The Instigator
number1letterA
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The Cleveland Show is a terrible idea

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 3 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,320 times Debate No: 8998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

number1letterA

Pro

yup, that's my argument.
patsox834

Con

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate.

To start, I'm gonna have to point out the obvious: My opponent's "argument" hasn't given any reasons why this show is a "terrible idea," and since my opponent is quite clearly the claimant, the onus to provide some form of support lies solely with him...but meh, I'll have to wait until my opponent throws out some sort of a real rationale before I rebut anything; hopefully he chooses to do so soon.
Debate Round No. 1
number1letterA

Pro

Ok well that was fast. Anyways I didn't provide anything to support my argument in the first round so it would be more likely someone would challenge me. Much to my surprise it worked well.

Anyways I do not think The Cleveland Show will be a good idea for many reasons.

1. The family that Cleveland acquired seems not much more than a rip off of the original family in Family Guy. They still have a baby who makes references to people he shouldn't even know about, let alone talk. He also has hostility to some family members like Stewie did. I am sure that even the most avid fan of Family Guy can see that it's a rip off of the original family that was originally ripped of from The Simpsons which they've also copied on American Dad.

2. Also unlike American Dad it appears Seth Mcfarlane used the same writers for the Cleveland show as he did with Family Guy as you can see in the trailer they pulled an other interchangeable reference joke. In short I believe everyone will just see this as a Black version of Family Guy. Maybe the first episode will do well even the second episode just because people are curious. However that's as good as its going to get for this spin off.

3. Spin offs are usually the sign that the creator of the show is not making as much money off their original program or that they are greedy. IN Mcfarlane's case I would say he's getting greedy as Family Guy is getting an Emmy nomination. However I think he did not put any effort in this new show idea as you can tell there is no originality in it and has holes they appear to not have covered. Example: Cleveland has a son in the beginning of the trailer despite the fact he never had a son in the Family Guy series. Most likely what will happen is that Peter will acknowledge this and quickly Cleveland will answer his question with acting like he was always there or something of that nature. Like how Joe had a son in the begging of the series and then he disappeared. Recently they just said he died in the War, just to satisfy questioning viewers. No effort.

conclusion: The Cleveland Show was poorly made and it will not meet the success Family Guy did. It also will not be as much of a profit to Mcfarlane.
patsox834

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his reply.

Well...I guess I'll dive right in:

My opponent's first contention is that the Cleveland Show is a bad idea because he thinks it's a "rip off" of the show it's a spin off of -- Family Guy.

My rebuttal is that just because a show is a rip off doesn't at all mean it's a bad idea; many rip offs have attained some level of success; therefore, this show being a rip off, in and of itself, isn't a valid reason to claim it's a "terrible idea."

In fact, it can be argued that Family Guy is an example of a television show that rips off another show, but, despite that, has been successful. The video I provided shows numerous examples of how Family Guy is oddly alike the Simpsons (bear with me -- most of the videos that show this have been taken down, so all that's left is a boring one that only features pictures of characters and some words. Not the most creative video ever, but it'll suffice for this debate.)

The following articles show comic book characters (some of which have had success on TV/movies) that are clearly look to be rip offs, but have done rather well:

http://www.cracked.com...

http://www.cracked.com...

Clearly, being a "rip off" doesn't necessarily mean a show won't attain a level of success.

Secondly, my opponent contends that everyone will see it as a "black version of Family Guy" -- but I don't see this as a viable rationale to support the resolution. See, if it *is* like a "black Family Guy," then it could very well have a relatively significant appeal to Family Guy fans -- since it has already established that they're fans of Family Guy, a show with the same type of humor would obviously be something that would be enjoyable to them. Indeed, Family Guy fans are very likely the target audience for this show. And, considering Family Guy has a large following, I wouldn't be at all surprised if this show catches on with them due to the similarities. Furthermore, if this show ends up being like a "black Family Guy," as my opponent put it, then that means this show could possibly intrigue some black folks who mightn't have even been too familiar with the Family Guy program.

