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

The Pixar theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,384 times Debate No: 49763
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




Resolved: The Pixar Theory is likely Correct.

The Pixar theory is the argument that all of the Pixar movies actually take place in the same universe. It's argued for here:

Pixar has basically disconfirmed that the theory is true, but for the fun of the debate I'm not going to make that argument. We're going to look at the Pixar theory without that knowledge. My opponent is to make his argument for why the Pixar theory is true in the first round.


Definition 1
A Pixar movie, short film, game, toy or book will be defined as a Pixar creation, which has formally been released for the entertainment of the public.

Definition 2
Any songs, characters, dialog, visual reference, etc. which can be found in a Pixar creation is defined as a Pixar object.

Definition 3
The Pixar Universe is made up of Pixar creations with connections to other Pixar creations through what is referred to as "Easter Egg(s)".

Definition 4
An "Easter Egg(s)" is defined as a hidden homage/reference to another creation or object (not limited to Pixar creations or objects) but can also include persons, places or things from the viewers reality.

Point 1
Pixar creations have a starting point (Knick Knack & Geri's Game) with no Easter Egg(s) as they had no predecessor.

Point 2
As Pixar's number of creations increased, so did the number of Easter Egg(s).

Point 3
Easter Egg(s) began to overlap and arc between creations as teams within Pixar left the company or worked on other projects. These Easter Egg(s) left by previous teams, influence future teams, to form transparent connections.

Point 4
At some point, the Easter Egg(s) started to take on the form of a greater, more encompassing story. This started out innocently but later became more deliberate.

Point 5
As fans and followers of Pixar creations connected the dots, they created a more detailed story for the arcs, which may or may not have influenced the creators.

Point 6
While Pixar does not confirm this theory it remains to be seen if they will "feed the fire" with future Pixar creations.
Debate Round No. 1


Vote Neg:

a) The burden is on Pro to prove that the Pixar theory is correct

b) Pro fails to meet this burden--the existence of Easter Eggs are more indicative of a fun idea for the animators than some kind of overrarching plot.

c) VOTE CON: Pro hasn't upheld his burden.

I. The theory is untenable and inconsistent

The Pixar theory has multiple flaws that I'll elaborate on:

a) Wood: The theory claims that wood has special powers allowing one (in this case the monsters from Monsters inc) to go back in time. Nowhere in the Pixar Universe is wood shown to have any special powers whatsoever, let alone allowing time travel magic.

b) To reconcile the theory with Pixars upcoming movie "The Good Dinosaur" about sentient Dinosaurs who keep Humans as pets, the article claims that Pixars universe must be one where the Dinosaurs were never wiped out and humans and dinosaurs evolved seperately. The problem with this is that Dinosaurs are extinct in all of the other Pixar films and there are no references to a time when humans were mere playthings of Dinosaurs and indeed Dinosaurs are viewed as complete jokes in the Pixar universe, look at Rex from Toy Story.

c) The Incredibles: Nowhere in any other film is there a reference to super humans. Okay, maybe they died out as it was implied that they were, but even so the article states that The Incredibles takes place in an alternate 1960s (meaning the opening was in the 1950s), and Toy Story takes place in the 1990s. Why would Andy worship fake, lame hero's like Woody or Buzz when there were, or were in the very recent past, real life superheros? Moreover why would Woody have his own popular show in what was implied to be the 1950s when there were *actual real life supers* still active in the field until at least the mid 50s?

d) Cars: In no other Pixar film are machines other than AI like WALL-E shown to be sentient. Even if they were, they didn't look like the vehicles in the Cars with their faces and other anthropomorphic features. The theory gives no real reason on why a) Humanlike cars similar to modern day vehicles would be created and b) Why far in the future (the Theory claims Cars is around the same time as WALL-E when humans have left the Earth) Cars still run on fossil fuels as they do in Cars 2 and why they resemble modern machines when Eve and WALL-E don't.

e) The Trailer: The theory claims that a bugs life takes place shortly after WALL-E when humans are just repopulating the Earth and they are not plentiful. The problem with this is that in A Bugs Life Flick passes by a trailer that is evidently in good enough condition to have a working bug killing lamp. In Monsters Inc., the same trailer can be seen in slightly better condition where Randall is sent. But since we know that, according to the theory, A Bugs Life takes place at least several hundred years after humans had left the Earth, because they had at least returned to some extent as a bug in the city was seen with a sign saying a kid pulled off his wings. There's *no way* that a poorly constructed trailer could remain recognizable after hundreds of years, let alone a working bug lamp.

f) General incosistencies

There are just tons of general inconsistencies like Toys in Toy Story being sentient but not in any of the other movies, or Bugs in a Bugs life.

