The Instigator
frankfurter50
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Debating_Horse
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Videos for people is a good Youtube channel.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
83days21hours16minutes15seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 227 times Debate No: 104650
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

frankfurter50

Pro

About a month ago, I started debates about this thing, and ever since then, I've had to keep making new ones, because my opponents are inept. Please debate thoroughly and pose engaging questions. I look forward to our argument. Your round one argument will be the counter argument to the following:

Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him. He is a hidden genius. I have never seen any videos like his and I don't think there ever will be anything like his. They are completely unique. They are so funny that I can't stop laughing. I don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but I can identify with him.

His videos are unique. They are done using stick figures. The stick figures are badly drawn, and created using MS paint, but their quality isn't what matters. What matters, really, is what they do. They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff. Nothing is too insane for this guy to tackle. Every video seems more bizarre than the last. But, although his videos are weird, they still seem somewhat normal, so the viewer isn't removed from reality. He uses normal language in his writing. There isn't any dialogue, only music. everything is written. His videos are the better than anything else I have ever seen. I am a devoted fan to the way he interprets things. Every video of his resonates with me. Videos for people is a genius. I don't know who he is, and I have no desire to uncover his identity. Knowing his identity isn't necessary to enjoy anything he makes. He's quirky, and I enjoy his videos.

I await your first argument. Good luck!
Debating_Horse

Con

"Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him."

This is an opinion, not valid evidence for why the channel is what you claim to be "the best". Using the word "best" simply because of your opinion on how you feel about the channel does not make your argument valid or true. I will say in this that I have watched three of some videos, they lack talent, and they most certainly do not entertain.

"They are so funny that I can't stop laughing." Why did you laugh? What was so humourous in the video that caused laughter?

"They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff."
You did not describe what they do. If you could have been more descriptive on what they do, i could go further.


Your first argument does not prove that the channel is the "best", it is not true.
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter50

Pro

Ok, sure, maybe I wasn't too descriptive in that first argument. No matter, there are still four rounds, so I'll provide some more evidence here. Then maybe you'll be OK with it. The first argument was only intended as a rough sketch, now I'll go in deeper.

Hmm. Evidence. I can tell you right here and now that the stuff from this guy is very high class humor. He doesn't mess around with poop and stuff. His humor is very intellectual stuff, and he illustrates powerful ideas with goofy stick figures. It is kind of a cheap ploy, but still, you can see the genius lurking behind it.

One thing I like about his videos is that at the end of some, there's a little code that flashes onto the screen for about a second, and you have to pause the video and write the code down to solve it. It's a neat little trick, and it adds a fun little activity to the whole thing. I've already solved some, they're pretty easy, but I won't spoil any here. They are freaking hard to catch though, and very easy to miss. Still, it is a nice little puzzle that he always provides.

OK, some more evidence. His recent video on the Stanford Prison Experiment was hilarious. He uses a lot of sight gags sometimes. In his Stanford video, he was very blunt and presented the topic very clearly, and you can tell from the way the video was that he knows a hell of a lot about the Stanford Prison Experiment. He even knows how much the volunteers were paid. he really researched the whole thing pretty well, and everything was very well executed. I also enjoy his videos because they're pretty short, usually, except for the seven minute epic "Cops in the City," which I might talk about in an upcoming argument. The point, though, is that his videos are always brief, and you never really get tired of watching them. Everything is new and vibrant.

But the best thing by far that he's done is his rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy videos. They're hilarious, not because of jokes or anything, but just because of the way the whole thing is presented. The videos show this blue stick figure guy in front of this colorful background, and some old timey guitar music. The guy never moves or plays the guitar, or anything, but in every description, he's treated as if he was a major celebrity. I think the videos might be a comment on how celebrities don't ever do anything to deserve their status. Another interesting thing is how his name is always spelled the same, with three capital o's and seven capital l's. There's also some kind of alien thing with him. I haven't seen it.

i also like how frequent new videos are made. There are new ones every week at the very least. There's no waiting. I mean, the videos are kind of low quality because of the speed they're put out, and it's hard to watch all the stuff, by now there are two hundred or so separate videos, but they still come out reasonably and they're all equally good.

Ok, I think I've given you plenty of evidence. I'm all set for your next argument. Good luck.
Debating_Horse

Con

None of your statements proved how it is a good YouTube Channel, they are just simple opinion.
Debate Round No. 2
frankfurter50

Pro

That argument was very lazy. Please, on the next round, provide a full paragraph or something. First, you said I was too vague on why it was a good Youtube channel. Then, when I provided evidence as to why it was a good Youtube channel, you said it was my opinion. Yes, but that was the reasoning part of it. I also gave distinct examples of what his stuff was like. Please, sir, just rebut my argument. It's not that hard to do, and I gave you a 9,000 word limit. I was expecting something powerful.

