We should abandon the practice of printing books and resort to using E-books

*In response to Pro's previous concerns about my real life obligations, I would like to point out they are not his buisness, and that I was not making an excuse. Simply apologizing. In order to reply to a debate properly, you need to research as well as think about how you write, which certainly takes longer then a game of league of legends. So I will please ask Pro to stay with the debate, and not how he feels about Pathos and Ethos*I apologize to Pro for not making clear that I wanted to clarify, It is my first time debating online. However I'm sure that it wasn't too difficult to understand I was clarifying and not refuting.Rebuttals -I did not imply that books are around 20$, I simply said that you can get a 20$ book for less if you buy the E-book version. Furthermore even if the average costed $10 - $15, you still save more money by using E-readers and buying E-books.-Con has made a statement not backed up by any source. In a recent statistical study by "School Library Journal", it is shown that the average price of books range between 6$ to almost 30$, depending on the intended age of the book and whether or not it was hardcovered. If you determine the average by adding 6 with 30 and dividing that by 2, you get 18$ as the average book price in the United States, which isaround 20. However, it is safe to assume that adults buy more books than children because children recieve most of their books from school and don't buy them. Therefore, it is also safe to assume that the18$ can be bumped up to 20$. Im not clear on what Pro is trying to argue here, or how it helps his arguments. However I will assume that he is refering the price between E-Books and Printed books. I would like to point out that not everyone buys hardcovers for $20 Infact the majority of printed books buyers purchase Paperbacks due to their price differences and also the convenience which reading with a bendy books provides. I will provide 3 Websites which backs up my statement that Paperbacks are vastly more popular than hardcovers. http://www.goodreads.com... http://askville.amazon.com... http://observationdeck.io9.com...Now I'd like to refer back to the chart which pro has graciously provided, Looking at the Paperback price ratios you can clearly see that Mass-Market paperbacks, (Which would include high end retailers such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble) Sell for $5-$7 for All genres. Now that I have explained and provided reputable sources that:-Paperbacks are purches a lot more.-Mass market paperbacks with sell for $5-$8I would like to go on and explain my main point in this rebbutal which is that E-books also cost around $3-$5, Which in comparison to paperbacks is only slightly less if not equal to the price of an E-book. Using the amazon bestseller list for Kindle books I have concluded this.http://www.amazon.com...;Yes, there are e-books which sell for as little $1, However my point here is that the majority of the books are at least $5 and some even dipping into the $7+ which is equal to buying an actual printed paperback book. So, my Conclusion is that Printed paperback books(Which make up for about %80 of printed book sales, as seen in the links provided above) Are Slightly more, if not equal to the price of E-books. So to say that we should abolish printing books because E-books are $2 less is a far-fetched statement. My main point in this rebbutal is that: New Printed Paperback books are slightly more if not equal to the price of a Kindle E-book. When you argue that we should abolish printing books because of the $2 difference, People will just go ahead an buy paperbacks over an electronic format which you cant really own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2."also an option to purchase used books, Which millions of people do."-The purchasing of used books is irrelevant in this debate. This debate suggests the abandoning of printing of books, not what to do with books that have already been printed, like used books for an example. If my suggested policy of E-books are enforced, there will still be books in the world, used books, and they will obviously be sold and bought still. What this debate concerns with is the printing of books,other words, new books. I would like to say that my statement here was taken out of context, and treated as a point on its own, I only used this statement to build on my other rebbutal which is that Books are not significantly more expensive then E-books. As proven in my first rebbutal New paperbacks can be compared to the price of buying a Kindle book. To say that buying used books is not irrelevant at all, when Pro argues that E-books are much cheaper. I was providing a very valid point to his argument, when this is taken into account http://www.skipmcgrath.com...I will quote the website above. Over $8 Billion worth of used books sell in the United States every year –and more and more of them are being sold online. Over $2 Billion worth of used books are sold on eBay and half.com alone. Amazon won't release their figures for used books, but analysts estimate sales to also be over $1 Billion a year in the US. And of course there are the English-speaking overseas markets. Last year I sold books to customers in Singapore, England, Canada, and Australia and even to India –and overseas customers pay even more than US customers.So stating that E-books are significantly cheaper than books isnt a factual statement at all. and that saying printing books needs to be abolished because books are so expensive isnt true either. As provided with the links above, You are paying about the same maybe $1-$3 more tops (and this is not even taking used books into account) For paperbacks. People will generally go for something physical they can own over an Electronic format. 3.E-books are more Eco-FriendlySo, pro has argued that we are using too many trees for our personal needs, I completely argee with pro, However the percentage of deforestation that contributes to paper production is quite miniscule.I do not think this would be cutting the problem by its roots(no pun intended) http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org...The website provided above is very informative about the problem which deforestation present, I do agree completely it is a problem, however to prove my concerns or lack-of in this case I will quote a section on this website. Going by the statistics compiled by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agriculture is the most important cause of deforestation on the planet. While subsistence farming accounts for 46 percent of the total deforestation in the world, commercial agriculture is responsible for 32 percent. Other prominent causes of deforestation include logging at 14 percent, and fuel requirements at 5 percentSo, 14 percent of trees are sold for pulp and construction matierials, lets say we split this number in half, and conclude that 7% of deforestation contributes to paper production. http://science.howstuffworks.com...The website above calculates how much a 60Ft. tree with a diameter of 1Ft. they come up with the answer of 80,500 sheets of paper, now. that is A LOT of books. we are losing hundreds of thousands of trees to Subsistent farming, and commercial agriculture. Furthermore, I'd like to make a very important point to Pro's argument. Paper can be recycled http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.epa.gov...33% of paper we use today comes from recycled paper.33% Comes from woodchips and sawmill scraps (Result Commercial agriculture)and 33% from deforestation. ---------------------------------------Now that I have made clear the statistics for actual paper production, as well the percentage of deforestation contributing to paper production. It becomes clear that Pro is using a huge problem(Deforestation) and pinning it on a small contributing factor(Paper Production) Stopping the production of woodpulp, would not stop 7% of deforestation, instead it would open up more trees to be cut down for the use of Commercial Agriculture or Subsitent farming.A much better solution would be to increase the amount of paper we recycle, this way we are creating a way for us to keep recyclying what we use. Furthermore I'd like to illuminate the different uses for paper, as provided by http://en.wikipedia.org... For representing value: paper money, bank note, cheque, security (see security paper), voucher and ticket For storing information: book, notebook, magazine, newspaper, art, zine, letter For personal use: diary, note to remind oneself, etc.; for temporary personal use: scratch paper For communication: between individuals and/or groups of people. For packaging: corrugated box, paper bag, envelope, wrapping tissue, Charta emporetica and wallpaper For cleaning: toilet paper, handkerchiefs, paper towels, facial tissue and cat litter For construction: papier-mâché, origami, paper planes, quilling, paper honeycomb, used as a core material in composite materials, paper engineering, construction paper andpaper clothing For other uses: emery paper, sandpaper, blotting paper, litmus paper, universal indicator paper, paper chromatography, electrical insulation paper (see also dielectric andpermittivity) and filter paper So it is not fair to say that books are the main reason for woodpulp consumption. Stopping book printing you are only cutting a tiny thread in a huge problem, and that there are many more effective ways to deal with deforestation than blaming it on the production of books.unfortunately I have run out of space during this round. I look forward to the response of Pro.