The Instigator
frankfurter50
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shanor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Videos for people is great.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 105875
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

frankfurter50

Pro

About two months 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! Please, only accept if you're willing to put some solid work into this.
Shanor

Con

I would rebuke your argument for the fact that half of what you say is purely opinion. This is not a debate, I am sorry but people aren't attempting to be jerks, there is just no argument here. You like him, others may not. That is all I need to say here. If that does not satisfy you I would try some other site, this will be what you mostly get.
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter50

Pro

True, it is an opinion. And I'm trying to set up this debate about my opinion. Isn't that what everybody does? Nobody debates facts, because they can't be debated. In debates, OPINIONS are debated, then backed up with evidence to make them seem more reliable. You have to accept that. I'm hoping for a good debate, and I've done, like, 9 debates on this, because nobody will engage in a complex argument about this. So, please, just try to argue with what I say. It will make everything much easier.

I'll go further. Videos for People, I think, is highly underrated, and is as good as or better than most other channels. His videos have a kind of comedy that is both unique and common, and his stuff ranges from slightly weird to very weird, but it never gets so weird that it's unappealing. The animation style, as well, is wholly unique, with no motion, no audible dialogue, and no sound effects. It's like a video of a comic strip. But this format does not lower the quality, it simply intensifies the uniqueness of the stuff that pops out of this guy's head.

Not only are the videos good, the descriptions are highly entertaining too. Some relate to the video directly, some relate to it indirectly, and others are completely random. It's an added benefit and the words he puts forth are very philosophically engaging. They're hilarious. Sometimes, he just shares his outlook on life. Not too many people take advantage of what they can put in the descriptions. He does, though.

I think I should probably post a link to his channel here, since it can be pretty hard to find. Go there and see what you think. You accepted this debate, so remember, think about them in a negative light, even if you actually enjoy them. OK?

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

I do want you to keep going, and debate well, because you accepted, and I want to get through all 5 rounds, and I can't stop posting these things on here until I get some competent arguments. I can tell your last round speech was very eloquent, so use it to debate me and we'll get this thing over with. I mean, heck. If you can cuss me out that good in the first round, you should ace this!
Shanor

Con

I disagree on the point that you make that arguments are based on opinion. I would say they are based on a mix of what evidence suggests as well as slight personal opinion. I will watch some videos before round 3 as to understand why you like him, but remember that for this to be worthwhile you have to come up with evidence that has some use. Or some examples of his commentary that puts him above others.
Debate Round No. 2
frankfurter50

Pro

I'm glad you can criticize my argumentative style, and you're doing a very good job of that, but you can do that in the comment section. I want a solid, engaging debate, so, please, post at least a few paragraphs in the next round, or I'll win. I'm sure you can come up with something as to why he's not a very good channel, but be sure to cite evidence from his videos as well.

I can't provide too much evidence, because there aren't any articles or anything about his stuff, he's pretty obscure, so the only evidence I can use is the videos themselves. I'll list a few examples here.

First, though, I'd like to make a point. His channel is very weird and it's different from lots of other stuff. But, even though it's weird, it never becomes creepy, and he himself never acknowledges his videos as weird. His channel, I would say, is a house, perched on the edge of a cliff that rests between the normal, dull plane of sketch comedy from channels like Smosh and the black sea of unbridled nightmare fuel ochannels like Pamtri or whatnot. They're never morbid, or profane. Well, he does use a few expletives here and there, but only for emotion. Although they're only bad drawings from MS paint, they still hold a feeling of reality. Just thought I'd say that.

Now, I'll give you some examples of his work, with links:

1. The ASPCB
https://www.youtube.com...
This isn't too complex, just a simple little sketch, but it's still highly entertaining. It brings up a problematic moral dilemma and asks us what we would do about it, even though the moral dilemma is unsolvable. It might also, perhaps, be seen as a satirization of the guilt trips that charity organizations hand us every day. The vocabulary used is highly accurate and indicates a good level of intelligence in the medical field.

