The Instigator
philosphical
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
abard124
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

South park V.S. The simpsons

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,156 times Debate No: 11700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

philosphical

Pro

This debate has been done before with family guy (http://www.debate.org...) , but I wanted to see how it would compare to the simpons.

I've wanted to debate this subject for a while now. However, seeing as school and other activities can get in the way, I would like whoever accepts this challenge to be willing to argue on the premises of this being a short argument time frame (48 hours.) I would very much like to do this debate, and look forward to someone accepting my challenge.

Now while both shows are extremely funny, I am going to be taking the side of south park for this debate. This debate is meant to be taken seriously, as well as having it being fun too.

My first point is that south park is funnier. Now upon saying this, I will admit that both shows have completely different comedy styles, in that each have their own attributes which makes them famous. My claim holds in that on the show "the simpsons", most of the jokes are speedy, obvious, and pretty lame. For example, when a joke is said on the simpsons, alot of it goes un-explained, and they quickly move on to the next event on the show. However with south park, after something is meant to be funny, the producers allow the punch line to kick in by little things like having the character stare in confusion at whoever made a dumb response. This allows the viewers to follow along with the joke, and gives it more time to sink in. "The simpsons" have also generally stayed the same since Matt Groening first started show in 1987, Whereas south park has been consistently changing in a shorter time period, starting in 1997 by Trey parker. They haven't really offered up alot of changes to the initial broadcasting of the show, whereas south park, you can pretty much expect something new, indifferent, and creative everytime to keep the viewers entertained.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My second point is that south park is alot more witty. South park has been comedy centrals #1 rated T.V. show. While Southpark can be extremely dirty and vulgar, each episode focuses on real world problems and uses wittty and funny dialogue to prove honest points. While the simpons do this as well, they do it alot less often and focus more on the individual setting and characters. Which is fine, because it defines the shows individuality, which alot of people quite enjoy. However south park takes a realistic view point at each and every aspect of america, and get people to look at these issues my comically introducing them and pointing out their faults. Another great attribute of south park, is that they are very un-biased. They make sure that if they are going to make one of one side, they will make fun of the other just as much. The make fun of democrats, republicans, atheists, christians, environmental protectionists, polluters, etc. The thing that makes their dialogue the best is that they sneak little details in the arguments, and allow the viewers to figure out themselves about their meaning through intelligent distribution of knowledge, thus rendering comments extremely funny. Now to be fair, the simpsons do this often as well. However, alot of times the simpson can waver along the lines of humerous and boring. They show almost as much seriousness in their episodes as they do funny, which lowers its comical rating.

My third and final point is that south park is generally newer, and has a different style. It's fans are now raging.
Now this might be a little irrelevant, but here are some forums and pages where south park has been commented on as being better than the simpsons.

http://www.joblo.com...
http://www.associatedcontent.com...
http://blogcritics.org...
http://www.hipforums.com...
http://forums.commandandconquer.com...

Upon saying that, The simpsons is now old news. They don't do practically anything new with their show, while south park is ever changing, gaining new characters, and using un-predictable sequences. You pretty much never know what you are going to get with south park. With the simpsons, there is not a wide range of possibilites any more, and they use alot of the same things. The characters and their actions are predictable as well.

http://www.news.com.au...

On top of that, the simpsons are slowly going down hill, whereas south park is constantly on the rise. Most people who favor the simpsons admit that only the old episodes were mildly entertaining, whereas south parks viewers are ever increasing since the show was first aired. The simpsons has also lsot several rating on fox to shows such as family guy, and american idol.
Fox is supposed to be a generally family oriented cable program, and while it is a very enjoyable family cable show, alot of people have said that fox has provided given itself a bad name by airing the show there, rather than comedy central, or HBO, where the show could be appreciated for its comical mis-behaviors.

South parks characters are made to be symbolic of human nature, and through its comical in-appropriateness, they accurately display the way human emotions can be interpretted, and are as realistic as possible, whereas the simpons have their own tangent they tend to stray by, where all their characters have their own show goals, that don't reflect the real world as much.

