Some directors argue that the character of the Fool adds nothing to the essence of the play and could easily be cut without damaging the overall impact.to what extent could you justify such an argument?

Some directors argue that the character of the Fool adds nothing to the essence of the play and could easily be cut without damaging the overall impact.

From what you have read so far, to what extent could you justify such an argument? If you agree, how would you make the transitions in order to exclude the Fool? If you disagree, what would be your arguments for leaving the play as it is?