Instigator / Con

Sir.Lancelot

1587

rating

182

debates

55.77%

won

Topic

#4389

Video Rentals vs Streaming Services

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sir.Lancelot

Tags

Movies

Parameters

Publication date: 04.13.2023 09:20PM
Last updated date: 05.10.2023 03:50PM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,500
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: None

Contender / Pro

Slainte

1511

rating

debates

68.0%

won

Description

Resolved: On Balance, consumers should get their movies from Video Rental Stores than Online Streaming services.

Video Rentals: (Blockbuster, Family Video, Hollywood Video, and Bridgeport Video)
Streaming Services: (Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, and Disney Plus)

Pro must argue that there are more benefits to Video Rental stores and more disadvantages to Online Streaming.
Conversely, Con will defend that there are more benefits for Online Streaming and more disadvantages to Video Rentals.
(Which ultimately determines which consumers should buy from.)

Definitions:
VHS- Is a standard for consumer-level analog video recording on tape cassettes invented in 1976 by the Victor Company of Japan and was the competitor to the ill-fated Sony Betamax system.

Betamax- Betamax (also known as Beta, as in its logo) is a consumer-level analog recording and cassette format of magnetic tape for video, commonly known as a video cassette recorder.

Blu-ray- The Blu-ray Disc (BD), often known simply as Blu-ray, is a digital optical disc data storage format.

(Pro will be arguing in favor of the four video rentals in the parenthesis and for the Video Rental industry to return while Con will be defending the status quo and the 4 services mentioned in their parenthesis.)

Rules:
1. Voters are asked to be impartial while voting.

2. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two are a full concession.

3. The winner shall be who brings forth the most compelling reasons and/or most compelling criticisms to discredit the other side.

Round 1

Sir.Lancelot

04.17.2023 02:39AM

Con

There is no need for Video Rentals.

Services like Hulu offer more movies than any video rental store has on stock.

2. Streaming services make movies more accessible.

There is no longer a need to travel to the store in order to purchase movies when all you need is a television and a wifi. Downloading apps is more convenient and less time wasting when you browse movies, TV shows, and read the description, then walking around the store studying the movies with compelling covers.

3. More Cost Efficient.

Watch unlimited movies for $6.00 a month or go to the store and spend $6.00 per movie just to rent one where costs eventually build up after the expiration date, sometimes leading to a warrant of arrest.

4. No risk of damage.

When you’re buying or renting DVD’s, there is no guarantee just how badly the disc has been damaged, so the movie may not be as high-quality.

Conversely, no such risk exists with streaming services.

Slainte

04.19.2023 04:45PM

Pro

I am going to start off with a Kritik. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that a traditional video store can only merchant the types of media mentioned in the description. This is a fair assumption, because the examples listed do not include Laser Discs, DVD's, Video games (including cassettes) and Audio CD's. I reserve the right to argue this point, and that while the stores should come back, they can accomodate new technologies.

Screen Time and Digital Gluttony:

Increased screen time is a problem, and studies show that it is especially having negative effects on children and young adults in concentration and in sleep quality.

Study 1, Study 2, Study 3, and Study 4.

"Reducing children’s access to digital media may actually be beneficial, as it can promote more social interaction and physical activity, increase attention span, and improve sleep patterns" (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016).

Removing streaming services, and making that content restricted to an act of going out, and choosing what you want, does not invoke any sort of censorship, It moderates the access to an activity or content, in a meaningful way. It forces the reduction of access to those streaming media services. A low $6m fee for something that is detrimental when used in excess, is not a good thing. I doubt anyone would advocate a $6 all you can drink service.

About the Business, Jobs and the Community:

Video rental stores could be one of the four big brands in the resolution, however could also include small mom and pop shops. For smaller town or cities, the video store was a journy, to go and look at what is available, plan out an evening, get the legs moving, being social, and curious. It was a community event. From a social perspective, we have to be careful about the consequences of being too locked up in our houses.

Lin et al. (2016) found that frequent internet and social media use was associated with increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, which in turn were associated with decreased participation in social and leisure activities. (pages 333-341). We need to create the social environments for engagement, and a video store is one of those chances.