For now I will end my argument, and patientally await an opponent to accept this challenge. This should be fun, and I look forward to having a respectful and orderly debate!

-philosophical.
abard124

Con

I saw this debate and I thought it looked like oodles of fun. Without further ado, I shall proceed to my argument.

First of all, I do not regularly watch either show, but I have seen many episodes of both, so I do certainly feel qualified to take this debate. Now, to start off with, the gentleman who writes the Simpsons, Matt Groening, is from Portland, OR. Everyone knows that Oregonians are intellectually and comically superior to the citizens of the other 49 states. I am trying to think of something witty to follow this up with, but I can't think of anything.

Jokes such as that last "argument" seem to happen much more often in South Park than they do in The Simpsons. While many of their jokes are extremely funny, it is not particularly uncommon for them to use a joke that looks like it could be promising but then falls flat. That happens much less often in The Simpsons. The reason for this, as you alluded to earlier, is that The Simpsons use a more tried and true style of comedy. South Park experiments more with their comedy style, so, while it can lead to more variety and potential success, it often does not and instead just ends up as a bad joke.

You also mentioned that the jokes are "speedy, obvious, and pretty lame" in the Simpsons. I contend that that is a matter of opinion, and could actually be a good thing. Now, I must admit that I am a fan of stupid comedies that are probably older than you. I have many episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus memorized. I don't know how many times I've seen Airplane! or Blazing Saddles. I still have not seen The Hangover or even Borat. My point is, many people happen to like stupid comedies that are "pretty lame."

As you mentioned, and I'm sure any voter would agree on, South Park is incredibly vulgar. Since we are arguing what the better show is, we would have to consider what the better show is for everyone. Now, I wouldn't show either show to a young child, as neither are particularly savory, but The Simpsons is much more family friendly, yet it is still funny for adults. Not only is South Park completely inappropriate for anyone under the age of 40, children would probably not even find it funny. I know children who like The Simpsons, and I know adults who like The Simpsons.

Also, since we agree that South Park is offensive, that means that it could offend people (what a concept!). Eric Cartman is the epitome of a xenophobic, violent bigot. While it is obviously as comedy, it could still be taken the wrong way. Even though I don't generally get offended by comedy, there have been times where I've thought that South Park goes overboard. The Simpsons is not prone to that problem

As you mentioned, South Park makes fun of real world issues more than The Simpsons. While this might well be the case, it does not necessarily make it more funny. While I often do like comedy that centers on real world issues, I also enjoy comedy which does not. So, while it can be a good thing, it's not necessarily always a good thing. And, you mentioned that South Park parodies both sides, that is only true to an extent. South Park has lampooned liberals far more often than it lampoons conservatives. While the writers claim that that is only because liberals are mocked less often, they do not deny that it happens. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

You mentioned that the Simpsons is older and worn out, so to speak. However, it says a lot that The Simpsons has survived for over 20 years. While South Park may also run for that long, The Simpsons already have. Clearly, if the audience didn't like the Simpsons anymore, FOX would cancel the show. But they haven't canceled the show, and they don't look like they will. And I've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail hundreds of times, and I still think it's hilarious, so your argument that old jokes don't work is clearly only true to an extent.

Lastly, South Park has a lot of characters with no obvious main character. While you could (correctly) say that it is the same way with The Simpsons, the show obviously centers on the Simpson family (duh). This makes for much more cohesive programming. South Park often is not cohesive for this reason, and can become confusing at times. The Simpsons eliminates that problem by having a main family.

I am eagerly awaiting your response!
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Pro

"Now, to start off with, the gentleman who writes the Simpsons, Matt Groening, is from Portland, OR. Everyone knows that Oregonians are intellectually and comically superior to the citizens of the other 49 states. I am trying to think of something witty to follow this up with, but I can't think of anything."

"I contend that that is a matter of opinion,"

I somehow see these two statements canceling each other out.

"While many of their jokes are extremely funny, it is not particularly uncommon for them to use a joke that looks like it could be promising but then falls flat."