2. Voyager Picture Parody
https://www.youtube.com...
Once more, a high intellect at work. He not only talks about one of the greatest achievements of mankind, he also makes fun of it in an extremely dark and malicious way. Although it's pessimistic, and somewhat depressing, it's still a comment on humanity and very fun to look at. The symbolism captured in the images can be hard to grasp at first, but it becomes relatively easy the more you look at it. He also, again, brings up a strong moral dilemma.

3. Video Game Character has an Existential Crisis
https://www.youtube.com...
This one, I like to think, was not fully developed, but, rather, produced after the title. It's bizarre, true, but still pretty funny. Just as good as anything from a sketch comedy show, but nobody knows about it. It's a funny version of The Matrix, and, judging by the way the characters literally talk about The Matrix, it takes place in a world where The Matrix is available. The video game, while fictional, would still be compelling as an actual video game. The best part, though, is the thirty second shot where the protagonist is greeted by an empty black void filled with random computer text. Not only does it make the existential crisis seem more real, since even the character's speech bubble is not normal, it also gives the viewer a sense of pathetic hopelessness. After that shot, it gets a bit depressing, and morbid, but retains some comedic value.

4. The Problem with the "Black Comedy" genre
https://www.youtube.com...
This is one of his earlier videos. In his early days, he would not do sketches with stick figures very often. Instead, he would simply discuss things. Not quite as funny as the others, but, still, a good way to while away a minute. He's not trying to be funny here, really, and this is very apparent, he's simply trying to give us a speech, and see what we think. The movie posters in the background, though, are well done and illustrate brilliantly the two schools of thought he's trying to get across. He also insists that he's not racist, which is always a nice touch for people who don't understand what racism is.

5. What it feels like to drink lemon juice
https://www.youtube.com...
This one is one of his first, and, although he has no idea what he's doing here, we can still see the brilliant streak of comedy within him. The topic is not complex, not controversial, not even that funny. It's so obscure that we have a hard time figuring out what situation this topic could possibly apply to. But he treats it as if it was controversial, and we see his opinions on things, and how they differ from ours. The picture in which the character tastes it, in particular, conveys what it would actually feel like. We feel inspired to drink some ourselves, and so he's succeeded in opening our minds. Simple.

That's all I'll post for now, because I think these 5 videos convey the spirit of his channel the best, but, heck, all of them are good. Except for a few. Anyway, I hope to see another compelling argument from you, a few paragraphs long, maybe covering why the 5 videos above actually suck. I await your next argument.
Shanor

Con

1: Don't say you win automatically. The people decide, not you.

2: "Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered" is not an argument, it is all about you, so it is biased.

3:"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." I cannot give specific examples admittedly, but there are others like him who are more popular, he might have a slightly different spin on things but he is in no way unique.

4:"This isn't too complex, just a simple little sketch, but it's still highly entertaining. It brings up a problematic moral dilemma and asks us what we would do about it, even though the moral dilemma is unsolvable. It might also, perhaps, be seen as a satirization of the guilt trips that charity organizations hand us every day. The vocabulary used is highly accurate and indicates a good level of intelligence in the medical field." this is common knowledge, not something impressive. And the idea that people should not kill anything is obviously flawed through the butterfly effect. What matters is the act of attempting to save as many lives as possible, should we just let those near us die because we can't save everything?

5:"Once more, a high intellect at work. He not only talks about one of the greatest achievements of mankind, he also makes fun of it in an extremely dark and malicious way. Although it's pessimistic, and somewhat depressing, it's still a comment on humanity and very fun to look at. The symbolism captured in the images can be hard to grasp at first, but it becomes relatively easy the more you look at it. He also, again, brings up a strong moral dilemma." he is not talking about mans greatest achievements, he is talking about the greatest follies of man. He attempts to say that we should show all the bad as well as the good, but first impressions are important so by showing what we have accomplished before talking about our setbacks we lessen the blow to others, so this point is fairly invalid.

