My offer still stands, I should have some time during my workday this afternoon and tomorrow if you want me to review anything. I know I'm not a proper "judge", but you guys have made me feel like my opinion is worth at least SOMETHING, so I may be able to help.
So I didn't "judge" any matchups, just gave my comments on each debate in the order it was submitted on here. If there are any questions or you want some further clarification on my comments, feel free to PM me.
Also, I focused on the stuff that I felt needed to be FIXED. I don't intend on coming across as overly harsh, but it may seem that way. All of my suggestions are ways that I believe will improve your debates. I commend everyone for doing this and putting their work out there.
Spoiler for HELLO WRESTLINGFORUM THIS IS OXITRON:
I would like to see you front-load your opinion, then go about proving it.
In terms of presentation, I find it reads like an "essay" more than a debate. That's tough for me to break down, but I'm pretty sure I've had the same problem at times.
Use stronger language to hammer your points home. In paragraph 4, you use "it seems" twice. Be affirmative. "In modern times, managers have not played as much of a role..." It's just more direct and really makes the sentence stronger.
May be a way to recap the Punk / Heyman feud more concisely; the couple paragraphs on it really dragged. Assume the judges of your debate are familiar with basic WWE knowledge if they're judging you on a WWE question.
Also note that 3/4 through your debate, I still don't know what side you're taking. Your second last paragraph / sentence is when you finally make your point. THAT could be your lead, and what you should spend the debate arguing; not recapping the Punk / Heyman thing.
Overall, the writing is okay. There isn't any glaring grammatical / spelling / layout mistakes (I wouldn't use that semi-colon in your final sentence, but that's just the English grad student in me talking, and that's not really anything that's going to affect your overall debate score). Based on your writing, I think it's a matter of changing things up stylistically. Define your point (ie: managers help), then spend the debate arguing HOW they help.
Spoiler for RugbyRat:
Good job clearly defining your stance right from the first sentence.
When you drop figures like the El Paso house show attendance, I'd prefer to have a footnote / reference for that. I said above in OXI's debate that you can assume the judges are familiar with the product, but specific statistics like that should probably have some back up.
I like the point about how people may see a poorly attended show and it creating a vicious cycle, so to speak. The sentence "given the lack of big varying characters in TNA..." is confusing to me. I don't really understand what you're getting at there.
Sentence issue. "With the dull Del Rio having shrouded the world title, as well as the Big Gold Belt constantly opening PPVs" - this is a fragment, perhaps should be attached to the first sentence of the WWE paragraph.
The theoretical paragraph is OKAY, but I would've liked to see you take care of a counter-argument you opened up in your TNA section where you discussed poor attendance at house shows. Mainly, if title changes happen at house shows, would more people be inclined to attend?
Structure is good overall. Clear opening, clear conclusion. Your arguments generally support your point, but like I said, would like to see more emphasis on closing those counters.
Spoiler for smitty915:
Good job identifying your stance immediately, although the "in fact" is filler, taking away from the sentence's power. Try to be wary of weak language like that, particularly when stating your point.
I like the conversational way you bring the reader into the opening paragraph "I want to focus on..." and "think about". That language really engages me as a reader.
Minor spelling or sentence structure issues (some awkward or run-on sentences, using "then" instead of "than", "their" instead of "they're". If you want a complete breakdown of that stuff, PM me and I'll try to help identify them. This isn't English class, so I don't think this stuff will cost you too much, unless the debate becomes unreadable because of it. This debate is FAR from unreadable)
I like how you separate your argument into definitive, clear points. The bold lettering is a nice touch.
The argument about how a manager only helps heels is tricky though. Plenty of faces have had managers; Face Lou Albano managed the British Bulldogs, Jimmy Hart managed Hogan as a face, Paul Bearer has been with a face Undertaker. This is a counter to your point. HOWEVER, what if you just stated "managers help a wrestler get over"? Then you could discuss that the benefits exist for both faces and heels.
I like how you worded the conclusion strong, but with your reference to making money and the countless times that's been proven in history, perhaps that should've been really established in your debate (ie: with stats instead of general comments about how they had a lot of managers in the 70s and 80s).
Overall, it's a solid effort. You structure your debate in a straightforward manner that is easy on the reader. Just be aware of counter-arguments to your stance, and other potential aids to your stance that may be missed. Double check your spelling.
Spoiler for The Fourth Wall:
The Fourth Wall
Sometimes, the direct, one-word intro just works for me. This works.
Watch your sentence structure; the "all of whom" sentence is just a fragment, and should probably be attached to your opening sentence.
Solid point on Colter bolsters your stance, as well as the one about Heyman. However, that opens the door to the counter asking what happened with Ryback and Axel with Heyman at their respective sides? You kind of bring this up in your final paragraph, and somewhat address the issue, but not head on. The fact that the debate ends on this note (ie: the "counter" to your point) makes it feel weaker immediately when the reader finishes it, which hurts the overall product.