Oh, yeah. I said I would talk a little about "Cops in the City". I think it's the best thing he made. It's a short film, only about seven minutes long, but it's lengthy for what he usually puts out. There are these two cops, and one of them falls in love with a guy, and then the other one has trouble with his wife, or something like that. I forget exactly what the plot was, but I remember it was frickin' hilarious. I suggest, sir, that you go see that. It's great. Then talk about it in the next argument. I need a better argument if you even want a chance at winning.
Debating_Horse

Con

I think it's the best thing he made. It's a short film, only about seven minutes long, but it's lengthy for what he usually puts out. There are these two cops, and one of them falls in love with a guy, and then the other one has trouble with his wife, or something like that. I forget exactly what the plot was, but I remember it was frickin' hilarious.

This does not prove it is a good YouTube Channel. If it were good, others would agree, also you should have given links to the videos you mentioned in your previous statements. I know you are summarizing what you have seen, but I believe it would have been better for you to do so. (sorry for short inputs) but if there was more for me to speak about, my post would have been larger.
Debate Round No. 3
frankfurter50

Pro

You've got to do better, Sample debater. You've got to actually rebut what I say and argue otherwise, or you don't have a chance. Because you asked, I'll give some links:

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

His art style is wonderfully reminiscent of old fifties cartoons, but it has a sort of new aesthetic too. It seems both modern and old at the same time. He's very funny, but not immature, and his humor is very highbrow and intellectual, but not snobby. Pop culture references are scattered throughout, like pepper added to a stew. Everything about his videos reflects the mind of a genius. I feel as if the whole series is building up to some sort of big surprise, but it might not be doing anything. He reached his two hundredth video a while back, so I have a lot of catching up to do. His channel is like a labyrinth. Everything is different, but it has a sense of unity.

Please, sir, I strongly encourage that you don't just give short inputs and say that I'm wrong just because nobody else knows about this or because it's my opinion. Sure, there's no fact or anything. Just argue with whatever I say, OK? I want a neat debate, and we're already to round three. Go a little deeper here.

Ok, sir. I'm all set.
Debating_Horse

Con

So with the three links, that led me to see and dislike the videos, I will say that the YouTube channel is completely garbage. So you my assumption is that you take parts of wasting your life watching the pointless garbage? Are you trolling? Why should I even continue to debate this incredibly stupid topic? It is only wasting my time. How is it from those clips you call that talent or things of good quality? Come on, it is obviously garbage, and something must be wrong with you.
Debate Round No. 4
frankfurter50

Pro

I grow annoyed at your foolishness, as Captain Kirk said in episode 3 of star Trek. throughout this debate, you have done absolutely nothing to prove your point, and you refuse to communicate in an intelligible manner. In the previous argument, note how you don't point out any aspects of his work, you don't bother to think about what the videos are or what they mean, you simply state that they are garbage, and while this is a reasonable opinion, you have to provide some kind of evidence as to why they are garbage. Don't just talk about the layout and design, but rather, the plots and the characters and the intricacies of the whole thing. Your argument above is very weak and I hope you provide a little more in this last round, or you'll have lost. All your arguments are below four thousand characters, you can do better. Argue strong for the last round and you could nab the whole thing. Otherwise, you're probably going to lose. Just saying. You state your opinions as fact and do nothing to substantiate them.

Videos For people is not a bad Youtube channel, but it does take a certain knack to understand. I can see that you, Debatinghorse, don't have that knack. Because of their uniqueness, you fear them, and so you refuse to consider them any further. they take a while to get used to, but after that, they're easy to understand and very funny. Videos for people is very underrated, but he's much better than some popular Youtubers, and I'm sure that his being underrated is only due to the fact that nobody has found him yet. I predict that, in five years or so, he might have a cult following. Overall, his stuff is a little hidden gem, and I'm proud to enjoy it.

Judges, I implore you, vote reasonably. If you seriously think that my opponent has debated better than me, then by all means, vote for him. I think he didn't do a very good job. I think I did pretty well. Look at the links I gave, and watch every piece all the way through, and then decide for yourself whether or not it's a good Youtube channel. I await your votes. Thank you.
Debating_Horse

Con

Judges, this fool did nothing but waste my time. If I could have declined, I would. Obviously if you think the YouTube channel has talent or good quality, then you are mentally impaired, it isn't hard to tell talent from utter garbage. I believe it was no point in me having this incredibly stupid debate, again from the videos and not just through his arguments, you yourselves should vote whether the channel is good or not. Lesson learned to stay away from these kinds of meaningless debates that have the potential to ruin my reputation, I will say it from the last time, not even from HIS arguments, but from your viewing of the videos, you have to vote on whether you can agree or disagree, and not just because [Con] did not provide enough to refute his claims/arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 day ago
frankfurter50
Vanoss is a bird person. What do you see in him? He's not original or creative. Nothing he does is funny. Think about the haggis thing for a moment, though. It blends the ordinary and the bizarre. It's funny because we don't expect a fast food restaurant that serves haggis. This combination is what fuels a lot of sketch comedy. take a look at some SNL sketches. A limo of annoying hipsters pulls into burger king. There's an unattractive chippendales dancer. This is how comedy is made. The haggis sketch, I think, is a comedic gem and much better than anything Vanoss could put out.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 day ago
PowerPikachu21
Again, whether something is good is highly subjective. But in my opinion, people who work on high quality content is better. Animations are hard, especially 5 minutes, but Vanoss's animators work on that.

