Once again, our apologies for the huge delay. I think we've learned to stay clear of exam time.
No star ratings for the moment but we'll add them soon. Big thanks to Headliner and AMPLine4Life who helped us out with judging and thank you to TLK and Isaac for helping out not only with their part of the judging, but for stepping in for Mac who is erasing all that bad porn from his computer.
So without any further delays....
Jim Coptafeel vs. Striker50
While I respect Striker's effort, he wasn't really on point of the subject itself. I kept reading, thinking it might lead to the topic at hand, but it didn't. Coptafeel was completely on point of the subject with much factorial evidence to back up his statements.
Wow, what a debate. I'm glad each of you took a side and debated the hell out of it. Very, very close match and a strong contender for MOTN. striker should not feel bad in defeat as his argument was clearly valid, but I felt Coptafeel's had a little more "oomph" to it to seal the deal. No real reason why I gave Coptafeel the nod (other than the fact that he is my favorite member on any forum ever) except that it just had that extra kick to it. Amazing debate and both of you should be proud. I feel bad even handing striker a loss for this. Rematch plz.
This is probably the best match we've had in a while from both debuting competitors. Both brought strong facts to the table and argued them very well. Jim however held a much stronger debate. How he set up and broke down his arguments was incredible and definitely has my vote. Very, very tough decision though and a fantastic effort from Striker.
Winner: Jim Coptafeel (unanimous)
Sticksy vs. Metal X
Who is making these topics? Jesus Fuck..
Despite the obvious answer to this, I'll cast my eye over it. Maybe it won't result in two cookie cutter debates..
Oh, it did. I don't blame either of you, the answer is so stupidly obvious that someone should have gone all abstract (ala Mike in the title fight) and said 'No, it fucking isn't' then listed off some elaborate plan. Even if it's 'wrong' per say, being creative is half the debate. Don't settle for being boring pricks. Less Rashad, more Machida.
Easier said than done, I concede. But now I'm left with two almost identical debates and I don't feel like spending an hour going through the nuances of each of them to determine a winner. I think you're both losers in this, but thats not possible to I call a draw.
Nick although both debates were fuckin horrible given my high expectations.
I'm going to say draw since they basically mirrored each other.
Winner - Draw
(Majority rules. 2 draws = drawn match)
MITB vs. BDFW
MITB wins cause he gave a bunch of stats and shit.
It ran it's course after season 3. Anyway..
This one doesn't require much of a breakdown like the others. BDFW, your 'debate' suffered because all you really did was go through the seasons and tell us what we already know.
Yes, season one created some huge stars, but then as you went through the seasons the names became less main event and more mid card (guys who will be likely be forgotten in 6 months time). This is more a sign of the show losing it's appeal, no? I don't want to read you telling me what happened in each series, I want to see you telling me why you think the CONCEPT of the series still remains relevant..
..which is what MITB did. He also backed it up with figures and looked at it from a more structured, logical perspective, which is the reason he gets my vote. I don't think either of you needed to go into all 8 seasons like you did though, there are more appealing ways to debate than that.
Winner: MITB (unanimous)
The JD vs. KingSaint
No winner as both no showed
dele vs. TheRockIsCookin
Winner: dele via no show
Aussiefan vs. Invincible
Sucks that Aussiefan thought that he'd win by default, as he was headed towards a strong debate, but Invincible wins at the last-minute.
It seemed like you were flip flopping too much and that did more to hurt your own debate by talking about the weaknesses of both subjects rather than sticking to one side, or by going into detail about the strength of one side. But at least you put some effort into it, somehow. Someway.
Suggestion to Aussiefan. Never half ass a debate. For your own sake, for your opponent's sake, and for the judging team's sake.
So Aussiefan, you half assed your debate? Very disappointing to read that. Never assume anything in TDL mate because it'll blow up in your face. Invincible, it was a good debate but a little more to it would have made it great.
Winner: Invincible (unanimous)
Richie vs. Austin101
Winner: Austin101 via no show
bigcal vs. JM Nash
Hey. Better topic this time. I actually disagree with both of you, buttttt.
I liked bigcal's debate a lot. Simple, makes sense and fairly well put. I liked JM's debate because it also made sense and was very well written. So, it comes down to this..
I think bigcal wins because his argument is wayyyy more accessible. I didn't have to read it more than once to register his arguments and get a good understanding of what it was he was telling me. JM's required more digestion, but was pretty much the same meal in terms of number of quality points. It's close though.
In terms of how this topic fits into the recent Legacy/McMachon bullshit, someone should have mentioned the fact that Orton oversold everything, which is a pretty important point, imo (regardless of the pre match booking brief).
