Dang, got me monologuing right back. You clever son of a bitch. ;)
Yes I am.
I would like to of course apologize if my tone came across as patronizing or otherwise condescending, in hindsight I realize I could have and should have been friendly in my effort to provide constructive criticism.
Responding to your ambiguity as to whether or not we use scripts, we are firm admitters that there are no scripts, or any preparation beforehand of any kind. We only have the tools of a familiarity with the source material to back up our efforts to win the day, and everything is pure improvisation. We have never used scripts, nor have we done any research on the topics we are going to debate. Most times we check the site and Facebook for fan suggestions, pick the ones we know anything about, and press record right there and then.
Alright, that's fair; however let me alter my argument than in this context. I have seen plenty of off the cuff non-researched fan familiarity that manages to be very engaging. Usually in the form of essay length posts on whether Tohno Shiki can beat Servants (Tsukihime vs Fate Stay Night) and yet your arguments are no where near as detailed/substantiated.
What I am trying to say is, even without researching the topic and relying 100% on what you've watched on tv/computer, my expectations as a viewer is that the material should be more engaging than it is.
You want us to do research and use actual points that would win a debate no matter who was debating, thus lending credulity to the winner or at least the perceived winner WHILE making sure the comedy is tighter. While I'm sure that would be a great show, it isn't ours.
I should probably reverse the order but conceded that research is entirely unnecessary for your show beyond whatever time you can spare to be reacquainted with old material; but I my contention is only 50% lack of engagement, I also find it hard to find the show funny.
I'm very glad that Dan got here first because he's always been a more tempered individual. It gave me a bit of perspective as, and this shouldn't be a surprise since I've mentioned it before, I do sincerely get it. I watch a good handful of shows around the Internet and started watching things on The Escapist years back. I see the investment that you have as the viewer, which is important for us to respect, so I will do my best to do that.
Sorry if I upset you in anyway, I am adjusting my tone and response to reflect this.
Basically, as Dan pointed out, we could research and script out our episodes, but that's not us, and part of that is because we simply do not have the time in a week to do it. We listen to how fans react and we try our best to deliver something that entertains the many and only bothers the few. Some weeks we do a better job of that than others. But we did do a lot of planning and forethought on the name. No Right Answer. We thought it would explain itself pretty well. We never claimed to be experts on anything and sometimes just find the challenge in taking an unpopular choice that technically works, such as Zoidberg against The Doctor. Apples vs Oranges is what we do best, but we do try and keep them linked somehow. Apples and Oranges are both at least fruits and can be debated for Best Fruits Ever. In fact, we had some fans and good friends do just that, when we asked them to, because we didn't want to be the only ones talking.
Alright, again that's fair, it's not the kind of show your doing; adjusting my perspective to fit this, I believe it to be a false dichotomy that the show can only either be funny or "engaging" (as I've defined it). I think you can still be funny, and can also be more engaging and that one should not detract from the other.
I think silly arguments, by virtue of their sillyness are not very engaging on their own and if I cannot find them interesting I am unlikely to find them funny. Without research it should be possible to have more engaging points.
1) For example suppose you had an episode comparing The Fourth Doctor with The Eleventh, here's where you can have your cake and eat it because both men are silly and do silly things; but you can also have engaging points like how Four is better because he was more philosophical and more grounded into human morality which made him the better Doctor to handle Davros; because he would at least try the peaceful means first and for as long as possible while Eleven isn't a second chances kind of guy and wouldn't risk his companions over trying to reform a villain.
So you get for example a substantiated point, assuming you know the characters and you can work their silliness into the debate. Like Four has that awesome scarf, that's a point right there; but then again Bowties are cool and he wears a fez (11) so that could go either way.
So, thinking on it, I think having silliness wouldn't be so unfunny for me if it worked to complement more substantiated points. Since good characters are three dimension and should give plenty of fodder.
2) Apples and Oranges; I'm not saying you can't have comparisons between two things only tangentially related to each other, but there needs to be some point of contact beyond "Is a fictional character we find funny." Comparing Zoidberg to The Doctor (which one even at that? Can't tell if its Nine, Ten or Eleven) is very non sequitor-ish, simply being out of left field isn't automatically funny or humourous, it's just confusing. I kept thinking "Why?"
Digimon and Pokemon worked well, both were "Mons" shows; so in a way they were a little too easy to compare; in a way it gives you less to work with, but comparing say Tai's Dragon/Dinodude dude to say Meowth? A little more tengential, I can see that working.
I can see and agree with there is some inherent engagement and humor to compare characters or shows only superficially related in a deceptive way; power level arguments of say Fate Stay Night with Tsukihime, sure both are in the same universe, but they're entirely different stories and powersets, it's easier to make jokes about it because for every point of contact there's points of divergence.
So a "divergence" or unrelation between two subjects isn't bad per se, I just found the current example so far apart from each other that the confusion of it outweighed its humor value; this is amplified in that you seem to be comparing only superficial traits of the characters in question, which would be find if joined with more substantial points of comparison and conflict but just 'silliness' alone didn't cut it for me.
Sorry for all the , I appreciate the two of you responding to me with such restraint in circumstances in which I could have approached the subject with more humility; I hope this time I did better.
I also apologizing for not responding to every paragraph, but I understand how and why real life often acts as a constraint on various projects limited sadly, what you can do.