That's enough for now. The resolution is negated.


1 -My opponent (The Instigator) has committed a fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". I did not make any claim, I am defending the Pixar Theory, not attacking it. The BoP is always on The Instigator unless it is made clear in the opening arguments, along with a logical explanation. My opponent did neither of these during the opening statement.

2 - My opponent should lose points on poor grammar and spelling.

3 - The Easter Egg(s) were fun to start with, but after they added so many fans started to see a connection. I submit as proof an interview from with Jay Ward who is an art coordinator with Pixar.

"It's almost like the 9/11 conspiracy theories... it's like, really? No, the movies were sort of made in a different order by different directors in different times, in different places. It's cool that it all worked out that way, but it probably was not intentional."

Jay is saying that some people have a lot of time on their hands to create a theory which Pixar never intended to create.
Jay says, "It's cool that it all worked out that way, but it probably was not intentional".

What Jay has said supports my previous positions in defense of the Pixar theory.
1 - The Pixar theory was "PROBABLY NOT INTENTIONAL".
2 - The movies were made by different directors, different times, different places.
3 - It's cool that it all worked out that way.

4 - My opponent has failed to follow the format of the definitions previously stated.
a - The movie "The Good Dinosaur" has not been released to the public officially and cannot be used as a reference.
b - An alternate 1960 (The Incredibles) is still within the same Pixar Universe.

5 - "Con" has admitted that "Okay, maybe they died out as it implied that they were...", thus supporting part of the Pixar theory.

6 - My opponent incorrectly assumes that because of a "Super" hero from The Incredibles, no one else would like a cowboy as a hero.

5 - My opponent incorrectly assumes that the character Andy, worships Woody and Buzz. Andy is just like a lot of kids, he has his favorite toys.

6 - Labeling Woody or Buzz as "lame" is only your personal opinion and not factual.
a - Buzz was extremely popular; back in 1995 short-sighted retailers did not order enough dolls to meet demand.
b - Woody is a rare, collectible toy also.

7 - My definitions and points are factual and irrefutable.

8 - We are talking animated Pixar creations right? Not real life? Bugs can talk? Witches exist? A rat cooks?
a - The witch in Brave said wood cannot be imbued with magic, but it already has magic in it.
b - Wood does have special magic-like properties (see Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and Brave).
c - In Brave, there is a wood carving of the pizza truck, thus the theory that the witch visited that time period.
d - In Brave, there is also a wood carving of Sully, from Monsters Inc.
e - In Monsters Inc, there are magic-like wooden doors which function like the witch's door in Brave.
f - In Brave, the witch exits her house with Merida and her crow, snaps her fingers and opens the door to reveal her cauldron and casting materials within. "Never craft where you conjure", she said.

I'll await for the closing statements to give a more complete review of the truth.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent accuses me of shifting the burden of proof, but this is ridiculous. The affirmative has the burden of proof, not the instigator. This was the reason that he was given the first round to argue in favor of the theory. The resolution is a true/false statement, and if the person claiming it's true fails to prove so then it cannot be assumed to be true.

Vote neg:

It's extremely clear that the Pixar theory is untenable and requires mental gymnastics to accept as my examples show. My oponents responses to them are extremely weak.

Pro argues that Easter Eggs must prove that all of the movies happen in the same Universe. Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is almost always the correct one. What's the more parsimonious explanation for, as my opponent brought up, a carving of Sully to appear in Brave: The animators thought it was fun to include little Easter Eggs or, as the theory contends, because the Witch from Brave was actually Boo from Monsters Inc who went back in time to try and find Sully using the power of wood.

Pro shoots himself in the foot--I said I wouldn't make the "Pixar said the theory is not true" argument but since my opponent decided to bring it up, Pixar saying that the theory is analogous to 9/11 conspiracy theories pretty much proves the resolution is wrong.

