Modern means of information(articles online...) are better than traditional ones (newspapers...)

Definition of modern means of information: Journalists simply publish their work and findings through the Internet instead of through newspapers, written reports etc. They publish their findings in online articles, forums of discussion, possibly even social media. Nothing else changes. They conduct research the same way they did before and corporations that are responsible for informing still exist, paying their journalists like they did before. There are many reasons for which the average person would prefer being informed through the Internet. My first argument will be devoted to accessibility

Accessing online articles etc. is so easy. A person just needs to open his phone or computer and type in a few words to find articles and information he's interested in. The process is so rapid and comfortable, you only just need to press a few buttons and the job is done. You don't need to walk to a store and purchase an obsolete piece of paper that is also difficult to read and understand for many people due to the tiny letters and fonts used and the information is all squeezed together, why spend as much as 5 dollars on something like that? Scrolling through social media or an internet browser, you have access to a variety of findings, brought to you by a variety of sources so that you can read and look at whatever you want, whenever you want and however you want. The variety of sources helps the reader gather as much information as possible on the subject he's searching and compare the sources he's using, find out if sources are ingenuine and which sources communicate the information in the best way instead of having to buy all the newspapers offered by all the corporations out there, in order to simply be informed. While scrolling and searching, the reader might come across something of interest that correlates to a different subject than the one he was looking for but when it comes to newspapers and so on, you get what you pay for and nothing extra. It's not logical to pay for something limited and ignore something that's free and has no limits. That's the main difference i wanted to point out.

In conclusion, the information online is organised in such neat and convenient ways, making it easier and faster to be informed instead of wasting your money and energy reading off a lousy piece of paper, that is probably not telling you the truth either. My opponent will obviously come up and say the internet is dangerous or harmful, but when you look at the bigger picture, these are minor drawbacks that should be rendered irrevelant unlike problems presented by newspapers and such that i will analyse and explain later on.

Thank you

I will accept my opponent's implied split of internet-based information media (modern) versus other formats such as paper and silver engravings (traditional) because I am don't need to change this in order to try to win.

But I have to raise a question:

We are not here to argue whether a category will bring the British kingdom more wealth or plague a bigger portion of foreigners or whatever. "Better" is arbitrary and I think to proceed with anything that is less arbitrary than arbitrary would be, ironically, unfaithful to whatever Pro intended this debate to be. And of course, unless Pro can prove that better availability is the one that mattered the most or the foundation of all good that can come from media, this argument means literally nothing.

Pro's lack of specifics in the descriptions means by tradition, BoP falls on Pro. I would try to come up with creative points myself but I don't when it is less than 2 hours from the deadline and I have got an interview for an international trip tomorrow. Because everything Pro has made has not been even attempted to be justified as even relevant for how abstract this topic is, Pro did absolutely nothing to help his cause.

And let me bring quotes that should need sources as they are not trivial claims but do not.

We don't know that.

If people can easily find that out there wouldn't be so much criticism on direct democracy and the tyranny of the people.

Keep in mind the description consists of a claim, an attempt of one, rather than a preset. I could treat it as a preset just to agree with Pro but that would be too generous of my naturally cruel style. For all we know, I could just write "earth is flat" but to treat that as a precondition for the topic to even be discussed would be moronic and comedic. Unless Pro specifies that this is intended specifically as a preset or condition for the debate or justifies himself with a credible source, the description is not really anything either if I do say so myself.

But if you want to discuss effectivity and convenience really, well, meet me at the next round. Nya.

Seeing that your whole case is based on my problematic description, opposition could have easily read that better in this case means "more efficient" and "more convenient". Now, the availability argument is extremely relevant because it is associated with convenience, which is one of two criteria for something to be better compared to something else according to my description. 

Because as i explained reading news off a newspaper or a piece of paper in general is quite tiresome because you actually have to walk to the nearest store and purchase it whereas someone can access an online article with one click.

Now the other criterion: Why are modern means of information more effective than traditional ones?