In short, the Cleveland Show's similarity to Family Guy means it's feasible that the Cleveland Show could pick up a decent portion of Family Guy's fan base, and incorporating elements that look to appeal to black people means the Cleveland Show could tap into a new audience of blacks that didn't catch on to the Family Guy television program. So my opponent's second contention doesn't at all mean the Cleveland Show is a "terrible idea."

As for my opponent's third contention, I think he has been misinformed about the supposed "hole" he claims isn't covered -- Cleveland, did, indeed, have a son in the Family Guy television show -- furthermore, his son in the Cleveland Show appears to be the same son he had in Family guy; two character biographies claim this:

From the biography of the character Cleveland Brown: <"Everyone's favorite soft-spoken neighbor CLEVELAND BROWN moves to his hometown in Virginia with his 14-year old son, CLEVELAND JR.">

From the biography of Cleveland, Jr: <"Cleveland's 14-year-old son who moves with his dad to Virgina ">

Both of these biographies are available on this site: http://www.fox.com...

Cleveland's son apparently lived with him before he moved, and has the same name as his son from Family Guy. Thus, it appears clear to me that they're the same character -- it's just that the character has changed.

My opponent again cites lack of originality in his third contention -- but I've clearly already shown why being similar, or even a rip off, doesn't mean the show is a "terrible idea," so that part of his contention has been addressed extensively.

To finish my rebuttals to these contentions, my opponent has also claimed that there's "no effort," and his basis for this is that the Cleveland Show has "holes," and it's lacking in originality. Well, as I've clearly shown, lacking creativity, originality, whatever, doesn't necessarily mean a show is a "bad idea"; it can still do pretty well and have success, which would mean it isn't a bad idea. And as for the "holes," the one my opponent chose to cite was simply a misunderstanding on his part.

My opponent's conclusion reads as follows: <"The Cleveland Show was poorly made and it will not meet the success Family Guy did. It also will not be as much of a profit to Mcfarlane.">

However, my opponent must realize that just because it mightn't "meet the success Family Guy did" doesn't mean it won't be successful. He makes it seem as if the only options are reaching the levels Family Guy has, or failure -- but I see no reason for it to be so black and white. The Cleveland Show can still have good ratings, make money, and have a decently sized fan base, which would, in this context, constitute success, without beating out Family Guy's success.

Anyway, that's it for my argument. The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 2
number1letterA

Pro

Those were amusing rip-offs right there. However I like, nearly everyone else who read that has never herd of the original program or comic they had ripped off. Unlike those rip offs, the Family Guy fan base as you noted are already the most likely to watch this. In fact the majority of the fan base of Family Guy I have noticed they will deny the existence of Family Guy ripping of The Simpsons. You can see fans of Family Guy on Hulu still arguing that on the comment section or on youtube. In fact

http://www.debate.org...

in this debate the con says "Stewie is very well developed and most of the characters have original characteristics." However Family Guy was originally intended to be a parody of the Simpsons and not meant to last long. Not until DVD sails sky rocketed. In short the Family Guy fan base will see that the two shows, the Cleveland Show and Family Guy are too close as apposed to comparing it to other shows that were not made by the same creator, because they were not already supporting the previous fan base. Yeah, there will be fanboys and girls but the vast majority of the viewers will see that it is a rip off. You say a rip off doesn't necessarily mean it will make little success but then again who actually supported or heard of the original. Maybe if we had known about that before hand we might of had less respect for the copy-cat program.

As for the fact that it's a Black Family Guy I would say that the people who would feel like they would relate to this would also have already been watching the original and had no problem with it. Besides they only look black. Seth Mcfarlane still does the voice of Cleveland. As for friends of mine who were black and found that out were disappointed. In fact the first time I watched the trailer I was with a friend who was black and his two little brothers. They were all watching Family Guy at the moment when they saw this. None of them liked it, and as well thought it was a bad idea. That may not be a source written in black and white, but that's how I know that at least a part of the black population will not follow this pattern you have described.