I won't try to convince anyone anything, but my opinion is that you should check out Vanoss, or H20 Delirious, or Markiplier. Mark's got similar content (video games and fan animations), plus live action skits (and a series called "Who Killed Markiplier"), and he uses facecam.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 day ago
frankfurter50
Quality: Videos For people, while it may be a little low on quality art-wise, still has some very good humor and very revolutionary concepts. It has music. The music is public domain, sure, but public domain music can be just as good as regular music. He does a very good job of fitting the music to the situation given. When he talks about haggis, he uses a little Scottish ditty. When he's trying to be scary, he uses horror music. The music is fine, and sometimes there's even more than one song per video, used to show a change in emotion. "The Shimmering part 2" is a good example of this. The channel doesn't not need color, it works just as well in black and white. Some of his videos DO have color. And it's sketch comedy, so there are very few permanent characters, although i can cite rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy as an example.

Content: things don't need to be long to be funny. Most jokes can be told in thirty seconds or less. I find that longer videos can be boring. His longest so far is "Cops in the city," standing at seven minutes, just long enough in my opinion. Most short films at Sundance are three minutes on average. Sometimes brevity can be a good thing. The videos are poorly made, but so are incredibly popular channel like pamtri. He tries to be low quality, that way people don"t expect too much of him. The room is popular because it"s bad. Think about that for a moment.

Fame: and, finally, he doesn"t have any subscribers because people are too busy watching more popular things like pewdiepie. Underrated things can be very good. Do things need to be popular for them to be good? No. that"s a shallow way to think. Of course vanoss gaming has a jillion subscribers. He does garbage, which is what people want.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 day ago
PowerPikachu21
RFD: Arguments

The main point Pro seems to make is that "It's not his quality that matters, its his content". Con points out this topic is subjective a few times in the debate, and I have to agree there. For example, I like watching video games, while others might watch sports or... this.

Con ultimately leaves this up to subjectivity, and Pro, while he does post a few arguments, it doesn't prove it's good. I admit I'm being a little biased, though there's not really good reasons to say it's better than other stuff on YouTube.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 day ago
PowerPikachu21
RFD:

I'll put this into 3 categories: Quality, Content, and Fame. Each will determine what I feel is "good" videos.

Quality:

There's much better artwork out there. Just look up any image or animation, it'll use more colors, depth, and harder work in designing characters. A mood could've been established much better with music and character development, which the channel's videos lack considerably.

Comparing this to VanossGaming, he uses music and sound effects to add quality to his videos, adding suspense when he's being chased by his friends and when he's messing with them with lies and bluffs.

Content:

Each video the guy produces is roughly one minute long, and not much goes on. They're all cheaply made animations (or at least the 2 videos I saw, which drove me away from the channel), which can be improved if he spent more time into it.

VanossGaming however, uploads 10 minute videos, usually video games. There's also animations that can range from 3 to 5 minutes long, though made by other people. The animations are either series (such as "The Unboxing", or "The Magic Tomato"), or highlights from one of his gameplay videos. A current series is a live action "Vanoss Superhero School", which is pretty good.

Fame:

Last time I checked, the guy has very few subscribers. VanossGaming has over 21 million subscribers, meaning many people enjoy his content. (Of course, publicity, and advertising also play a role in subscribers, but mainly content)

In conclusion, Videos For People is lacking in overall quality, content, and fans. I'm left to think I should continue watching VanossGaming instead of this guy. The above post delves into arguments made.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
Better go for it! One day left!
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
I think it's worth it. Three rounds is always too short, in my opinion. Four is still disappoining. We could really get engaged in this whole thing. It's pretty complex.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
I think it's worth it. Three rounds is always too short, in my opinion. Four is still disappoining. We could really get engaged in this whole thing. It's pretty complex.
Posted by Debating_Horse 1 week ago
Debating_Horse
I'm preparing my argument, be patient. Really angers me that there has to be FIVE darn rounds.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
Less than a day left! Better cut to the chase!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 day ago
PowerPikachu21
frankfurter50Debating_HorseTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Whether something is "good" is very subjective. My opinion, there's better, higher quality videos on other channels, such as VanossGaming or his friends. The art looks like a 4 year old made it, and I don't get its humor. The first video presented was alright and philosophical, but there's really higher quality material out there. I'll go more in depth in the comments.