Helen Lewis-Hasteley is assistant editor of the New Statesman

God love the BBC, but they do make some baffling decisions. In Doctor Who, they have more than a TV show, they have a national institution. So what do they do? Monkey around with its scheduling – a split series this year, and the next 13 episodes to be spread across 2012 and 2013 in some unspecified way, like it's some failed American import that no one knows what to do with. Even worse, BBC1's controller, Danny Cohen, put the blame on the showrunner, Steven Moffat, who also executive produces Sherlock. Moffat took to Twitter to respond: "The scheduling of Dr Who has got NOTHING to do with Sherlock", so I'm guessing there was a frosty atmosphere the next time the pair met.

Then there's the penny-pinching: I can't quite believe they scored the coup of getting Neil Gaiman to write an episode, then told him he couldn't have a new monster and would have to make do with a recycled Ood.

Andrew Harrison is editor-at-large of Word magazine

You know what? You're right. The BBC really should show more love to the series that practically regenerated the corporation's family viewing remit all on its own. The idea that there won't be a full, 13-part season for Doctor Who's 50th anniversary in 2013 is a crime on a par with Scaroth of Jagaroth forging the Mona Lisa.

But when you look at the figures, the idea that Doctor Who is fading just doesn't stand up. This season averaged about 7.5m viewers (a little down on David Tennant in his rock-star pomp, but hardly a collapse) and between 1.5m and 2m people watch it on timeshift. In September, four out of the five most-requested shows on iPlayer were episodes of Doctor Who. These are figures that TV executives dream of.

But let's talk about the stories instead. The other complaint is that under Steven Moffat, the show has become too complicated for kids. Too many loose threads (Amy's baby, the Doctor's death, River Song), too many time paradoxes, too much concentration on giant story arcs and not enough on one-off tales. All I'd say is, if it's too confusing for kids then nobody has told my nieces and nephews, all of whom understand the show completely. Perhaps it's become too complex for adults – but children seem to get it just fine.

HLH I wouldn't deny that Doctor Who is a phenomenally successful show, and I agree that the viewing figures are a red herring in the age of the iPlayer. But I will see your nephews and nieces, and raise you my own nephew, with whom I watched "The Curse of the Black Spot". He might only be eight, but even he could spot plot holes so big you could pilot a star whale through them (sorry, no more nerdy references, I promise).

The current vogue of 45-minute, high-concept single episodes means that everything else can get squeezed to the margins, resulting in dollops of exposition and all-over-the-place characterisations, like Hugh Bonneville's heartwarming-yet-bloodthirsty buccaneer, or the cheery Silurian medical researcher in "The Hungry Earth", memorably described by the Androzani review site as "lovable old Dr Mengele". And how could Rory and Amy lose their baby in one episode, and in the next be blithely unaffected by the story of a child who feared being abandoned? Instead they were larking about with giant scissors.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Amy, what happened to Steven Moffat's hatred of "clingy girlfriends"? They've eased up this series, but I could definitely live with fewer longing looks across the Tardis console, and I bet your nephews and nieces could too.

And as you're clearly a "City of Death" fan, answer me this: how many of these episodes will you want to watch again? Isn't the danger with relying so much on cliffhangers, twists and big reveals that the shows don't stand up to repeated viewings?

AH Well, one person's plot hole is another's unfathomable mystery – and I'm glad that Moffat is pushing the Doctor back into the realms of inscrutability. It's more fun that way, and it's best not to focus on plot holes in a show that's based on the flatly impossible. But you're right to question Amy and Rory's weird reaction to the abduction of their baby. Spods like you and me know it was because the producers switched a couple of episodes around, so that a relatively simple pirate story would follow the plot-heavy "Day of the Moon". It's not the ideal way to play it, but neither does it constitute bad characterisation.

Instead, I prefer to think of it this way: Doctor Who is a kids' show – one that adults love because they can share it with their own children, and with the part of themselves that is still a child. It's one thing to see a human brain sliced out and inserted into a Cyberman's body (in fact, I'd say it's an essential part of a rounded upbringing); but a mother in weeping despair over a stolen baby would just be too raw and too real for Saturday tea-time. Better to treat it as a fairy tale, where children vanish and are rescued without any real pain.

Too much seething passion in the Tardis? When Russell T Davies resurrected the show, his masterstroke was to understand that it had to win over women viewers as well as nerdy males. Remove the "emotional content" and you've got a husk of a series. As for the re-watch value of new Who, how could you not want to see "The Doctor's Wife" or "The Girl Who Waited" again? They're self-contained modern Who classics, up there with "The Talons of Weng-Chiang".

HLH Hmm. I'm not sure that pointing out there's a reason for bad characterisation excuses it, when as you say, the vast majority of viewers wouldn't know about it.

That said, I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that some topics aren't right for a Saturday tea-time programme, because the classic deflection of anyone criticising Doctor Who is to argue that "kids understand a lot more than you think". I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between a children's show and a grown-up drama, and the recent series have tended more towards the latter.

Still, I'm pleased to be having this argument. While I love the fact that Doctor Who fans feel so possessive about the show (I do, too), it can mean that any whisper of dissent is met with a thunderous wall of denunciation. And here's one thing I bet you can't defend: James Corden's acting when he was on the floor being attacked by that CyberWoodlouse. Preposterous.

AH The thing is, Doctor Who is like Queen: there's so much of it, and it's so ridiculously diverse, that no sane person can sincerely say they love every single aspect of it. I've got a soft spot for "Don't Stop Me Now" but I wouldn't care if I never heard "Bohemian Rhapsody" again. Similarly, I'd defend "Vincent and the Doctor" or "The God Complex" as epitomes of quality telly until the eventual heat death of the universe. But every time the music goes soupy and some tearful character tells the Doctor what a wonderful man he is – and every time that Love Saves the Day – I find my faith wavering.

No, I'm not going to stand up for James Corden and his Rod Hull-and-Emu routine with the CyberMat… the comedy bits are not for me. But following Doctor Who is a bit like following your football team: some Saturdays you get beaten 3-0. Some Saturdays it's a boring story about a girl whose drawings come to life. It doesn't mean that next week won't be amazing. And as for those over-possessive fans, my advice is to stay away from the message boards. There be dragons. And Skarasens, Myrkas and Slythers.