Old Spongebob (PRO 1999-2005) is better than New Spongebob (CON 2006-now)
Debate Rounds (5)
Second round will include arguments
Third to Fourth round will consist of rebuttals
Fifth round is conclusion
-Every argument needs concrete reasoning
-Must include episodes from each era for sources
First off, the 1st round was only supposed to revolve around acceptance. Secondly, you mentioned that Old Spongebob isn't as good as 2004-2010 Spongebob. I'm considering 1999-2005 Old Spongebob in the title of my argument, meaning that right when it got popular, it was still in the "old" era. Third of all, "the band bubble bowl episode" (known as Band Geeks) and "Suds" both aired before 2004. Suds aired in January 17th, 2000, a year after it began. Band Geeks aired in September 7th, 2001. So accordingly, Spongebob became popular and liked within its first few years, and both episodes are within the range of 5-6 years away from what we will consider New Spongebob. There are also grammar errors that can be found in your argument. Lastly, you aren't specific enough. "Krusty Krab 2 episode?" You mean "As Seen On TV," which included a reference to a second Krusty Krab? Or the Spongebob Movie, which also include two Krusty Krabs? "Surfur Dude?" That could be any episode, in which both eras have episodes with surfers in it.
That being said, I will get into my legitimate argument.
You say that Old Spongebob was cheesy. However, New SpongeBob does not do the job any better. New Spongebob has episodes like "Face Freeze," which was a plot about Spongebob and Patrick making zany faces. The jokes fall flat because the faces they make are hideous, the audio is annoying, and the humor itself is repetitive. New SpongeBob has a lot of gross-out humor that utterly destroys the plot, and makes the audience want to cringe. Spongebob gets a close-up splinter in "The Splinter," Squidward's toenail gets a close-up while getting ripped off of his foot in "House Fancy," everything about "Fungus Among Us" is outright cringe worthy, having gross scum take up most of the episode.
Dark and mean-spirited jokes are also played for laughs. In "Are You Happy Now?" two jokes about squidward committing suicide (jokes as in he is really doing so, but it seems like it) are used. What about Plankton trying to get himself run over because of Mr. Krabs in "One Coarse Meal?" How about when Ms. Puff tried to murder Spongebob in "Demolition Doofus?"
Speaking of which, all of the characters causing trouble don't always get a form of comeuppance, they just get away with whatever crap they committ. Ms. Puff goes to jail in older episodes like "No Free Rides." Patrick is an awful friend in "Stuck In The Wringer" by injuring Spongebob, eating his ice cream, etc. Yet, we are still expected to feel sorry for Patrick after worsening the problem. And should I even mention the episode's terrible moral: "I guess crying does solve your problem after all!" Mr. Krabs is a greedy douche who fired Spongebob over a nickel in "Spongebob You're Fired!" And by the way ignorance doesn't work when it harms others deeply, without even showing that a character is trying to help another. Spongebob is so oblivious in "A Pal For Gary," that he gets mad at GARY for what PUFFY FLUFFY is doing, even when he can CLEARLY see that Gary is being EATEN ALIVE!!!
Now with the awful character value and atrocious so-called humor out of the way, I will dig into the plots. New Spongebob sometimes doesn't even try to have an interesting plot. "Face Freeze," the epitome of horror, is about making stupid faces. How do they execute it? Every main character (excluding Sandy) gets a stupid look on their face. That's all. No moral, no proper execution or somewhat tense climax, just shots of characters with hideous looks. Another example, which is "Squidward in Clarinetland," has a plot that is all over the place. Squidward wants to keep his clarinet protected, he hallucinates Spongebob stealing his clarinet, he locks Spongebob in a locker and sends him in a bus, and for some reason, Spongebob shows up at his presentation to give him his clarinet. Now Old Spongebob has bad continuity, but it only contradicts with logic from previous episodes. The contuinity error that has Spongebob somehow get to Squidward without explanation interferes with the episode's execution, making it seem lazy. Old Spongebob will explain how characters did illogical things. In "Idiot Box," Spongebob and Patrick revealed that they used their imagination to make weird and yet realistic sounds.
