In the early days Disney and other animation companies drew all their animated films by hand. One of the best examples of the stunning work achieved this way is Bambi. Now, however, almost all animated films are made with computer drawings. Which do you prefer and why? If it is 2D animation can you even tell the difference?
I'm absolutely in love with hand-drawn animation (on paper or on computer, so I don't thing the distinction made in the OP is appropriate). The style and talent traditional animation showcases is out of control.
That said, I have never seen a 2D production that compared to the acting nuance of a contemporary 3D animated feature. 2D is frankly disadvantaged when it comes to nuance; in 3D it's possible to chisel down the layers and create a subtle, affective acting move, while in 2D it's so much harder to iterate, because each change takes up to 100 times as much work, depending on the length of the scene. There has been some phenomenal acting in traditional production, but I feel like even at it's best, only one or two characters could ever really shine, because there aren't enough Glen Keanes to go around.
Also, I just love animation. I don't care what technique. I love cutout, rotoscope, mocap, the old Ralph Bakshi xerox style, the works.
Like Finy, I am astounded at the sheer talent of those who made the amazing hand drawn films in the early days. Like I stated above, I think Bambi is a masterpiece. I do prefer hand drawn animation when it is done as well as that, but I can't ignore what computer animation has allowed us to see. For example, that scene in the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast would not have been possible by hand.