Also yes I am sorry I have made a mistake do to the fact I don't watch Family Guy often. That is that Cleveland did not have a son. However they did change his appearance. Why do you think they did that. Well I just noticed Chris is fat. Not only that Cleveland Jr. is supposed to be a rip off of Chris. So that means that the creators of the show were too lazy to even stick with the original model They just wanted a Black version of Family Guy, even if it means making character's fit the person they should be mimicking. I believe that they did this because they might have some episode ideas that would not fit the Family Guy family due to the fact they are white and may have some very miner differences, but a black version would fit just fine. For instance the Prince scene in the trailer I posted earlier. It would fit the Cleveland Show much better than Family Guy. Also since Cleveland just movied in with his new family they can just redue old ideas. Like black Peter trying to get to know black Meg better. Just reusing old ideas as well.

I still stand by my point that The Cleveland show was poorly put together even by Family Guy standards and will not be close as successful as hoped.
patsox834

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent states that Family Guy fans don't see the Simpsons of a rip-off of Family Guy; my response is...yeah, so? Regardless of whether Family Guy fans think this or not, there are, in fact, similarities, as the video I posted highlights. They can argue that Family Guy didn't rip the Simpsons off until the cows come home, but that doesn't at all change the similarities, nor the similar jokes (since my opponent has agreed that the Simpsons rips-off Family Guy, it follows that he agrees with that point.) So yes, it does rip-off the Simpsons; biased squabbling doesn't change all of the common ground between the two shows. Not only has Family Guy ripped the Simpsons off, though, but it has done so and *still* managed to do well, which strongly evidences my point that rip-offs can still be successful. In essence, my opponent hasn't really refuted my point, because what Family Guy fans think isn't at all relevant.

Further, my opponent said Family Guy is a parody of the Simpsons...but this only assists my case, as parodies and rip-offs aren't mutually exclusive -- something can satirize something else, but still end using enough of the other shows material to constitute a rip-off.

I believe that, with thanks to my opponent helping me establish what I've written above, I can safely refute this point:

<"You say a rip off doesn't necessarily mean it will make little success but then again who actually supported or heard of the original. Maybe if we had known about that before hand we might of had less respect for the copy-cat program.">

Many, many people have heard of the Simpsons -- yet, Family Guy still has a large fan base. And, well, Family Guy clearly has an awful lot of similarities with the Simpsons; thus, making it a rip-off. So yeah, we can still know about the original and be a fan of the rip-off.

Also, I can't see why fans of Family Guy would have "less respect" for the Cleveland Show because it's a rip-off. The Cleveland Show, as you stated, is pretty much a "black Family Guy," but the thing is, people generally seem to like Family Guy, so why wouldn't they like the Cleveland Show? Family Guy fans want to see Family Guy; the Cleveland Show is essentially Family Guy; therefore, Family Guy fans will want to see it. Considering Family Guy's popularity, and that many fans would clearly transfer over from Family Guy to the Cleveland Show, the aforementioned Cleveland Show would still clearly have a nicely sized fan base.

I'd like to make a "tier" of shows:

The Simpsons --> Family Guy --> the Cleveland Show.

Each level is a rip-off of the show before it -- but even though the fan base will probably decrease a little, many fans would still be left over; therefore, making the last show listed (the Cleveland Show) still relatively popular.

I'd like to use another analogy, as well -- we've all heard of Led Zeppelin, yes? And can agree that they, uh, did alright for themselves, right? Well, Led Zeppelin actually famously ripped-off material from other bands and artists.

Here are some songs they ripped off other artists: http://earfarm.com...

So, it's well known and easily established that Zep used material that wasn't theirs (though a lot of it wasn't illegal at all...nor does it change how amazing I think they are), but they're still a household name, and have definitely given themselves a comfortably living financially. Thus, rip-offs can still be successful, which means being a rip off, in and of itself, isn't a valid reason why something (such as the Cleveland Show) is a "terrible idea."

