From and Entertainment Perspective, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a Good Animated Show

Outside the popular demographic, yes. But so what?The main reason why you can't vote in favor of my opponent is simply that his case just doesn't have enough solidity to go against the criteria presented. The backbone of Con's argument lies solely on the baseless notion that because the show doesn't appeal to adults, it can't be good. The entire past round, he argued about how the show isn't good because it doesn't have things adults like, like... violence. This statement could be true or false, but that's not any part of the resolution. There's no reason to acknowledge my opponent's arguments here because they do absolutely nothing to prove that My Little Pony is not a good show.However, my opponent does say this... "My little pony: friendship is magic is a good animated show"And he resolution is this: "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a Good Animated Show." That's a concession. Plain and simple. But disregarding the fact that my opponent agrees with the resolution, here's why what he argues is not enough to refute my own contentions.Most shows have a story, obviously, but My Little Pony's storyline exceeds that of many.My opponent makes sort of a strange argument to attack the storyline of the show. But first we need to look at my opponent's questionable criteria for a good storyline:1. No story is any good without violence (a bit of a non-sequitur if you ask me),2. My Little Pony's storyline has little violence,3. My Little Pony has a bad story.Then my opponent is either arguing one of two things: that My Little Pony doesn't have a beginning, a middle, and an end (false)...Beginning: Twilight is sent on a quest to further her studies,Middle: Nightmare Moon returns, End: The Elements of Harmony are discovered (S1E1). ...or that My Little Pony's story isn't adult-like enough to be any good. The major contradiction here is that my opponent contrasts My Little Pony with Adventure Time and Phineas and Ferb for having more grown-up stories, when these are also two shows that were also originally intended for kids that developed a strong fanbase for adults. Once again, this supports my resolution, and not his.If I were arguing that the show is good for any demographic (which the words "entertainment perspective" would suggest that I am), then my opponent's entire argument here wouldn't mean a thing. The concept is not always new, but the content used to express it is effectively original.Con can only really find one foothold to argue against originality, and it's a loose one. He argues that the concept of the show is not original. This is wrong, but even if it was right, it wouldn't do enough to brand the show as "unoriginal."After citing a good load of evidence that supports a claim irrelevant to the debate (him desperately trying to continue the "bad story" argument), he finally gets around to calling the concept something we've seen before. However, despite the evidence he shares beforehand to his other claims, his belief that the concept is nothing new is one-hundred percent subjective. True, the "girl making friends" scenario has been done, but six characters that equally represent a necessary attribute to maintaining peace is original. Characters overcoming internal flaws that contribute to fighting the external conflict is original, especially in a kids' show.Then he called Faust's concept a good story. Since a predominant proportion of the show was produced by Faust, that, like the rest of my opponent's case, ...agrees with me. My opponent also agrees that the characters are identifiable."It is identifiable... Disabled people could easily identify themselves with [Scootaloo]."~Con. Again, my opponent only argues this on one weak foothold: comparing Scootaloo to President Roosevelt and a patient with a broken back.Once again, this still isn't relevant to my contention. This was where I made an argument about storyline, and ironically, this is the one place my opponent failed to bring it up.Nonetheless, argument from analogy is always one of the worst arguments one can present. The reason for this is that the analogies are almost never fully accurate. Scootaloo is not disabled, she just can't fly yet. Her character is the equivalent of a child who can't swim, not a paraplegic. The idea of is that all of these characters have goals the want to accomplish, and we can relate to a large sort of them well, whether it's motivating or not, and my opponent failed to address this.Experts say cartoons are better when for children... but I don't know, my opponent disagrees.This is where con says that My Little Pony can't have any possibility of being good because it's for children. This argument has two enormous contradictions:Minor enormous contradiction: My opponent considers Phineas and Ferb a good show.Huge, major enormous contradiction: Choi Jong-Il recommends that cartoons are made for children in order to improve their quality. This is something I already presented. My opponent is attempting to refute a renowned animator's insight with his own opinions. Regard should not be given to my opponent at all because he's straight-up saying that a world-famous cartoonist is wrong about animation.Infinite Monkey Theorem is flawed.My opponent's theory that things are funny in entertainment because once in a while the writers get lucky is beyond irrational. Grown Ups was not a funny movie. It was written by monkeys with typewriters, and nothing was funny. To be funny, writers have to have deliberate talent in writing a script-- it's not an accident.And the humor in My Little Pony is consistent. It happens every episode in an original, punchy way that critics that I've cited beforehand appreciate dearly.The monkey theorem is completely untrue. Some writers have talent; some don't, and the writers of My Little Pony are some of the most talented in the industry, especially in the children's department.tl;drThere is no justifiable reason to vote for Con in this situation. A large majority of his argument is based on a premise that children's television can't be good. The premise in unstable and-- in lamence terms-- wrong. He is using no more than his own personal insight and cruel misinterpretations of sources to make his statements, and even if is arguments were stable, they don't refute the central point.As far as the central point goes, he verbally agreed to a number of my contentions, and even the resolution itself. It seems clear that while my opponent hates the fandom, our respects for the exceptional development of the show itself are mutual. There is a clear agreement between us that My Little Pony, while being for children, is an effective source of entertainment for children, parents, and the fandom alike.