This, unfortunately, is something that happends in all comedy shows. However I would have to dis agree with the follow up statement that it happens more in south park then the simpsons. Now not including the fact that most of what happens in the simpons can be accurately predicted, the jokes and punch lines are quick paced, and (as mentioned before) very speedy. When south park uses the tactic of using 'the pause' to let the jokes sink in, the audience gets to look at the picture the director is trying to paint for them. This meaning, rather than quickly jumping from one subject topic to another as in the simpsons, the show allows the viewers to notice more the objective and purpose of the show. Now, in south park their is a clear objective in each episode, that is attempted to keep viewers attention. While the shows is still a comedy and focuses alot on making vulgar and funny remarks, it's initial goal is to provide a moral explaining the goal or learned objective from each show, which is usually followed up by a speech from stan or kyle. This way the audience is able to understand more the purpose and reasoning of each individual event or goal. This however, does not happen in the simpsons, which makes some of the jokes harder to understadnd, or in alot of opinions, not funny.

"The Simpsons use a more tried and true style of comedy."

While their was a time when the simpsons had it's indiviuality of comedy, that time has long since passed. The selected audience know what to expect from each show now, and while it may still come off as funny, its nothing new. This can lead the show into being more of "something to just watch" rather than something they are specifically being entertained from. Albeit, in south park you can pretty much expect something new and exciting each time with different plots and events.

"My point is, many people happen to like stupid comedies that are "pretty lame." "

I'm afraid my point here was mis-understood. Movies such as monty python, and airplane, became famous for being what some people would call "stupid". However the most prominent point I am trying to get across her is that the simpsons dont experiment with new things. I too am a tremendous fan of monty python. In this we can expect monty python to do different comical skits with a large variety of oppertunity at hand. The simpson on the other hand have no large iminent goals, and generally focus on the same plot for each episodes, which may lead some of the jokes to seem "dumb". Now not to take away from the simpsons, because again, the simpsons individualized this comedy style and created in a sort of way. In the last 20+ years the simpsons have been a great hit because of this new style. However, at that, it can now be classifed as an old style, and no longer attracts as many people to it as it once did.

"Not only is South Park completely inappropriate for anyone under the age of 40, children would probably not even find it funny. I know children who like The Simpsons, and I know adults who like The Simpsons."

Now the argument relating to age of viewrs is a good one, and one I meant to bring up in my first argument. First off let's take a look at the concept of each channel the shows are aired on. The simpsons, a family friendly network. South park, a network designed to provide comedy for individuals over the age of 14. That being said, Comedy central isn't on any basic cable programming, and is only on paid programming. It's intended audience is for those over an age deemed appropriate to watch it. Now that being said, issues have aroused in the past about the simpsons being on a family friendly network. While the simpsons don't compare in vulgarity to south park, the level of vulgarity has been seen to be dis-dainful of fox's reputation. I'm sure we all have heard over the dispute that arose from the simpsons a few years back.

Lets take a look at some of these examples.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.tv.com...

Now the issue lies more on the fact that fox was originally a family friendly broadcasting network. The simpsons had also opened the door for family guy. Now as these are both great T.V. shows, I think most would agree that they should be placed on a channel more appropriate for their width, (aka comedy central).

"South Park is offensive-
The Simpsons is not prone to that problem"

This however is highly untrue. People have looked at homers carelessness as a father and barts example to kids as a negative for over a decade.
This has caused great relevant uproar in the parents of certain children watching and recieving messages from an network intended for family T.V.
This has also opened the door for fox to lose its family value by allowing other shows on the program.

"As you mentioned, South Park makes fun of real world issues more than The Simpsons. While this might well be the case, it does not necessarily make it more funny."

This however implies that it is for a mature audience willing to look at the faults of society, which for a vast majority of people, is highly amusing.

"South Park has lampooned liberals far more often than it lampoons conservatives."

I find this statement faulty. Upon research, any one person would find that south park has always been open to critisizing each side fairly to evenly distribute fairness in the way the policital Idealogies are demonstrated. While the producers of south park may be more conservative, they have always taken great care to make sure each side would be made fun of evenly.