6:This one, I like to think, was not fully developed, but, rather, produced after the title. It's bizarre, true, but still pretty funny. Just as good as anything from a sketch comedy show, but nobody knows about it. It's a funny version of The Matrix, and, judging by the way the characters literally talk about The Matrix, it takes place in a world where The Matrix is available. The video game, while fictional, would still be compelling as an actual video game. The best part, though, is the thirty second shot where the protagonist is greeted by an empty black void filled with random computer text. Not only does it make the existential crisis seem more real, since even the character's speech bubble is not normal, it also gives the viewer a sense of pathetic hopelessness. After that shot, it gets a bit depressing, and morbid, but retains some comedic value." This is an incredibly played out theme. The idea of "character from some sort of media realizes he does not matter" is seen in many other places, one good example being Deadpool kills the marvel universe which shows nearly the same idea but with a different reaction.

7:This is one of his earlier videos. In his early days, he would not do sketches with stick figures very often. Instead, he would simply discuss things. Not quite as funny as the others, but, still, a good way to while away a minute. He's not trying to be funny here, really, and this is very apparent, he's simply trying to give us a speech, and see what we think. The movie posters in the background, though, are well done and illustrate brilliantly the two schools of thought he's trying to get across. He also insists that he's not racist, which is always a nice touch for people who don't understand what racism is. "I agree that he is not being racist, but he is actively attempting to make people think he is by walking on the line, at that point he is just attempting to annoy those he doesn't like more than anything else.

8:"This one is one of his first, and, although he has no idea what he's doing here, we can still see the brilliant streak of comedy within him. The topic is not complex, not controversial, not even that funny. It's so obscure that we have a hard time figuring out what situation this topic could possibly apply to. But he treats it as if it was controversial, and we see his opinions on things, and how they differ from ours. The picture in which the character tastes it, in particular, conveys what it would actually feel like. We feel inspired to drink some ourselves, and so he's succeeded in opening our minds. Simple." I don't understand why you would consider this something worth talking about, he is talking about drinking lemon juice, I did that a long time ago, you may have not but people who watch the video will not likely be inclined to drink it because he makes it seem controversial. People have no reason to listen to someone actively making controversy out of nothing.

9:" Anyway, I hope to see another compelling argument from you, a few paragraphs long, maybe covering why the 5 videos above actually suck. I await your next argument." the videos are average, possibly sub-par. They don't suck, they just express ideas that people usually think of later in life. You would have thought the exact same things when you get older, you just had someone attempt to make them funny and somewhat succeed.

10: To conclude, Videos for People is an average channel that is not underappreciated, he just is not that clever. The person running the channel attempts to get the watcher to think, but most people who have watched that have already seen a more popular version of it or have already thought about that earlier in life. I don't know how old you are (I would assume you are fairly young) but this channel has nothing to get people to want to watch it. To be honest your reviews of them were the most interesting part of them. So I would have to say he is not great, rather he seems to be a normal person who does not really have anything new or original, he is below average for what I have seen.

11: I would like to state now that saying "I like him" will not support your argument, this argument just does not seemingly have a real good answer to it. There is no real evidence to put in it, it just is personal opinion mixed with reviews.
Debate Round No. 3
frankfurter50

Pro

1: I wasn't saying I was going to win automatically, I just figured I probably would win if you kept posting those dinky little four line paragraphs. Don't worry, though, your new argument looks real long and engaging, so you have a good chance of coming out victorious. Finally, I have a competent opponent!

2: Correct, my statement is biased. You have to oppose my biased statement.

3: He is completely unique. Think about it. Go through everything else in your mind. Does anybody, ANYBODY, use little MS paint stick figures to enact their sketches? I don't think so. And, certainly, he's unique for choosing not to feature any dialogue or motion. It may look worse, but what he loses in quality, he makes up for in hilarity. True, many of his sketches could be done by someone else, but they would not be the same video, because the format would be different. The format is what matters.

I'll rebut your arguments for the 5 videos I posted, and then we'll be done talking about them. At the end of this round, I'll introduce a new argument about the channel in general, which you will argue with in the next round. OK? I want to cover a lot here.

