The Instigator
PoeJoe
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

Scooby Doo Encourages Drug Addiction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 10 votes the winner is...
beem0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,882 times Debate No: 6134
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (10)

 

PoeJoe

Pro

(Originally from my blog: http://musingsofjoe.wordpress.com...)

I've always known the show insulted intelligence. The conclusions given to the mysteries were always flamboyantly fallacious. The dialogues, in an attempt to be both witty and profound, were laughable in their stupidity. What was worse: A talking dog, with the vocabulary of a Pok�mon, always ended up saving the day for completely unknown and erroneous reasons. I abhorred the show.

Bored of the indolent animation and bored of the contrived story lines though, I've since given up on the show. As the epiphany hit my six-year-old head over, I realized Scooby-Doo was, um, lame.

I remembered today my days squatted in front of my television set eagerly waiting for the next episodes. What shame! If only I had the powerful analytical skills I have today. Sigh.

I have a point though. Not only do I realize the idiocy of the show, I now know the true intent of its creators: To get kids addicted to marijuana!

And why not? The main characters are all hippies from the 70s, an era in which drug usage was common and rampant. Scooby, as he gobbles and pleads for more Scooby Snacks, teaches kids an addict's life is acceptable. Scooby-Doo even makes references to marijuana when he speaks his own name. "Scooby DOOBIE Doo", the kids viewing the show hear him howl.

But therein lies the problem. Kids cannot be expected to treat the respective sides of a television screen as separate entities. What happens when little Jill starts believing it is okay to be a drug-smoking free-loving hippie? What happens when little Johnny not only smokes pot, but also moves on to harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy?

Some would argue that I am condescending to kids, that I am being overly pessimistic about the impressionability of these young, precious minds. To that? How dare they encourage the downfall of America's children, and subsequently the downfall of our great empire! They must hate America.

Because Scooby-Doo is a hazardous show. It teaches kids bad story-telling. It promotes hard drugs like heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy. And seriously now, who could argue those drugs aren't bad?!
beem0r

Con

Many of the claims my opponent has made are somewhat off-topic, but I will respond to some of them regardless.
My opponent's claims [and/or other chunks of text] will be marked "CLAIM:" and my responses will be marked "RESPONSE:", sound simple enough?

=====
CLAIM: [Scooby Doo] insults [viewers'] intelligence.
RESPONSE: No more than any show made for children. Of course a show targeted at a young audience will not expect viewers to have the massive intellect my opponent possesses. It is simply geared toward its audience.
I, for one, was apparently not smart enough as a child to feel intellectually insulted by the show. Indeed, I am still not insulted at age 20; perhaps I am simply an intellectual underling... or perhaps I simply expect a children's show to be a children's show.

=====
CLAIM: The conclusions given to the mysteries were always flamboyantly fallacious.
RESPONSE: I'll go ahead and use evidence to counter this.
http://www.mentalfloss.com...
That is a site comparing the conclusions of the mysteries in Scooby Doo to real life news articles. There are 10 stories in all, some from Scooby Doo, some that are true.

Example Scooby conclusion:
A man was apprehended for pretending to be a 150-year-old miner, scaring people out of a town in the American West. He wanted to drive down property values to buy the entire town as a place to store his oil, which he had been storing in the mine.

Example True Story:
An unusual disguise allowed a man to successfully rob a bank. He duct-taped branches to himself and, disguised as a walking tree, left the bank with an undisclosed amount of cash.

Example Scooby conclusion:
After being named one of five heirs in a millionaire's will, a man attempted to eliminate the other heirs to take the fortune himself. He was foiled, but it didn't matter because the fortune ended up being in worthless confederate money.

Example True Story:
Spite motivated a woman to pretend to be a ghost to haunt the occupant and manager of an ancient castle in Europe. The "ghost," who worked as an employee at the castle's cultural center, was apprehended for causing mysterious sounds and damaging the property.

Scooby does not seem to be any more unrealistic than these incidents of real news. There's nothing 'flamboyantly fallacious' about either of the Scooby examples given. Sure, maybe they're not everyday occurrences, but that holds true for pretty much every TV show.

=====
CLAIM: The dialogues, in an attempt to be both witty and profound, were laughable in their stupidity.
RESPONSE: No more so than other children's TV shows. And I'm also not sure where my opponent came to the conclusion that Scooby Doo was supposed to have profound dialogue.

=====
CLAIM: A talking dog, with the vocabulary of a Pok�mon, always ended up saving the day for completely unknown and erroneous reasons.
RESPONSE: Actually, Scooby usually did very little to save the day. His role was only incidental; the rest of the gang were the real detectives - Scooby and Shaggy were merely comedic relief.