"Clearly, if the audience didn't like the Simpsons anymore, FOX would cancel the show"

The argument wasn't that the simpson is funny, just that they are losing its taste by being generally the same over the years. This being said, they have never been ever changing or spontaneous to spice up the show, which generally leads it to be not as comical.

"Lastly, South Park has a lot of characters with no obvious main character. While you could (correctly) say that it is the same way with The Simpsons, the show obviously centers on the Simpson family (duh). This makes for much more cohesive programming. South Park often is not cohesive for this reason, and can become confusing at times. The Simpsons eliminates that problem by having a main family."

The simpsons success surrounded it unorthodox and unique way of displaying characterization. Southp ark has done so with a different level of showing human nature, where as the simpons display their own characters emotions for the show. South park is seen to be more "wittier" in this specific areas, while they display celebrities and display the "behind the scenes" version of them. This giving them potent reasoning as to things that humans do when, angry, happy, sad, etc. They do this through comical showcasing to better get the imagery across. With the simpsons we learn nothing new from the characters, and only see how they change and effect them selves, giving it no real world value. This is something important to look when adressing the maturity of the show, and its intended audience.

I would like to thank my opponent for making a speedy and intelligent argument, and look forward to the next round.
abard124

Con

Thank you for your response!

"I somehow see these two statements canceling each other out."
The former was a joke. I apologize for the confusion.

"When south park uses the tactic of using 'the pause' to let the jokes sink in, the audience gets to look at the picture the director is trying to paint for them."
But does that not make it that much more obvious and painful when the joke does fall flat?

"This meaning, rather than quickly jumping from one subject topic to another as in the simpsons, the show allows the viewers to notice more the objective and purpose of the show."
Looking at the other side, that also makes South Park much more of a hit or miss. In South Park, since they more or less hold on to the same theme the whole time, if you don't find the theme funny, the whole episode will probably not be funny to you. Now, The Simpsons, while it does have a theme, as we agree, it does deviate from the theme more often, supplying more opportunity for it to be funny, even if the theme itself is not particularly funny to you.

"While the shows is still a comedy and focuses alot on making vulgar and funny remarks, it's initial goal is to provide a moral explaining the goal or learned objective from each show, which is usually followed up by a speech from stan or kyle."
I would like to respectfully disagree. Its initial goal is to be funny. That's why it's on Comedy Central, and not on CNN. Sure, there might be some moral objective, but that is often satirical and not necessarily important. While there might be some sort of moral, I don't think they're going to start showing episodes of South Park instead of Aesop's fables to first graders.

"This however, does not happen in the simpsons, which makes some of the jokes harder to understadnd, or in alot of opinions, not funny."
And later, "I too am a tremendous fan of monty python."
I fail to see how these two statements can both work. How homicidal barbers have anything to do with songs about lumberjacks, I don't know, but it makes a really good sketch. There is no moral whatsoever in any Monty Python sketch. So if we agree that Monty Python is funny, then you can't make that argument against The Simpsons.

"However the most prominent point I am trying to get across her is that the simpsons dont experiment with new things."
Why change what's been working for 20+ years?

"In this we can expect monty python to do different comical skits with a large variety of oppertunity at hand."
In the Monty Python documentary, John Cleese says himself that he felt that they were doing the same skits over and over, more or less. After he left, they changed it up, their ratings went down, and they didn't survive for long. Most Python fans agree that the post-Cleese sketches were the worst sketches they ever did by far. As I said, why should they change what works? The same idea goes for the Simpsons.

"In the last 20+ years the simpsons have been a great hit because of this new style. However, at that, it can now be classifed as an old style, and no longer attracts as many people to it as it once did."
I don't know, maybe I'm old, but I liked it a long time ago, and I still like it. Of course, maybe I like old comedy (Old as in Blazing saddles or Monty Python, or old as in I Love Lucy or the Marx brothers, I don't discriminate), but still, if I do, someone else does. So, even if it is an old style, that doesn't necessarily make it bad.

