argument top image

< Back to question Are e-readers better than printed books? Show more Show less

Books are constantly evolving. In the 21st century, we no longer read from a page, but read from a glass screen that can hold hundreds or thousands of texts. E-readers have revolutionised the way people read, and for many have made it much more accessible. But how does it weigh up to the traditional paperback?

Printed books are better Show more Show less

Going analogue has its own merits - there's nothing like feeling a book in your hands, and e-readers just aren't the same.
< (2 of 2)

Printed books have value as a collectible

Antique and rare printed books have value as part of a collection. Printed books contain constitutional and physical importance that collections will often appreciate in value. This does not happen with e-books.
< (5 of 5)


Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓

The Argument

Behind every tangible object there is a story: how it was made, from where it was purchased or whom it was gifted, what it has been used for, and how it has been cared for over the years. The story of the book itself carries a unique meaning for every owner. For example, rare books are still preserved in museums today. It could have just been digitised and made available through a screen with translations and other features, making the book more accessible and easier to comprehend for visitors. Yet, the physical book itself is still displayed and maintained! This demonstrates the value of a book beyond its contents. In comparison, e-readers do not have the elements that would make them antique, since these devices are considered to be new technology, unlike printed books which have a long history. Hence e-readers do not have appreciative value which some historic pieces may have at this moment.

Counter arguments


[P1] Physical books can appreciate in monetary value over time.

Rejecting the premises


    This page was last edited on Sunday, 7 Jun 2020 at 00:58 UTC

    Explore related arguments