With the building of more local businesses, that local community would benefit, versus the huge multinational corporations that stream the content, over the big Telco's that then deliver it. There is very little obvious community and local benefit. More stores, more job opportunities, more local community development etc.

Media and Delivery:

As mentioned above, there is nothing stopping video stores in our modern age to adapt to the times. For example, they could certainly rent out USB keys with videos on them, with digital locks to prevent unauthorized duplication. There is no limit in what type of media access these stores can deliver, and they could do it in a manner that is logistically practical, and prevent that dreaded case when the store only has one copy of Ghostbusters, and it is on Betamax, and you only have a VHS. (Beta was better by the way).

From a returns perspective, this would mitigate those issues, because the digital rights certificate on the USB, would make the movie expire by a certain point. And no need to be kind and rewind.

Just because something is all you can eat, does not make it good. Someone has to think of the perils of digital gluttony.

Digital delivery options are still an option at video stores

We would provide a better local community, with job opportunities.

I do agree with Con in that there is "No Need for Video Rentals". It is certainly not a need, and renting them via a streaming service, or a store, is the same. There is really no need for it on either side. So because there is no need, lets make the best effort for our community and our children, and take these things, one movie at a time.

Round 2

Sir.Lancelot

04.19.2023 05:29PM

Con

One of the traditional media stores, Blockbuster, already attempted to adjust to the times. They created an app in order to rival Netflix, but customers found it too slow and laggy. So it ceased to generate any income.

A common denominator is that these stores have failed to overcome these issues with moving on from the past accordingly and have not responded to consumer demand, so were therefore left behind.

Too Much Media Causes Depression??

While the studies have good motives, they don’t take into account other factors.
Causes of depression are more complex and may be cases of bullying, genetic predisposition, and a symptom of a psychological disorder. Streaming services are used as a coping mechanism for what the person considers an escapist fantasy.

Therefore restricting these means of access by forcing an inferior product on the consumer may be counter-productive and even backfire.

Increased screen time is a problem, and studies show that it is especially having negative effects on children and young adults in concentration and in sleep quality.

It is the consumer and the parent’s own responsibility to assume self-care. A negative in the streaming industry does not imply someone should choose video rental stores, especially because of a rental store’s limited options.

Conversely, Netflix and Hulu have actually ACCELERATED learning because they act as a virtual library with limitless options and search by subject & category. There are educational TV shows and learning documentaries that apply information in an interesting and fast-paced way.

Studies have found that people’s education is more sufficient when their learning is driven by a focus stimulated by entertainment.

Slainte

04.19.2023 08:09PM

Pro

Enhancing a Business Model

Con states that because other businesses in the same sector have had difficulties changing, or pivoting their business model, that means the business model cannot be changed. Many a brand and store die with change, and many are nimble enough to pivot. With a new focus, and an environment that supports such an initiative, speculating on inevitable failure, is just that... speculation. In debates we don't speculate. Now just because the times change, that does not mean those changes are for the better. We have learned many times that there is something called too much of a good thing... is not good.

Too Much Media Causes Depression

Rather than dump study after study, (like the Journal of Affective Disorders 23 study meta-analysis), it is undisputed that excessive screen time can have a measurable negative impact, and that impact is more profound on developing minds.
Con says that a product provided by a traditional bricks and mortar store is inferior. Cost inferior, yes. Convenience, yes. Those are given, and I accept them. However costs and convenience is not the only determination on if something is good.
Whilst there is a libertarian argument that people should be able to consume what they want, and when they want to, this does not apply in many regulated environments, like tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, cannabis, driving, firearms, purchasing of certain chemicals, books, and...... ratings of movies and video games. The industry knows that there needs to be curtailment. I am arguing that having these streaming services, so accessible, and ubiquitous, we are doing significant social, and individual damage.

Learning:

You can still borrow documentary media from traditional stores, as well as from Libraries. There is nothing to say that the stimulated entertainment Con argues provided by Netflix can't be replicated through a traditional store, or library.

