Last week the guys invited a special guest to debate which was the best time machine ever. Now they bring that debate to you in a much more personal manner, through print.
Chris: At last we got around to something related to Doctor Who! Fans have brought the series up multiple times throughout our run here on The Escapist, even hijacking the Best TV Doctor episode of No Right Answer to tell us we were wrong as we didn't include the Doctor (though I stand by my choice of Dr. House). Still, our episode debating Best Time Machine Ever is in a special position here since it's a two-parter, meaning I can't really get into what I should have said regarding the Phone Booth or what Mike should have said regarding the TARDIS. since we could very well be saying those things next week in relation to the Delorean or some other time machines that I won't mention just yet.
Since we're in a time paradox where the debate is already over but you're all waiting to see the results, I have no other choice but to completely derail my topic and look into something different: How familiar do you have to be with something to argue in its favor? I bring this up because Mike (that's "the other guy/the guy arguing for the TARDIS" by the way) was told many times in the comments, usually by Whovians, that because he had openly admitted to only seeing the Matt Smith run of the series, he could not properly argue in favor of the TARDIS.
I've already mentioned that I don't like to accuse people of being elitist, and I don't quite think I have to say so now, but I will call people out on being unreasonable. Right now I've seen the Christopher Eccleston season and half of David Tennant's run of Doctor Who and nowhere was I lost with what Mike was saying. I've also familiarized myself with some of the older Doctors just by reading basic wiki pages and using common sense, and again, I didn't think Mike was talking gibberish or omitting critical details of the lore. Part of this is because, and this is a hard truth, Doctor Who isn't really that complicated, the TARDIS especially.
There's just not a lot that you need to know that isn't covered within a few episodes of any season you watch. You learn that the TARDIS can travel to any point within time and space, is infinitely larger on the inside, has a living soul of some kind, can be called to The Doctor when the plot demands it, is wildly inaccurate/difficult to pilot, and can't cross its own timeline ... usually. What more am I missing? What more context will I acquire from seeing the 50+ years of continuity in its entirety?
The thought just seems silly to me that one cannot debate something when every single bit of its history is known. Yes, getting major elements wrong will kill you in a debate ("and I'm pretty sure The Doctor is from Mars" would have ended it), but admitting that you are only familiar with a specific portion? That just seems like a good sport.
For example, I'd go on record and claim that Mario is the most successful game character in the history of videogames with the best track record of hits to flops, even though I haven't played every sports title or Mario Party game ever made to completion. How many people would then stop me and scream, "What? You haven't played Mario Party 9? How can you even have this argument then?" Would that be fair? No, of course not, because that game doesn't represent the extent of the whole. Watching an entire Doctor's run of Doctor Who absolutely covers what you'd need to know. It's not like Matt Smith comes and changes all the rules so suddenly or the TARDIS suddenly can't travel to space anymore because of time-related wackiness. Why, again, can't Mike argue for the TARDIS then?
I mean, the Phone Booth is still a heck of a lot more fun, but whatever, you can have your magic space box. I've got more dynamic personalities and don't need to hinge my enjoyment on flying around the universe with attractive girls. Now be excellent to everyone and party on, dudes!