My opponent then said this: <"As for friends of mine who were black and found that out were disappointed. In fact the first time I watched the trailer I was with a friend who was black and his two little brothers. They were all watching Family Guy at the moment when they saw this. None of them liked it, and as well thought it was a bad idea.">

Firstly, this is a biased sample fallacy; my opponent is making estimations about how the black population would perceive the show based merely on a few black people that supposedly knows well, and are therefore, biased, and consequently, not objective. Someone who's friends with you could be inclined to just reciprocate your feelings of disdain towards the Cleveland Show, and/or Family Guy, and clearly, a few black people don't at all come close to constituting a sufficient sample size.

Also: I have many black friends who think the Cleveland Show is an amazing idea.

See how easy it is to make such a claim? Such a wishy-washy claim clearly doesn't carry much merit in a debate.

My opponent then said this: <"They just wanted a Black version of Family Guy, even if it means making character's fit the person they should be mimicking. I believe that they did this because they might have some episode ideas that would not fit the Family Guy family due to the fact they are white and may have some very miner differences, but a black version would fit just fine.">

Contradiction -- you clearly imply they have different plots; however, you've been saying they're the same show (except one has black characters.) If the plots are different, then how are they the same at all?

Furthermore, doesn't this just play into my hands...? Seemingly, the main criticism of Family Guy is how repetitive it can get, so a new Family Guy-esque show with new plots would greatly appease Family Guy fans; thus, giving the Cleveland Show a relatively extensive fan base.

To conclude, I've effectively refuted my opponent's rationale regarding why the Cleveland Show is a terrible idea, and I've actually given reasons to think it'll do well, so please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SirAntonyP 7 years ago
SirAntonyP
the Quagmire show would be better giggity >,<
Posted by moonshine311111 7 years ago
moonshine311111
everyone vote con, pro is a monster who hates seth macfarlan. no offence to the humorless number1lettera
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
@number1letterA - I have the same exact ad right now.

RFD:
Before - PRO
After - CON
Conduct - TIE, both debaters were respectful, no shifting of BoP.
S&G - CON - They weren't major errors, but there were a few. CON did a better job here.
Arguments - CON - Rebutted PRO's points accurately and allowed his to be upheld.
Sources - TIE - Both sides used a lot of sources.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
lol there is a family guy quiz advertizement next to my comment to the right
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
Imadragon, how dair u may gramer is da bestt buy farr.
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
I was suprized you got your response at the last second.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
RFD:

Conduct–Both sides were nice.
Spelling and Grammar–CON. PRO was understandable, but he was clearly far worse here.
Arguments–I completely agree with everything patsox834 said, especially about the nature of spin-offs, the actual potential appeal of The Cleveland Show to Family Guy fans, and the tier system. Actually, I basically agree with every single thing he said in the last round. I think PRO made solid arguments, though. The main issue that it seemed to boil down to, for me, was that PRO argued that the general TV fan would not enjoy the show, but CON showed why a Family Guy fan, to whom the show is supposed to appeal, would enjoy the show. Thus, CON.
Sources–Solid job by both sides. I liked CON's Cracked source though, about many popular spin-offs. I'm going to go CON here, narrowly.

I'd like to make an extra comment on the good conduct by both sides. Very good natured debate. PRO sounds like a cool guy (I already know CON.)
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
LOL, you're so weird.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Let me explain what actually happened:

patsox834 (12:25:04 PM): You [Lance 'Romance' Chavez] came to me in a dream last night, and spat some hard rhymes about a tier approach in explaining the residual fanbase phenomenon seen between The Simpsons and Family Guy, which can extrapolated to apply to Family Guy and The Cleveland Show.

Yes, folks, he actually said that.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
"I'd like to make a "tier" of shows:

The Simpsons --> Family Guy --> the Cleveland Show."

The tier idea was inspired by iamadragon.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by moonshine311111 7 years ago
moonshine311111
number1letterApatsox834Tied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
number1letterApatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
number1letterApatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06