The Movie is Better than the Book

For the final round I will only be responding to my opponent's initial contentions in the 2nd round. I will not respond to what they said in the final round as that would be unfair. RC1: TimeHere my opponent states that people don't have time to spend on long books, and that films take less time to read than a book. To counter this argument I will bring up one point that I've brought up before. Portability and ease of access. It's obvious that it's easier to read books over a longer period of time than watch a film over a longer period of time. The reason being that films are made to enjoy in one go, and not stop in between. Books on the other hand have chapters for a reason. You can read a chapter anywhere, on the bus, before bed, etc. and not miss out on the flow of the story, because it's made to be read over a longer period of time. If you don't have a solid 2 1/2 hour chunk of time to watch a film, you'll be missing out on the experience if you watch it in little bits. Next my opponent states that "you'll be able to enjoy more stories if you are an avid movie watcher than a book reader. " This is simply not true. Films are under severe time constraints compared to books, which may cause many of them to develop plots and stories that are too simple and 2 dimensional, or have very little character development. This means that although you can watch more films, you will not necessarily "enjoy" them all compared to books. RC2: Sensory InvolvementHere my opponent states that films include more "sensory involvement. " He states that this is through the visual pictures and the music. While this is true, he doesn't explain the benefits of any of this. The only thing he say is that interpretations of the books may vary from the author's original intent. However all writiers understand this, and many want their readers to interpret the world and create it for themselves. Tying this back to an original contention, the imagination and visualization that books enable readers to employ actually increases cognitive function, which has many health benefits. This is a great benefit of the visualizations readers do when they read books. RC3: SchoolsHere my opponent states that textbooks are boring for kids to read in schools, so this boredom associated with books is transferred over when they read fiction stories. However this is a problem caused by lack of reading in the first place. If the child had been exposed to age appropriate and entertaining literature before the school system forced them, then they would've already developed a love of reading that wouldn't be hindered by the textbooks. My opponent also makes the false claim that movies are more interesting and valuable than textbooks about history/science. First off, I'd like to point out that historcally, books that were written in the past are immensely valuable to historians today, and give the most info. The written word is a medium that can last much longer than any films, and is much easier to preserve as well [ex. religious books, writings in stone, etc]. My opponent states that kids don't like reading history books compared to films, and this is true in general. However this does not mean that films are a better way to teach them. You simply can't teach them the important details through films. While they may not like it, books are a better way for them to learn. My opponent states that a movie leaves out the "unimportant details," however what is unimportant? For example in history class, all events contribute to what happened, and it's important for kids to learn about all of them. RC4: Boring TopicsMy opponent states that if you're forced to read a boring book, it'll be harder to make your way through the book. However this is not necessarily true. A film will need to be watched in a large time block of 2 hours, whereas you can split up the book into short chapers, ensuring that you won't have to sit down for long periods of time reading through them. RC5: Losing SpotsThis contention is simply not true. Books and films are both the same in this level. My opponent states that you can turn up the volume if there are distractions, but again, if you're reading a book you can simply move to another quieter room. My opponent also states that you can watch a movie on your PC if people don't want to hear it, this is actually a disadvantage for films. With books there would be no one complaining in the first place about volume, because there is none. Next my opponent states that you can hit pause on a film but it's harder to "pause" in a book. This is not true. It's easy to simply leave a sentence partway, throw in a bookmark, leave and come back. It's quite easy to find your spot again. Next my opponent states that books are long and you need bookmarks. So? It just means it's a more fulfilling and complete plot with better character development. Just because a book needs bookmarks doesn't mean that it'll waste your time. You can simply read in pauses. Next my opponent states that you can have 3 books going at once. But again, that's totally up to the reader if they want to do that. I never read more than 1 book at once, and I never am forced to. This ensures that I won't lose interest in the book I'm reading. RC6: Wider Range of AudiencesMy opponent here talks about illiterate people who can't enjoy books. However these illiterate people are often very grateful for the chance to learn how to read and write, because these are basic skills needed to function productively in today's society. Reading books can actually help them develop these skills, ignoring it will simply handicap the person and prevent them from entering many professions that require reading and writing skills. My opponent talks about foreign films being easier to understand than foreign books. However unlike foreign films, which either have distracting subtitles or terrible quality dubs that don't sync with the lips, books are almost always translated into many other languages, making the translated book feel quite genuine. This ends my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments. I thank them for instigating this entertaining debate.