South park V.S. The simpsons

"The former was a joke. I apologize for the confusion. " I am quite aware of this, good sir, and was only using this to prove a point. "But does that not make it that much more obvious and painful when the joke does fall flat? " But the jokes are not meant to be interpretted as falling flat, instead it rather increases their quality because it adds to the humor on the idiocy of the mistake the individual made. For example in south park if someone said something completely dumb, they let the joke hang there and have everyone stare at the individual in dis-belief that someone could make such an idiotic comment. Where as in the simpsons if someone said something dumb, they would jump on it and call the person dumb, not leaving the audience to catch on to it as much, therefor not as funny. It's kind of like a comdian laughing at his own joke. "Looking at the other side, that also makes South Park much more of a hit or miss. " Not nessecarily, because everytime its more than fairl obvious what the director intended the audience to figure out, Another brilliant aspect about south park. They can create a great point, make it easy for the viewers to figure out and then expand on it. "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. " This is why south park specifically designs a different theme for each episode in order to ensure the piece is funny. They use different characters and the characters and plots are ever changing. "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. " It is quite apparent that this show is meant to be funny, and I never denied that. The fact that this show can be funny and intelligent at the same time, is what makes it sucha brilliant show. As far as showing the show to first graders, I am afraid, the point of what I was getting at has been entirely mis-interpreted. The point of adding a moral to each story is basically to justify the jokes made on american social everyday ways. South Park tries to get the audience to be real and take a deeper look at some of the strange things we do everyday, and make fun of it, while providing a moral at the end to help us look at how to change some of the things we do. At the same time the goal of this show is to obviously provide entertainment, which is what makes the show funnier, when we can see how through crude and vulgar comments and characters, we can still offer good view points on reality, where as with shows like the simpsons, there is genreally no purpose or point other than to be funny. "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. " The point here was to prove that simpsons are the same and easily get old. Monty python is a whole other story. They are new and different with each sketch, and while they have no purpose, they can easily expand there breach on skits than one abnormal family for 20+ years. "Why change what's been working for 20+ years? " I think it's safe to say that based off my evidence provided in round one, that we are in a new ever changing era, and the simpsons have generally stayed the same. Young people are no longer as drawn to the simpsons lax outakes, and drawn to the more modern era. While alot of adults growing up with the simpsons may still like it, the simpsons is ever losing fans by the day. "As I said, why should they change what works? The same idea goes for the Simpsons. " The difference being that monty python simply ran out of good ideas, where as south park has ever changing idealistics, and has a better variety in their hands to experiment with, such as the producers have opened it up to the possibility from the beginning. The unfortunately does not apply to the simpsons however. The simpsons started out with a theme that isn't really interchangeable, thus leading it to be repetitive. "but still, if I do, someone else does. So, even if it is an old style, that doesn't necessarily make it bad. " I totally understand this. Which is why in my opening arguement I admitted to being a huge fan of both shows. Not once did I say that the simpsons is a bad show. However when comparing it to south park, one must look at the option that Television is ever changing and we are in a modern era. And while some maybe fans of the older ways of the simpsons, younger people are no longer as interested, thus leading into a new television revolutionary idea. "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. " The age of people who watch it is really irrelevant to the argument ( as you said yourself) that one show is better than the other. While kids under the age of fourteen may be watching this show, it doesn't change the fact that they like it. Which is essentially what we are debating. "Perhaps, but I don't see how that affects the quality of the show itself, which is what we are debating. " Exactly my good friend, which proves my point. Let's keep in ming you brung up this argument. "While that is true, I don't feel that it is nearly as offensive as South Park. " Which as you said is irrelevant. However my argument was in response your saying the simpsons was a more family friendly show, in which I replied that simpsons is not so family friendly for a family friendly networking show. Mute point. "Refer to the Wiki article I posted in the last argument. " Highlight WIki. "Like what I said about Monty Python, if they change it, it runs the risk of being really bad. " Apparently not, seeing as south park uses this tactic and has great success, and more views currently than the simpsons. "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. " However the point of the argument is that South park uses its humor through its intelligence and makes applications to the real world and life in general. This makes it funny because it gives people the chance to laugh at themselves and the things we as a society do every day. While simpsons focus more and being completely fictional and more or less fake. I would once again like to thank my opponent for his timely manner in responding and the effectiveness of his great arguements, and hope to debate again in the future. I would also like to conclude by saying both shows are amazing, and that any of you who watch neither, are really missing out. I hope you all enjoyed this debate as much as I did. Thankyou. -Philosophical.