TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING - THE RESULTS
TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING
Lane vs doinktheclowns vs The Fourth Wall vs Oxi Vince McMahon has decided he's going to push one of Cody Rhodes & Dolph Ziggler to be one of his top babyfaces in the company. Which should he choose?
Spoiler for Debates:
Vince Mcmahon should go with the choice of Dolph Ziggler to make into a top baby face in WWE. Dolph has proven time over time that he can connect with a live audience. One of the best reactions in all of wrestling in the last few years was when he cashed in his Money In The Bank briefcase on Alberto Del Rio. The crowd on the edge of their seat the entire match and he had them in the palm of his hand.
Every week weather it be RAW, Superstars, Main Event, or Smack Down he connects more with the crowd than Cody Rhodes does. People look forward every week to seeing Ziggler where as with Cody he's a good hand to have on the show but is not somebody people demand to see and Ziggler is. He is way more popular than Rhodes and has the potential to be a top player in the WWE more so than Cody Rhodes.
Rhodes is more suited for the tag team division in the WWE where he excels with his brother Dustin. Changing him into a singles super star will only hurt him and the fan base him and Dustin have gained as a tag team. People expect to see Cody in a tag team match as they should since its where he peeks. He hits his spots and then lets his partner take over to fill the gap. That gap cant be filled with him as a singles wrestler. He will suffer from it unlike Dolph Ziggler who has mainly spent his time in WWE as a singles competitor outside of his stint with the Spirit Squad. Cody on the other hand has spent the majority of his WWE career in tag teams with the likes of Bob Holly, Ted Dibiase, Randy Orton, and now Dustin Rhodes. The only time people have cared for Cody in a baby face role as a singles competitor was when his career was on the line against Randy Orton. People had something to emotionally attach to because that was the only way he could get over as a face unlike Ziggler who gets a instantaneous reaction.
The Fourth Wall
Vince McMahon has decided he's going to push one of Cody Rhodes & Dolph Ziggler to be one of his top babyfaces in the company. Which should he choose?
When you look at both men, you have to take in to account all of their qualities. They're both pretty similar in that they're charming, can both work as a babyface and are two of the best naturally gifted wrestlers on the roster. Ziggler is especially known for his brilliant selling abilities during matches. For me though, I would personally go towards Cody Rhodes, I think he has the full package and with a strong character behind him, he could really go places. Rhodes was a stand-out star for me last year, as I felt every night he came out and gave it his all and he really worked well with anything he was given. He's been able to find a lot of success in the Tag Team Division and it's in one of the best places it's been in quite a while. There is a range of top teams that can compete for the title, and Rhodes has really meshed well when working with his brother Goldust.
Recently I've felt that whilst Rhodes is rising, Ziggler has been falling and he's currently not in the best place in the Company, being placed in matches with near enough no build and just not really getting the attention a wrestler of his caliber deserves. That's not something he can control though, and his fate has been in WWE's hand. Rhodes is the much more logical option to push forward right now, he has a lot more backing and momentum going for him. I tend to forget Ziggler even held the World Heavyweight Championship last year because his reign was so lackluster. It started off with a bang with a perfectly planned cash-in that built suspense perfectly. However, an injury really stopped him from making a name for himself and becoming a memorable Champion. There was no memorable matches or feuds he had whilst holding it, and I think it exposed that WWE was more-so testing the water with Ziggler and wasn't prepared to push him fully.
Rhodes has been in and out of pushes for years now, and has just never had the chance at claiming the Gold. Quite frankly he deserves it, but I know it will come in due time, and like we saw with Ziggler rushing it isn't always the wisest option. Rhodes' is still very young and has a bright future ahead of him, I see improvement from him each and every week and it's only a matter of time before he gains the top prize. A title reign would really benefit him, he's found tremendous success in the Midcard Division, and has had successful reigns with the Intercontinental Championship and the Tag Team Championship. If he's able to find a solid character, a reign with the World Championship would bring him up to a new level.
Also, if we look at the Mic Skill side of things, I see Rhodes as the clear winner. He's really able to bring it with a Mic when he wants to, the same goes for Ziggler, but I feel Rhodes' has a lot more natural intensity and he's just generally able to execute what he wants to say with more success. I've never been a big fan of how Ziggler operates on the Mic, and sometimes find him to be slightly corny. It's his ring skills and natural ability that have always impressed me. Rhodes' has been in many matches with current top stars and has always shined in each one. A match I remember well was between him and Randy Orton last year on RAW where he was fighting for his career, he had something great to work with and and was gifted with the chance of closing out RAW. He really made the most of it and pushed Orton to his limit. The longer the match went on, the more the crowd wanted Cody to win and it showed when he has something to work with, he can take advantage of it.
