1. The premise isn't unbelievable just because of incidental features of the plot, it's unbelievable because it has no internal logic. You've failed to address this at all.Unknown Soldier said:Further examples of Proof by assertion. Your saying TWGOK sucks doesn't make it suck, and all the reasons you've provided so far have been refuted. Quick summary, so far you've said it sucks because the premise is unbelievable, which it's supposed to be because it's a parody. Then you claim it's not a parody because it's just like the real thing, which I demonstrated is actually one criteria for being a good parody. Then you claim it's not a good parody because the source material is itself not good, which has nothing to do with the definition of a parody and is in fact an example of Circular reasoning.
Also, continuing to attack Wikipedia is further examples of Attacking the Source. I'm merely using Wikipedia to demonstrate how your arguments are flawed, I don't have to prove that TWGOK is good or bad here, merely that your methodology of argument is fatally flawed, which it is.
2. You posted a Wikipedia link and highlighted one line which ambiguously supported your argument. Being mistaken as the same thing does not mean it is the same thing. TWGOK sucks because it does not actually make fun of things which deserve to be made fun of, and is instead guilty of perpetrating them.
3. Circular reasoning is not inherently wrong.