Aladdin is a Superior Movie over The Lion King

First I will give an overview of why I have won this debate, and then I will briefly address some of Pro’s R4 arguments. Why I have won: In this debate, both sides have made a lot of arguments about diverse aspects of the Aladdin and The Lion King. What the judges need is some way to compare all these arguments and determine which are the most important. For this we can look to the Framework I provided in R1- we should decide which movie is superior based on which movie better achieved its artistic goals. The standard of evaluating the Resolution was never disputed by Pro. The bulk of Pro’s arguments can be dismissed as un-compelling under this Framework- Pro mostly just points out differences between the two movies and arbitrarily claims that whatever Aladdin did differently is better. For example, Pro claims Aladdin has more action scenes and so is better. Since neither the Lion King nor Aladdin has the artistic goal of being action-packed, number of action scenes is a bad metric to evaluate the Resolution. My arguments have largely centered on how well each film fulfills its artistic goals. I talk about how Jasmine’s actions undermine the type of role model she is meant to be, how the plot fails to bear out the stated moral that lying is bad, and how the Genie throws the movie off balance. My arguments evaluate Aladdin by the artistic standard it sets for itself; I am not applying an arbitrary metric like “The Lion King is sadder and therefore better. ” The upshot of this is that if I won all my main arguments AND Pro won all his main arguments, I would win this debate because my main arguments better speak to the Resolution. It may well be true that Jafaar is a better villain (it isn’t) but the Lion King isn’t trying to win a “Best villain” competition. At the same, it is a major fault if Aladdin fails to show that lying is wrong, since Aladdin IS trying to be a story about the importance of honesty. Line-by-line Rebuttal: -Genie digresses into weird pop-culture impressions and has spawned fan theories that Aladdin is post-apocalyptic – that’s the definition of overshadowing the rest of the movie. -Pro just proves my point that Jafaar is a flat character that does whatever he wants because he’s magic; most of his success comes from his ability to hypnotize people. -Pro’s claims that Scar could move are totally irrelevant; the degradation of the Pride lands was an intentional artistic choice to illustrate why bad people make bad rulers. -Pro never answered my point that Scar manipulates complex social dynamics to get what he wants. Scar abuses the fatherly love of Mufasa to orchestrate his murder and uses Simba’s trust to trick him into running away. This villainous behavior is infinitely more interesting than using a snake staff to hypnotize people; it adds moral texture to the Lion King, a key part of the artistic goal of creating an emotionally compelling story. -Action scenes are totally irrelevant to this debate. Both movies have more than enough action to serve the purposes of the film; this is a moot point. Pro also drops that Mufasa’s death is an iconic scene; this pivotal action scene has embedded itself in the psyche of pop-culture. Aladdin is best known for Genie’s show-stealing and the magic carpet scene. Of the two movies, the Lion King is more defined by its action scenes. -Pro totally ignores my analysis of Simba’s moral evolution- Pro himself described how Simba went from being arrogant to afraid to heroic. Throughout the movie we see Simba literally and ethically growing up. He transforms from a child that is brash but also frightened and helpless into an adolescent struggling to reconcile “Hakuna Matata” with the moral truths his father taught him and finally into a mature adult willing to accept responsibility for his life. This is the character develop that Pro is comparing to Aladdin ALMOST telling the truth. -Obviously Simba changes moods with the situation, that’s how mood works. -All Pro can say is Aladdin ALMOST tells the truth. The bottom line is Aladdin was a liar the whole movie, was forcefully exposed, and suffered ZERO consequences for his lies. Jasmine doesn’t even bat an eye at Aladdin’s chronic dishonesty. -Pro ignores my point that saving Jasmine doesn’t erase Aladdin’s chronic lying; Jasmine should have at least been a little mad or said “I forgive you but seriously knock it off with the lies. ” Jasmine’s actual response to Aladdin’s lies is to say “I know why you did. ” Her response is literally to just brush it off like it totally made sense for Aladdin to repeatedly trick her and manipulate her father. -If you watch the scene it is clear that Jasmine is still skeptical when Aladdin says she can make her own choices but is finally won over when she sees he can fly. Again, bottom line is it’s the magic toys that seal the deal NOT the force of Aladdin’s character. -Pro concedes “The Lion King’s beginning is simply too darn a masterpiece…if the rest of arguments tied, then you win the debate. ” Pro himself says if voters are on the fence they should vote Con. - Timon and Pumbaa saved Simba’s life and ultimately facilitated his return as King to Pride rock; how is that ruining a life? I also briefly mentioned that Timon and Pumba serve an important role to the artistic vision of the Lion King. They represent a philosophy of “no worries” that Simba must learn to reject. They also engage in conversation that shows Simba struggling to come to terms with his past. Timon and Pumbaa engage with the plot of the Lion King while Genie is a stand-alone comedy side show. -Pro’s plot holes are flimsy. It is ambiguous whether Mufasa actually spoke from the dead or if the scene is visual allegory for Simba’s personal realization. Also, Rafiki was clearly instrumental to the appearance of Mufasa- that’s why Mufasa couldn’t show up whenever. Also, a crowd of Lion forgetting conflicting info in the heat of the moment isn’t a plot hole; plus they could have thought Scar was simply mistaken when he said Simba died. ALSO if we want to bring up plot holes in the final round: WHY DIDN’T GENIE SIMPLY PROMISE TO MAKE ALADDIN A PRINCE AFTER HE WAS SET FREE. Genie could have promised Aladdin infinite wishes once he was free! Or Aladdin could have wished himself a prince, then give the lamp to Jasmine to set Genie free. The number of plot holes in a move with an all-powerful genie is always going to be far greater than one about talking lions. I only bring this up in response to Pro’s new argument in the final round and because Pro said doing so was allowed.