Also, I just realized that half of your supposed massive argument is just my quotes, and the other half is your criticism of my quotes. Please, do your own argument a little more, instead of just repeating what I say.

4: In his video about bacteria, he does show a good deal of knowledge on bacteria. He knows that Strep is a type of bacteria. Some people might say it's a virus. His metaphor about the Nazis is pretty good too. I don't think this video has anything to do with the butterfly effect. I don't think you understand the message behind the humor portrayed here. He's not being serious about saving the bacteria. He's actually POINTING OUT that it's stupid to try to save everything. You've got to learn to interpret his humor.

5: I know he is referring to man's greatest follies. However, the launching of the Voyager spacecraft is one of mankind's greatest achievements, because it carries everything that alien life might need to know about who we were as a people. Again, you fail to miss a crucial bit and misinterpret the whole thing. He is saying that we should be honest with the aliens, and he is correct in this respect, because if we were to send out a record with the failures of mankind on it, we should do it soon. Outer space is huge, and Voyager won't reach the nearest solar system for a few thousand years, so by the time aliens discover it, we will be long gone. It's not a radio satellite, it's a literal spaceship with everything about humanity on it. His point is valid and NASA should do something about it. We shouldn't be embarrassed of our failures, we should recognize them as crucial for aliens to know about. We can't send out the good version, wait for aliens to discover it, and then send a bad one. We need to pop that baby out now. Here, we see his talent for social activism, which I think is pretty darn important.

6: I agree, existential crises are an incredibly played out theme. But doesn't he make it unique in the way he portrays such an event? You can tell it's not just your run of the mill type parody, it has some serious stuff in it. For one, I like the way in which he introduces us to the video game, and the title card of the video game shows how he can create semi-believable fictional works of media. There is no game in which "squares fight," but the layout of the video game makes you wonder if you've seen it before. The bizarre topic of squares fighting also brings up the question of just how stupid video games are. The computer screen shot, evidently, is meant to look like the ling string of text seen right before a Windows PC turns on, and he makes a very good mockery. However, aside from this, hidden with the garbled computer text are a few funny little hidden messages, placed for people with astute eyes. The best part of this video, though, is the contrast between when he first enters the black void and after. Before he enters, the video game seems like a simplistic mockery. After he comes out of the black void, the fantasy is left behind and we discover that, within this universe of squares, there are real things, like religion, and jobs, and romance, and death. There's a great comment on fiction. I see no similarity to Deadpool. Also, at three minutes, this is on the long end of the spectrum. He put a lot of time and effort into this.

7: I don't think he tries to annoy anybody with this video, he is simply trying to remind us that the mention of race is not enough to qualify as racism, as some people are prone to believe. Aside from that, racism isn't even the central issue, he's just talking about something which he thinks is important, as always. The two genres of film he points to can be confusing, and, like always, he pushes for social change. Very nice video.

8: Making something non-controversial controversial is an engaging form of comedy. It makes us think outside the box, not only about what controversy is, but also about why he would talk about things we don't care about. It's bizarre, but bizarre things are often better than normal things. In fact, the way in which he refers to an ordinary substance as some kind of potent drug is used pretty often by funny people. You can find lots of examples of this, in all kinds of media. This video also makes people wonder what lemon juice tastes like.

9: The videos are not average, they are fantastic philosophical works of art that go beyond the sort of garbage entertainment usually shown on YouTube. I think that, perhaps, they should be sent into space in a spaceship, so aliens would know what good humor REALLY is. His humor has nothing to do with being old, or young. People can be funny at any time in life they want to.

10: He is highly underappreciated and deserves far more recognition than he receives. He does not have few supporters because his work is bad, as some have thought, but because other channels are more popular but LESS entertaining. Very few people choose to look at underappreciated channels, and so he gets very little exposure and very few views. He thinks differently, so people tend to reject him. Nothing is wrong with his sketches, though. They don't have real people, or dialogue, or movement. But they're still just as good as anything else. Nobody else would do a video about the Wright Brothers. Nobody would talk about Anthrax as if it's a prescription. Those are his ideas, and his ideas alone.

