>>55899440>disagree + it looks less dumb nowYou cannot say "looks less dumb" without admitting that it looks dumb in the first place. And "less" doesn't mean the dumb is completely gone. Is this really what you meant or are your writing skills stupidly bad?
>objectively wrong and contrarian statement1. You don't know what "objective" and "contrarian" mean if you truly believe that.
2. Dewott doesn't have cumbersome features nor contradictory anatomy, just by that it looks more natural and appealing.