As for Old Spongebob, it packs more jokes per minute than your average New Spongebob episode. "Band Geeks" has some of my favorite jokes in Spongebob history, such as Patrick's line "Is Mayonnaise an instrument?" The jokes can be rather idiotic, but the good part is, the characters act stupid for a few jokes, and can be smart at other times. They don't act that way for the sake of being stupid or annoying. Some of what Spongebob and Patrick did are stupid things we would do every once in a while. Patrick riding hooks in "Hooky," that's what an ignorant young adult might do. He also gets a comeuppance for doing so. That's better than hearing Patrick make obnoxious noises with Spongebob. Old Spongebob also contains better plots that keep you intrigued, like "Ripped Pants." Yes, an episode with such a cheesy premise has a great plot. The episode is about how Spongebob fooled around too much, and that he blew it by taking it too far. It teaches kids not to fool around too much to win a friend's attention, and that you should just be yourself. The characters are great as well. They aren't always at their best, but they stay in character a lot more often than in newer episodes, and usually take responsibility for their actions.
I'm aware that New Spongebob has good episodes as well. However, there are a small amount of those good episodes compared to Old Spongebob. Season 6 is a good example. Almost every episode has a disgusting element, a mundane plot, and some terrible jokes. Anti-humerous gags and a lack of gags is what Season 6 has. Season 7 and 8 have worse episodes that exponentially go downhill when it comes to bad humor.
There is much more to talk about, so I decided I would cover both eras in a nutshell.
The situation looks dire for PRO, as he/she has not only failed to follow all of the criteria, but also needs to develop a more convincing argument with more depth and reasoning.
Source: Spongebob.wikia.com (I used this one website in order to look up various episodes of the show)
Well then, now for rebuttals.
"I was reading like to first paragraph of your argument and I was like ok."
So... are you stating that my argument was just okay, without giving any sort of reasoning?
"But then I saw that u wrote a 200 page essay"
Exaggeration at its finest. My goodness, do you even get the point of debating here? It is not about writing one weak paragraph, it's about writing as much as you can and giving concrete reasoning for your argument. People like you personally frustrate me, as you are claiming that quantity surpasses quality.
"Woah....that is way too much sh*t for SPONGEBOB"
No it isn't. Spongebob is widely talked about and people do this all the time. People on Debate.org fill up all of the characters in an argument ALL THE TIME. You're the one taking things seriously, this is how debaters are supposed to argue.
"I mean you are going to run out of idea for SpongeBob sometime."
Ok, so how does that make it better than Old Spongebob? Sounds more like an excuse than an argument. It also implies that New Spongebob is not good.
"There is no right or wrong answer"
So that's it? You're equivocating, which breaks one of my rules once again. If you accept the debate and read the rules, than you have no excuse for projecting a poor argument. This is Debate.org, where you are supposed to argue effectively with your opponent, not to share opinions. You don't say there is no right or wrong unless you don't care about winning an argument. Although the quote is true, it makes you seem like you have no clear opinion.
"I meant the Spongebob movie"
Ok, if you look at the argument title, that's in the Old Spongebob era. You've said that Band Geeks, Suds, and The Spongebob Movie were good. As for New Spongebob in a later quote, you state that one episode, Spongebob V.S The Big One, was good.
So you are giving more sources for Old Spongebob than New Spongebob, meaning you are unaware that you support both. Once again making your opinion seem opaque and all over the place.
Look, I am not trying to be mean, but your acceptance to this debate was immediately shoved out of the door with little regard. If you're going to accept my debate, you are aware of the consequences. You say that you don't have time to read my argument, don't care about grammar, and make your opinion opaque at worst, and unclear at best. You just don't care about debating anymore, and you hardly tried. You probably shouldn't have accepted this debate, expecting I might be this illiterate man who doesn't know how to debate. I'm sorry, but constructive criticism is what makes you stronger. If I don't tear your argument apart, you will never learn what a good argument is. But if you don't even care, then you might as well forfeit.
And to be honest, I think Spongebob V.S The Big One is alright. I thought they could've done better with the comedy, and the episode could be dull at times. He also says, "One of you will not return," meaning one of the people he is speaking to. Instead, he doesn't return. I didn't expect them to kill a character, but at least have him say "One of us will not return."
Your entire argument can be summed up as:
-Making claims without providing much reasoning
-Sub par grammar
-Getting all offended by someone arguing on Debate.org, which is what we're supposed to do
-Saying New Spongebob isn't terrible, while not explaining why Old Spongebob is worse, but rather, providing three sources out of four that are Old Spongebob episodes.
Well, this should pose an automatic win for PRO, as CON doesn't seem to care about continuing the debate.
You are being a total douche. There are tons of debates that have nobody join. Consider that it could be better cause most people prefer Old Spongebob, and thus, they agree with me. Now you're just plain insulting.
People like you frustrate me, don't join a debate like this if you don't have want to follow rules. And how can you be so sure nobody would've joined, can you PROVE that, or is it just another opinion of yours.
