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

*I'm not sure what exactly Pro is trying to prove, I'll put it quite simply, If i'm in a test period during school where I have to take tests and do a lot of schoolwork, I obviously do not feel like going to debate about E-books. It was a quite simple apology to Pro for giving a short reply, it wasn't an explination or an excuse trying to make something up, Which he doesn't grasp. It wouldn't even matter if I was playing league of legends, this is just a friendly debate. I could also argue that This isnt a serious debate and if I'm bored, Obviously my obligation is to go play league of legends. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebbutals --E-books are more convenient. This is a subjective opinion rather than a factual statement. People have different needs, As an Online Homeschooler I can personally say that reading from an online textbook is not more convenient for me. Staring at a screen all day can be quite tedious and head splitting. Books are quite light already, And the weight of books is definitely not a serious concern in modern day society. The main concern with books being too heavy is mostly in highschools, and kids are not getting heartattacks from lugging their books from one classroom to the next. Many Online books do not provide a highlighting or bookmarking feature. some E-readers dont have these options either. I would like to say that only one Kindle is being manufactured that comes equipt with backlights, and that a $6 Book with a $2 flashlight is definitely cheaper than a $190 E-reader that comes with a fancy light. Furthermore, most people wont be bringing their fancy E-readers to Grampas annual fishing trip, Or their Scout Camp-outs, Or when they backpack through a country. Because it is easier to spend $15 for some old fashioned litterary entertainment, rather than buying a kindle, setting up the charging functions, buying the books. Availability of Wood Pro was arguing how deforestation was a big problem, and then he makes a point stating that if we stopped printing books we would have more wood avaliable for other goods?I would like Pro to please clarify on what he means by more wood for other products. I think that saving trees is an ideal way to overcome deforestation. Tax Reduction Pro has argued that we spend too much money on shipping books overseas, I'd like to point out that once we stop printing books, We will start shipping E-readers overseas. Thus neutralizing his brilliant plan to stop the shipping fees that books are bringing to us. Technological and EconomicalSo, I reviewed Pro's statement about Technological/Economical benefits, In short he is stating the following: -By adopting this policy of E-reading, governments are forced, if not encouraged, to make beneficial adaptations to society such as the Wireless Charging previously mentioned. He goes into detail about robotic charging, as well as if we changed to E-books we are saving more resources. I have already refuted this however I will cover it again in counter rebbutals.I would like to state that Wireless charging is a very primitive concept thus far, and has not yet been adopted into modern day society, it's convenience and accesbility is still in the works. Pro has offered no proof or studies that by Adopting E-readers we'll be "encouraging the government to research wireless charging" Rather he has made a wild prediction about what will happen. and Has not backed it up with a single piece of evidence. Con also said that he would expand on why it would increase Capitol and yet no point has been made thus far (Round 4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counter Rebuttals Con has forgotten that I've made a point concerning their prices, stating that if a policy that abolishes printing books is enforced, the price of E-readers will decrease radically. Therefore, from this, it is plausible to say that THE PRICE OF E-BOOKS WILL DECREASE RADICALLY also. I dont understand Pro's logic here he has stated that the price of E-readers will drop dramatically because everone will start buying E-readers. This is exactly why the price wont drop radically so. Because everyone will need them it is the perfect opportunity for large scale electronics companies to take advantage of the abolishment of printing books. I would like to ask pro to please present studies that apply to this situation and its circumstances, or a similar one. As we can see with Mobile Phones and Computers. the need for them increasingly goes up, and SO DOES THE PRICE. The subject of used books most certainly is irrelevant to the subject at hand.Pro has refused to take this as a serious point, However I would like to explain this point again because I certainly think it has its merits.Pro argued that one of the reasons we should abolish printing books is because E-books are much cheaper.I argued that this is not completely true, there are many ways to find printed books which are cheaper or equal to the price of E-books, such as usedbooks, or massmarket paperbacks. He argues that it's irrelevant to the topic of actually printing books. However I disagree when you make a direct statement about the price of E-books compared to printed books. to say that we should abolish printing books BECAUSE E-books are $2 less is ridiculous because you're not even factoring in the point that people will need to actually buy e-readers, which MANY people in third world countries will not be able to do, I will make a point about this later.-That is still A LOT OF TREES saved. According to the site below. In 2008, there were 6,456,789,877 trees in the world, roughly. 7% of that is roughly 451,975,291 trees. According to the second site below, the oxygen a normal human being breathes is supported by roughly 6 or 7 trees. The "7%" that Con mentioned potentially could've supported 75,329,215 people!Alright so Pro has misunderstood the calculations on this website, I will quote the actual figures provided by the website which pro has cited. "there were 400,246,300,201 (more or less) trees on our globe. (That's over 400 billion, for those of you who have trouble working through the commas.)""It's a cool question, and easy to calculate. Nadkarni looked up the world's human population as of Dec. 31 and found that on that day, we numbered 6,456,789,877?-----------------------------------------------------------------Now, according to:http://understory.ran.org...We use 3-6 Billion trees a year.My deduction about 7% of trees used on woodpulp paper is the annual rate. so, 350million is the annual rate of trees we use for paper production(Out of 400billion) I would like to point out that this is for paper production, not only books, the actual paper used to make books is a tiny percentage of this.By stopping the practice of printing books we are NOT saving 350million trees, because we are still using paper for a huge variety of things. I agree with Pro's point about deforestation being a problem, however Paper production uses mainly Paper production does not disrupt rainforests, which other applications of Deforestation does.Pulppaper is produced from a variety of different trees, NON of which can be found in rainforests which are the Jewels in Forestry and Ecosystems.These are the trees used in Pulpwood production, I quote this from Wikipedia. spruce, pine, fir, larch and hemlock, and hardwoodssuch as eucalyptus, aspen and birch.[9] -------------------------------------------------------I would like to add two more points.Electricity is not a free resource electricty is not an unlimited resource, when we abandon the practice of printing books, sure we are saving a precentage of trees, however when you have to power billions of E-readers on a daily basis, Where does this energy and electricty come from? Well probably MORE TREES. unfortunately E-readers have batteries and run on electricty. Books do not run on electricty at all. We are using WAY less electricty printing books than we would charging and charging billions of E-readers on a daily basis. How do people in under-developed countries get E-readers as well as public instituitions? When we abandon the practice of printing books, where will public schools and churches get E-readers? they certainly dont grow on trees, they are costly. Pro has argued that with his theory of supply and demand their prices will decrease radically. I beg to differ, because when E-readers are the only option we have, It is up to Electronics companies to determine the price. and they certainly wont be dropping it by "as much as 95%" as pro suggests. Pro also stated that we'd be saving the government money by changing to E-readers because the books we use take up too much postal funding. However as soon as we switch over, we'll need to pay for E-readers to be shipped overseas.