Pro makes no explanation for sentient, contemporary looking vehicles in Cars existing in the distant future as the theory contends. Pro also fails to satisfactorily explain why there are no mentions of super humans in *any* of the other Pixar movies. The existence of superhero's would lead to an enormously different society and we would see traces of that if not actual heros in the rest of the movies. Andy has no superhero toys--of course my opinion of Buzz and Woody being lame is just an opinion but it's safe to assume that any kid would rather play with models of things real than a fake Cowboy from a TV show. In Toy Story 2, the Prospector remarks that Sputnik was what ruined it for Old West style toys because in the Pixar Universe as in the real world kids would rather play with toys modeling actual exciting events than a dopey cowboy. Andy would have had some superhero toys. The other movies would have made some reference to superhero's actually existing.

Pro never responds to the trailer existing in a Bugs Life despite there being no way such a structure could remain intact for centuries, let alone have a working lamp.

Pro's only response to The Good Dinosaur is extremely weak, we don't know much about the movie but we know enough to know that humans and dinosaurs livedd concurrently. If all of the Pixar movies were in the same universe we would see some indication of that.

This round is a clear Con win.


Closing statements:

The BoP is on the Instigator. If the BoP is to be shifted before the debate starts it must be clearly stated and agreed between the two parties. If my opponent did so I wouldn't have taken the debate, but that aside, what exactly did my opponent think they were defending? If I was on the attack, what was I attacking? The question was "Is the Pixar theory true?". The truth is that my opponent was on the attack and I was trying to defend.

My opponent, who attacked the Pixar theory, tried to poke holes in various parts of the theory to make it all fall apart. The point of the Pixar theory, the core of it, is that all the Pixar creations are connected together in a Pixar Universe. This is like talking about the theory of gravity. We know it exists but we just don't have all the facts to put the whole puzzle together. Science keeps working on it and little changes are made over time.

I have shown various parts of the puzzle for the Pixar Universe. I have shown that the Pixar creations are connected, be it intentional or unintentional. Does the theory of Pixar exist? Yes. Is it perfect? No.

My opponent should also make use of the "spell checking button", which is free of charge to use.

In closing I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, I really enjoyed taking part in it.

Please vote for Pro (Contender)

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 6 years ago
whup lol sorry fer the vote bomb :(
Posted by thett3 7 years ago
Digital, I certainly don't think you should leave over the debate.

You're correct that I wasn't clear on the BOP issue, and I should have been more clear. I just figured it was obvious as it's difficult to prove a negative and I gave the first round to you to construct your argument. In real life debate, the BOP is on the affirmative. All of things are consistent for you holding the burden of proof, but honestly I don't think the BOP was the major issue in this debate.

As for the voter that voted me up for sources, I should actually report that vote. There wasn't a justification for the points awarded. No one gave me points for S/G, and I think it should've been left a tie. The voting system on here is really stupid in that points like sources and spelling/grammar are inherently subjective as to when they should be rewarded, but the consensus is usually that a handful of spelling errors does not warrant the point.

I see you've already deactivated your account but I hope you come back.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 7 years ago
I am forfeiting the debate as I will be deactivating my account.

You were not clear on who held the BoP in your opening statement and waited until the second round to announce this requirement.

You gave no sources in the debate for your side and you had grammar/spelling errors, yet the only two voters on this debate gave you points for those sections.
Posted by bluesteel 7 years ago
You can't prove a negative. And you can't presume background knowledge.

It's implicit in the way logical statements work and for practical reasons that BOP is on Pro in this case.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 7 years ago
The definition of the Pixar theory is "All Pixar movies are connected together in one Universe".

Did Con show that they are not connected together in one Universe? No
Did Con provide any resources as evidence for their view? No resources provided.
Did Con use proper spelling and grammar? No.

Did Pro show that the movies are connected together in one Universe? Yes.
Did Pro provide any resources as evidence for their views? Yes, several resources.
Did Pro use proper spelling and grammar. Yes.

Con attacked individual parts of the theory which has no bearing on the actual theory. They would have to disprove ALL parts of the theory to be correct, which they didn't.

Con is trying to win this argument by shifting the burden on me after the argument started. Notice that? Did you see their opening line AFTER the debate started?

