No Right Answer: Best Non-Medical Doctor Ever

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

misterprickly:

Yopaz:

misterprickly:
Chris was wrong on many areas.
1) Zoidberg IS a medical doctor of alien physiology (bad luck if your a human).

No, you are wrong here. In episode 5 of season 7 in the episode called "The Duh-Vinci Code" they're talking about Da-Vinci and everyone is impressed with Zoidberg's knowledge on that so they ask him how he knows. He says that his doctorate is in art history. In all other episodes when someone asks him if he's really a doctor he's always avoiding the subject.

Remember season 6 ep 23 "tip of the Ziodberg"... That's where they say that he's the best when it comes to aliens but total crap when it comes to humans.

Yes, great episode. One of those episodes where Zoidberg actually has a positive result on a medical occurrence when it comes to humans. Same when he reattaches Farnsworth's hand and Hermes' head in Bender's Big Score. He also reattaches Fry's arm after cutting it off when they have a duel (I wont bother to check the episode name or number). There's also the episode when he works as a war doctor while Fry, Lela and Bender are fighting a war where he kills pretty much every patient that enters.

He has worked as a medical doctor in every episode there is. There's only one episode where he mentions his actual doctorate. As far as I can remember he doesn't say anything about being a medical doctor The Tip Of The Zoidberg, just that he's better with aliens. In The Duh-Vinci Code he says straight out, with pride and joy that his doctorate is in art history. Tell, me can you seriously find one episode where he says straight out that he's a medicical doctor? Cause I can mention two where he himself states otherwise.

Congrats on making it one year! Debate: Best internet meme.

SpAc3man:

geier:
And what about Gordon Freeman ?
He's a non-medical doctor

This. Dr Gordon Motherfucking Freeman is the greatest non medical doctor of all time. Dr Who time travels and screws things with sound but The Freeman battles interdimensional aliens with guns. Also the Zero Point Energy Field Manipulator is way cooler than a screwdriver.

YES! Freeman would have been a way better contender in this debate. I even know his favorite physics equation; it has to be F=ma.

Danceofmasks:
Oh come on.

Doctor Jones ... better known as Indiana.

Him too. I don't know, maybe Dr. Who fans would've gotten a bit touchy if someone else won.

Firefilm:

Mortamus:
I loved this debate. It was underdog vs hero. Although, in debate terms, I think this was one of those "Shit." moments for Chris and he bounced back pretty well by using a lovable and memorable character.

I'd like to see...

BEST MUSICAL IN A TV SHOW

such as the "Once more, With Feeling" episode of Buffy.

I kinda like that idea, but I wouldn't want to put it on our queue unless there were more than 2 options in total. So we have the Scrubs one, the Buffy one, and what others?

Oh I have the winner for that. That's an easy one for me. I'll just mention the name of the episode because if you recognize it you know what show it's from and you know it completely wins, hands down:

"The Nightman Cometh"

You can get a doctorate in anything, not just in medicine, but that seems to be the one kind of doctor everyone knows about, and automatically assumes anyone with "Dr." in their title must be a medical doctor of sorts...

Either way... Dr. Zoidberg all the way!!!! Even though there are plenty of other "doctors" who are medical doctors.

A person with a doctorate in ANYTHING science-related needs tools. That's how science works... otherwise they're just a lecturer... although the point may be moot because the Doctor has claimed that one of his doctorates is in medicine

(Ignoring the times The Doctor's saved the day with nothing but some stern words and pretending to be an idiot).

TheMann:
"The Nightman Cometh"

HE'S THE MASTER OF KARATE AND FRIENDSHIP FOR EVERYONE!
Yeah, that would win. Hands down.

OT: Ehh...not to piss anyone off but I kinda saw Dr. Who winning either way. Otherwise, we'd have the same pissed Dr. Who fans swarming this thread again.

At any rate, they could have chosen someone better than Zoidberg. I like him and all but what about Indiana Jones? Or Gordon Freeman? Or Dr. Robotnik? Those would have good arguments.

There's been many episodes where the Doctor didn't have access to his tools, and he was still awesome.

The Doctor may be smart, but Zoidberg has more heart.

50% more to be precise.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Surely the Doctor is a doctor of medicine? I know he mentions it at least in New Earth. Its just he happens to be a doctor of other things as well because he's had 900 years to learn them

In the Whoverse, the progression of the word Doctor throughout the universe is defined by The Doctor. Well, at the start by the Time Lords, but then The Doctor changes the meaning. Initially it meant healer, progressed to wise man, and in the Gamma Forests means mighty warrior.

In any case, as The Doctor holds a medical degree, he doesn't count so this weeks No Right Answer is null and void.

Doc Emmet Brown.
Let's build a plutonium powered time machine out of a steel car!

It broke down?
Let's make it a train instead!
Which he builds with 19th century tools!

The man is bloody brilliant.

Though Indiana Jones has his good moments too.

Firefilm:
The product that we turn in every week isn't the debates themselves, but rather the people making the arguments. A point made by Chris may win him the debate, but if I tried to make the same point I would loose. Chris, Kyle and myself (Dan) all put on different internet debating personalities and debate from those points of view. Chris takes on the debater that tries to counter facts with utter nonsense, yet throws truth in every so often to keep you guessing just how much is hot air and how much is savant knowledge. Kyle is the rational one, trying to use knowledge and obscure facts to win the day. I find myself somewhere inbetween them.

I have to admit, this is a big reason why I watch this show. I just enjoy these guys and how they debate things. If I cared that much about the topic and a proper debate, I'd just have my own. It's not supposed to be the "end all" to which is better, it's entertainment.