Now that we've finished up those five videos, I'll bring up something else about his stuff and you can rebut it. There are a few things which I haven't gone over, which I think could be worth mentioning.

1. Codes.
In some of his videos, at the end, a split second before the screen goes black, a little string of text pops up. It seems like complete gibberish, but it's not. It's actually a code which he cleverly inserts there, and since we see it for only a moment, we become curious and try to pause on it, and, thus, we figure it out. The codes are never odd when solved, just little thoughts. He never mentions them as a feature of his channel. I've solved about two, but I won't spoil them. It's a very inventive way to get people to pay attention.

2. References.
Throughout his videos, there are loads and loads of references to pop culture. In the episode "Ralph Finally Loses It," a blatant parody of The Honeymooners, Ralph reads a newspaper which reads, "Cubs lose again". Not an obscure reference, sure, but some people might miss it. Also, in "The Guys who Made That Sappy Gay Cartoon," evidently a reference to the 2017 short animated film "In a Heartbeat," He creates very inventive usernames for fictional YouTube accounts. Not exactly a reference, but still, an accurate representation. Finally, in "Christmas Nativity," Joseph makes a prophetic reference to the Virgin of Guadalupe, an event which Videos covers more fully in a later video, "Spanish Class". Maybe he's trying to make it appear as if all his videos take place in the same universe.

3. The new Christmas special.
During the last round, he hadn't put it out yet, but this one is a big parody of Home Alone, which stands at a whopping six minutes, one of the longest videos he's ever done, so a lot of effort must have been put into it. Very nice for the holiday season.

4. rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy.
This is undoubtedly the best part of his channel. He's made 13 at this point, all little 11-second clips of a stick figure playing a guitar in front of a colorful background. It's almost a tradition at this point. He's also made a few other rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy videos, one where he talks about his life as a rock star and one where he fights aliens. These gems could be a comment on the undeserved popularity of rock stars, and perhaps even a reference to Videos for People's own undeserved underratedness.

Please, rebut the points above.
Shanor

Con

1. 4 sentences can defeat many paragraphs in a debate, it depends on how you use them.

2. You should be biased, not the argument itself.

3. Yes, darkmain. He does not use it as much, rather he uses it at the proper moments to amplify the humor of his videos. How can you know anyone does it differently anyways. The way YouTube is now, you would not be able to see others who could be like him because you don't know the channel name.

I quoted what you said to rebuke your specific points. It is a simple way to debate that I use when I don't need an overarching argument.

4. Strep is obviously a bacteria, the symptoms of it show that. You just seem to not know as much as the average person. I was using the butterfly effect as an example, so it was not meant to be part of the video. The message was quite obvious, you just did not understand my statement it seems. My point is that just because a person can't save everyone, does not mean they should not help those in front of him, the other point I made was that most people think this at some point, you just were not there yet, so it is not interesting because I have already thought of this.

5. You yet again did not understand what I said and said the same of me, I understand what he is conveying, I am just saying that he is wrong. As I said before first impressions are important. So by starting with all we have accomplished we lessen the follies that they learn about later on.

6. Not really. I have seen comedy channels do the. same thing. COMEDY channels. The amount of deeper channels if likely devasting. And deadpool is about a man who learns of his nonexistent life and decides to kill everyone out of mercy, it is the other way to take this revelation.

7. The way he does this is what is wrong. He makes it inflammatory which makes people not want to listen, if he said it in a more serious way it might be ok.

8. Not really. It is just kinda dry, I don't feel a need to do any of this because he does not make it seem interesting, I would guess others feel the same way.

9. Don't you even dare call this philosophic. These ideas don't even scratch the surface of philosophy. YOU think he is good, I think he is mediocre at best, boring at worst. He really does just pander to a younger audience through the fact that he focuses on specific ideas that older people have already thought of previously.