=====
CLAIM: Not only do I realize the idiocy of the show, I now know the true intent of its creators: To get kids addicted to marijuana!
RESPONSE: Actually, it seems much more likely that the creators' intent was to make money off of a TV show. Unless the creators also happened to be key players in the marijuana market, they would have little incentive to get kids hooked on it.

=====
CLAIM: Scooby, as he gobbles and pleads for more Scooby Snacks, teaches kids an addict's life is acceptable. Scooby-Doo even makes references to marijuana when he speaks his own name. "Scooby DOOBIE Doo", the kids viewing the show hear him howl.
RESPONSE: Having parents who drink coffee often, or seeing a fictional coffee addict like Godot from the Phoenix Wright series drink it all the time - this might encourage kids to drink coffee. However, it does not encourage them to do every addictive thing in the world. No kid is really going to think "Well, Godot drinks a lot of coffee, so I think I'll go shoot myself up with some heroine and start smoking." Likewise, no child sees Scooby eating his dog treats [Scooby Snacks] and thinks about rolling and smoking a fat blunt. It just doesn't happen. It's a complete non-sequitur.

=====
CLAIM: But therein lies the problem. Kids cannot be expected to treat the respective sides of a television screen as separate entities. What happens when little Jill starts believing it is okay to be a drug-smoking free-loving hippie? What happens when little Johnny not only smokes pot, but also moves on to harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy?
RESPONSE: This would almost be a meaningful point, if Scooby Doo were a drug-smoking hippie or a hard drug user. He is not; he is a dog who eats dog treats. The show does not mention drugs at all - a kid would have to be thinking about drugs independently of the show to even make some fuzzy connection between the show and marijuana, or any other drug.

=====
CLAIM: Because Scooby-Doo is a hazardous show. It teaches kids bad story-telling. It promotes hard drugs like heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy. And seriously now, who could argue those drugs aren't bad?!
RESPONSE: First, as noted above, Scooby doesn't even mention hard drugs [or any drugs] let alone promote them. Second, Scooby Doo teaches kids some important things. It may seem to be filled with mythology [ghosts, etc] at first, which would surely be polluting childrens' minds, but the show always gives a reasonable, natural explanation for so-called ghosts or zombies or whatever. The show teaches kids that the world isn't some crazy, supernatural circus. Other children's shows often teach kids the opposite - that magic exists, that superpowers exist, etc.
Also, the story-telling is not bad in the show. As shown earlier in this round, many Scooby episodes have plots comparable to real life. Sure, they're not mundane stories - that would indeed be bad storytelling. The stories are quite creative, and usually leave the viewer wanting to find out the explanation behind the mystery. This is why the show was so popular - it was engaging and interesting enough to be profitable for so many years.

In that big mess, I've addressed all of my opponent's relevant claims, and some of his irrelevant claims. I thank him for the chance to debate him on this topic, and wish him well in his next and final round.
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Pro

(Para los americanos: http://translate.google.com...)

Ay dios mios! Empec� este debate con intenci�n c�mica. Ha-ha-ha. Yo no soy serio, pero mi oponente es muy serio. Yo debo perder, pero voy a intentarlo de todos modos.

"RESPONSE: Having parents who drink coffee often, or seeing a fictional coffee addict like Godot from the Phoenix Wright series drink it all the time - this might encourage kids to drink coffee. However, it does not encourage them to do every addictive thing in the world. No kid is really going to think "Well, Godot drinks a lot of coffee, so I think I'll go shoot myself up with some heroine and start smoking." Likewise, no child sees Scooby eating his dog treats [Scooby Snacks] and thinks about rolling and smoking a fat blunt. It just doesn't happen. It's a complete non-sequitur."

Yo no hablo Ingl�s. Perm�tame ir a "Google Translator"... ah.

Los ni�os piensan subconscientemente. Ellos ven sus padres tomar un caf�; cuando son adultos, ellos tomar un caf� tambien. Ellos ven Scooby Doo comer Scooby Snacks; cuando son adultos, ellos comer hero�na, coca�na y �xtasis.
Este hecho es evidente.

"RESPONSE: This would almost be a meaningful point, if Scooby Doo were a drug-smoking hippie or a hard drug user. He is not; he is a dog who eats dog treats. The show does not mention drugs at all - a kid would have to be thinking about drugs independently of the show to even make some fuzzy connection between the show and marijuana, or any other drug."

Usted est� incorrecta. Scooby Doo dice, "Scooby MARIHUANA Doo!" La televisi�n es en la d�cada de los sesenta o setenta. En esos a�os, las drogas fue rampantes. Scooby come las drogas "Scooby Snack" como un perro! La asociaci�n es evidente! Todos los ni�os van a hacer la conexi�n.