The Barrett paragraph is interesting, giving the reader insight into your personal ideas in a way that doesn't feel like fantasy booking 101. I enjoyed it.
The paragraph about AW and Colter is well-done. The sentence "That's how a Manager can make a difference" feels like a conclusion. This is MONEY. I wish this is how the debate ended. At this point, that's a much stronger debate than it was by adding the final paragraph.
Spoiler for killacamt:
Use stronger wording, and get rid of the filler language in order to emphasize your point. Things like "have probably" and I "for one" are okay conversationally, but in terms of opening the debate, I'd prefer to see you set that stance up firmly.
Good point about spending money and the excitement a title change could generate. I like that you're taking what I consider the "weaker" side in this debate and going after it.
The house show title change sentence, just use Google and inform the reader with a footnote. You're trying to show that something was "memorable", yet you state that you "believe" certain titles changed hands a "few years" ago in a match that may have involved the Miz. Just add a link to a site that gives the date and match-up. Boom, you'd have a solid, fleshed-out point.
In the second paragraph, you use "believe" and "maybe" again. Once again, it's just weak language that doesn't give your statements any oomph. Look at your sentence "I would like to think that maybe one or two title changes a month at house shows would be good for business." Contrast that to "One or two title changes a month at house shows could be good for business." I know I used "could", because that statement is debatable unless you add some facts to back it up, but doesn't it come across stronger?
Address counter-arguments. Would this depreciate the titles? Your closing sentence raises this question - if a title change doesn't happen at a show you attend (even if they COULD happen at house shows), would you feel that you didn't get your money's worth? You have a lot more words to use up in your word count. Firm up your stance, and close down the arguments against you and you'll have a much stronger debate.
Spoiler for Richard Hagen:
A very unemotional opening. I don't know what side you're taking or what the gameplan is so far, and I feel detached from your debate. Give it some PASSION.
Don't really get your opinion until paragraph three, where it begins to be fleshed out.
Watch your sentence structure; the sentence beginning with "while some may say..." in your third paragraph is not an actual sentence - should be combined with the last sentence of that paragraph to make one complete sentence.
I like how you address the counter of people wanting excitement at their live events (created through a title change possibility) by stating that the family-oriented product and larger-than-life atmosphere are the true draw to the consumers (who do keep coming back, show after show).
Your use of facts is good; I like that you did your research.
Essentially, front-load your argument. State up front what you're doing. Hell, even give the reader a road-map of what you're going to do in your debate so we know where you're going if you have the word-count space. Everything else is fairly solid, but it seems to wander aimlessly until you begin defining your stance. You do that at the start, and this gets much better.
Spoiler for MoveMent:
(obligatory for TLK)
Formatting goes a long way into making this sucker more readable. As soon as I scrolled to it, I saw this wall of text and I already have a negative feeling about it (and yes, when you have a space in Word, it doesn't always translate to posting on here - Preview that shit before you send it!)
Besides format, the opening is good, you lay out your stance.
The paragraph about the value of the titles helps your argument, so that's good. The paragraph about the world titles is also good.
You bring up and dismiss a counter - the excitement factor - in one fell swoop in your conclusion, which is nice. I think you could beat it even further into the ground by saying that people still come to the shows even though there hasn't been title changes in ages, so is increased house show excitement really necessary?
Overall, a strong effort. Solid intro, argument, dismissal and conclusion. Just make it easier to read and you're golden.
Oxitron: I liked your style of writing. Very easy to read. What you wrote never really answered the question though besides your conclusion funnily enough. It was a good read but a good read for a different question. Focus on what the actual question is asking and how relevant what you're writing is to the actual topic. If you do that then judging by your final paragraph and your writing style you should have something good.
RugbyRat Liked your intro. Concise and powerful writing style. I really liked how looked a little deeper into the question and looked at it from a TNA context as well as a WWE context. First paragraph is good but I was left thinking that the 200 fans show was probably an anomaly and they could tape a title change at a big house show, e.g. on the UK tour and use that to draw larger crowds to their other house shows. Your WWE argument I liked. Bit disappointed you didn't tackle the argument of how well house shows are drawing and do promotions need to do this to make people come to house shows more. Try and tackle the obvious counter arguments you think of if you were arguing yourself for the other side of the coin. This was impressive for a first debate though. Try and expand on your points a bit more and tackle leading counter arguments head on and decisively.
smitty915 I liked how you gave your debate a coherent structure. Helps a lot when I'm reading a debate as a judge and I can easily see what you're arguing where. Pretty big own goal using ADR and Ryback as examples when they had heel managers. It weakened your own argument when really you didn't NEED to bring it up. If you're going to bring a counter to the reader's mind then make sure you can use it to improve your own argument. Disagree on your statement that Brock would be a midcarder without Heyman. Yeah he helped him but I thought you way overstated it here without any genuine reasoning. Brock was a main eventer without Heyman as well remember. Your last sentence of that paragraph I didn't get either. I think there's holes in your arguments but if you cut them out and make your arguments harder to counter then you have something good if you keep the structure of your debate similar.