He just does not seem underappreciated, he just seems to not have a large enough amount of people who like his style, me included. He does fairly simplistic ideas with even simpler punchlines, and he does not think differently, he just talks about ideas that others have already thought of and attempts to make younger people think he is a genius.

I will comment on the rest in this paragraph. Try watching jelloapocolypces review of gravity falls to see just how new codes are. Pop culture references are par for the course, and saying they are in the same universe is just as played out. A Christmas episode is fine, but I know guys who do much greater animations that are twice as long and just as funny. And 11 second clips are nothing to blink at. Rock stars should be deserved based on skills, and some are good. And if he is willing to talk about just how underrated he is he deserves it, plain and simple. You get what you get, no use complaining, just do better.

To conclude, once again he is not underrated, just nondeserving.
Debate Round No. 4
frankfurter50

Pro

1. 4 sentences can defeat many paragraphs in a debate. I don't think your 4 sentences would have, though.

2. My argument is biased, and it can be.

3. From what I've seen, I don't know of anyone who does the same thing in exactly the same way. And definitely not with the same amount of humor. And that's fine, quote me all you want, but post slightly more arguments than quotes.

4. I don't understand this point.

5. His portrayal of the Voyager spacecraft is absolutely correct, sending the aliens only good things is a misinterpretation data, and apparently you don't know how huge space is.

6. Deadpool is about a man who crashes into cars and hurls profanities with a big red mask over his face, he's much less philosophically intriguing than a great video where a video game character breaks the fourth wall and discovers that his life is not what he thought it was. Also, Videos for People is what I would classify as a COMEDY channel.

7. He just says that he's not a racist. that should not bother anyone.

8. Have you ever drank lemon juice? If not, his video might make you feel like tasting it. It's an excellent example of hypnotism.

9. This is absolutely philosophic. Think about it. Which is more philosophic, one of his videos, or a PewdePie video? It's not Aristotle, sure, it's supposed to convey philosophy to dullards, but by comparing it to something much worse, we see the talent and genius inherent.

10. He is underappreciated. People, if they observed him for a while, would learn to enjoy him, but they never see him, so, of course, he is invisible to most. You can even see that people never notice him. Some of his stuff has no views. If lots of people came to his channel, but didn't like the content, there would be more visible views, or at least some dislikes. He is not "Hated," he is never even mentioned, so I doubt anybody knows he exists. This is a grave injustice, because PewdePie has become a worldwide sensation by making a stupid voice. Isn't that unfair?

He is a genius because his punchlines are simple. Everybody else's jokes are too complex, or, worse yet, flat out stupid. Oftentimes, as in his "Magical Miracle of Human Flight" video, he uses a simple, brusque punchline to contradict the long winded speech given by Orville Wright that precedes it. Other times, a long punchline would make no sense, considering that most of the frames only last a few seconds anyway.

You say that he's unoriginal. Go ahead and find a video where people talk about anthrax as if it's a drug, besides his. Go ahead.

JelloApocalypse's review of Gravity Falls is OK. But the animation is bad, the drawings are too similar to the actual show, and there's a voice, so comparing him to Videos for people makes no sense. They're nothing like each other. Also, by the way the video is presented, you can tell that the guy has already seen Gravity falls and knows everything about the plot. Videos for People, on the other hand, did a review which I think was genius and much more original.

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

He doesn't just hate the idiotic show, he hates it so much that he refuses to acknowledge its very existence, and plays a clod the whole time. Try finding a review like THAT.

Let's go more in detail to the stuff I covered in the last round.

1. Codes.
You seemed to have dodged this, and it's something pretty interesting to discuss. These codes are one of the things carried over from his early days, and they reflect a time when he wasn't sure what his channel was going to be yet. A lot of his earlier stuff doesn't even have stick figures, just photos and text. One video, in fact, titled "We 5775ave 3435kidnaPPed Vidos Fr People! Mwah2@#44aaha!" Implies that he was trying to start some kind of ARG, and never followed up on it. However, when you break the code in the video, it's a bit of a let down. I won't spoil it, but still, it shows just how deeply ingrained codes and subliminal messages are in his work. Without them, things would be much different. The video might also be seen as a parody of incredibly bad ARGs.

