Pixar movies have gone down in quality

Thanks dodo. Before starting, I'd like to mention the fact that our debate topic is rather, subjective. It'll be quite difficult presenting adequate evidence that'll be applicable in the scenario, so I'll cope by applying anything that would a) Make sense/seems logical. b) Negate your claim. Without further ado, I'll begin by pointing out a few flaws in your argument and provide rebuttals. 1. Pro mentions earlier that Pixar films, and I quote "no longer have the same emotion and originality of their previous pictures". It's an assertion in which no proof can be provided because, how does one simply measure a decrease in emotion and originality? It's all in the eyes of the viewers. Viewer 1 may think a certain movie is superb and shows true depth and grace; Viewer 2 may think that same movie is overly sentimental and incompetent. It's your perception that truly dictates the greatness of a film. If you see life through the eyes of a skeptic, of course Pixar films can appear to be lacking. If you see life through the eyes of a credulous 10 year old however, a Pixar film can be just as noteworthy as The Breakfast Club. To further support my claim, I will use myself as an example. I consider myself relatively skeptical when judging other people's work. After watching Toy Story 3, a Pixar film in which Pro claims to have been SUCCESSFUL in terms of emotion and creativity, I felt utter remorse for even attempting to watch the film. It was distasteful to me; the overall concept was overused and the line, (that caused the masses to break down in tears and agony) "So long, partner," irritated me for two weeks at most, because it was so cheesy. Now Pixar's recent film (which Pro claims to have deteriorated in quality) Brave, I liked a little better. I adored the fact that the protagonist walked past society's harsh norms, and did whatever she felt necessary by applying her definition of morality while doing so. The point is, there is no proof that says Pixar has lost its touch, because you(Pro) may have interpreted the entire theme differently than what was intended. 2. Furthermore, Pro continues by explaining how she/he feels that Pixar no longer applies effort to the works and is supposedly "beginning to give up". I say that's nonsense. If Pixar was indeed giving up, the corporation would not spend much time and money required for a successful film. Their most recent films (Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University) actually demanded a more than sufficient amount of money. An estimated 200 million budget was used for the making of Monsters University, surpassing multiple previous works in terms of any "effort" or "sacrifice" involved in the making of the films. Additionally, Pixar's highly anticipated new films Finding Dory, Cars 3, and Toy Story 4, Incredibles 2 are currently underway and scheduled for release in 2015-2017. Pro can argue by saying Pixar has given up, but clearly there is much more planned in the near future that can be used to determine whether the corporation has truly given up or not. 3. Pro states that a future trend will be noticeable for the deterioration of Pixar films. I disagree, because there's not much evidence as to why this really will occur. S/he says that the most recent films (Brave, Monsters University, Cars 2) have gotten bad ratings compared to other critically acclaimed works by Pixar, from sources such as Rotten Tomatoes. These 3 films are the sole reason as to why Pro claims Pixar is losing its once great imagination.. It's ridiculous to assume an overall trend or domino effect will be a result of bad production of THREE films. Not to mention that there are other abnormalities in Pixar's great list of films as well. Not all are consistently rated high, and a few here and there fall short of a good score. Another thought provoking thing is that, these films actually have been quite popular with the audiences in comparison to other Pixar-owned films. Of course sales and quality have no DIRECT correlation to one another, for one variable applies to another aspect all together. But think about this, isn't it more reasonable that people spend money on a movie with higher quality and standard compared to one that lacks substance and originality, as Pro claims? 4. In this section, I'll be discussing some minor flaws in Pro's argument. Some are more prominent than others. Some are not worth mentioning at all. Regardless, I'll be addressing as much as possible. A.) Pro's argument in Round 1 was that "Pixar lacks ___________ especially compared to Dreamworks and Disney." Pixar and Dreamworks are both currently owned by Disney. All three companies are usually all associated with each other because of the interconnectedness. Because it's a simple mistake that can be disregarded, I will not go in depth as to elaborate on it. I'm merely mentioning it became it irks me. B.) The short clip that Pro presented titled "Inside Out US Teaser Trailer", in no way supports that Pixar is running short of ideas. Yes, the majority of the clip was comprised of their previous works, but for what purpose is what matters. The repetitiveness wasn't because of a lack of idea, but Pixar merely showed the compilation as an introduction to the premise of Inside Out. They were using the many facial expressions from Pixar characters to show the theme of Inside Out, which was involving emotions. If anything, it's quite a clever tactic actually. By showing loved characters that were once part of an individual's childhood, it causes nostalgia and lures the viewer into the rest of the video while at the same time displaying the overall concept of Inside Out. Just because Pixar used MINOR samples from other films, does NOT mean they are reiterating the same concepts. C.) "There is a scene in it where the character Sulley is lying in the snow and the viewers can see his fur moving with the wind. This is an amazing feat in animation at the time, which shows Pixar knew.." I fail to comprehend why this disproves that Pixar is still as proficient as ever. As far as I know, that shows no internal nor external conflicts, and has no emotional factor involved whatsoever. The beast is merely lying in the snow. If you're talking about display resolution, then Pixar is still top notch at animation as it was back then. The graphics are still as clear, there's still distinct pixels, and the dimensions are where they're meant to be. If there was a change at all, I'd imagine Pixar actually IMPROVED its animation due to an advance in technology. There aren't particularly any sources I can cite, for most of the information I knew based on background knowledge, and most of this round consisted of me rebutting Pro's statements. Possibly the next round will require a few sources. Your move, Pro.