On measure, the majority use of digitalized books outweighs equivalent majority use of paper books.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Topic: On measure, the advantages of digitized books outweighs that of paper books.
use: take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing or achieving something; employ.
digitized: convert (pictures, text, or sound) into a digital form that can be processed by a computer.
paper books: A book paper is a paper that is designed specifically for the publication of printed books.
outweighs: more significant than.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
BOP is shared
PRO: Must prove that the advantages of digitized books are stronger in significance than paper books.
CON: Must prove that the advantages of digitized books are weaker in significance than paper books.
1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
4. Definitions are to be accepted, however one is allowed to add more definitions if needed.
5. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.
In the last 40 years, paper usage has grown 400%. This means that over two million trees are felled every day for global paper consumption, meaning four billion trees are cut every year to serve our paper needs.
- I will predicate my argument on basic notions. First, the use of printed books improves the educational experiences of students, teachers, and children by bettering their ability to interact with their material when compared to digital books. This is imperative for the intellectual development of all people. Likewise, the negative health implications of digital books are significant and evidently present, making them consequentially worse than printed ones. Thirdly, I will argue that printed materials are more accessible to most people, especially to the poor and needy, and people in less fortunate regions. Thus, if they take the majority of the market, it will lead to better societal outcomes. Given that this debate is over the scope of the entire world rather than a particular region, the use of printed books will provide the best outcomes considering our current social predicament.
- Printed books will yield better results for students and teachers in their respective domains, as well as children learning in various contexts by enabling them to have a more productive interaction with their respective texts. The Scientific American, for example, notes that digital reading tends to encourage more skimming for keywords, which results in a failure to grasp the content of the material and a loss in retention. Research also shows that "screens are also more cognitively and physically taxing than paper," and that they "inhibit comprehension by preventing people from intuitively navigating and mentally mapping long texts."
- If not conclusive evidence enough, a meta-analysis of the effects of reading media on reading comprehension for instance found that "paper-based reading yields better comprehension outcomes than digital-based reading," an advantage that "has increased over the years since 2000." It is further emphasized that "studies have shown repeatedly that people who read print books score higher on comprehension tests and remember more of what they read than people who read the same material in a digital form."
- Scientific literature widely supports considerable health detriments to the use of digital media of printed books, in contrast to printed material. For instance, a psychology research paper titled "Evening use of light-emitting Readers negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness," documents that the evening reading of digital books "phase-delays the circadian clock, acutely suppresses melatonin, and has important implications for understanding the impact of such technologies on sleep, performance, health, and safety." Further, a majority use of digital books would introduce a greater degree of exposure to blue light, which over time damages "retinal cells and cause vision problems such as age-related macular degeneration. It can also contribute to cataracts, eye cancer and growths on the clear covering over the white part of the eye." Overarching, the harms associated with screen devices are prevalent, and the majority use of digital content only increases these harms and their implications for society.
- The accessibility of printed books is self-evidently superior to that of digital works. Consequently, a majority use of them will be of greater benefit to most people including the less fortunate in our society as they do not require electronic devices, and thus, additional costs associated with internet services as well as available wifi. This especially applies to less developed and developing countries. Unicef informs us that "two-thirds of the world's school-age children have no internet access at home." For them, it is impossible to even participate in digital reading, especially considering that their countries are not at a stage of advancement to lay the groundwork for the spread of this technology. Printed materials are much more available to them, and thus, their majority usage will be more beneficial.
- I simply interpret pro's constructive case to be a collection of nonsense. I will encourage the voters to observe inadequacy on three primary fronts
- (1) Irrelevance: pro chooses to divert both on and off-topic, bringing up statements that are immaterial.
- (2) Lack of sufficient evidence: pro does not cite any sources for the majority of his claims, rather, he uses vague caveats and exaggerations when he can; they are theatrical and should be ignored.
- We can primarily ignore pro's awkward tangents about the history of printed books as well as the total number of trees cut down, given that trees are mostly cut down to clear land for development and for construction. Pro even admits this, yet states that information he previously acknowledged as off-topic remains considerable, meaning that he believes it is both relevant and not relevant, a logical contradiction. The error is obvious, and pro needs to base his argument solely on the creation of printed books.
- Impact-wise, pro cites no sources for any of his claims so they not only instantly lose credibility but provide us with no reason to consider them valid. He makes considerations for trees used but does not consider the energy consumed in the production of electronic devices, and the electricity consumption that comes with their regular charging, rendering his analysis not only fatuous but incomplete. Electronic devices require energy consistently—every day. The same cannot be said for books, so the environmental cost is not an argument for his position and may likely be an argument against it.
- One would be hard-pressed to even detect an argument here. Pro says that buying books "requires energy," as if someone expending minimal energy is a bad thing. If pro believes this, please, what is the argument for that proposition? Otherwise, we can discard such a useless claim that presumes we all ought to sit on our couches for as long as possible and avoid doing anything. The same could be said for time considerations, especially given that it takes to both download and purchase e-books, which would undercut his own argument. If anything, making people more active would be a benefit rather than a drawback, and an insignificant time discrepancy for a product that has all the above-stated comparative benefits is far from detracting.
Some people don't like having to sort out stacks of books on shelves in order to find something interesting.
- This is not an argument, nor is it relevant to the resolution given that we are not debating whether a vague group of "some people" like or dislike anything in particular. The resolution does not even entail that people must own collections of books in this manner—only that a majority use of printed books would be better than a majority use of digital ones. Given that, we should see a retraction of this point in round two.
- Knowing that two-thirds of families don't even have internet access, I think it is safe to say that digital reading would be "inflexible," to the majority of people.
- Any electronic device is prone to damage, and electronic devices are very expensive to repair so this would undercut pro's own argument. Given that, we should see a retraction of this point in round two.
- Digitized books require an electronic device. Taking this into account, an accurate picture of our cost evaluation must first add the initial cost of the device itself with costs for internet services/data plans which are reoccurring on a regular period. Then to this, we add the additional cost of every electronic book purchased. Printed books do not have this problem—for them, the cost is simply the price of the book and nothing more. Thus, it seems likely, even plausible that digital books are more expensive than printed ones qualitatively.
- While I cite studies from scholarly journals and other sources for credible research/data analysis, my opponent decides to cite his opinion and other compelling reasons such as "some people may not like x." I appeal to the voters' value for sound reason and instrumental features of empiricism. As of round one, the decision seems obvious. The majority use of printed material outweighs the majority use of digital ones.
- I accept my opponents concession, and admission of the idiocy of his argument.
- I don't understand why you are wasting my time. Just pass on the round, rather than making me wait 7 days.