"The simpsons, a family friendly network. South park, a network designed to provide comedy for individuals over the age of 14."
I see where you're coming from, but we are talking about which, in general, is a better show. I think that, even though The Simpsons has been interpreted by some as inappropriate, I'm sure we can agree that South Park is far less appropriate. While it is on a special channel designed for people over 14, I really don't see that keeping people under 14 from watching

"Now as these are both great T.V. shows, I think most would agree that they should be placed on a channel more appropriate for their width, (aka comedy central)."
Perhaps, but I don't see how that affects the quality of the show itself, which is what we are debating.

"This however is highly untrue. People have looked at homers carelessness as a father and barts example to kids as a negative for over a decade."
While that is true, I don't feel that it is nearly as offensive as South Park.

"I find this statement faulty."
Refer to the Wiki article I posted in the last argument.

"This being said, they have never been ever changing or spontaneous to spice up the show, which generally leads it to be not as comical."
Like what I said about Monty Python, if they change it, it runs the risk of being really bad.

"This giving them potent reasoning as to things that humans do when, angry, happy, sad, etc. They do this through comical showcasing to better get the imagery across."
I feel like you really like your argument that South Park was meant to have morals and lessons and flowers and unicorns. I think that you're so set on that idea that you're forgetting that its first, last, and only concern is to be funny. There's nothing wrong with that, as it is a comedy show, but the idea that it's supposed to be a show promoting morals and lessons and such is certainly a stretch. Just watch one episode and you will see that it is supposed to be funny, and just that.

I am looking forward to seeing your conclusion!
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Pro

I've had a wonderful time debating this with you, and would once again like to thank you for accepting my challenge.

"The former was a joke. I apologize for the confusion."

I am quite aware of this, good sir, and was only using this to prove a point.

"But does that not make it that much more obvious and painful when the joke does fall flat?"

But the jokes are not meant to be interpretted as falling flat, instead it rather increases their quality because it adds to the humor on the idiocy of the mistake the individual made. For example in south park if someone said something completely dumb, they let the joke hang there and have everyone stare at the individual in dis-belief that someone could make such an idiotic comment. Where as in the simpsons if someone said something dumb, they would jump on it and call the person dumb, not leaving the audience to catch on to it as much, therefor not as funny. It's kind of like a comdian laughing at his own joke.

"Looking at the other side, that also makes South Park much more of a hit or miss."

Not nessecarily, because everytime its more than fairl obvious what the director intended the audience to figure out, Another brilliant aspect about south park. They can create a great point, make it easy for the viewers to figure out and then expand on it.

"In South Park, since they more or less hold on to the same theme the whole time, if you don't find the theme funny, the whole episode will probably not be funny to you."

This is why south park specifically designs a different theme for each episode in order to ensure the piece is funny. They use different characters and the characters and plots are ever changing.

"I would like to respectfully disagree. Its initial goal is to be funny. That's why it's on Comedy Central, and not on CNN. Sure, there might be some moral objective, but that is often satirical and not necessarily important. While there might be some sort of moral, I don't think they're going to start showing episodes of South Park instead of Aesop's fables to first graders."

It is quite apparent that this show is meant to be funny, and I never denied that. The fact that this show can be funny and intelligent at the same time, is what makes it sucha brilliant show. As far as showing the show to first graders, I am afraid, the point of what I was getting at has been entirely mis-interpreted. The point of adding a moral to each story is basically to justify the jokes made on american social everyday ways. South Park tries to get the audience to be real and take a deeper look at some of the strange things we do everyday, and make fun of it, while providing a moral at the end to help us look at how to change some of the things we do. At the same time the goal of this show is to obviously provide entertainment, which is what makes the show funnier, when we can see how through crude and vulgar comments and characters, we can still offer good view points on reality, where as with shows like the simpsons, there is genreally no purpose or point other than to be funny.

"I fail to see how these two statements can both work. How homicidal barbers have anything to do with songs about lumberjacks, I don't know, but it makes a really good sketch. There is no moral whatsoever in any Monty Python sketch. So if we agree that Monty Python is funny, then you can't make that argument against The Simpsons."