The real learning, which has not been countered by Con, is in the community development. The business value in the small communities. The value in really exploring what you are going to watch, and why you are going to watch it.

Conclusion:

The tsunami of media is a potential individual and social toxin. Pivoting, and encouraging a traditional retail environment, would refocus the consumption of digital media, create business opportunities that have long passed, allowing small companies to employ locally, and benefit directly. Modern technical approaches could still be employed, as stated previously. Extend all other arguments not referenced herein.

Round 3

Sir.Lancelot

04.21.2023 12:19AM

Con

Enhancing a Business Model
Con states that because other businesses in the same sector have had difficulties changing, or pivoting their business model, that means the business model cannot be changed. Many a brand and store die with change, and many are nimble enough to pivot. With a new focus, and an environment that supports such an initiative, speculating on inevitable failure, is just that... speculation. In debates we don't speculate. Now just because the times change, that does not mean those changes are for the better. We have learned many times that there is something called too much of a good thing... is not good.

Pro has conceded my arguments about cost, accessibility, the lack of a need of VHS, and no risk of damage. Extend.

Pro also has a point about speculation. Why speculate that any of these video rental stores would adopt new technologies when history has proven time and time again that they never will?

Whilst there is a libertarian argument that people should be able to consume what they want, and when they want to, this does not apply in many regulated environments, like tobacco, alcohol, prescription drugs, cannabis, driving, firearms, purchasing of certain chemicals, books, and...... ratings of movies and video games. The industry knows that there needs to be curtailment. I am arguing that having these streaming services, so accessible, and ubiquitous, we are doing significant social, and individual damage.

Regulations exist because the misuse of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, cannabis, driving is a liability to other people.

However, why should the fact that streaming causes depression override someone’s freedom to watch movies when they are not a threat to other people?

Should everyone stop buying fast food simply because it has been observed to cause heart attacks and obesity? No such regulations prohibiting consumers exist for fast food.

Extend that it is the person’s own responsibility to assume control of their mental health and not society’s responsibility.

Modern technical approaches could still be employed, as stated previously.

Hypothetically, they could.

But they haven’t and it’s unlikely they will, not even to save their own industry.

Slainte

04.23.2023 12:57AM

Pro

Pro has conceded my arguments about cost, accessibility, the lack of a need of VHS, and no risk of damage. Extend.

I have conceded that streaming services are cheaper. I have conceded that convenience is bestowed in a streaming service. I did NOT concede "damage" .

What Con has not disputed is the fact that just because something is cheaper, and more convenient, does it make it better. It does not necessarily make it better. As it relates to any vice of indulgence, moderation is key. Alcohol in Ontario Canada, can only be sold at certain prices, and under strict conditions. The consumption of media is shown to be toxic.

"Excessive screen time (ie, late increasing and early increasing trajectories vs continued low trajectory) was found to be associated with worse cognitive and social-emotional development outcomes."

Doll and HIll published a paper in the BMJ in the 50's about smoking and cancer. It proved to be a significant finding, validated over and over. Studies like that, showing the harm of a substance, validated governments to intervene on the commerce to mitigate those risks.

Con without evidence, and clearly incorrect, states:

Regulations exist because the misuse of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, cannabis, driving is a liability to other people.

Whilst some regulations related to those items, can be attributed to communal protection, others are very much consumer centric. Example: Image on smoking packages, age of consumption, place of consumption.

Should everyone stop buying fast food simply because it has been observed to cause heart attacks and obesity? No such regulations prohibiting consumers exist for fast food.

That is a strawman. We are not talking about avoiding consumption of the content. it is about how it is delivered. Do you think it is a good idea for beer to be tapped into every single house for a flat fee? While I would love it, I know it is a bad idea. Libertarian arguments supporting glutinous consumption or clearly established toxic digital material, is virtue signalling, and not fact based.

But they haven’t and it’s unlikely they will, not even to save their own industry.

My friend believes that because others failed, others wont succeed. This is an "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, or the "Argument from Incredulity" fallacy, and should be given no adjudication merit.