I would like to say, just for giggles, maybe have an episode "Worst Superhero Movie Ever" with Movie Bob if he would be willing to do it. No, this is not because I love hearing him talk about how much Green Lantern is awful.

In reference to the Best Musical in a TV Show:

"Once More, With Feeling" - Buffy the Vampire Slayer
"My Musical" - Scrubs
"Song Beneath the Song" - Grey's Anatomy
"That 70's Musical" - That 70's Show
"Chef Aid" - South Park
"Girls vs Suits" - How I Met Your Mother
"A Fish Called Selma" - The Simpsons

I'm sure there are more, but that would take some research.

You called him Dr. Who????? So much fail I'm commenting before watching the whole video. Don't you guys understand this is important!! ??

EDIT: I should have waited that was actually genuinely a bit disappoint guys, all jokes aside, you didn't really talk about anything Doctor-y. You got a bit caught up on silly things, instead of all the stuff he's about, the regenerating, the last of his race, the caring the crazy. The Doctor can literally be anyone to anyone. He's friendly he'll hang out and play football, or he can be tough, or determined. He'll joke around, but when things are serious there's that little core of serious in him too.

BrotherRool:
You called him Dr. Who????? So much fail I'm commenting before watching the whole video. Don't you guys understand this is important!! ??

EDIT: I should have waited that was actually genuinely a bit disappoint guys, all jokes aside, you didn't really talk about anything Doctor-y. You got a bit caught up on silly things, instead of all the stuff he's about, the regenerating, the last of his race, the caring the crazy. The Doctor can literally be anyone to anyone. He's friendly he'll hang out and play football, or he can be tough, or determined. He'll joke around, but when things are serious there's that little core of serious in him too.

Let's answer this with an answer that was already given to constructive criticism:

Firefilm:
You see, the key to job security is not endevoring to make yourself obsolete. If we go onto the Internet, research the topics at hand, and deliver our findings in a proper debate format, then it will be educational but not something that anyone else couldn't do. The product that we turn in every week isn't the debates themselves, but rather the people making the arguments. A point made by Chris may win him the debate, but if I tried to make the same point I would loose. Chris, Kyle and myself (Dan) all put on different internet debating personalities and debate from those points of view. Chris takes on the debater that tries to counter facts with utter nonsense, yet throws truth in every so often to keep you guessing just how much is hot air and how much is savant knowledge. Kyle is the rational one, trying to use knowledge and obscure facts to win the day. I find myself somewhere inbetween them.

So many other non-medical doctors that are way better than "The Doctor" and better than Zoidberg. Case and point:

Dr. Robotnik, builds armies of robots to take over the world. Also has an obsession with eggs.

Dr. Wily, builds armies of robots to take over the world... and they seem more efficient.

Dr. Henry Pym, is ant-man/yellow jacket/giant-man/goliath/wasp who solves his problems in non-aggressive ways... most of the time.

Dr. Bruce Banner, is the Hulk... do I really need to say more here?

Dr. Hugo Strange, first to figure out who Batman is and has been able to give him shit about it over the course of the many years since. (note, might actually be a professor)

Dr. Stephen Strange, is the sorcerer supreme with magic powers capable of unbelievable things... I think he was formerly a doctor, don't know if that counts.

Dr. Octopus, not really better, but still worth mentioning.

Doc (from Red Vs. Blue), who is much like Zoidberg in that he fails at medicine entirely, and isn't really even a doctor. I think he works perfectly as well.

Dr. Manhattan... does this really need an argument to be made?

Dr. Kriger (from Archer), mad scientists are awesome... especially this guy.

I think this list has more than enough other valid choices that easily outshine The Doctor and Zoidberg... despite that, Zoidberg should have at least won this one... because Zoidberg.

Mortamus:

BrotherRool:
You called him Dr. Who????? So much fail I'm commenting before watching the whole video. Don't you guys understand this is important!! ??

EDIT: I should have waited that was actually genuinely a bit disappoint guys, all jokes aside, you didn't really talk about anything Doctor-y. You got a bit caught up on silly things, instead of all the stuff he's about, the regenerating, the last of his race, the caring the crazy. The Doctor can literally be anyone to anyone. He's friendly he'll hang out and play football, or he can be tough, or determined. He'll joke around, but when things are serious there's that little core of serious in him too.

Let's answer this with an answer that was already given to constructive criticism:

In a way that's fair, but I'm not criticising them for not providing the perfect debate and the correct answer, I just feel, today and today only, they weren't even in the grounds with the topic, never mind the pitch. I'm not asking for heavy research and formality, heck I love this even though I normally don't know half the people mentioned (people are worried about the cultural osmosis flattening the differences between the UK and the USA, but this show has already taught me, the differences are a lot less flat than people think).

And the stuff I mentioned, that's not research, I'm not bringing up obscure points nobody knows about. I'm talking about the basic character of the Doctor and that it's a shame they didn't really talk about that at all today, instead just... I don't really know what they talked about.

Heck the irony is, although what I wanted was a more general approach even, the best thing about this one, was the specific details about Zoidberg. That was cool.

And just to add, I really wasn't trying to criticise today, maybe the joke first law tainted the rest of it, I was just expressing honestly how I felt. I was looking forward to this one and it just wasn't that good in the end. It's not because they were bad or there's a fundamental flaw in how they operate, they just happened to miss the mark with this one

Dang, got me monologuing right back. You clever son of a bitch. ;)

Yes I am. image

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. image

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. image

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. image

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. image

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. image

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?" image

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 image, 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.

Here is a debate idea: Best Cartoon Icon: Bugs Bunny vs Mickey Mouse

you could go for hours on that one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here