The point here was to prove that simpsons are the same and easily get old. Monty python is a whole other story. They are new and different with each sketch, and while they have no purpose, they can easily expand there breach on skits than one abnormal family for 20+ years.

"Why change what's been working for 20+ years?"

I think it's safe to say that based off my evidence provided in round one, that we are in a new ever changing era, and the simpsons have generally stayed the same. Young people are no longer as drawn to the simpsons lax outakes, and drawn to the more modern era. While alot of adults growing up with the simpsons may still like it, the simpsons is ever losing fans by the day.

"As I said, why should they change what works? The same idea goes for the Simpsons."

The difference being that monty python simply ran out of good ideas, where as south park has ever changing idealistics, and has a better variety in their hands to experiment with, such as the producers have opened it up to the possibility from the beginning. The unfortunately does not apply to the simpsons however. The simpsons started out with a theme that isn't really interchangeable, thus leading it to be repetitive.

"but still, if I do, someone else does. So, even if it is an old style, that doesn't necessarily make it bad."

I totally understand this. Which is why in my opening arguement I admitted to being a huge fan of both shows. Not once did I say that the simpsons is a bad show. However when comparing it to south park, one must look at the option that Television is ever changing and we are in a modern era. And while some maybe fans of the older ways of the simpsons, younger people are no longer as interested, thus leading into a new television revolutionary idea.

"I see where you're coming from, but we are talking about which, in general, is a better show. I think that, even though The Simpsons has been interpreted by some as inappropriate, I'm sure we can agree that South Park is far less appropriate. While it is on a special channel designed for people over 14, I really don't see that keeping people under 14 from watching."

The age of people who watch it is really irrelevant to the argument ( as you said yourself) that one show is better than the other. While kids under the age of fourteen may be watching this show, it doesn't change the fact that they like it. Which is essentially what we are debating.

"Perhaps, but I don't see how that affects the quality of the show itself, which is what we are debating."

Exactly my good friend, which proves my point. Let's keep in ming you brung up this argument.

"While that is true, I don't feel that it is nearly as offensive as South Park."

Which as you said is irrelevant. However my argument was in response your saying the simpsons was a more family friendly show, in which I replied that simpsons is not so family friendly for a family friendly networking show. Mute point.

"Refer to the Wiki article I posted in the last argument."

Highlight WIki.

"Like what I said about Monty Python, if they change it, it runs the risk of being really bad."

Apparently not, seeing as south park uses this tactic and has great success, and more views currently than the simpsons.

"I feel like you really like your argument that South Park was meant to have morals and lessons and flowers and unicorns. I think that you're so set on that idea that you're forgetting that its first, last, and only concern is to be funny. There's nothing wrong with that, as it is a comedy show, but the idea that it's supposed to be a show promoting morals and lessons and such is certainly a stretch. Just watch one episode and you will see that it is supposed to be funny, and just that."

However the point of the argument is that South park uses its humor through its intelligence and makes applications to the real world and life in general. This makes it funny because it gives people the chance to laugh at themselves and the things we as a society do every day. While simpsons focus more and being completely fictional and more or less fake.

I would once again like to thank my opponent for his timely manner in responding and the effectiveness of his great arguements, and hope to debate again in the future. I would also like to conclude by saying both shows are amazing, and that any of you who watch neither, are really missing out. I hope you all enjoyed this debate as much as I did.

Thankyou.

-Philosophical.
abard124

Con

"I've had a wonderful time debating this with you, and would once again like to thank you for accepting my challenge."
No, thank you for instigating this debate. It has, indeed, been fabulous.

"I am quite aware of this, good sir, and was only using this to prove a point."
But what is this point for which you speak of?

"But the jokes are not meant to be interpretted as falling flat"
Clearly not, but the fact of life is that they sometimes do.

"For example in south park if someone said something completely dumb, they let the joke hang there and have everyone stare at the individual in dis-belief that someone could make such an idiotic comment."
I absolutely understand what you mean, and that can be very funny at times. But it will also sound forced at times. That's what I mean when I say that the jokes fall flat.

