The Instigator
John95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
evangambit
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Is The Pixar Theory True?

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 2 votes the winner is...
evangambit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 61109
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

John95

Pro

Rules:
1. First round is acceptance and opening arguments
2. Second and fourth rounds are expansions of arguments.
3. Third round is second argument.
4. Fifth round is concluding statements.
5. No profanity
6. No rudeness
7. Three days to post
8. No new arguments after 3rd round
9. Stay on topic, i.e. no "rabbit trail," "wild goose chase," etc.
10. Good luck!
I will open.
The Pixar Theory is true. All information in my arguments is from www.pixartheory.com
evangambit

Con

I accept and wish my opponent the best as we try to determine whether or not the "Pixar Theory" is an accurate model. Though my opponent has not presented any arguments formally (and I do not wish to respond to each argument from the given website before s/he does, as I am not sure to what extent s/he will be using it's arguments) I will offer some general claims and arguments in the hopes of getting this debate moving (the first round is designated as the "opening arguments" round)

I feel confident saying that nobody knows the full extent of Pixar's Easter eggs, back stories, etc., so while some of my claims may be presented as fact, I fully expect and desire you (John95 or any readers) to correct me if I am mistaken.

The "Pixar Theory" has not been confirmed (or denied) by Pixar itself.

There are no easter eggs in any movie that reference a movie that was made after it. In other words, Pixar doesn't seem to be planning multiple movies ahead when they make a movie.

Easter eggs by themselves to not imply a (fictional) connections, only the real-world connections between movies via the breaking of the fourth wall.

With my opponent is arguing that there is evidence that supports the connection of every Pixar film, I will let him/her make arguments and will respond to them in Round Two. I do not want to try to counter an argument Pro does not wish to make.

Even accepting that there is evidence that conclusively connects two seemingly separate universes into a single timeline and location, the Pixar Theory asserts they are all connected; to prove this, such a connection must be proven between every movie.

Best of luck Pro! I look forward to a friendly and enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 1
John95

Pro

John95 forfeited this round.
evangambit

Con

As my opponent has not issued any arguments, I will attempt to address some of the arguments from the website s/he has linked to. My arguments from the first round still stand.

The site www.pixartheory.com claims that the Magic that turned Merida (from "Brave") into a bear is the reason that "animals and inanimate objects (brooms & tools) behave like humans". Leaving aside that there is no given evidence of inanimate objects behaving like humans, there is no evidence that this magic is the justification behind either the toys in "Toy Story" or the animals in "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille" (the two movies the follow relatively soon in the Theory's claimed timeline).

Further on, a similar claim is made that toys "absorb and draw their powers from Zero Point Energy", despite there being no evidence that the toys in "Toy Story" do. Indeed, we see several toys that seem to have none of the inner parts one might expect if they were harnessing an "unseen energy that travels in wavelengths". For instance, Hamm is hollow and seems to otherwise be made of plastic too thin for such complicated technology. Perhaps even more notably, the toys Sid takes apart retain life, suggesting an interconnectivity of technological parts (if we accept the Pixar Theory) that seems absurd.

There is no explanation as to how toys "come up with a code of rules and learn that human love is another energy source, upon which they thrive". Even if that is the code within their neighborhood, that it applies as universally as it does (and that brand new toys immediately know what it is and instinctively go limp in the presence of a human) suggests it is not a code that the toys came up with. Indeed, the contradictions shown in the first movie (Buzz believes he is real but goes limp when Andy is present, yet Woody can consciously move when being held by Sid) suggest that trying to physically explain the toys-coming-to-life phenomenon is impossible (or certainly more complicated than the zero-point energy explanation).

On a less related note, the claim that "human love is another energy source, upon which [toys] thrive" is not backed up by the site.

On "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille": as mentioned above, no evidence is given that these talking animals are connected to the Magic in "Brave".