I thoroughly enjoyed both debates and it was a tough choice. JM did a great job and provided incredibly convincing arguments to back it up. bigcal also did the same, but his debate focusing on them not being physically equal at all was the match winner for me. Awesome debate guys.
Despite being on the verge of dropping out of the debate, bigcal emerges victories for a few reasons. First, he did a ***3/4 = GREAT job of pinpointing Vince and Shane's roles in the ring - Vince being the older yet jacked psycho who uses his paid-resources, and Shane's devil may care style incporporating weapons. In this sense, they're not physical equals. Second, Nash hit the nail on the head when he said they're mainly used to put over other talent - however, this rings true with bigcal's argument of them being perceived as equal competitors, not physical equals. Great job by both.
Winner: bigcal (unanimous)
CM Dealer vs. Killswitch
Winner: Killswitch via no show
Porn Freak vs. Stone Cold sXe
Sorry guys, I couldn't decide. Very convincing arguments to a difficult and complex topic. Porn Freak, very to the point and your arguments were clear and well written. sXe, I liked the religious arguments you brought in and again like PF, very clear and to the point. Well done guys.
Similar debates, but PF's hit a little deeper for me. I liked sXe's reference to the Bible, but that may not sit well for those who don't follow its preachings. Excellent debate by PF. Look forward to seeing him move up the NW division.
Stone Cold sXe
While both debates were highly opinionated (would of liked to see some facts behind the reasoning), sXe's debate was simply more persuasive and to the point.
WFWD Championship - #1 Contender
BreakTheWalls vs. DDMac
Winner: DDMac via no show
Money in the Bank Match
- gmk hercules
I felt that the competitors missed out on a golden opportunity of bringing parental control into the mix, which (if JBLoser had done since he was on the right track) would have convinced me that WWE/MMA aren't influences on our youth. Therefore, I went with the best argument for the other side which I believe came from gmkhercules. Not a mediocre debate in the bunch, though - all solid efforts.
Chain Gang Soldier
There's a damn good reason as to why we're only doing this match once in a blue moon.
All excellent debates and I kid you not, I've spent days going over these trying to pick a winner. You all brought your own element to these debates which was fantastic. Some focused more on Wrestling and others more on MMA and some did both and you all did a great job. I've gone for CGS because I thought he brought just that little bit more to the table than the others did. I found his debate the most convincing and how his arguments were presented was very well done.
Chain Gang Soldier
This was hard to debate, but I'll go with Chain Gang Solider. He seemed to have the more constructive debate. With points in the beginning of the debate (like change of demographic for WWE) that paved the way for the rest of the debate.
Generally a good contest, imo.
, well written and logical. Thought you did a good job of stating your case then explaining it. I think you could have gone into some more real world examples and looked at how the media has targeted WWE/UFC in the past, but this is of small concern.
, you kinda did that. Went into some stats and real world examples which I think strengthen your debate. Generally well written and was narrated well. Do you really think it influences children? Looking at your debate, you could say the same about movies and video games, which would require some stronger points than those you made. Having said that, good job overall.
, you balanced well. I like what you said at the end about the violence being less than in other forms of media, I think this is an important point.
Use more paragraphs, a lot of your points become muddled because they were crammed together.
New paragraphs have more emphasis.
I thought you wrote it well, it had nice conviction and was generally well argued.
I'm concerned nobody has mentioned the psychological state of the people before watching the programs - it would indicate they could all be influenced just as easily by a ton of other things. Ben you touched on this. Good job overall.
Chain Gang Soldier
, I was with you until you crossed the line from wrestling to video games in your point about the kid dying doing a swanton. I think you need to distinguish between the media because you could argue it's the interaction with the game that influenced him (I'd argue this whole story is why I'm pro-natural selection).
, you had the most well written debate. I think you structured your points well, but they were bias towards MMA big time, and I would also quite easily debate you on what you said at the end ("I dont think you can successfully argue that MMA/Wrestling isnt a influence on the current generation, even if only a small margin").
I think you mentioning the science behind it was a good way to open, nobody else really touched on it despite the fact that it's really the crux of this topic. What is influence?
I thought it was good, but I also thought you could have gone into more depth.
I think it's actually a well contested battle, I was expecting a pretty clear winner but I didn't get it. I think Josie takes it by a whisker above the others, although each debate had points that, if all put together, would have been very powerful indeed. Josie's scientific mention gets the win because it was drastically overlooked by everyone else.
Winner: Chain Gang Soldier (Split Decision)
Chain Gang Soldier is now eligible to receive one title match in any division within the next 10 shows of his choice.
Mikey Damage vs. SteveMania
Steve because he actually answered the fuckin question.