Gracias! Votaci�n pro!!!
beem0r

Con

Luckily, after spending much time learning the secrets of various languages, I discovered that my opponent's second round was most likely written in Spanish. Though it is clear he himself speaks English, and that this is an English-speaking site, people who know absolutely no Spanish would not know what to do with this. His only instructions for how to get it into English are written in Spanish! Quite inconsiderate, if you ask me.

Why did he do all this, you might be asking yourself. I would give you the answer, if I knew it. I thought, based on seeing his second round, that using the Google translator "Doobie" might translate into "Marijuana." Long story short, it doesn't.
Source: http://translate.google.com...|es|Scooby%20doobie%20doo%2C%20where%20are%20you%3F

Note that I translated his Spanish text to English using Google Translator, as per his own instructions. Any errors in text I quote from him are either the fault of his Spanish or of Google Translator, which he has instructed us to use.

CLAIM: "Oh god mine! I started this discussion with comic intent. Ha-ha-ha. I'm not serious, but my opponent is very serious. I have to lose, but I will try anyway."
RESPONSE: Debate.org is serious business. That does not mean one cannot choose to debate comically, but one should certainly be able to take on a serious opponent in doing so.
Also note that my opponent has said himself that he has to lose.

CLAIM: "I do not speak English. Let me go to "Google Translator" ... ah. "
RESPONSE: Oh, come now. Does my opponent expect us to believe this? He started this debate with a well-written English rant. To claim now that he cannot speak English means he must have plagiarized the content of his opening post. What seems much more likely, though, is that my opponent can speak English quite fluently and is merely telling us a bold-faced lie by claiming to not speak English.

CLAIM: "The children think subconsciously. They see their parents drink coffee, as adults, they drink coffee, too. They see Scooby Doo eat Scooby Snacks, as adults, they eat heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.
This fact is obvious."
RESPONSE: My opponent has completely avoided my point! Seeing a parent drink coffee will not encourage children to do OTHER addictive things, it will only encourage them to drink coffee. My opponent seems to admit this. However, he continues to claim that seeing a dog eat dog treats [Scooby Snacks] all the time will encourage all sorts of addictive behavior - "eating" heroine, "eating" cocaine, and eating ecstasy. His support for this distinction, this grand claim? "This fact is obvious." Sorry, but if it's obvious, it's my opponent's job to tell us WHY it's obvious. The fact that we're debating it means it cannot _merely_ be considered obvious, it needs some sort of argumentation to back it up.

CLAIM: "You are incorrect. Scooby Doo said, "Scooby Doo MARIJUANA!"
RESPONSE: Actually, he didn't. He said "Rooby rooby roo!," a mispronunciation of "Scooby dooby doo!" Note that the word "Doobie" is present neither in what Scooby pronounces or in the spelling of what he's supposed to be saying. And even if it were, a kid would already have to be thinking about drugs to make that connection. I certainly never made that connection, and I watched the show quite regularly as a kid. I reckon it's the same for most people.
Also, hearing an idiotic dog say something that kinda sorta sounds like something that is related to Marijuana is certainly not something that would 'encourage' kids to use drugs, even if they did automatically make that connection.

CLAIM: "Television is in the sixties or seventies. In those years, drugs were rampant."
RESPONSE: I think my opponent is trying to say by this that the show was made in the 60s or seventies. This is true, but it has no bearing on our topic. We're talking about whether Scooby Doo "encourages" drug addiction, not whether he did so back in the sixties and seventies. Even so, it's unlikely that he ever did, for reasons I've listed. First, kids don't make a connection between Scooby's howling and Marijuana. Second, Scooby is hardly the sort of creature kids look up to as a role model.
Drugs may have been rampant in those years, but that does not mean everything created in those years encouraged drugs. Sixty minutes was created in 1968, it certainly is not a drug encourager. The date of the show is not good evidence. Rather, my opponent should be using the show's content as evidence - and if his insinuations about the show being in a time of rampant drug usage is relevant, there would be actual things in the show that encourage drug use.

CLAIM: Scooby eats drugs "Scooby Snack" like a dog!
RESPONSE: Scooby snacks are no more a drug than Popeye's Spinach. Popeye eating spinach encourages kids to eat spinach. This is because spinach makes Popeye strong. Kids are luckily not encouraged to eat dog treats, since they usually realize that dog treats are made for Dogs.

CLAIM: "The association is obvious! All children are going to make the connection."
RESPONSE: Like the "This fact is obvious" statement earlier on, this is not an argument. If it's obvious, you'd have to show us why it's obvious. Kids are only going to make the connection if they know what a Doobie is and are actually thinking about it during the show. Most kids probably write off Scooby's 'middle name' as a mix between his first and last name - taking the beginning from "Doo" and the ending from "Scooby."

