Scooby Doo Encourages Drug Addiction

Many of the claims my opponent has made are somewhat off-topic, but I will respond to some of them regardless. My opponent's claims [and/or other chunks of text] will be marked "CLAIM:" and my responses will be marked "RESPONSE:", sound simple enough? ===== CLAIM: [Scooby Doo] insults [viewers'] intelligence. RESPONSE: No more than any show made for children. Of course a show targeted at a young audience will not expect viewers to have the massive intellect my opponent possesses. It is simply geared toward its audience. I, for one, was apparently not smart enough as a child to feel intellectually insulted by the show. Indeed, I am still not insulted at age 20; perhaps I am simply an intellectual underling... or perhaps I simply expect a children's show to be a children's show. ===== CLAIM: The conclusions given to the mysteries were always flamboyantly fallacious. RESPONSE: I'll go ahead and use evidence to counter this. http://www.mentalfloss.com... That is a site comparing the conclusions of the mysteries in Scooby Doo to real life news articles. There are 10 stories in all, some from Scooby Doo, some that are true. Example Scooby conclusion: A man was apprehended for pretending to be a 150-year-old miner, scaring people out of a town in the American West. He wanted to drive down property values to buy the entire town as a place to store his oil, which he had been storing in the mine. Example True Story: An unusual disguise allowed a man to successfully rob a bank. He duct-taped branches to himself and, disguised as a walking tree, left the bank with an undisclosed amount of cash. Example Scooby conclusion: After being named one of five heirs in a millionaire's will, a man attempted to eliminate the other heirs to take the fortune himself. He was foiled, but it didn't matter because the fortune ended up being in worthless confederate money. Example True Story: Spite motivated a woman to pretend to be a ghost to haunt the occupant and manager of an ancient castle in Europe. The "ghost," who worked as an employee at the castle's cultural center, was apprehended for causing mysterious sounds and damaging the property. Scooby does not seem to be any more unrealistic than these incidents of real news. There's nothing 'flamboyantly fallacious' about either of the Scooby examples given. Sure, maybe they're not everyday occurrences, but that holds true for pretty much every TV show. ===== CLAIM: The dialogues, in an attempt to be both witty and profound, were laughable in their stupidity. RESPONSE: No more so than other children's TV shows. And I'm also not sure where my opponent came to the conclusion that Scooby Doo was supposed to have profound dialogue. ===== CLAIM: A talking dog, with the vocabulary of a Pokï¿½mon, always ended up saving the day for completely unknown and erroneous reasons. RESPONSE: Actually, Scooby usually did very little to save the day. His role was only incidental; the rest of the gang were the real detectives - Scooby and Shaggy were merely comedic relief. ===== CLAIM: Not only do I realize the idiocy of the show, I now know the true intent of its creators: To get kids addicted to marijuana! RESPONSE: Actually, it seems much more likely that the creators' intent was to make money off of a TV show. Unless the creators also happened to be key players in the marijuana market, they would have little incentive to get kids hooked on it. ===== CLAIM: Scooby, as he gobbles and pleads for more Scooby Snacks, teaches kids an addict's life is acceptable. Scooby-Doo even makes references to marijuana when he speaks his own name. "Scooby DOOBIE Doo", the kids viewing the show hear him howl. RESPONSE: Having parents who drink coffee often, or seeing a fictional coffee addict like Godot from the Phoenix Wright series drink it all the time - this might encourage kids to drink coffee. However, it does not encourage them to do every addictive thing in the world. No kid is really going to think "Well, Godot drinks a lot of coffee, so I think I'll go shoot myself up with some heroine and start smoking." Likewise, no child sees Scooby eating his dog treats [Scooby Snacks] and thinks about rolling and smoking a fat blunt. It just doesn't happen. It's a complete non-sequitur. ===== CLAIM: But therein lies the problem. Kids cannot be expected to treat the respective sides of a television screen as separate entities. What happens when little Jill starts believing it is okay to be a drug-smoking free-loving hippie? What happens when little Johnny not only smokes pot, but also moves on to harder drugs like heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy? RESPONSE: This would almost be a meaningful point, if Scooby Doo were a drug-smoking hippie or a hard drug user. He is not; he is a dog who eats dog treats. The show does not mention drugs at all - a kid would have to be thinking about drugs independently of the show to even make some fuzzy connection between the show and marijuana, or any other drug. ===== CLAIM: Because Scooby-Doo is a hazardous show. It teaches kids bad story-telling. It promotes hard drugs like heroine, cocaine, and ecstasy. And seriously now, who could argue those drugs aren't bad?! RESPONSE: First, as noted above, Scooby doesn't even mention hard drugs [or any drugs] let alone promote them. Second, Scooby Doo teaches kids some important things. It may seem to be filled with mythology [ghosts, etc] at first, which would surely be polluting childrens' minds, but the show always gives a reasonable, natural explanation for so-called ghosts or zombies or whatever. The show teaches kids that the world isn't some crazy, supernatural circus. Other children's shows often teach kids the opposite - that magic exists, that superpowers exist, etc. Also, the story-telling is not bad in the show. As shown earlier in this round, many Scooby episodes have plots comparable to real life. Sure, they're not mundane stories - that would indeed be bad storytelling. The stories are quite creative, and usually leave the viewer wanting to find out the explanation behind the mystery. This is why the show was so popular - it was engaging and interesting enough to be profitable for so many years. In that big mess, I've addressed all of my opponent's relevant claims, and some of his irrelevant claims. I thank him for the chance to debate him on this topic, and wish him well in his next and final round.