Physical media is better than streaming services.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 12,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
definitions:
physical media: DVD, BLU ray, VHS, etc.
streaming service: Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, etc.
rules:
* respond as quick as possible and as good as possible
* avoid these fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* follow site's TOS.
This debate is really a comparison between a more scattershot approach to the topic (throw a bunch of arguments out and see what sticks) vs. a focused approach to the topic (narrowing in on a single point or pair of points and explaining them in detail). Both approaches can work, but it's the latter that wins the day here.
Pro, it's not so much that your individual points don't work, it's that they don't really go beyond what you said in R1. Most of those points just sit there, and while some of them might have greater meaning to the debate as a whole, you don't go through the process of explaining why. What makes a list-like approach such as this work is when you narrow down to a few key issues as the debate progresses. You have to make the case that there are benefits to physical media that are the most important facets of the debate. I can think of a few points you could've gone with here, but what I'm seeing instead is more of a rebuttal-based structure where you address your opponent's points instead of building up your own. You also muddle your own points. For example, if Internet access is a concern (you don't really build it up to be one, but you argue that the need for it is a negative for Con's case), then why emphasize that YouTube videos can do so much to help narrow the field of choices? In general, it just doesn't feel like any of these points have heft to them because none of them get all that much emphasis. Bad media exists regardless, it's just a matter of volume and cherry-picking some exemplars isn't enough to tell me that the selection on streaming services is all bad. You could argue that it makes it harder to find the good stuff, but I need to see that spelled out and impacted meaningfully. Emphasizing the quality of Blu-ray tells me there's a loss in going to streaming, but it's not made all that meaningful.
Con, in emphasizing each of his points and focusing his attention, builds a more meaningful case about how the structure of streaming services and their availability to the public both improves the experience for customers and gives more opportunity for creators to introduce something unique and innovative at low risk. Those points establish to some degree what we would lose if we didn't have them. I can recognize that that creativity leads to many flawed products while at the same time recognizing that it leads to amazing work that would otherwise likely never see the light of day, and certainly not a wide audience. I don't think his points are perfect since investments from companies like Netflix can taint a production (they have a lot of say in how these are done), but I don't see that argument. That narrow focus just allows Con to hype up his arguments far more comparatively, and he capitalizes on it.
So I vote Con.
Solid R1 from pro. While it's a list type debate, it's not a gish gallop, as the list is for the purpose of comparison.
"the supposed cons of physical media:"
This section in R1 was a waste. Trying to pre-refute weaker versions of what you suspect someone's argument might be, sets voters to suspect you're going to have more strawman arguements later (even if that is not the intent).
Con highlighted this round with explaining the lower risk to producers and consumers, plus the minimal quality trade-off.
Pro really misunderstood this in his reply, insisting that producers don't have to worry about anyone buying their product and the entry cost; and later that those producers don't really matter (they make the product, so they are self evidentially essential).
Pro lists some bad conduct on netflix, and says people should use YouTube... YouTube... The streaming service... He later repeats this point
Pro ends R2 with an appeal to the video quality of blue-rays being higher than streaming services.
Con counters this with math on the costs... I'm honestly having a hard time moving past pro wanting us to use a streaming service in a debate against streaming services.
thanks for your vote, as always.
If you had gone further, I did point out the YT thing in my Round 3 and was confused at it as well.
3 days remain to vote if you are going to do so.
I'll try to get to this.
Hello to everyone who watched this debate. I hope you enjoyed my expression of my unpopular opinion. I hope you vote for the best. I wish you good luck.
rush to vote!
I do like the choice of topic here.
Please vote if you feel like it. Thanks if you do.
thank you.
Interesting debate
The same comment twice was a mistake and I never intended as such.
I'm a middle class person. I said really cheap to say cheaper than blu ray.
I'm a middle class person. I said really cheap to say cheaper than blu ray.
DVDs are not really cheap btw but you are probably well-off and don't think of pricing in the same way. Regardless I'll handle the economics fully in Round 2.
Yes, I decided to take a small break from my usual debates and I have been planning this for weeks.