Before leaving, I'd like to remind everyone of a few things. though this is clearly a debate in English [see both sides of the first round] my opponent failed to write his second round in English. He wrote instructions for people who don't speak Spanish, but he wrote them in Spanish! Following his instructions to translate his round created quite a few grammatical errors. While he may have considered the plight of the English-speaker, he did not adequately attend to our needs - he wrote instructions for us in the wrong language.

That said, I thank my opponent for the debate, and I thank the audience for reading.
Cheers.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Hahahahahahahahaha, yeah.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
LOL! I was being facetious... (to dragon)

I thought it'd be fun to seriously "judge" a comical debate. Everyone knows (now) that Shaggy was a pothead that blew smoke up his dog's snout! I didn't realize that when I was a kid, but being a pothead now myself, it all makes sense! Scooby and Shaggy ALWAYS had the munchies!
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
These comments are all far too serious.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Wow. Will you correct my Spanish tarea?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Usted está incorrecta. Scooby Doo dice, "Scooby MARIHUANA Doo!" La televisión es en la década de los sesenta o setenta. En esos años, las drogas fue rampantes. Scooby come las drogas "Scooby Snack" como un perro! La asociación es evidente! Todos los niños van a hacer la conexión.
Gracias! Votación pro!!!
-You are *incorrect* (this form of incorrect is for females only). Scooby says , "Scooby Marijuana Doo"! The television is in the decade of the sixty or seventy. In those years, drugs were rampant. Scooby eats the drugs "Scooby Snack" like a dog! The association is evident! All the children are going to make the connection. Thank you! Pro votation!
"Usted esta equivocado. Scooby Doo dice "Scooby MARIJUANA Doo"! El programa se basa en la decada de los sesenta o el de los setenta. En esos dias el uso de drogas era rampante. Scooby se consume la droga, los Scooby Snacks, como un perro. La asociacion es evidente! Cualquier nino puede ver la conexion. Gracias! Voten "Pro"!
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Here's a direct translation when also translating his grammatical errors, and the way it should read in quotes (I have left out the accents):
Ay dios mios! Empecé este debate con intención cómica. Ha-ha-ha. Yo no soy serio, pero mi oponente es muy serio. Yo debo perder, pero voy a intentarlo de todos modos.

-Oh mines god! I began this debate with comic intention. A-A-A. I am not a serious, but my opponent is very serious. I should to lose, but I am going to try it anyhow.
"Aye Dios mio! Comence este debate con intenciones comicas. Jajaja. Yo no estoy serio, pero mi oponente es muy serio. Yo debo de perder, pero voy a intentarlo de todos modos."

Yo no hablo Inglés. Permítame ir a "Google Translator"... ah.
-I don't speak English. Let's me go to "Google Translator"... ah.
"Yo no hablo Ingles. Permiteme ir a "Google Translator"... ah.

Los niños piensan subconscientemente. Ellos ven sus padres tomar un café; cuando son adultos, ellos tomar un café tambien. Ellos ven Scooby Doo comer Scooby Snacks; cuando son adultos, ellos comer heroína, cocaína y éxtasis.
Este hecho es evidente.
-Children think subconsciously (this statement is not true). They see their parents drink a coffee; when they are adults, they too drink a coffee. They see Scooby Doo eat Scooby Snacks; when they are adults, they *eat*(wrong form of eat) heroin, cocain, and extasy. This fact is evident.
-"Los ninos piensan subconcientemente. Ellos ven a sus padres que toman cafe, y cuando llegan a ser adultos tambien quieren tomar cafe. Ellos ven a Scooby comerse los Scooby Snacks, y cuando llegan a ser adultos quieren consumir heroina, cocaina, y extasis.
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
rofl.
Im not even sure what to say.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Conduct: Con
Pro wasn't serious. Posting a debate frivolously is bad conduct, in my opinion. Furthermore he debated his second round in what he thinks is Spanish. As a Latino, I think his attempt at Spanish was very bad conduct.

Spelling and Grammar: Con
Pro's Spanish was terrible.

Convincing arguments: Con
Pro never presented an argument supporting his premise. He had not point. He contradicted himself in implying Scooby Doo insults our intelligence, yet is smart enough to somehow trick kids into becoming addicts. He claims the show promotes marijuana, doesn't provide any proof, and then somehow comes to the conclusion that promoting marijuana promotes addiction to heroine, cocaine, and extacy. He made no sense at all, and his attempt at humor? He couldn't even be funny about it.

Sources: Con
Con's source very effectively proved the point he was trying to make regarding the stories presented in the cartoon.

All points Con.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Tom and Jerry is pretty violent. ; )
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Because guns show violence and they're not supposed to be a part of kids show.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Femme_Fatale 8 years ago
Femme_Fatale
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PoeJoebeem0rTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bmoe11 8 years ago
bmoe11
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dvhoose 8 years ago
dvhoose
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
PoeJoebeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06