The Movie is Better than the Book

Since my opponent didn't give any framework for the round structure I'm going to assume this round is only for opening conentions. Contention 1: Health Benefits of ReadingsSubcontention 1: Reading reduces the risk of Alzheimers DiseaseA study out of an Ohio university shows that people who engage in simulating activites such as reading have a reduced risk of Alzheimers disease [1.] It suggests that exercising the brain helps reduce the risk [by almost 2.5x] because inactivity of the brain is what increases the risk of developing Alzheimers in the first place. Subcontention 2: Reading slows the decline in memory and brain functionWith age comes a decline in brain function, but it's been shown that regular reading can slow the process. Think of it like this, muscles benefits from physical exercise and workouts, this keeps them functional and efficient. The same goes for your brain. When you're reading material, the parts of the brain that have evolved for functions such as vision, language, and associative learning all work together, and this is a demanding task which serves as a workout for the brain. When you read, your mind must contruct and image what the words are telling you, instead of in films where it's all put out for you to absorb in a much simpler and less tasking fashion. This is all backed by a paper published on Neurology [2]. This paper was testing that the prevalence of cognitive activity is realted to late-life cognitive disease. What they found was that early-life cognitive activity and frequent late-life cognitive activity were both associated with slower cognitive decline [2]. So it is clear now that reading actually tasks your brain more, and reduces the risk of mental illnesses later on in life. Subcontention 3: It boosts intellectual development in childrenA paper from the University of California, Berkely showed that children's books exposes kids to 50% more words that prime time TV. It is already known that exposure to new vocabulary normally leads to higher scores on reading tests, but higher scores on other tests of intelligence as well, as indicated by a paper out of Science Daily [3]. The study used 1,890 identical twins and found that those that the differences in their intellectual ability came from experiences that they didn't share. It noted that the twin with stronger early reading skills was found to have higher overall intellectual ability by the age of 7. Conclusion: Reading has many health benefits and reduces the risk of late life mental diseases, such as Alzheimers. It also serves to slow down the mental and congnitive deterioration of the brain. Lastly it's important for children as well, because having good early reading skills has been shown to be correlative to higher overall intellect at a later age. Contention 2: Story Subcontention 1: DetailIt's obvious that it is much easier for a storyteller to put in important details about the story they're telling in a book than a film. Audiences that watch films are normally looking for a quick, one-time dose of entertainment. This leads many book-to-film adaptations having to cut out information that is important to the story, in favour of a shortening the film. Is this really better? Would you rather watch an incomplete story with plot holes that takes place in settings that you have no reason to care about, or would you rather be immersed in a fully developed tale which informs you of many more details. Obvious the fully developed tale is the better story, because it allows the reader to look at past events and other details that the author threw in to make connections between them. An example of this is JRR Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings. He actually wrote a book [published posthumously] called The Silmarillion, which took place thousands of years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. Once you read these two books however, it's very interesting and engaging to be able to take the early events of The Silmarillion and note how they effected the events of The Lord of the Rings. This is actually what many historians do as well, with real life evidence from the past. The added detail to the story, which is present in the book but not the film, makes the entire story and the world it takes place in more vast and engaging. This point is a good lead in to the 2nd subcontention. Subcontention 2: ExpansionIt is easier to expand on the written works of authors than it is to expand on films. We can look at the Star Trek and Star Wars material. Both franchises have dozens of written books, which are pretty popular in their own sense. These books are able to take the universe and create entirely new stories, without feeling the need to pay homage to the films that came before it. The new Star Wars film included quite a few actors and story references from the original trilogy, however that is what many critics said they overdid. Since the film is supposed to be one defining chapter of the franchise, the filmmakers felt obliged to tie their new story back to the originals, and in doing so they created a story that was almost identical to Episode IV: A New Hope. Books do not work this way. Writers don't feel anchored to the source material when they expand on it and write new material, and neither do the readers. Subcontention 3: New MaterialIt is much easier for fledgling authors to produce books of their own than it is for fledgling filmmakers to produce films of their own. Authors simply need a laptop to type up a book over a period of time. Filmmakers need to go out and look for money to budget their project, they need to find a cast, a camera crew, a writing crew, etc. It's much easier for new authors to produce and distribute material than it is for new filmmakers to do the same. This means that as the audience, we get a wider variety of material to choose from. Contention 3: Ease of AccessSubcontention 1: TimeA film is made to view in one sitting. Many times when you're watching a 2 1/2 hour film, you have to set aside 2 1/2 hours of your day to watch it. This is because the story of the film moves at a more brisk pace, and you feel like you've missed out if you watch it in say, 30 minute intervals. However with a book it's easy to just carry it with you and read for 20 minutes during say, a lunch break. Subcontention 2: PortabilityThis is a pretty simple point. Books are easier to carry around and more accessible. Almost all books can fit into a backpack or a purse, and can be read almost anywhere as well; airplanes, at the bus stop, at work, etc. However for films, you need to find a DVD or Blue Ray player, a TV, and a nice private setting before you sit down for 3 hours straight to watch. The other alternative being to pay 14 dollars and driving out to the cinema to see it instead. Books are simply more accessible than films. With that I'll end my arguments and pass it over to my opponent. Sources1. http://www.pnas.org...2. http://www.neurology.org...3. http://www.sciencedaily.com...