Overall Rhodes is just the total package and choosing him to be a new top babyface of the company would be a wise decision. He has the look, the skills, the charisma and the dedication. What more could Vince McMahon want?
"Vince McMahon has decided he's going to push one of Cody Rhodes & Dolph Ziggler to be one of his top babyfaces in the company. Which should he choose?"
Both men are considerable favourites among internet wrestling fans, but if Vince McMahon were to choose one of Dolph Ziggler, or Cody Rhodes, to be the face of the company – who would he pick, and why?
When it comes down to it, neither man seems like a perfect choice for the ‘face of the company’. Although as face characters, they both possess a sizeable fan following, it’s hard to consider their popularity truly immense enough to be pushed in the role, and there are a handful of talents that are much more fitting for that position.
But if the chairman of the board wants to push one of these two guys to the moon, and over John Cena and Randy Orton, I’m not going to complain!
Though both Cody and Dolph are fantastic in-ring competitors, almost every past ‘face of the company’ has primarily been an entertaining, and popular character – not built entirely on their wrestling ability. Some will argue that many of the company’s top guys were or are great wrestlers; but it’s no secret that wrestling ability is not their selling point.
When it comes to characters, it’s hard to say Cody has one – and if he does, it’s hard to define it. The son of a son of a plumber? Or at least, the son of a legend?
If we were to compare that to Dolph, who has a particularly unique babyface character – a narcissistic, yet somewhat loveable jerk – it’s clear who comes ahead in not only a character, but also character defining and character work.
The lack of a true character essentially proves that Cody isn’t a better choice for the position than Dolph, who has managed to show glimpses of master character work through even the shortest of matches. This is one of the most important skills for a wrestler to have, simply to captivate the fans, and keep their intrigue no matter the length of their match.
Not to mention, with WWE pushing Twitter more than some guys in the locker room, it’s plain silly to ignore popularity on Twitter is a very important thing nowadays. Currently, Dolph Ziggler (@HEELZiggler) has well over one-million followers, whereas Cody Rhodes is slightly under three-hundred-thousand. If we take into account the lack of publicity and television time Dolph Ziggler gets, one-million Twitter followers is a very high number.
Many people consider age to be a factor, but it shouldn’t matter as long as the person in question is still healthy, and likely to be in at least five years’ time… even though only one month after Cody Rhodes turns 29, Dolph Ziggler will turn 34. Plus, if age was a real factor anyway, the fans wouldn’t be forced into a much-too-long stint like Cena’s.
But Ziggler’s one bad concussion away from retiring so the answer is Cody Rhodes.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs Lane - Assuming this is Lane's debate I have the same criticisms that I've seemed to have for every one of your debates. Good foundation supplied from your ideas but not the depth or structure to them to give you a really good debate. I definitely thought you had the start of good points like the differences in organic crowd reactions and Cody excelling with a partner but you didn't use them well enough to really drive home why they are the deciding factor and proving that your statements are true. You bring up the point about crowd reaction but don't support it with any evidence to really strengthen your claim. Instead it reads more as opinion than fact. Opinions can easily be argued against, facts can't. The Cody being better as a tag worker argument was good but it did leave some holes open for countering such as opportunities that Cody's had as a singles guy and even as a babyface like he's been getting with Dustin. Your kinda contradict yourself at the end too by mentioning how Cody has got a big reaction recently as it left me thinking well if he can get a big reaction that soon into what is really his first breakout babyface run imagine what he could get with some more momentum and experience further up the card. You could have countered that by saying that Dolph has more experience in a singles role and is more ready NOW but you didn't. Ultimately your argument supporting Ziggler as your choice was far too weak.
The Fourth Wall - This didn't really convince me that either deserved the push more than the other quite frankly. It felt at times like you might go somewhere good but then you either stopped or took a wrong turn. First two paragraphs I didn't really think offered much to your argument. The first one was basically a really long way of you saying your first line with the opening to other arguments that weren't built on past one sentence. Like the tag team success you introduced and didn't expand on. Lane countered that pretty well too for why Cody shouldn't be picked. Your 2nd paragraph felt like it could go somewhere good but ultimately didn't. You could have done something with Ziggler's failed big push and WWE not having the confidence needed for this role so they might be more willing to properly get behind pushing Cody as opposed to Ziggler. I thought you were unfairly harsh on Ziggler's title run too which basically got cut short due to Swagger not knowing his own strength more than anything Dolph did wrong. Then your own argument for not rushing Cody might be best said to me that they should push Ziggler now and Cody later. There's a lot of stuff that is basically just your opinion and is even written like that. "but I feel Rhodes' has a lot more natural intensity" and "I think he has the full package". Be more convincing with your wording. Make it sound like it's not just your opinion but everyone's opinion to the point of being undeniable fact. Your mic skills point was decent but was hurt by coming off as largely just your personal opinion which doesn't hold much strength in this context when you're arguing for one of them. The final point about the Orton match was much better because you started bringing in facts and evidence to back up your opinion and validate your argument. But it was too short and probably should've been the bulk of your debate rather than just a nice sub-point to end on. This was more like who you would choose rather than who VINCE should choose which is what the question basically was. Everyone seemed to miss that one actually. It wasn't who's better, it was who would be best for business being pushed as a top babyface.