I don't know the circumstances that bruteshot no showed, so I'll refrain from calling him a prick just yet. If I find there isn't a reason, then I'll oblige.
First off, stunning debate. These MMA debates are always the best ones on the card which is why I suggested an MMA division back in the early WR days of the league. Good job making me right.
So, lets check it out.
On one hand, you have Steve showing that he knows almost as much as me about MMA. Really well written, expresses himself near perfectly and is certainly a student of the game. Toquinho is a very interesting choice and your reasons are clear, they make sense and are backed with good historical evidence and written persuasion.
On the other hand, Mikey 'Simply Mike' Damage blew my mind. He must be on LSD or something, because it's an abstract view he took but it paid off. I bet nobody expected him to not name anyone and it's risks like these that make great debaters. Slick.
So, who wins. Well I could read Steve talk about MMA all day. He's probably the best MMA poster on the board (im inactive) and you can tell it here. Mike went for a flying kneebar perspective.
I think the only way anyone could beat Steve is to do something totally unconventional and outside the box. I think Mike did that. However, Steve wrote better, argued better, narrated better and probably just straight debated better.
However, I am going to go ahead and call this a draw, partially because I want to see another round of this and partially because I was very impressed with Mike's perspective. Drawing with Steve is very, very good and you'd have lost this easily if you'd have tried to do what Steve went and did.
- Mikey Damage
Incredible, incredible title match. MOTN imo. Steve did an awesome job building up Silva as an unbeatable force, then casually dropped in the fact that should anyone capitolize on his few weaknesses, it would be the two fighters he argued for. Flawless argument. On the other hand, we have Mikey taking a risk and naming Silva as his own worst enemy, followed by great examples of how he has cost himself fights in the past. Much too close to call based on content, so I'm giving Mikey the nod for being ballsy. Amazing match.
(stay tuned to find out
DestrosSecret vs. Aussie
Very close to call, but I think destros etched it out despite being a little on the fence. He approached the topic head on from both angles, and did so in a very careful and thorough manner (though I think he misinterpreted the definition of double jeopardy early on). Aussie did a wonderful job as well, setting up arguments and providing counterarguments, but I felt that destros provided a deeper look into the topic and how it should be addressed in fairness. His last paragraph was fairly impressive iirc. Great title match.
I really wanted to pick a winner, but both debates were too strong and equal in fact and persuasiveness. Destro did a good job explaining both sides. And Aussie did a solid job being, Aussie.
I was waiting for someone to play the reasonable doubt card from the prosecution perspective, and how that could eliminate the double jeopardy factor. I think that would of possibly decided a winner.
Destros, very well written. Thought the part about the OJ case was good and supported your argument well. I was also a fan of the narrative and how it led to the question/conclusion. I'd have liked to see more about the loopholes in the system though.
Aussie, can tell this was rushed. Whilst what you wrote was good, I was left a bit flat, ie. it was a good start then it ended. Having said that, it was still well written and your points were structured well (albeit briefly). Stop being so busy please.
DestrosSecret (split decision)
DestrosSecret is the first ever WF Non-Wrestling Division Champion
TLK vs. Delfin
For the record, I think this topic sucked, especially for a title match. I think it reflects in the debate as neither of you were going at 100% (or anything close to that). Ahem..
Delfin, you write good. However, constantly telling your readers you haven't seen the event in which you're discussing is insane. Credibility is integral to a good debate, as you know, so to basically say (and repeat) you're not in a position to comment looks like you're just planning your excuses. I'm aware it's (probably) not the case, but it looks like it and thats what matters.
Everything you say is right though.
Greg, why did open with such a clear stance, then spend the first half of your debate listing off a bunch of points which go directly against your conclusion? I'm aware that you need to give context and perspective, but I don't think spending that long on it ever helps your argument. Some of those listed were actually legit counter points as well (that I'd have probably used if I decided I wanted your title).
Having said that, the second half was really very strong. You basically say what Delfin tried to say but with a lot more conviction and a little more backing in terms of history and tradition of the title.
I mean really, I'd like to see a rematch with a good topic so we can see what you're both capable of. As it stands, Greg wins because he talked like he actually believed his argument, even though it's the same argument really as Delfins.
Again a really hard choice to make. Both well written with strong arguments....and they're exactly the same. So the question now comes down to whose was set out and argued better. For me TLK did the job. Quite honestly it jumped out at me the most in terms of how it was argued rather than what was argued. Good use of resources to back your arguments also brings you over the finish line first for me. Would love to see you both in a rematch soon.
Winner: The Lady Killer (unanimous)
The Lady Killer is the first ever WF Wrestling Division Champion