I don't think being shonen means it's written badly. Dragon Ball is very good at being shonen. It does exactly what it sets out to do. I'd call that good writing.
Also, most of the time there are plans involved in beating the villain. The arcs where people would most often make the claim that it's all about powerups would typically be in the latter parts of the series (if you actually think pre-Raditz is dumber than post-Raditz, feel free to say so, but most people seem to strongly think the opposite), but even there it isn't true. Cell is defeated when Gohan achieves a new form, yes, but the arc is about Goku strategizing a way to properly train Gohan to achieve the higher potential that he sees in him. This is contrasted directly with how Vegeta and Trunks train, which is just bulking up their muscles, while Goku and Gohan train smarter, and then Goku spends the Cell games manipulating events to make it so Gohan can win. And he kind of fucks up a bit and gets killed because of it, but it still works out in the end. But there is planning involved. Later, the Buu Saga ends with a battle between non-Super Saiyan Goku and Buu with nobody absorbed. It's specifically a battle between two weakened forms of the protagonist and antagonist, and it involves a specific series of wishes on the Dragon Balls, and specific series of assists from Vegeta, Mr. Buu, and Mr. Satan, in order to help Goku power up a specific enormous attack that can save the day.
Frieza is the closest it comes to just being about achieving a powerup, but even there, a very significant amount of the conflict is the non-Goku characters strategizing ways just to hold out until Goku gets there, and once he does, strategizing ways to allow him to charge the Spirit Bomb and stuff like that. And few would argue that Goku becoming a Super Saiyan isn't a satisfying way to conclude that arc.
I also like Star Trek, but if I wanted to call it dumb, I could easily cherrypick by talking about episodes like the one where a flower sneezes in Spock's face and turns him into a hippie, so Kirk needs to save the day by beating him with a pipe until he stops being a hippie. I could easily point out that there are like four or five different episodes where they go to planets that are just Greco-Roman culture on another planet for some reason. That doesn't discount the "smarter" episodes, but my point is that you can find intelligence if you want, and you can find stupidity if you want.
Goku never knew that faggot anyway. Fuck it. Sure, more could have been done with him, but that is, at most, a wasted opportunity, and I wouldn't call that a major problem. It's not like they set up that he would come back and be more important. Now, that's not to say that wasted opportunities can't be big problems, I'd say they're one of the biggest problems with Super, where they keep getting so close to cool plots, then just ruining them or not bothering with them, but I wouldn't say Raditz is a really bad case of that.
>17 giving energy to the genki dama to kill Buu despite never having personally met Goku
Everyone on Earth gave energy to the genki dama to kill Buu. That was the whole point.
>Trunks telling Android 18 to leave an island before Cell gets her, instead of blowing her up right then and there (and then goes /pol/ on #16 a few minutes later when he wants to assist them)
Trunks couldn't do shit to 18 anyway. He was too weak until he trained in the Room of Spirit and Time.
>the constant use of retcons in an attempt to flesh out the story/world because of Toriyama's procrastination and editor advice
This is only a problem if they're done badly. Retcons are not inherently bad. The Dragon Balls coming from Kami and being connected to Piccolo is a retcon, and few would argue that that one is bad, for example. Some people get butthurt about Goku and Piccolo being retconned into aliens, but I don't mind. It was done reasonably well and good stories came from it. The android saga is a bit notorious for it, and I can give you that it's a bit more egregious there, but I would still say it was handled okay. Reading or watching from week to week, it remains an entertaining story throughout, and one could argue that the various revelations about the androids keep you guessing and keep things suspenseful.
>Toriyama straight up admitting he forgets fine details in his own franchise
His admitting that outside the work does not make the work itself bad. If anything, it only makes it more impressive how few issues there actually are. The biggest point people bring up is how Lunch disappears, but it was after a time skip, and he at least managed to remember enough to give a line justifying her absence, even though it wouldn't technically be necessary.
>Goku being portrayed, long into adulthood, as a dumbass who only wants to fight despite Master Roshi telling him martial arts are for defending the weak and innocent, etc.
That's his character. I fail to see the problem. Nobody ever said he took all the lessons to heart very well. Do you also complain that he's not smart even though Roshi taught him academic subjects as well? I can accept that Goku is better at some of the lessons than others. That does not seem at all strange.
>It's a synonym for good. Read the dictionary anon, at least before Merriam Webster starts changing more definitions.
Well and good are not technically synonyms, but both are subjective, especially when it comes to the things we're talking about. "Good characterization," or "well-defined characters," are subjective terms. That doesn't mean you can't argue about them and have a more legitimate argument than someone else, but don't outright say "it's objective."
>Says the liberal arts retard trying to dig his heels in the dirt in defending crap by using "subjectivity" as a crutch rebuttal.
No, I just don't like people using words objectively wrong, like how you use the word objectively. And note that my saying it was "subjective" was not my actual argument. I would only leave it at that if it was a point which I felt was subjective enough, or where our disagreement wasn't wide enough, that I wouldn't say you were wrong.
>Considering you posted this >>295281 as an example of something that writers should aspire to because of autistic lore shit about a goddamn hedgehog, you seem to favor it.
I posted that to explain that Sonic did always have a story. Because it did. Those elements weren't just background detail lore, they were things that formed the motivations of the characters (and any players who bothered to read the manual) and, over time, became more and more important to the plot. It was actual story, and not just background "lore." However, my point was that it is very de-emphasized in the games, which is the correct way for the games to handle their stories, but that the stories could be interesting if adapted into a more story-focused medium.
>Neither do you, especially with your nigger-tier stubbornness at defending slop and asking for seconds.
Since I don't get to define what art is, then I won't argue when anyone says anything is art. But I will argue if it is good or bad art. Not all art is good.
From the little I could bring myself to play of that series, it is exactly what I argue against, which is story over gameplay. The gameplay is garbage and it seems like the only reason to play it is the story, which is a motivation I'll never understand. Also, as far as I can tell, most of that stuff isn't background details either, but actual story. It's a very complex story told over many story heavy games. That doesn't mean it isn't a story. It's not just details in the world that don't come together to form a narrative. There is clearly a narrative there. It is a story, and not what you're arguing against in the rest of your posts.