"Where as in the simpsons if someone said something dumb, they would jump on it and call the person dumb, not leaving the audience to catch on to it as much, therefor not as funny."
Or it could allow for some sort of witty comeback, which would make it even more funny.

"Not nessecarily, because everytime its more than fairl obvious what the director intended the audience to figure out, Another brilliant aspect about south park."
Perhaps, but you haven't really made any real argument as to whether The Simpsons does not do the same thing.

"This is why south park specifically designs a different theme for each episode in order to ensure the piece is funny."
See last argument: hit or miss.

"At the same time the goal of this show is to obviously provide entertainment, which is what makes the show funnier, when we can see how through crude and vulgar comments and characters, we can still offer good view points on reality, where as with shows like the simpsons, there is genreally no purpose or point other than to be funny."
The Simpsons does sometimes utilize real world issues, but when it does, it is for the pure purpose of comedy. When I look for a comedy show, all I care about is comedy. Again, see my argument about Monty Python, which you conveniently address next (sort of).

"The point here was to prove that simpsons are the same and easily get old."
But half a second ago, the point was that it doesn't allow for intelligent interpretation of real world issues. I'm afraid I can't hit a moving target. But, as I said, John Cleese ultimately left Monty Python because he felt that they were doing the same things over and over. But the rest of the members disagreed, so it, like The Simpsons, is open to interpretation.

"I think it's safe to say that based off my evidence provided in round one, that we are in a new ever changing era, and the simpsons have generally stayed the same."
I watch Whose Line is it Anyway all the time. They haven't even made any new episodes of that show in years, yet it's still funny. Heck, I'll even watch I Love Lucy when it's on, and that show ended before I was born.

"And while some maybe fans of the older ways of the simpsons, younger people are no longer as interested, thus leading into a new television revolutionary idea."
I'm sorry, are you ageist? Old people like me want to watch TV too. But I know young people who enjoy The Simpsons.

"The age of people who watch it is really irrelevant to the argument ( as you said yourself) that one show is better than the other."
Well, when evaluating the quality of a show, we do have to look at whether it is a good show for everyone, or just a good show for some people. While I am not trying to imply that The Simpsons is good for everyone, it can't be denied that it is much more accommodating of younger (and older) people than South Park.

"However my argument was in response your saying the simpsons was a more family friendly show, in which I replied that simpsons is not so family friendly for a family friendly networking show."
If someone has cable, their child can access Comedy Central just as easily as they can access FOX. And frankly, they don't care. So, your point is moot, not mine.

"Highlight WIki"
Excuse my ignorance, but I'm not entirely sure as to what you mean by this.

"This makes it funny because it gives people the chance to laugh at themselves and the things we as a society do every day. While simpsons focus more and being completely fictional and more or less fake."
I don't know what you mean by "more or less." The Simpsons is completely fake. And, while these two facts may be true, you neglect to explain how that is bad. Many hilarious shows have nothing real about them, such as Monty Python, Family Guy, or Glenn Beck.

I would like to thank my opponent for an excellent, intelligent, and quirky debate. Both South Park and The Simpsons are excellent shows, but The Simpsons is funny to a much wider range of people, and it has been entertaining people for 20+ years. While they are both great shows, The Simpsons is clearly better. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Digamma 6 years ago
Digamma
In favor of the Simpsons, I'd like to point out that they are viewed in almost every country around the world. If you include international viewership, the Simpsons are still FAR ahead of South Park. Additionally, the "shock" value that got South Park off the ground is fading, while the Simpsons have proven their staying power. Twenty years from now we'll revisit this topic, and see if South Park is still around. The Simpsons broke the ground that made South Park possible. I'm a big fan of both, but I have to vote Simpsons.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
I'm not going to be picky or anything, but it would be nice if someone would vote...
Posted by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
me neither...
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
I can't believe nobody has taken any notice of this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
philosphicalabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
philosphicalabard124Tied
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 Digamma 6 years ago
Digamma
philosphicalabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
philosphicalabard124Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
philosphicalabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Pwnu059 6 years ago
Pwnu059
philosphicalabard124Tied
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 Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
philosphicalabard124Tied
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:52