The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

God awful T.V. characters in U.S. T.V.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 184 times Debate No: 94184
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Control freaks,psychopaths,sociopaths sometimes in the same character.American T.V,is overflowing with these carpet-chewing grotesques masquerading as "Heroes".We are told that Art imitates Life but there is no sense of true-life in the utter drivel that passes for most American television.I write from an Englishman's perspective and whilst I have no love for the parlous state of English T.V.I am truly shocked at the continual dross displayed in series after series of utter rubbish that Americans seem to approve of.


Hello I am Glad to accept your challenge that because American TV characters have "Carpet-chewing grotesques" it makes the TV "utter drivel" as you have set no structure within your adjective-riddled paragraph i will just treat this round as acceptance and you can open your arguments next round.
Debate Round No. 1


Welcome Mmichaen.N.C.I.S (All 3)Chicago P.D.,Blue Bloods,Black Sails,C.S.I.Miami and New York,Chicago Fire,Magicians and Powers.These are just a few examples of the sheer awfulness of the scriptwriting in American T.V. shows.In N.C.I.S. series 12 the characters are exactly the same as they were in the 1st series.So much so that 1 character is wearing the same clothes. As regards Blue Bloods I do not see a morally upright family,just complete control freaks.Speaking of which what on Earth is House?.8 series about a man who is a true grotesque.His drug addiction would make him unemployable in a hospital.He is a sociopathic control freak who believes that ANYONE who comes into his orbit should do only what he demands.The characters in all of the above are risible Where is the tension?Where is the reality?Where are the characters that reflect true life.That you actually care about?Where are the plotlines that are interesting enough to engage us.Do the writers actually believe we find D Nozzo humerous in stead of sad.Do they think that we find those execrable sex scenes more entertaing than than the plot?Where is the humour?Thats easy to answer.It has given way to guilt.Every character seems to have had their Mom,Dad,Brother,Sister,Great Aunty et al killed by some bad guy and ITS ALL THEIR FAULT.(Even when they are in a different country).In the average episode you will get 10mins of plot and 30mins of utter drivel.


I thank Con For your arguments which as there has been no set structure I will rebut after setting up my own case that the major characters of American Television are complex and imitate life without copying it.

Looking at the top shows in America by views to see what the average American will watch, amongst the top, there are The big bang theory, Game Of Thrones, The walking dead, how to get away with murder. all of which appear before the examples you provided (1)
Each of these is quite evident to most that it isn't reality or at least the world we live in but the messages they all convey are ones we can use in real life and the lessons the characters learn are usually those which the show's target audience needs to learn as well. easy example without too many spoilers is Ned Stark who dies at the end of the first season of Game Of Thrones after being the most moral character on the show showing that people can lose it all even though they do their best and do right by others a fact of life that is often hard to grasp by some.
Art imitates life you said this in your opening and I fully agree it shows us the good and bad of society as it stands and challenges us to better ourselves to not be like the Geoffrey Lannister's of this world and become a john snow and American .TV does this well giving us characters who often by no fault of their own and have to work themselves into better positions in the world, which is what we are all trying to do. condemning the way in which the current TV shows do that is silly as yes they imitate life but they are hyper real so they display reality through a lens to show us what will both keep us engaged while still being believable.

now where you slipped up. You Focused on a niche group of TV shows that were only watched by a specific viewer set for the purpose of entertainment. you by your blatant rhetoric questioning on where is the tension and reality don't like these shows in assuming and would be much better suited to a more "real" line of conveying the same thing. may I offer a home video of my father doing the taxes something which needs I say has far less tension and entertainment than any of the shows you mention but far far more reality.
You comment on the lack of plot lines in NCIS but disregard the reason some people watch TV which isn't for Developing and evolving plot lines that you need your full mental capacity to decipher but for the escape to a universe where they can kick back relax and be entertained.

So Television provides many different things for many different people you in your argument are saying that it is drivel if it doesn't conform to your structures which nullify an entire section of the audience of television. television has many examples of characters that portray life in a meaningful way to their audience and hence are not Drivel as you would assert.

