The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

time to put the simpsons to bed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 821 times Debate No: 65614
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




The Simpsons has been on our screens since 1989 and has always been very popular. However the shows style today is barely recognisable from what is was 20 years old. The Simpsons hey day for me was between 1992-1999. The quality of the programme has been dropping steadily since the turn of the millennium is now noticeable even to the occasional Simpsons viewer.

Its has transformed from its original format that made it one of the greatest ever shows to a show that appears to try to hard to be like family guy. Nearly all the most famous Simpsons episodes are from the 1990s and I struggle to think of any great episodes from 2000 onwards. Great storylines have made way for half assed episodes filled with poor and overdone gags.

The show is unrecognisable for former hard core Simpsons fans. One suspects the only reason they still make the show is because it still brings in plenty of viewers and makes plenty of money. But to true Simpsons fans its now broken beyond repair. Its like watching a sick dog get sicker when it needs to be put to sleep. (notice how all the episodes in this video are from the 1990s)


"One suspects the only reason they still make the show is because it still brings in plenty of viewers and makes plenty of money"
That would suggest that it still gets high numbers of viewers, thus still a successful show. Any show whether real or animated has to change some to keep getting new ideas and keep the script fresh. I have noticed some changes in The Simpson's" but I still enjoy it. The characters personalities have not significantly changed.
That is expect for possibly Ned Flanders. I have no idea how they had him marry Ms Krabappel, they were totally incompatible. The dynamic just did not work. I am not sure when they made Lisa a vegan, but that storyline is rather pointless, unless it is some attempt to push the one co-creators PETA membership agenda. I have not watched every episode and do not claim to be a Simpsons expert. I do however remember watching the first episode when it first came on and still enjoy the new episodes today. The fact that it still has a high viewer rate should be proof that plenty of people still enjoy it and that it should remain on.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate.

Crazy storylines such as Ned Flanders marrying Ms Krabappel suggests that the Simpsons writers are really scraping the barrel for ideas. Storylines have become far fetched and ridiculous ideas such as the Simpsons/ Family guy crossover episode(plus I believe there's also going to be a Simpsons/ Futurama crossover) shows that they are desperate to hold on to what viewers they have left and attract new ones because they know there old fans are not coming back.

The writers of the Simpsons have for some years now been ripped to shreds by critics for the on going decline of the shows quality. The Simpsons is Matt Groening's baby. He will always defend The show and I can fully understand why he wouldn't want to end it but Id say its time to stop the rot and end the show with dignity.

The age of the voice actors is another reason the show cant keep going forever. The decline of the show is partly down to the fact that some of the voice actors of secondary characters such as Marcia Wallace( Ms Krabappel) and Phil Hartman( Troy McClure/ Lionel Hutz) are sadly no longer with us. Should something happen to one of the main voices actors the show would then surely have to end.

The Simpsons has been going now for 25 years. So far 559 Episodes have been broadcast. If the shows production stopped there is no reason whatsoever why old episodes cant be repeated for many years or even decades to come. Its not like there was only a few episodes made which if shown over and over again would get repetitive very quickly. Even if an episode was shown every weekday in order starting with episode one it would be close to two years before episode one was shown again. I think this would be the best solution all round.


There actually has been Futurama crossover, it was done recently. Bender showed up to kill Homer to protect the future. The primary target audience for "The Simpsons" was not yet born when it premiered, they still enjoy the show. The Nielson ratings is the only critics that really matter.
With the age of the show, the aging voices and half of writers leaving, mostly to Futurama of course it will change some. However like I said the only critics to matter are the Nielsons. The quality of the show is not a provable fact one way or the other. So let the viewers decide whether or not it is good enough to stay or to get cancelled.
There are two very notable things about The Simpsons nobody can deny. It has never tried to push some horrible spin off like Family Guy did with Cleveland Show. Also, all animated shows that are not cartoons has it to thank for their existence. Its success opened up the possibility for all of them like The Family Guy and King of The Hill.
Debate Round No. 2


Somebody trying to kill one of the Simpsons is hardly original. Frank Grimes jr trying to kill Homer, Sideshow Bob constantly trying to kill Bart and also Bobs brother Cecil are just a few I can think of. This shows that the writers struggling for new ideas and are repeating themselves.

Con mentions the aging voices but doesn't respond to my point that if something was to happen to one the main actors. Dan Castellaneta voices not only Homer but also Abraham Simpson, Barney Gumble, Krusty the clown, Groundskeeper Willie and more. Should something happen to Dan it'll be hard to find somebody who can do all those voices. But more importantly it would be right to end the show at that point as a mark of respect.


After the death of Marcia Wallace Mrs. K never returned, I can not remember if they killed Mrs. K or simply wrote her out and never addressed why she left. So I think they would have equal respect for any other character and not recast the voices. That would be good time to end the show. It would also be a good idea for them to have an episode in reserve to use as a last episode when such an event occurs. Since each episode does not build on the previous one that is very possible. I am not sure how old the people who do the voices are but that possibility is getting more and more likely each year.
I know death threats against Homer is not original, but each one is still an original storyline. Since it is not a drama each episode does not build on another and should be considered independently. Also in each episode they reason for wanting each character dead is for totally different reasons and different methods are used thus not really repeating the same storyline.

In the comments section you said. "I don't mind crossovers in Disney or kids show but primetime adult shows even when their cartoon should have some kind of realness to them."