The strongest evidence produced by the site is the cross-universe existence of the corporation "Buy n Large" (a producer of batteries in "Toy Story", a producer of construction equipment in "Up", and the owners of the "Axiom" in "WallE"). Nonetheless, whether or not it is actually the same company (that they seem so drastically different within a relatively modest time span is evidence against), the site itself claims the "corporation took over the world/governments tarting in the 1950s", but, more than 40 years later, the only evidence we see of their global influence is as a battery producer.

"A Bugs Life" is claimed to happen around 3000 ce. They point to the fact that an ant says that he "feels 90 again" and that the bugs all survive an entire summer, but the movie does not begin in the beginning of summer, but rather only occurs over the course of a few days. That an ant "feels 90 again" matches up nearly perfectly with the sites own statistic that "an ant can last just 3 months" if "90" is taken to mean days rather than years.

They further argue that the modest presence of humans indicates that there are extraordinarily few of them (i.e. after "WallE"). But the evidence is scant and easily countered by the existence of cardboard boxes in Bug City (which would have decomposed over the last 2,000 years). Additionally, the circus uses matches with little hesitation " a certainly scarce resource if humans are no longer alive. The claim that an ant "feels 90 again" suggests they live longer than a year is not the simplest or most rational interpretation of the statement " the ant may well simply feel "90 days old" (a fact that lines up with the site's own statistic that ants live about 3 months).

The given time of the monster civilization in "Monster's Inc" and its prequel suggests against the idea that evolution from BnL-caused radiation was the cause. 1,500 to 2,000 years after "A Bug's Life" (bugs who showed no sign of drastic mutation due to BnL) is no where near enough time for evolution to have so utterly transformed fauna of Earth. That such a diverse group of animals (presumably capable of reproducing withe each other) exist in harmony is also unprecedented and extraordinarily unlikely.

The site finally brings back the idea of humans as a source of energy, but this idea has gone from being applied to toys (which doesn't seem to be true in the first place) to the monster's machinery " this jump needs to be substantiated.

The site attempts to use "Boo" to explain the variety of Easter eggs throughout the movies, but has no explanation for how Boo learned to time travel, let alone why she believes wood will lead her to find Sulley (even for magic, this claim seems a little bizarre). The theory postulates that she has been planting easter eggs because "she has been accidentally going through different time periods", but doesn't give her a motive.

Overall, the multitude of unsubstantiated claims are so extraordinarily unlikely that they don't offer a sound model for the Pixar Universe. Pro needs to justify all these assumptions with evidence, as well as demonstrate the inconsistencies are not, in fact, contradictions.
Debate Round No. 2
John95

Pro

John95 forfeited this round.
evangambit

Con

I maintain all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
John95

Pro

John95 forfeited this round.
evangambit

Con

I maintain all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
John95

Pro

John95 forfeited this round.
evangambit

Con

All of my arguments still stand. Being able to find a theory to fit a set of facts is relatively simple, but the theory posited by my opponent has strong counter claims and presents few reasons to hold it as true.

Pro has offered no arguments apart from a link to a website, which falls far short of proving that ALL pixar movies are connected, and has difficulty arguing that specific ones are (apart from sequels). Pro has failed to provide convincing reasons to hold the "Pixar Theory" as more probable than the original, assumed theory (that the movies are not all connected).
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MykSkodar 2 years ago
MykSkodar
Had a glance at the Pixar theory. It's pretty insane. :-P
Posted by evangambit 2 years ago
evangambit
I'm not especially fond of the argument that Easter eggs suggest the stories exist in the same universe. Many of the connections seem extraordinarily tenuous, particularly as I don't believe Pixar has validated the theory.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Again, I sure wish you Debaters would get your heads out of your (word deleted) !
A question like "Is the PT theory correct? " isn't a Debate (For/ Pro or Against/ Con) topic- it's asking for an Opinion-( Yes or No ) .

I see that 9spaceking is still Crazy, Lying, & Wrong .

The answer is, of course, NO.
The word FICTION, by definition, refers to False Information, Imaginary Items, etc.
Fictional characters, Fictional universes, etc. , cannot, by definition, exist.
Period
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
there is too much evidence suggesting the PT is true.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
John95evangambitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
John95evangambitTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture