Instigator / Pro

Books are better than television


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
Pro has forfeited and has left a lot of explanation yet to be conveyed on his part. Such as-

Burden of Proof. Pro hasn't attached any description regarding the BoP. But as the instigator, he owes his BoP- which apparently is missing as of now. He has to make an objective claim to win this debate.

Unclear Premise. Pro's premise is pretty obscure. He uses the term 'Better' to defend superiority of books over TV. In other words, he is using an unspecific comparative term between two completely different objects. What he means by 'better' has a lot to do with how Con is supposed to respond. However, in the comments section, he replied to a comment specifying 'better' as 'more beneficial' which is what Con will be using just for the sake of his 'Opening Argument'. The blurred premise will still be attacked until Pro clears the air.


Multimedia Aspect. Television is an avenue of multimedia access. If 'better' stands for 'more beneficial' according to Pro, TV has no hurdle there to overcome Pro's attacking claims. Let's take a book and ponder on it's sectors of impact- Knowledge from non-fictions, history and philosophical books, entertainment from fictions, comics; practice of literature from poems and novels and stuff and that's about it. TV by its nature provides all that and more; obviously in a very different fashion but with the same spirit. For instance,

- Televisions are capable of airing more educational content on a regular basis through its shows. Some of the books might be timeless indeed but TV is TIMELY. With the raise in standard of education, TV programs can adjust themselves quite easily which printed books can't afford right away. Documentaries pose as a huge source of knowledge of history and culture within a relatively less amount of time. A counterargument could be presented as documentaries miss out on some technical aspects that books focus on more attentively- but a reader trying to dig in history never really acknowledges those technicalities; rather gathers the gist of it and moves on. Some may say some crucial information are left off in the documentaries; but that's unlikely to be true in most cases. And the question of authenticity can be brought up against both the sources. Look, Con is not trying to discourage anyone to read a book; he's rather attempting to demonstrate that TV can be just as beneficial and in some aspects (for non-bookworms and daily workers) even more beneficial.

- Children are naturally more attracted to the fascinating features of TV; so using the platform for the better is definitely more effective. Creating more lucrative but educational shows equates resource mining for a future generation. 

- As for entertainment, it needs no elaboration as we know about the TV culture that represents the entire entertainment and showbiz industry of the modern world and there's literally no other competition and there can't be. How that industry might be harmful in some cases is a debate on it's own and Pro can't possibly use that against Con for his unclear stance so far.    

- How more? TV instantly catches you up with the day-to-day update of the whole world literally in seconds- something that books could never do. Watching news everyday for a half an hour or less can keep you updated with the whole world and space.

Time-Saver. Those saying that watching TV is a serious waste of time lead a motion of fallacy. Time can be wasted on anything; in this case, on books too. Besides, the term 'waste' has to be defined distinctly. Engagement in what qualifies as 'waste'? A fiction may take from at least an hour to three on average to complete and reading a non-fiction eats up even more. Is that a waste? Of course not if you are actually benefiting from the action and enjoying it. But isn't it time-consuming?- Sure. What if TV can compliment that aspect in even shorter amount of time? Thus we see the release of novel based TV programs like movies and series. Sure one can claim how that is not half as original as the books but the debate begins when one chooses to compare a great novel to a poorly scripted TV show rather than an amazing TV show to a poorly written novel. In fact, those who are not so much of readers- which Pro can't counter in any way- are more engaged in history and fiction based shows and are definitely enjoying and hence such a rise in the TV business. Seeing such a bolting popularity of novel-adapted television programs, Molly Barton, co-founder of Serial Box- a serial-style reading experience app, has drawn such a business model just to hook the youth up. She has pointed out some brilliant reasons why fictions should be more popularized in episodes; rather than in a printed version [1].

Refreshment. If you do a job from 9 to 6, it's hardly possible for you to engage in turning pages afterwards. But ending up on a couch right after freshening up and hitting on a button is lot easier. Instead of reading a novel of 3 hours, you can just turn on your favorite show (based on that novel or not), watch it for a 45-60 minutes and go to sleep happy. It's more refreshing as it satisfies your visual needs after a long day at work and unburdens your body of stresses and inertia and loosens you up for the next day. Reading a book at that point would rather make your eyes work even more heavily and tire you eventually.

For Compromised People. Pro's claim is a universal one and unfortunately that doesn't interest the people with unprivileged faculties. People with absence of sight can't see neither the TV nor books. But having their auditory faculty open, TV can still play a huge role in their life. Again, those who can't read- the illiterate ones- are not privileged enough for reading even the worst written books- TV acts as an amazing source of happiness for them. Even those who can read can't avail the complex literature forms written- those only meant for a certain crowd. TV being a dynamic host to multiple genres inside the same box offers a large spectrum of interests for one to involve himself in and so you can choose whatever suits you at any given time.

With Pro's undefined stance on the subject and use of non-specific terminologies, Con demands a neutral read on his opening statement.

Vote for CON!


Round 2
Extend my arguments from R1.

Round 3
Full forfeited by Pro.

Extend and vote for CON!