If you are looking for realness, no animated show is for you. Is the crossover is the only realness is issue you see? Think about any of the Halloween episodes, any episodes concerning nuclear power like the three eyed fish and glowing Mr. Burns, or just any time Homer chokes Bart.
Or the conflict in the ages of Abe Simpson, Homer and Marge. It suggests that both Abe and Homer were young fathers. Homer just out of High School and Abe just out of War after the draft. In early episodes it suggested that Homer and Marge were in High School in the 60's, then later in the 70's. I believe Bart is in the 4rd Grade and 10 years old. Which places Homer and Marge at around 29-30. Though their appearance, actions and everything else has always suggested they are much older. Going by that time frame and consider the show start date they would have Homer and Marge born no earlier than 1960. So Teenagers in the 70's and but not the 60's and Bart Born in 1979. That would also suggest Abraham Simpson is not nearly as old as he appears or old enough to have been in WW2 as many episodes portray him. For him to have been in WW2 and had Homer in 1960 he would have been well into his late 30's before Homer was born. Again all of this is based on it being 1989 when the showed first aired.
However it is animated and realness is not a big priority for any animated show. Nor is being the same as it was in the beginning. You say it should be like it was in the 1990's but also say it should be original, those tow criteria is hard to master at one time. Also I think Family Guy is a rip off of the Simpsons not the other way around. Also while we are at it I think American Dad is just Joe Swanson with good legs and a better job.
Debate Round No. 3


I feel that doing two crossover episodes in such a short space of time is the biggest indicator yet that the idea tank is empty.

Of course Family guy and American Dad or rip offs of the Simpsons. If it wasn't for the Simpsons there would be no South Park either. But that doesn't automatically make the Simpsons a better show. South Park like the Simpsons has changed of the years but unlike the Simpsons it still feels like the same show. It still feels unique and it is still as good as it has ever been( in my opinion at least).

Although the Simpsons came along first I feel that these days its definitely them trying to be like Family Guy and not the other way round. The Simpsons has lost its way. It lost its heart and sole some years ago and its now too late now to get it back.



That is all an opinion but I say again the ratings is the ultimate factor in whether a shows stays or goes. It may now appeal to different people than it once did, but viewership and a persons likes do often change after 25 years.
South Park is pretty much the same as always, only at times more crude than before. I don't watch it due to a baby in the house and I prefer to not expose her to that language.
I personally think The Family Guy has changed more than The Simpsons. It has been a while since I watched that as well, but I know they somehow killed off Brian. Stewie has also changed dramatically, he went from evil genius trying to kill Lois to some crazed super fan adoring anything about Hollywood. They might as well have killed him off as well since they all but ruined his character. It some funny lines but it is not that original as many episodes are so much alike that I think they just rewrote them as a new episode. I can understand Cleveland leaving as he never really added much to the show, mostly just a sidekick for Quagmire.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by sammybow 2 years ago
mixing shows is certainly not a new fad. I remember as a kid watching a lame Flintstones/ Jetsons crossover. Also weren't the wacky races characters all from other shows? I don't mind crossovers in Disney or kids show but primetime adult shows even when their cartoon should have some kind of realness to them.

I think if one of the major voice actors such as Dan Castellanta died It would be difficult to find anyone who can do all the voices he does but more importantly it would be the right thing to end the show out of respect
Posted by PimpinMunky 2 years ago
On the contrail I would say that mixing shows is a new fad and is a great example of what is keeping The Simpsons on top to this day. It is the new hit thing to do as is being done with most of the Disney funded shows.
Not to repeat but if the show is at the mercy of the network and its owners then it again is a testament to the shows success. If the show was to be as bad as you say they would have removed it long ago. If the show was mediocre but not a success they would still remove it because they could sell that air time to another up and coming show that would yield more profits.
In every major sitcom there are dynamics that change. These may be whole character removals to the characters growing up or young as in the movie Benjamin Button. The fact that the voices have changes slightly does not impact the show what so ever and is not a reason to take it off the air.
If the show were to become stale and old due to the fact that no new episodes that are up to date with current topics, it would lose all popularity and the rating would go through the floor. That would essentially be the end of the show. There is no point in stopping the production unless you are trying to cause a premature bedtime for The Simpsons.
Posted by PimpinMunky 2 years ago
In today's world, we are more accepting than ever. At the same time we are more diverse than ever with the invention of skaters, rockers, preps, jocks, nerds, thugs, special kids, etc. There are so many more people than ever before, we are all finding out own groups. The Simpsons speaks for more than just a generation. It continues to grow and exceed our expectations, it still defines a "group". If we as a society were to lose The Simpsons, such an iconic cartoon serious it would be like Mexico losing "El Chavo". El Chavo has been around for generations and for some is the deep rooted definition of being a Mexican. The group that connects with The Simpsons the most, will be effected the most but to not fray because the rest of the U.S. society will feel the hurt when The Simpsons are gone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not refute the idea with "changing as the demographic changes" argument that was implied by con. he simply stuck with the "its not the same as it used to be so it should stop" argument. From a business standpoint it would be ludicrous to start playing episodes from the beginning of the series instead of continuing with the show as its a cash cow, that isn't in its prime, but still making money. Win to con Wiki and youtube as sources (reliable) spelling isn't my forte and I usually don't vote unless its bad. but you, pro, said sole in your final statement instead of soul. ouch. (grammar to con)