2. References.
References are a good way to be funny, and he does them in very inventive and new ways. I'll talk about his newest video as of today, "The Bee'les," a clear parody of the Beatles. In one frame, one of the members fires a character whom he refers to as Pete, an easy reference to Pete Best, the drummer for the group before Ringo. He also talks about Lola, by the Kinks, and the code at the end is a lyric from that song, so we can see the connection there. In "The United Nuts," his crackdown on the United Nations (https://www.youtube.com...), he dedicates one whole frame to a group of characters standing outside the gate, representing nations who are not recognized as legitimate, like Kosovo and South Ossetia. Still, only funny if you understand it. Like many of his references.

3. The new Christmas Special.
I'd like to bring this up again. It seems like a monumental achievement. True, six minutes might not be a long time for most, but this is the longest upload he's made since his seven minute epic, "Cops in the City," which is also a great video. (https://www.youtube.com...). However, you have to understand the significance of this. He doesn't film with a camera, so a six minute video involves lots of frames. It's a great parody of Home Alone, and I especially like how he fits the music to the things going on. When the burglars are outside, there's some jazzy music. When John Candy appears, there's some polka music. When they go through the murder house, there's some goofy slapstick music. And so on. The music almost makes up for the lack of dialogue. It's not at all philosophical, but it's a brilliant parody.

4. rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy
You say that rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy should deserve his fame and success within the Videos for People universe because he's a good at being a rock star. But the strange thing about the videos is that, in them, rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy doesn't do anything worth noting. He just plays the guitar in front of a colorful background. I think that those videos are purposefully supposed to be bad, and Videos for People constantly tells us about how amazing and wonderful rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy is, even though he never does anything noteworthy. Definitely a self referential comment to how those who do very little receive undeserved attention. In the 100th video celebration (https://www.youtube.com...) somebody, presumably Videos for People himself, is preparing for a party, presumably because he's reached 100 videos, but no guests arrive. However, rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy shows up, and does a solo as always. However, when Videos for People asks him what makes him so cool, he just responds, "I just AM cool," in creepy text, and makes an angry face. Perhaps rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy is meant to be the villain of the series, always receiving more attention than Videos For People even though he does very little in reality. Or maybe I'm overthinking it. It's also strange how rock and ROOOLLLLLLL guy always has three capital O's and seven capital L's in his name, and it never becomes inconsistent.

Anyway, in your last argument, please rebut the four points made above, and nothing else, because I'd like to see those heavily discussed.

Judges, please vote wisely, look at all the references provided, and decide for yourself. To end this debate off, I'd like to close with a quote from one of his most recent videos, "The Fan" (https://www.youtube.com...). One of the characters says, "You could do great things if you put your mind to it! You could create a universe! YOU could win an Oscar! But you don't, because your pathetic little mind can't make anything up! Isn't that it? ISN'T IT? You just go for what other people like... you're a buffalo in an enormous herd!"

Clearly the mind of a genius in action.

Farewell and good luck.
Shanor

Con

1. not important

2. wrong, but not important.

3. Only an idiot would do it the exact same way, the EXACT way he does this is different, but he is close enough to others to make it clear that he is in realistic standards not different. I quoted so that you understood what I was talking about, there is nothing to argue here.

4. It irritates me for you to say I brushed off code when I did not (I will go into that later), yet you brush off one of my big points with "I don't understand", you are likely to young to understand the fact that people think about this stuff without help. It is not revolutionary, YOU just don't currently have the ability to do this due to your lack of experience in life.

5. Yet again you don't talk about the main point of my paragraph and talk about something completely different. What I said was that by sending the good of humanity to aliens first would make them accept the bad easier. And no one can comprehend just how enormous space is, but the fact I understand this shows that I understand to an acceptable level just how big space is. This also is way to vague to make a rebuttal too, how would me not understanding this change how the argument goes? say this rather than expecting me to automatically understand the point of such a vague comment.

