No Right Explanation

No Right Explanation
UR Right Answer Contest

Firefilm | 30 Apr 2012 16:00
No Right Explanation - RSS 2.0

Kyle: As far as the "Omnibus 2" went: The rapid fire aspect of the episode was fun for me because it was a little more accurate to how Chris and I actually discuss this stuff. What's more, we agree a lot more than the show usually lets on.

I'll be honest with everyone. It's easier for me to lose when I don't get ten minutes of arguing under my belt. It's a selfish sentiment, but screw it. I'm not here to be congenial, I'm here to bark nonsense at my friend. And when I lose, I do feel a bit dumb. It takes a real D student to lose an argument about comic books.

So when we get quick topic changes, it's a blank slate for me and I can shrug off getting a verbal beat-down. Just more fun that way for everybody, right? Plus, Dan gets saved the awkward position of choosing between me over-thinking things and missing obvious stuff, and Chris launching into a towering harangue.

Here's the thing about the UR Right Answer contest: It's not a facetious challenge to you good folks, and it's not us being lazy.

Well ... it's not just those things. The purpose is to maintain an interactive show. While I can't stress enough that our debates are for entertainment purposes, not entirely to be taken as serious rhetorical discourse, I'll admit that I'm curious to see someone else's approach to broadcasting the inconsequential quandaries.

I wish everybody luck in submitting. If I could be so bold as to suggest some stuff: go ahead and stray from the rules. If it's funny, we don't care if you scrap the drinking portion or the point systems. Please be yourselves, because you people rock our socks off, by virtue of the fact that you're here ... and only one of you has called me fat so far.


Dan: Oh boy am I excited to see what you guys come up with. Evidently the Escapist staff is bustling with anticipation as well, which is nice to know. As an Emmy-award winning videographer (Oh, did I just name drop myself?), I want you all to know that technical errors can easily be overlooked if the content is quality.

I can't tell you how many film festivals I have gone to where the lighting was bad, the audio was poor, the camera was clearly not top notch ... and yet I had to buy a ticket to see it. If you put in the time on the front end and really do something that people want to watch, everything else can be forgiven. I know a lot of you want to enter but may not have a full production studio at your beck and call. This is not a problem. I promise that no one's submission will be discriminated based on how expensive your production value looks, as long as you try your best.

Chris and Kyle have both mentioned that you don't have to create your own intro, and this is true. As the editor, I will add that stuff in afterwards to the winning video if requested. As for the drinking section, if you would like to do that, great. Personally, if you think you have a better idea for a final argument section, try that out. Maybe your idea will be so good that we pick it up.

Competition breeds innovation as someone I'm too lazy to Google once said. And dang it, we're having a competition. I want to see good debating, I want to see obscure arguments supporting thought provoking combatants, and above all else I want to see fun. If your debate is fun to watch ... well then you've cracked the code my friends.

Happy hunting, and don't forget to keep sending in suggestions for us to debate. We are going to have to do another omnibus one of these days and we need to fill our basket again. Maybe we'll call it "Omnibus 3: Turtles in Time".

Comments on