Books are better than Movies

Thank you for your response. 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.Needing a charger for a portable DVD player is comparable to needing a light for your book. Both need something or other in order to function correctly. Seeing as the two are evened out here, again, the argument is void.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. Seeing as my opponent was the one who brought up the functionality of headphones and the requirement of their usage, I find this irrelevent. As my opponent said that one would have to turn off their movie upon landing, one would have to shut their book upon landing unless they wanted to fall down the stairs of the plane. Also, if I really wanted to, I could go off on the little annoyances one might encounter when someone is reading a book just as my opponent has with movies and planes: Getting the attention of a person reading a book can be/is just as hard as getting the attention of someone watching a movie. When they are engaged in the activity, they feel less inclined to listen and distracted. Books can give paper cuts. Many people can receive paper cuts from books while the watching of a movie cannot give you papercuts. Myopia can be caused by/more prevalant due to constant reading due to the close proximity at which one must focus. (http://www.agingeye.net...) However, television is viewed at a distance which does not cause any damage to eyes. Both reading and the watching of television can make eyes tired, however. 2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around Seeing as I already disproved this collective and exclusive contention, my argument stands. However, I will provide that two very popular movie/television series (Star Wars, Star Trek) have been made into popular book series, so again, this argument was long disproved. As I've disproved this point, it is void and irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing.3. Books engage one’s imaginationMy example of Where The Wild Things Are does matter. The movie was more engaging to the adult minds and minds of the youth, making it more engaging to the imagination. My opponent's consistent analogies prove nothing. The movie industry, and apparently the theater industry, relies heavily on the book industry for ideas. This contention stands.Not at all. I proved that the Phantom Of The Opera was a failure of a book and the movie industry saved it. The book medium was far less appealing than the novel format and earned much more in revenue than the book if it earned much at all. The book owes its popularity to the industry. The movie was better.4. Books are longer 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. A movie can be watched in chunks. Thanks to the functionality of DVD players, DVD stopping places can be remembered. Saying that one method is more awkward than the other is an opinion and not a fact. Also, the statistic stated that they do not buy or read books. The statistic did not state whether or not the people who bought their books proceeded to read or let alone finish them. 1. Not Everybody Can Process Information In Novels 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. My point cannot be obviously wrong seeing as I made a perfect point and never once stated that if one cannot read English that one cannot read at all. Seeing as the national language of the US is English, the more accessible language is English. As the United States is a melting pot, the world of literature is less accomodating in our country to minorities. In most third-world countries, the adult literacy rate is below fifty-percent. Thus (http://thirdcinema.blueskylimit.com..., http://www.culturalsurvival.org...), the film industry is far more accessible, prominent, and is just better for conveying powerful messages than literature. Also, the statistic also stated that '50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.' This means that taking the example you gave earlier, Pride & Prejudice (9-12), would be entirely inaccessible to 1/2 of the population. Anyone at that reading level wishing to understand it would have to see the movie. The movie would be better because it is more accessible.2. Movies Are More Present In Society & Accessiblea) 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.The author states only an opinion, not a reliable source. The statistic can be proven and based off of, and while I see no problem in stating that reading is fun, I have only to prove one thing: Movies are better than books. I don't have to prove which is more fun or which makes more money, though movies definitely do. I just have to prove movies better than books--whether I prove it through which is more accessible or affects the population more at this current time.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.While they go on to read another book, my opponent cannot state how many. While most every person who has graduated college has been to a movie or several, this states that 42% of students never read another book. My opponent underestimates the graveness of this statistic.Now, let's look at movie statistics (http://www.natoonline.org..., http://www.natoonline.org...): In 2007, US and Canada sold 1.4 billion tickets, averaging almost five tickets per citizen. How does that compare to books?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.Definition disproves this: A story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture.Television is considered a movie by definition. Statistic proven. Unfortunately, I have run out of room in my accurate quotation, so I have to conclude my arguments for this round. I anticipate your next response.