6. You obviously have not read one of the only things I asked you to. He actually is very philosophically intriguing for this specific comic. If you had read it you would understand my point. He shows the reaction of a man who has realized all the pain and sorrow he has went through was all for the entertainment of others. You might be too young to understand this, but this is an extremely important philosophical argument relating to existence and meaning, though I doubt you have thought too much about this yet.

7. It is the way he puts it, the tone. You really need to listen to what I say rather then just reading it. THINK about it, don't think about how you can craft a rebuttal, think about what I said. That is how to argue.

8. This is not hypnotism, learn what something is before talking about it. And what I said (yet again) is not what you are talking about, you are just restating your own points rather then objecting to mine.

9. This is a blatant argument fallacy. You cannot state that something is good just because it is better then something else. In my personal opinion, Pewdepie sucks. But just because he does does not make this guy any better. And I see why dome people do like Pewdepie, he posts braindead comedy, something that people can just sit back and laugh at. I don't find this very funny myself, but this is why people like him. And your guy posts stuff that people would not laugh at unless they were too young to have already thought this. So I would not be pointing fingers.

10. He is not seen for 3 reasons: 1. he posts videos that are short enough that the YouTube algorithm pushes them from becoming popular and though that is unfair that is just how it works, 2. his target audience is too small, he panders to a young audience, but because he is not popular nor does he do something like gaming kids would have to want to look for his type of comedy, no kids would do this because they don't understand the humor unless they find it randomly and enjoy it, which they can't because they have to look for it to find it, and 3. His humor pushes away other demographics because it talks about something that has already been thought of by those people.

He dumbs down his content so that younger people will understand it, plain and simple. Most YouTubers get hate for this yet you say it is good, it is not, it is showing that he is pandering in an attempt to get more views.

There is not, but this does not mean he is original, I am saying his STYLE is not original, not unoriginal, not original, he is in the in-between. This is not black and white.

He makes it the same because THAT IS THE POINT of his videos, to show popular television in a comedic light. And I was not comparing his video to the channel, if you had actually read what I said you would understand that. I was sing him to talk about how codes in shows and videos are nothing new at all, much less an original idea.

The amount of people I have seen in my regular life doing such simple puns like this is enough to prove this point wrong, enough said.

These do not need to be heavily discussed. They are all things that everyone does, and do not deserve their own paragraphs. Codes are nothing new, References are a REQUIRMENT for good comedy these days, A Christmas special is the most basic type of video you can have, and this rock and roll guy (this is not worth the time to spell correctly, even with how small a time it is) is nothing much, he is just a basic idea that likely has no story to it and is just meant to be weird to get his young audience to feel creeped out.

This is just him whining about how other people watch the popular stuff instead of him, this is meant to make those who watch his videos feel special about nothing. This is no genius, you just don't have the capacity to see what he is doing yet.

To conclude this debate I will state how I feel about him rather then just rebuttling. He is a manipulative person that takes advantage of others lack of experience to attempt to get views, and even while doing this his videos are to uninteresting and uninspired to be able to make him popular, so he instead decides to whine about his unpopularity and blame it on everything but himself while doing nothing to better him self or, more importantly, the viewers that watch his shows. You seem too young to understand this but his thoughts are not new or different, the reason you have not heard about this is because you are too young for adults to want to get you thinking philosophically, and you and your peers are to young to think about these ideas for yourselves. So wait until you are a bit older and come up with your own conclusion before wasting time listening to a cookie cutter version from this guy.

To those who have read this debate, just see who has created a better overall debate. Because there is no real question to answer here, there never was one. So vote for the better debater rather than wasting time attempting to for an actual question.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 7 months ago
frankfurter50
This isn't that, actually.
Posted by Throwback 7 months ago
Throwback
The debate in favor of legalizing drug use has already been overdone.
No votes have been placed for this debate.