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

Is subtle humor better then slapstick humor?

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: 11/4/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 82056
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I do love a good attempt at humor. its good for us as humans to laugh every now and then. We enjoy it, it helps us relieve stress. And what is so great about it is how many ways that you can achieve this. The main types are: Subtle, Pun, Slapstick, and Toilet. Now the ones i tend to enjoy the most are Subtle and Slapstick. But I do believe that Subtle humor is the better one. Don't get me wrong, I love watching some poor suck go head-first through a mailbox as much as the next guy. But you can only have so many ways in which people get hit in the nuts before it all becomes the same cookie-cutter clips. Subtle humor, in my opinion, can be FAR more various and different in its attempts to make you laugh. For example. I once knew a weight-lifter called Issac Mike Manly (Abbreviate that).


This topic is very steeped in society and culture.

I actually tend to agree with you, I prefer more subtle comedy, but I do not this is inherently better.

The first time that I came across this contention was when I started learning Japanese. It is good when you learn a new language to learn a bit about their culture too; and so, I started to investigate their humour. What I found was that there were a large proportion of Japanese natives who hate (sometimes with an strong passion) irony/sarcasm.

I believe, though I am not intimately informed with Japanese culture (yet), that this stems from the fact that the Japanese people are very sincere. By using irony or sarcasm, you could be exploiting this sincerity; particularly if they do not catch the joke.
If you think about it, it is quite slighting.

In fact, when I was on a forum which was discussing irony/sarcasm, there was a lady who said that it is the absolute base of humour and that people who use it are weak excuses for human beings who cannot find humour in other ways and so resort to sarcasm.
I was quite shocked at the time; as far as I was concerned, I thought it was quite tough to form witty jokes and such - obviously, my opinion was not shared.

So to conclude, I don't think *better* in the context of humour can really be used. There are different forms of humour, but as long as it makes one proportion of people laugh, I suppose it is attaining its purpose. In other circles, it could have quite the opposite response.
Unless your definition of *better* is in some other context, like how difficult it is to formulate those jokes. Arguably, this also differs with language. Using Japanese as an example, puns can very easily be made to great (and quite amusing) effect, due to the history and writing of their language, while it may be more difficult to form pun-like jokes in other languages.
Debate Round No. 1


Hmm..very strange. Well, I guess what constitutes as "the best kind of humor" is all up to a matter of cultural and personal views on what is and is not funny. When I refer to Subtle humor as the best kind. I say that from an American-Culture and English speaking POV. Now, a good majority of humor that comes from America tends to gravitate towards the Toilet end of the humor spectrum. I rarely find Toilet humor funny. So me liking Subtle humor the best comes from my personal views of what I find funny.


Yes it is very subjective.

If it helps though, I come from a Colonial British-British background, and I also find subtle humour to be my favourite type of humour; at least in English.

Slapstick can also be awfully good. And it's very transferrable across culture and language, unlike subtle humour appears to be. In a sense, that would be one argument for saying that slapstick is better than subtle humour.
Slapstick is so overtly kidding around that it couldn't possibly being interpreted in any other way but for humour. So yay, universal laughs, uniting cultures, lanaguages and citezens from different countries worldwide.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes. I do agree. What gives Slapstick some edge is its universal-meaning. Showing a video of a nutshot in Canada, and showing the same video of the same nutshot over in New Zealand and even if the video was recorded in Turkey. Its purpose is universally recognizable to the point in which it could not be interpreted any other way. But at the same time, you can only nutshot or facepunch a dude in so many ways before it all starts to blend in with each other.


Im not so sure about that.

People tripping/stepping in buckets/being tripped by someone else gets me every single time. I have a thing for people tripping.

Simple mind perhaps >.<

I have this theory that its because my parents would laugh when I fell over as a child to stop me from crying and help me realise that it didn't actually hurt so bad.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.