Is Doctor Who the best show ever made
Debate Rounds (2)
There are no suitable criteria to determine the best television program. Taste in and enjoyment of the arts varies from person to person. There is, therefore, no need to refute the criteria that Pro presented. I will do so anyway.
My opponent presented the longevity of the show as one of his criteria. However, many shows have had longer runs than Doctor Who.(1) Also, in TV Guide's "Best TV Fans" contest, bronies were found to be a larger (or at least more vocal) fanbase than Whovians. (2)
And so, my opponents argument fails on two levels:
1. He is trying to prove the unprovable.
2. His criteria do not stand up to examination.
There was another record set this past weekend when a premier episode of a new season aired in 94 countries. This shows that not only the most people watch this show, but a very diverse population of people watch this show. The show has grossed more than 300 million euros. The fact that you don't have to watch every episode in order to understand the next one, which appeals to people who have busy lives. This broadens the viewer range farther than some other shows that stick to a strict storyline and are harder to follow on a non regular watching schedule.
My opponent did nothing to refute my statement that it impossible to prove that a television show is objectively the best show ever.
Pro tried to argue that because Doctor Who is the longest running sci-fi show, indicating that there is great demand for it, that it is superior to other shows in the sci-fi genre. I would like to respond by saying that:
1. Not necessarily. Popularity does not indicate quality.
2. Even if it is the best sci-fi show, the debate is over whether or not it is the best show, period.
My opponent then went on to list other statistics showing the popularity of Doctor Who. Once again, popularity is not the same as quality.
Whether or not one's understanding of a show is dependent on if they've seen previous episodes is not a litmus test for quality either. If anything, shows with "strict storylines" tend to be more complex and better written than those without.
I would like to offer several voting points, or things voters should keep in mind while making their decision:
1. My opponent did not prove that it is even possible for a show to objectively be the best. In fact, since I raised the objection that it is not and he did not respond, he has more or less conceded this point.
2. My opponent's criteria for quality were refuted.
3. My opponent cited no sources.
While it may be true that Doctor Who is the show that my opponent most enjoys, he failed to prove that it is objectively the best show ever created.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was better organized, refuted all of his opponent's arguments while using the appeal to ignorance card to utterly stymy his opposition, and did cite a couple of sources. So he wins without a doubt,
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.