Debate Round No. 2


Dear Mmichaen.The B.B.T.,G.O.T.,The Walking Dead.I thank you for making this so easy.(I cannot get the last one on British t.v.).In fact I will add 2 more.Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.The Big Bang Theory is one of my favourites but only up to series 6.From then onward the fact that the characters stayed exactly as they had always been began to pall.There is no growth,no lessons learned.They remain the same people with the same flaws as they have always been.The Game of Thrones.I am at a loss to understand why people would commission such a work to be serialised.I have never seen a complete episode of this dross but I have read the first 6 books and was so disgusted that I never read the next one.Mr. Martin is laughing hysterically all the way to the bank.Ned Stark noble? He has the same aims as everyone else.Self Interest.His death was a preview of what was to come.What other author would introduce a pack of Dire Wolves and then kill them off with barely a thought?Did the wife of Ned Stark get shot in the back with 2 arrows,punched,kicked and generally beaten and then have her throat cut.Was she then thrown from the battlements into an icy river?Was she then bought back later in the series with no explanation at all?She was in the book!!!!. I will not bore you with more G.O.T.howlers but will move on.T.W.D.Oh Deary me.Are you aware that 18 months ago there were 80 million legal gun licenses issued in America?The Shot To Pieces ,Non Ambulatory,Definately Dead would be a better title.Why do they use 4" sheath knives insted of machetes.A garden sprayer full of a flammable liquid would have killed dozens of those achingly slow zombies.Breaking Bad.Series 1+2 were excellent but from then onward the writers lost sight of the character.Series 3 episodes 1.2.3 were all about the marriage breakup and from then on W.White was driven by outside forces.The writers forgot the W.W. who set up his own meth lab,who out intimidated a drug boss in his own lair,who was willing to kill but apparently unwilling to use his chemistry aptitude to get rid of his enemies.(If you know any chemist ask them how many ways they could kill people).Better Call Saul.1st series excellent.2nd series should be entitled Better Call Sauls Girlfriend.You talk about "reality," well here you have it.A woman trying to make a success of her career.Oh hang on, wheres Saul?.If you take out the woman but leave in Mike you have barely 2 episodes.Where is Saul the shyster lawyer getting his guilty clients freed?It happens just once in the entire series.This is my point.There is no real plotline in any of the above because the writers would have to inject some sense of reality into the storylines.The problem of course is that when a show gains some popularity it attracts the money men and that is all she wrote.Ugly Betty,Jane the Virgin,2 Broke Girls,Brooklyn 99,The New Normal.Show me the reality in these shows.If you want realism and gritty shows I suggest you watch19-2 which is well acted and about as real as it gets.(Oddly,itis only shown at 2am even though it is a brand new series.


thank you, con for your arguments
From this debate, we are trying to decide the state of current television characters and the quality of the content they are in. you say that for something to be quality it has to be realistic. that all the characters are unchanging and have negative tendencies.
just because a scenario is unrealistic to doesnt make it of less artistic quality many great books have been written about the fantastical world and such many fantastical tv shows have been born.
just because you don't notice a character change or because the situations are similar doesn't mean that the show is at a loss. some people prefer it like this because then they know the show and can rely upon it for a well executed and consistent form of entertainment to adopt into their watching habits. the negativity and raw characteristics of a character are to show they people are not all white knights and are real with fears and problems saying that is a disadvantage is ludicrous as it is a technique that has developed over the recent years in media and has done very well for all forms of film and television.
above was the main gist of what we have both been saying as is evident you have not addressed the problem of people having personal preferences and are cherry picking points in order to misrepresent the reality here which is that media is what we want it to be and the way we decide that is what we watch. Vote Pro
because I know that is quite a short ill just take you last speech point by point read it if you wish but at this point the winner is clear.

lets start where you did with the big bang theory which you have said is good but you have only seen to season 6 so no spoilers but if your main criticism is that characters like Sheldon don't grow and develop as a person in the latest few seasons compared to his first few we see a man who has changed quite substantially you just need to look into the bigger picture.
your jest at Game of thrones a TV show that is now surpassed its books in terms of lore and canon evidence you state that after reading six books you were disgusted by the entirety of the series and morally refused to read the last but if you were really that disgusted why didn't you just stop reading after the first one why did it take you six books of sizable length to realise this wasn't for you. on that what you have found profoundly abhorred others have raised as one of the best books they have ever read.
your attack on the walking dead franchise seemed to just boil down to the fact they should have had bigger guns which counter to what you claim would have drawn away from the feel of survival its the same reason they don't let some cars race with onboard computers that will calculate the exact distance off the ground every part of the car has to be to maximise aerodynamics people don't want an easy win they want to see that characters struggle and the true core of humanity survive and win out.
your main problem seems counter to the rest of your argument where you say that because he starts to focus on something different in the character and him isn't the same Walter as he used to be that is both good and bad as it suits you apparently.
Realism is not everything people prefer just to chill out and watch something a little bit more relaxed and fantastical who are you to critisize them for that.
i thank you for this debate I enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by BackCommander 2 months ago
Protagonists aren't heroes, you seem to be confused about that. Morally upright characters who learn a new lesson every episode with the story wrapped up in a nice neat bow to ensure a fresh slate to work with the next week, is that good television? That's American TV up to the late 90's and it gets terribly boring very quickly. Diverse protagonists is the only way to keep the interest of those who grew tired of boring predictable storytelling. Just thought I'd point out a basic element of literature, and by extension television, so maybe you'd better understand why this debate is a waste of everybody's time.
No votes have been placed for this debate.