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

Is Film Theory Legit?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2016 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 98398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Hello Internet! Welcome to Film Theory! The show where loyal theorists come together and dissect films...or do they?
Many have questioned the legitimacy of Film Theory. Is it legit? YEAH!
1. Physics
2. Science
3. Math
4. Reason
5. Logic
It doesn't take a genius to understand Matpat's theories, but it takes a genius to decode movies the way he does. Bragging about spending months on theories may sound far-fetched, but if you see his videos, you will know plenty of work goes into these videos. Research. Video development. Everything!
If he's not legit,...why does he back up all his videos with facts?
Just saying.
Its impossible to fake facts.
He's legit


Sure, Film Theorists have theories, but are they true? None of MatPat's theories have been confirmed, and the lore he creates doesn't necesarily fit in with the true lore.

I don't deny Matthew Patrick's research and intellect, but he's not the developer of the films, so he doesn't know exactly what the characters are thinking.

Theories can be debunked via sequels. Take his Finding Dory video; he one where he exposes the fact that Dory is faking short term memory. If she was faking, then how did she forget things important to her, like finding her parents? Give me a theory, and I'll attempt to debunk it (I've always wanted to argue against MatPat since he created Deadlock).
Debate Round No. 1


So how about the Doctor Strange theory? That can't be disproved


I was thinking you'd explain the theory thoroughly so I wouldn't have to watch speech multiple times.

Give me 2 more theories, and explain them. But these next 2 should have evidence from the show or movie the theory talks about.

Anyways, MatPat left out some details in the video. Keep in mind I haven't seen the Doctor Strange movie, and I'm mainly familiar with him via UMvC3, so I'll use that game as my basis. If he can't do the following, please say so, with a link.

MatPat doesn't explain what an Astral Form is, and how this ties in to light or quantom mechanics. Also, Doctor Strange can teleport (at least in UMVC3). How is this explained? There's a few aspects of Strange that Matthew doesn't cover.

There are 2 ways to debunk a theory: Science, and Evidence from the Show. I don't argue against the science, but I argue that the idea isn't true, and evidence from the show can disprove.

So what other theories should I debunk? If I successfully debunk, or cast doubt on, a theory, then Fim Theorists shouldn't be considered a reliable source of lore.
Debate Round No. 2


Wow, nice one.
(Nice try, I mean)

Im too lazy to complete this ( I had to write 4 other debates)
So ill just say you won

sorry for the disappointment



Jirachi will grant you all your wishes.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EXOPrimal 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: concession