Books are better than Movies

Books are Portable A) My opponent's would be a valid point if not for the fact that the DVD player needs the charger much more than the the book needs the light; but they have very different functions. A comparable object to the book light is a device used to block the sun, and, therefore, reduce glare. Both book lights and glare-reducers are expensive, unwieldy, and unnecessary. These cancel each other out. However, a charger is necessary for the DVD player to run. Books don’t need chargers. You can take a book anywhere while a DVD player is limited to it’s battery life, bright light, and the classroom. My opponent has not addressed these two situations that I have described. This sub-point stands. Unless my opponent has some feline ability to see in the dark, we will all agree that it is physically impossible to read a book with no light source. Regarding the point about the necessity of a charger to the DVD player, paper is a necessity to the booking industry, however, electricity isn't directly responsible for much of the deforestation. However, this entire point in general is irrelevant to the debate as it only distracts from the important arguments, regardless of the fact that I've already proved this point void. As for me not addressing this argument, I already have addressed his arguments and I will say it again: both have certain things they need to function properly. There's no movie without energy, and there's no book without paper. My opponent points out that when on an airplane, one has to put up one’s book as well as one’s movie. Firstly, I'd like to address the unlikelihood that someone would get on the plane with a movie already playing on some portable device that forced them to have to turn it off and turn it back on when the plane is in the air. Also, the turning off of the movie is as simple as shutting the device. I ignored nothing. I just gave less time to arguments that held less leverage in the debate and distracted from important arguments. I will admit that getting a reading person’s attention is just as hard as getting a headphoned person’s attention, but just that. They cancel each other out. This argument is void. Yes, indeed it is, as the irrelevant arguments I provided on the annoyances of books proved all of your arguments on the annoyances of movies on an airplane void. “Proving causation is much more difficult. To better understand and study the effect of visual environment on the developing eye, research in animal models is underway. Overall it seems environmental factors do play a role - how much? - we do not know as of yet. ” Let's carefully re-examine the evidence provided by my source (. http://www.agingeye.net...) Myopia has been correlated with the amount of school-work and level of educational attainment. The process continues into the third decade of life with graduate students, microscopists, and military conscripts becoming more myopic with more near work. This is followed by the quote of my opponent. They only state that they do not know how much reading affects the eyesight. It specifically states there is a correlation, meaning that reading causes damage to the eyesite of those suffering from myopia.2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around To conserve my remaining characters, I will not directly cite his preceding argument. However, he states that the movies wouldn't be able to thrive without the books. Again, I state that in the example I provided of The Phantom Of The Opera that the story wouldn't have thrived without the movie industry. This argument stands and can only fall when my opponent can show me that the book industry also leans on the movie industry as heavily or more heavily than the movie industry. As I had stated before thus already disproved, both Star Trek and Star Wars were made into popular books that benefited the book industry, so this whole point has been long void.3. Books engage one’s imaginationAgain, my opponent begins to attack my point on the movie Where The Wild Things Are being a deeper movie than novel as an argument to his original contention yet prior to this argument persisted with his irrelevant point about airplanes. Where the Wild Things Are =/= Where the Wild Things Are. It's based off the book. Where the Wild Things Are = Where the Wild Things Are and was more successful and imaginative than the childrens' book. Another point negated. Also, I, honestly, find the example of the Phantom of the Opera quite silly. All this proves is that, without the book, there would be no movie or musical. As I already previously argued and entirely disproved, The Phantom Of the Opera was a failure of a novel as it could not communicate its message in the novel format. It owes its popularity and fame to the theatrical and movie adaptations. The movie, I have to say, is much less inspiring. Irrelevant and opinionated. The answer to your question is three words long: The Golden Compass. Might I add that the book received mass media attention and infamy after it was announced that there was a movie in production. The only reason the book was made such a big deal was because they announced that there would be a movie and the objectable content of people killing Christians was deemed objectable by the pope so the movie was boycotted. Movie Gross While I admit the chart is visually appealing, no contrast is made to the sales of the movies to the sales of the books, so the chart is only a nice effort at proving a point. Also, seeing as my opponent provides no sources following his citations as he required of me in-round, I'm inclined to believe this is a chart of DVD sales rather than a combination of DVD sales and Box Office reception. Point void.1. Not Everybody Can Enjoy Information In NovelsAlso, there is a reason why the national language of the US is English: most people in the US speak it. However, there's a larger market for the dubbing of films to Espanol. Mostly best-selling or books that sell quite well are translated. Also, stating that the United States consists mostly of English-speaking people without statistical evidence holds a slightly xenophobic undertone. If a person is low English proficient, then that person will also not understand movies in English. The 2007 version of the movie was dumbed down to suit consumers. No point here. Anyway, because the source was an opinion piece, and the author did not list her sources, then this sub-point can be nullified. I have several sources stating the exact same thing. The source I listed under that specific line only held one person stating the statistic:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://hotforwords.com...http://www.pickthebrain.com...http://www.productivity501.com...b) Though I may underestimate the graveness of the statistic, it still stands that a majority of people have books in their lives after college. 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? While 100% of the population have movies in their lives, only 58% of college graduates have books, a grave statistic my opponent neglected to argue. My argument is validated.