As i also explained, newspapers are poorly written papers. They communicate information in the most vague and difficult to understand way possible while they are also often ingenuine because most corporations communicate false information in order to protect the people and organisations that pay and support them, neglecting real information to do so. While you can't avoid corruption, even when using sources from the Internet, you can as i once again explained use a wide variety of sources and figure out for example which information contradicts the information you acquired from other corporations. These sources of informations are usually free and due to them being accessible to you with one click, you don't have to buy all the newspapers written by all the printing presses. Time and money is saved while the quantity of information found online is far greater. Quality is not guaranteed from both sides, yet you can do your research and find the sources that offer quality and honesty. 

Con then proceeds to take some claims and say they need sources, well let me tell you they don't, here's why:

When you search for information online, you don't blindly read what a random user on social media tells you, you find a person that actually has qualifications. This person doesn't need to be a journalist but it would be better if it was. Now, even if this person is lying or is corrupted, you can compare sources and draw your conclusions just like i explained. These people i then proceed to say "conduct research the same way as before'' and  are paid by their respective corporations. The research part is true because how does a person find information, in order to share it to the public? He either does research on the internet or does research irl, meaning if a crime was committed, he goes to the crime scene and gather information. No journalist or informer creates information out of their mind. If they did, people would probably know. Now the corporation part: These journalists wouldn't be going through this process if they weren't getting paid, someone needs to reimburse them for their efforts. That someone is their corporation or whatever you wanna call them. Journalists can either choose to publish info through corporate databases and sites or through social media posts which is not as professional. Journalists can act independently but nobody wants to work and not get paid. 

These explanations dont require sources, they are common sense.

Ok i get your point, but it is quite simple. You obviously get the point and nature of the debate so you dont even need a description, you just used it to attack my case but if you needed it so badly, i am happy to provide one during another round. I don't guarantee it will be correct but i'm just a newcomer, cut me some slack.

Good luck on your interview

I now will proceed with my next arguments since con didn't add something in round 2

I will be firstly talking about the cost-effectiveness of content found on the Internet

The employees meaning the journalists and everyone involved in the process (editors...) don't show up from work because they work from home and publish their work online. Therefore, they don't have to drive back and forth to their bureau wasting money to buy gas for the cars they drive and other expenses. These expenses all disappear.

Employers don't have to rent and buy workplaces. Many corporations function in skyscrapers and the employers now don't have to rent any skyscrapers or anything as well as other expenses to manage their work environment such as paying cleaners etc.

They don't have to drive to stores and purchase newspapers. They simply open their computer and searh for the articles and content they want to read. Access is much easier as i previously explained but it's also all free of charge, they don't have to pay and wait everyday for new newspapers because the journalists update the sites and databases automatically

My other environment is also pretty simple. By accessing content through the Internet, we don't waste paper and we therefore slow climate change down

Everyday, corporations print millions of newspapers each about 10 pages each. That is a giant amount of paper used and to do that, they have to buy tons of paper. For that to happen, millions of trees must be cut down and destroyed. This contributes to deforestation which is a serious problem globally and a direct factor of climate change. We all know about climate change, we all kow it threatens our existence and we also know that it is important that we take as many measures as possible to slow the phenomenon down as much as possible before it's too late

My last argument is about the interactive features offered by the Internet.

In addition to written articles, sources on the internet usually contain additional videos, podcast, audio clips and photos that strengthen the overall learning experience for the viewer. They function as a second source essentially, that provide additional information to the benefit of the users. Finally, information is usually conveyed through online articles that also act as forums to discuss. After reading the article, the user has the opportunity to communicate and discuss with the journalists that wrote the Internet. The users can ask for the journalists to clarify certain pieces of information as well as contradict their findings so that the journalist justifies and elaborates on his opinions and findings, in a kind and friendly environment.

Those studying to become journalists can also find out how journalists respond, how they do their jobs, the necessary research and bascially become prepared for their professional career, learning the technical aspects of the job through discussing and reaching out to numerous journalists, which would have been much harder otherwise

Thank you

Source

(this is the source but i elaborated on it)

 

out of respect i will not publish anything.