South park V.S. The simpsons

Thank you for your response! "I somehow see these two statements canceling each other out." The former was a joke. I apologize for the confusion. "When south park uses the tactic of using 'the pause' to let the jokes sink in, the audience gets to look at the picture the director is trying to paint for them." But does that not make it that much more obvious and painful when the joke does fall flat? "This meaning, rather than quickly jumping from one subject topic to another as in the simpsons, the show allows the viewers to notice more the objective and purpose of the show." Looking at the other side, that also makes South Park much more of a hit or miss. In South Park, since they more or less hold on to the same theme the whole time, if you don't find the theme funny, the whole episode will probably not be funny to you. Now, The Simpsons, while it does have a theme, as we agree, it does deviate from the theme more often, supplying more opportunity for it to be funny, even if the theme itself is not particularly funny to you. "While the shows is still a comedy and focuses alot on making vulgar and funny remarks, it's initial goal is to provide a moral explaining the goal or learned objective from each show, which is usually followed up by a speech from stan or kyle." I would like to respectfully disagree. Its initial goal is to be funny. That's why it's on Comedy Central, and not on CNN. Sure, there might be some moral objective, but that is often satirical and not necessarily important. While there might be some sort of moral, I don't think they're going to start showing episodes of South Park instead of Aesop's fables to first graders. "This however, does not happen in the simpsons, which makes some of the jokes harder to understadnd, or in alot of opinions, not funny." And later, "I too am a tremendous fan of monty python." I fail to see how these two statements can both work. How homicidal barbers have anything to do with songs about lumberjacks, I don't know, but it makes a really good sketch. There is no moral whatsoever in any Monty Python sketch. So if we agree that Monty Python is funny, then you can't make that argument against The Simpsons. "However the most prominent point I am trying to get across her is that the simpsons dont experiment with new things." Why change what's been working for 20+ years? "In this we can expect monty python to do different comical skits with a large variety of oppertunity at hand." In the Monty Python documentary, John Cleese says himself that he felt that they were doing the same skits over and over, more or less. After he left, they changed it up, their ratings went down, and they didn't survive for long. Most Python fans agree that the post-Cleese sketches were the worst sketches they ever did by far. As I said, why should they change what works? The same idea goes for the Simpsons. "In the last 20+ years the simpsons have been a great hit because of this new style. However, at that, it can now be classifed as an old style, and no longer attracts as many people to it as it once did." I don't know, maybe I'm old, but I liked it a long time ago, and I still like it. Of course, maybe I like old comedy (Old as in Blazing saddles or Monty Python, or old as in I Love Lucy or the Marx brothers, I don't discriminate), but still, if I do, someone else does. So, even if it is an old style, that doesn't necessarily make it bad. "The simpsons, a family friendly network. South park, a network designed to provide comedy for individuals over the age of 14." I see where you're coming from, but we are talking about which, in general, is a better show. I think that, even though The Simpsons has been interpreted by some as inappropriate, I'm sure we can agree that South Park is far less appropriate. While it is on a special channel designed for people over 14, I really don't see that keeping people under 14 from watching "Now as these are both great T.V. shows, I think most would agree that they should be placed on a channel more appropriate for their width, (aka comedy central)." Perhaps, but I don't see how that affects the quality of the show itself, which is what we are debating. "This however is highly untrue. People have looked at homers carelessness as a father and barts example to kids as a negative for over a decade." While that is true, I don't feel that it is nearly as offensive as South Park. "I find this statement faulty." Refer to the Wiki article I posted in the last argument. "This being said, they have never been ever changing or spontaneous to spice up the show, which generally leads it to be not as comical." Like what I said about Monty Python, if they change it, it runs the risk of being really bad. "This giving them potent reasoning as to things that humans do when, angry, happy, sad, etc. They do this through comical showcasing to better get the imagery across." I feel like you really like your argument that South Park was meant to have morals and lessons and flowers and unicorns. I think that you're so set on that idea that you're forgetting that its first, last, and only concern is to be funny. There's nothing wrong with that, as it is a comedy show, but the idea that it's supposed to be a show promoting morals and lessons and such is certainly a stretch. Just watch one episode and you will see that it is supposed to be funny, and just that. I am looking forward to seeing your conclusion!