Just because it is cheap and accessible does not make it good. I have outlined the many positives of this position. i extend all.

Round 4

Sir.Lancelot

04.25.2023 05:11PM

Con

Should consumers logically decide whether it is better to buy from video rentals, or streaming services, they would find it is better to buy from streaming services.:

Video rentals have a chronological history of failure.
Streaming services offer more options at more affordable prices.
Video rentals have shown no ability to evolve.
Streaming is better for accessibility. With video rentals, there is a risk of damage with used discs or DVD’s.
Mental illnesses and depression were around, long before streaming services.

Slainte

04.26.2023 03:50PM

Pro

In the totality, a traditional bricks and mortar video rental outlet would benefit the community and society more than streaming services for the following reasons:

Cheaper, easier and more does not always = better. Video streaming is an example.
Local communities would benefit directly, including real estate, jobs, and social interaction not available from streaming services
The psychological obsession and well documented side effects would be mitigated
New business models, technologies and approaches can easily mitigate previous sector challenges, and failures. Deducing that things did not work in the past does not equate to a guaranteed future failure.
Content options, and accessibility are not compromised.
Multi vertical sectors such as music, video games, equipment rental are available, which are not currently provided, or possible with streaming services.
It is time society unplugs from the screen, and the art of the binge. They can improve community ties, family ties, and their own health by leveraging the trip to the rental outlet, with the free popcorn.

If for whatever reasons you do not vote Pro, the arguments have merit and should be recognized.

Savant

05.07.2023 04:41AM

#12

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

Yeah, I'll vote on this.

Greyparrot

05.07.2023 04:35AM

#11

tomorrow...quick skim...why did Slainte concede on the cost? Recurring subscriptions on stream services that are not canceled in a timely manner when not used is a big factor as to why it's more profitable...

Sir.Lancelot

05.07.2023 02:23AM

#10

-->

@Greyparrot

@Savant

Would you guys like to vote?

Savant

04.21.2023 01:23AM

Interesting debate, to say the least

K_Michael

04.15.2023 02:02AM

The obvious answer is that piracy is economically and morally superior in most circumstances.

Slainte

04.14.2023 06:20PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

I have to be very creative to have any chance in this one.

Sir.Lancelot

04.14.2023 06:18PM

-->

@Slainte

I strongly considered making myself Pro, but then decided against it.

Slainte

04.14.2023 06:15PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

Ok, I reserve the right to throw in a joke or two. :)

Sir.Lancelot

04.14.2023 05:50PM

-->

@Slainte

No, lol.
It’s not a troll debate

Slainte

04.14.2023 05:16PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

What a great topic. This could be really fun. Can we change the grammar point to comedy? Whoever has the funniest points?

Sir.Lancelot

04.14.2023 01:08AM

-->

@K_Michael

Hey!
Long time no see

K_Michael

04.14.2023 12:33AM

‎‍☠️

Savant

05.07.2023 06:39PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con argues that video rentals are superior in providing entertainment and sometimes education. Pro argues that video content is better consumed in moderation. Con's main arguments about cost and convenience have largely been conceded, and I'm inclined to think they support his point. Con also argues that people have a right to decide which services to buy so long as they don't affect other people.

In the end, I'm not sure how to weigh these two arguments. Pro shows that some restrictions are consumer-centric, but there is little debate from either side on whether these restrictions are good or bad. So it's mostly up to me to decide how these arguments should be weighed. Both sides drop some arguments from the other side, which makes this a bit difficult to analyze.

But in the end, I have to give this to Con. Con simply pokes more holes in Pro's case than Pro pokes in Con's. The education point holds some weight, and Pro's response about learning mitigates this somewhat, but if digital media is more efficient and directly gives information, that seems more directly connected to education than the community approach Pro describes. I'm also inclined to believe that since mental illness and depression were around before streaming services, people could just as easily get addicted to another hobby - Con doesn't say that explicitly, but it's heavily implied. The fast food comparison and libertarian points seem stronger than Pro's responses. The regulations on tobacco don't seem like they directly prohibit someone from using a lot of it or are aimed at making smoking more difficult.