There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Debate:Books vs. Movies part 01
This is a debate of which teachers have argued to their students about, and of which Hunger Games fans kill themselves over.
I say books are better than movies because
- books involve you using your imagination. A movie involves all the production already done for you. Imagine spending literally millions of dollars for a film that will not stimulate your brain since every possible element is presented before you. Therefore movies are inferior because they don't involve using your imagination God gave you, and you're paying money for someone else to do the labor for you. It's a waste of money.
- books are for intelligent people. An intelligent person needs no pictures or sound or any of those unnecessary enhancements. Notice how stupid people don't read books? That's why the U.S. doesn't like reading books, and prefers the capitalism of pre-manufactured services. An intelligent person works with what he has, and for a person to understand
codetext that says something. Movies give you the answers right away.
- Notice how aesthetically elegant Roman characters themselves are compared to the ugly contamination of color, sound, lighting, direction, effects, music, CGI, acting, humans, animals, action, beauty, and movement, (and sometimes text isn't even used in movies)? Words over pictures.
- Books come with elegant covers with elegant art. Remember that thing about working with what you have? That one picture should give everything away for you on the environment.
- People have been reading and writing books longer than movies, therefore books are automatically better.
- Greek author Homer wrote books, but didn't direct movies.
- Technology was used to make a movie, including vehicles (nowadays it's even computers). Everything would have been better if advanced technology wasn't used (that facilitates things too much). A book takes little to no technology, since it doesn't constitute cheating.
- You have to think in a book, while in a movie no thinking is involved.
- More failures are in movies than in books, since books are robust.
- Ehhhhh.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring most of these obviously fallacious arguments, let me just address the titular question: False dilemma. The internet is a more efficient means of gaining information than books or movies. I also don't need books to use my imagination, huzzah! If I want to look at awesome or pretty things I can just look something up on the internet (or imagine it, huzzah!) instead of wasting two hours watching a predictable plot unfold. Both media are pretty redundant in the modern age, in my humble opinion. Zhoop! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:58, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Poe's law was in action here; all of this was a joke, hence the title, but I thought that would be more obvious. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, though, this is a false dilemma. A reocurring social meme I see is that its either one or the other, while any side of the argument ignores the fact both of these form of media are completely different. Even if there were to be a dilemma, both of these art forms have elements that the other doesn't possess, and to have one in favor of the other is to refuse oneself the very education he or she could get. This was all intentional humor by my part, and this is a work of satire. Many of these quotes I based off of debate.org. It's stupid really, how black and white thinking processes are in teenagers, and this comes mostly from these people. My English professor helped me understand this, and he emphasized that if there were to be a comparison between movies or books, it would be between works based off of one another, and only then would a relative superiority appear. There are no absolutes in the best.
- Yes, this is all a completely fallacious argument. Look at argument five: it's an appeal to tradition, a reoccurring argument for pro-book academia. Look at most of these arguments: they're overgeneralizations. The third argument was a particularly interesting one, as the argument embraces tradition and perceives elements in cinema as nuisances rather than variables to be embraced.
- I hope you all found this funny and hope you didn't take any of this seriously but as a satire of debate.org stupidity. But I still want the debate here to go on, just to see where it stops. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)