There are "nerds" who don't live in their parents' basements, for your information. In fact, a lot of people don't live elsewhere because they are uneducated and can't get a job. All I did was rebut your argument like I was supposed to, rather than verbally attacking your type of people. People like you would spend time in their parents' basement as well.
You don't have to research, just explain argument the claims you make if possible. Please, for gods sake, calm down.
I have debunked enough of your claims. Don't respond to me another insulting speech, you will just embarrass yourself. Oh, and by the way, you go on about my "sorry debate." And could you do better? Your argument was non-existent. It doesn't matter what the debate is about, what matters is how it's presented.
The debate states that CON is for 2006-2015, not 2004-2010, if you haven't figured out already. You have to be aware of what you're arguing about and how to do so in the rules, so this is all on you, not me.
The fatal flaw you have is that since you state that my arguments are too long, you probably don't have even read the whole thing. That means you are very lazy, thus, not even attempting to refute my claims.
As a final conclusion for my rebuttals I must note that:
-CON is now verbally attacking me
-CON didn't back up his/her argument
-CON had subpar grammar (I have made a few, although I don't have errors in every sentence)
-CON switched the topic
-CON didn't come up with any rebuttals for the actual debate
The only thing you can attack me about is some of my grammar errors. But everybody has a little bit of them every once in a while, you have at least one in almost every sentence.
I'm not taking this seriously, most people argue back rather than state that it's an opinion and not a debate.
Your arguments are awful, and the point of debating is to argue, not share opinions. You make absolutely no sense. Getting all mad about me arguing with you is illogical. I know that it's an opinion, I know that there's no right or wrong, but the point of debating is to have the better argument, not the better opinion. You're the one taking this seriously, since you are the one who started bugging me about trying to argue effectively, insulted me, and wrote in all caps (you did it first, so don't bother me about using all caps) to express being flustered. This makes you a hypocrite too, you know. I at least try to have good grammar, I try to argue, I try to do everything, you just don't care.
Oh, and your statement: "This is debate.org. No rules!" makes no sense. These aren't rules are not for debate.org, these are rules for MY argument. You are attacking me for trying to argue correctly, and set up a debate logically. Are you kidding me? Don't join debates that have rules if you don't like the rules, surely you must know that by now! Oh, and these aren't "stupid" rules, they are logical rules, that pretty much everyone who cares would use. And by the way, you're it's better to have horrible grammar than bad grammar? My grammar is mostly by complete accident, especially with my phone's atrocious Autocorrect system and enclosed keyboard. For most of them anyways. I did say "The situation looks dire for PRO," I admit that was a terrible mistake. But a few mistakes of mine translate to "horrible" grammar?
I'm sick and tired of your "It's just Spongebob, there is no right or wrong" claim. This is a debate, not sharing opinions. How many times do I need to say that? I know Spongebob is not an extremely important topic, but there are people who constantly debate about which era is better.
The main problem with your argument is that you have already switched the topic by Round 2. As you are aware of the rules that only apply to this argument, not the whole website, you only had one argument, which was on the wrong round. The point of a website like this is to show that you can argue and follow the criteria, and your flawed argument is downright poor.
Even if there weren't rules, people will still tear your argument apart for not providing at least some form of reasoning. You go on about how you say New Spongebob is better, and yet you have nothing to back it up. Wait, so you can't accept that I am a so-called nerd, (even though you know nothing about me) and you judge me for having an argument, but you think I should accept that this is an opinion-based debate? You don't get to decide like that, this is my debate. You judge me for putting this debate out into this website, so you are judging me for my opinions. Meanwhile, I only judge your arguments, which is what you do in Debate.org. You need to drop the act, seeing as you are the one who started this controversy. Debunking others' arguments isn't being serious or mean-spirited, attacking someone is. This site is full of nerds, get over it.
I'm now done debunking CON's statements. I will now come to a conclusion.
PRO argues that Old Spongebob is better because-
-It contains better comedy
-The character value is enjoyable
-The plots are not dark and mean-spirited
-Old Spongebob has more comedy
-Old Spongebob has more good episodes
CON doesn't provide legitimate arguments and switches the topic. CON also equivocates constantly in each round, and has failed to meet the criteria.
As CON contains major flaws in his/her argument, and PRO only contains minor flaws and has a legitimate argument, I believe that this should pose a win for me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro adequately convinced me that Old Spongebob is better than New Spongebob while con provided little for his/her argument and insulted pro, thus pro wins.
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.