Instigator / Pro
7
1536
rating
19
debates
55.26%
won
Topic
#2039

Peter Capaldi Was The Best Doctor

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

nmvarco
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
2,500
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
Description

BoP is on me.
I believe Peter Capaldi was the best actor to play Doctor Who.
All con has to do is prove that another Doctor was better.
No K’s please, this is a nerdy debate.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Regarding BoP: This is a bit of a weird one, as the debate both stipulates that BoP is on pro, and that con must prove a different doctor to be better. With these contradictions in the setup, I'm going to have to weight this as shared BoP.

I'm glad that I'm not a particular fan of either doctor (as much as I understand why they're each preferred to some people).

Pro offers three solid contentions, which are easy to track. Con abandons these, largely to talk of nostalgia (which to be fair is the main reason anyone currently watches the show). Con also raises the comparative effects, as much as this was not flushed out, and pro countered with mocking a bad example from it.

Acting: Slight edge to pro
I was going to call this tied, as con did a great job showing the great impression left by his doctor, but in looking back at this debate I'm able to quickly find an example of pro's choice as advocated with key episodes (not re-watching episodes, but watching a previews of named episodes). Con's choice going on to play Worzel Gummidge (I looked up some clips, and he was indeed played differently than the Doctor), does showcase that the actor is indeed talented and stayed hard working, but it is of decreased impact to his impact on Doctor Who.

Character: pro
We have a citation for the Doctor questioning himself, his companion, and a Dalek, for the question of if he is a good man. This is compared to the show being more tongue in cheek now, and an assertion that the other doctor was "the most rounded of all the various interpretations." That Capaldi is getting away from the tongue in cheek greatly harmed the impact of con's point there.

Storyline: pro
While pro could have flushed things out more with what lasting impacts came from the cited stories, con offered nothing on this.

Effects: pro
This point was raised by con, but not defended when a key episode from his Doctor was mocked, and craftsmanship of recent Cybermen was praised. That said, I am not assigning any real weight to this, as no one expects the special effects to hold up, and the primary focus of this is the Doctor himself.

Nostalgia: con
This undeniably goes to con. The very fact that he is arguing for such an old incarnation of The Doctor, says so many good things about the longevity of that performance.

Arguments:
There is something undeniably good about the Pertwee Doctor, but based on what was presented the Capaldi Doctor wins by a large margin. Con almost seemed to be arguing just that he preferred the show under Pertwee, but very subjectively. Had the subjectivity been a key focus with examples of how amazing various doctors have been, it might have been a winning one (would be pretty hard to do with that character limit).
I had planned to just cast a tied vote, but reading things deeper than my previous skimming a couple weeks ago, this conclusion seems unavoidable.

Sources:
While these impacted the argument, I don't feel they were integrated enough to earn this point on such a short debate.

S&G:
For pro, I advise being careful what you put inside quotation marks. "substandard effects" is very different from "sub-standard in terms of effects and production." I also do suggest maintaining use of headings even if your opponent does not.