"a) The burden is on Pro to prove that the Pixar theory is correct"

Why didn't they state this in the first round? They didn't. They waited for the debate to start then they immediately shifted the burden.

What did they stay in the opening argument?

"Pixar has basically disconfirmed that the theory is true, but for the fun of the debate I'm not going to make that argument. We're going to look at the Pixar theory without that knowledge. My opponent is to make his argument for why the Pixar theory is true in the first round."

They say, "My opponent is to make his argument for why the Pixar theory is true..."

My argument was that the Pixar theory was true. I defended my argument.
Con was not "defending" their argument, thThey were ATTACKING.

This does not change the BoP. The BoP is on the person who MAKES THE CLAIM. I made no claim.
Posted by bluesteel 7 years ago
Pro argues that for the purposes of sentience of bugs and cars, those universes are self-contained movies. But for some reason, for the purposes of the Grand Theory, those universes are not self-contained. I don't understand why we don't see animals or appliances talking in any other movies. Pro could maybe respond that animals can only talk to themselves but not humans (see, e.g. Ratatouille), but I don't see how that answers the issue for "cars." Appliances are not shown as animate objects in any other movie.

I also just found Con's arguments as to Superheroes more persuasive. I don't see why anyone would think Buzz Lightyear is the coolest action figure when there are/were real life superheroes around from The Incredibles.

I vote Con because Pro fails to support his BOP by giving a basic proof of the theory. Pro instead starts the debate at the rebuttal stage, instead of making his case. Pro fails to answer the logical soundness of the theory with the trailer issue. Pro himself introduces evidence that people at Pixar plan all the movies as being in different universes, which makes the burden on him *very* high to prove that random Easter Eggs happen to prove that all the universes are connected. Con successfully argues that I should adopt Occum's Razor as a weighing mechanism -- prefer the simplest explanation because it is probably the best. I believe a Scully easter egg statute in Brave is more plausible than that Scully went back and time and scared people in non-modern times, even though that is never suggested even remotely in Monsters Inc.
Posted by bluesteel 7 years ago

Not a very hard decision. Pro has the BOP by the mere fact that many of your judges are not going to know what the "Pixar Theory" even is. It is silly to expect all of your judges to have prior knowledge of theory. In fact, judges of a debate should ideally be tabula rasa -- have no outside knowledge about the topic beforehand. I know very little about the Pixar theory, and Pro is going to automatically lose if he does not explain to me what the Theory even argues. Pro's first round was entirely wasted with just definitions.

In addition, both debaters are arguing past each other. Con defines the theory being "correct" as requiring that Pixar actually believing that all their stories take place in the same Universe. Pro defines the theory being "correct" as the theory being "logically sound." I'm not sure which version of "correct" to adopt, but at the very least, if Pixar did not intend to make all their stories in the same universe, this is very strong circumstantial evidence that the universes are not the same. Pro concedes from the get-go that Pixar did not intentionally set all its movies in the same universe. Also, while the Good Dinosaur isn't admissible as a "Pixar movie" under Con's definition, it is further proof that Pixar does not have any intention of making all their movies in the same universe. It would be hard to vote Pro knowing the theory is about to be *definitively* destroyed by a clearly alternate universe where dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side.

Regardless, even if the resolution were about "logical soundness," Pro drops the inconsistency with the trailer not seeming to age. Also, I don't like Pro's answer to the argument that toys and bugs are sentient in some movies and not others.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 7 years ago
How can I not get a point on freaking spelling? And sources? Really?
Posted by digitalbeachbum 7 years ago
This was a fun debate. I thought it went well for each of us, but I would highly recommend that if you are going to change the BoP, in the future, be more specific.

I've looked at debates here and on the forums and by default the Instigator is always BoP. If you want to change it you must be very specific and give a logical reason on why you are changing it.

I see a slight indication that you wanted to change it in your last sentence, but it was very vague.

Next time try this:

The BoP is on Pro/Contender. I am changing this because....

It would help because I would have never taken the debate if I had the BoP. Trying to "attack" the negative of this topic is just too difficult and time consuming.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 7 years ago
I have never done a formal debate before; usually I do "beer debates" about worthless knowledge I have crammed in my brain. So I apologize in advance for any lack of formalities.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 7 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: ERRGHHGH No idea

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.