the point I made about the message of the book and how there isn't unnecessary things. I was trying to say that films get put of track by adding things in which may distract people from the message, who writes a book/makes a film to have no point being made? No-one, the points and messages portrayed by the author/director is the main thing which makes a book or film good. Con also claimed that films and books should be made for every audience however many books are like that because you have books for all ages and educated people however these days films are not for the less educated audience and are a lot more complex to what they used to be and in my opinion more educated films should be made which are going to help people progress and help them in the future. And books are made for all ages and the messages for all books are easily made in a prologue or a blurb. Unfortunately, parents do stick their children in front of a telly rather than reading them a book and helping them understand a book, this would not also help that child, it would help the bonding of that child and their parents. In Cons last point he claimed that I ignored his point about ambivalent movies however I didn't therefore I am going to ignore Con's last point in round 2.