No Right Explanation

No Right Explanation
Who Would Win FTW

Firefilm | 20 Aug 2012 16:00
No Right Explanation - RSS 2.0

Kyle: Often, I wonder just why I tend to lose these debates. This episode really pointed out a few things that I should work on. For one, I realize now that, since our debate topics and sides are chosen for us, I mainly lose because I back the wrong horse. Not for nothing, but even someone like me or Chris (who admittedly does not abide by traditional logic when he's been challenged) has to concede a losing side. Especially when it's Marilyn Monroe in a spelling bee.

More importantly, though, I need to focus harder on the actual debate rather than my impression of the two opposing forces. For instance, I know next to nothing about Jacques Cousteau. But I know plenty about pillow fights, (don't ask) and really all I needed was information enough about ol' Jacques in relation to the debate. If only I'd known this when we were filming the "Manliest Superhero" episode.

I think using this game was a great exercise as far as getting goofier with our debate topics and thinking a little further than the obvious, important questions. Maybe we should just break down and do a "Who would win in a fight?" episode at one point. It would really capture the spirit of what we wanted the show to be, the same way this episode did. At its heart, No Right Answer is less about which one of us is correct and more about asking the important questions. Don't you all think the world is a better place now that we're wondering if Buffy Summers would beat up Mark Twain?

Anyway, one thing is the scoring on this. Dan gets a lot of crap for some of his scoring mistakes, but remember that most of the decision-making is happening on the fly and without script or record. We don't even write down points or anything. Dan has to piece together when he made point decisions later during editing, with a crying baby in the house.

And really, the points are a lot like Who's Line is it Anyway? Kind of arbitrary. And we are the arbiters of such, so we're allowed to fudge the details a bit.

Comments on