Oxi - This was..... interesting. Essentially arguing for someone and then flipping your stance in literally the last sentence is a first. It's even more baffling considering STEVIE SWAG almost won Bodybag of the Year for doing something similar. You need to pick your stance, declare at is early as possible and then actually argue FOR your pick rather than.... whatever it was you did here. The language or style of writing isn't the issue here like it is in many lesser debates, it's the content of your debate that sucks. And the funny thing is you had a good debate arguing for Ziggler until your final line. I'm not a fan of the blabbing at the start which adds nothing to your debate and I'm not the only judge who dislikes this. Get straight into arguing your stance and much less time setting the context of the debate up. We're not strangers to the context. You really bury Cody during your debate which is neat if you're arguing against him but you're not so due to that final line it's just burying your own stance. Excluding the final line, the last 3 paragraphs were really good and would have won you the debate if you were arguing for Ziggler. Those 3 paragraphs were really good. But then you ruined your debate by changing your stance if you like and essentially making these 3 paragraphs shit because suddenly they buried your own stance. Make sure that you actually argue for YOUR stance rather than the opposite. You would have won but for the final line with the sudden flip of sides.
I don't like choosing a winner for this debate because neither deserved it. You'd probably have a decent debate I'd be happy handing a win to if you took the best bits of all 3 debates though. Giving my vote to The Fourth Wall as although his debate was far from perfect or even all that good, he seemed to try to come the closest to forming an effective argument. Oxi could have had bar that atrocious final line and Lane could had also had it with more depth to his argument.
Winner - The Fourth Wall
THE DARK ANDRE Lane:
Your first two paragraphs were weak and pointless.
Dolph got a huge pop when he came out to cash in on his money in the bank in front of a smarky crowd? Oh, nice one mate, beyond the realms of all possibility and all that! So let’s hear all of these other huge pops and see all of these other examples of Ziggler controlling the crowd, examples which can prove he’s a far better bet than Cody. Oh what, there isn’t any evidence? There aren’t any more examples? So what we’re left with is the notion that Ziggler once gained a huge pop in specialist circumstances? Well I never!
Your second paragraph continued in this same vein; “he connects more with the crowd than Cody Rhodes does”. Does he? Often times I’ll see Ziggler come out and nobody seems to give a fuck, while Cody has in recent times managed to build something of a rapport with the WWE audience, beginning with his moustache gimmick, building as a more stable connection during his feud with Sandow and now reaching new heights with his super over tag team with his brother. I’m not suggesting that one is more over than the other, but they seem about equal to me based on the past year of WWE programming. Both have gained decent reactions when booked well, both have enticed crickets when WWE has left them in the wilderness. The claim that you’re making needs far more evidence to support it, whether that be via video or via merchandise sales, especially when you make claims such as “He is way more popular than Rhodes and has the potential to be a top player in the WWE more so than Cody Rhodes.” Your entire debate comes off like a mark’s opinion rather a strong argument backed by facts.
I also laughed when you argued that Cody would suffer if his tag team was split up. First of all, NO GREAT SINGLES WRESTLER HAS EVER EMERGED FROM A BROKEN UP TAG TEAM, AMIRITE? Second of all, you make it sound like Cody can’t work a singles match with “He hits his spots and then lets his partner take over to fill the gap. That gap cant be filled with him as a singles wrestler” which is not true seeing as he has worked good singles matches in the past. A far more carefully worded argument would have suggested that Cody would be better off staying in his tag team FOR NOW, but would be a good bet in the future, whereas Ziggler is ready NOW. I also had a big problem with this:
“The only time people have cared for Cody in a baby face role as a singles competitor was when his career was on the line against Randy Orton.”
First of all, the bloke has mostly worked as a heel during his WWE career and only just turned face six months ago, so him only gaining a strong sympathetic reaction just recently is more on the booking than anything else. Again:
“People had something to emotionally attach to because that was the only way he could get over as a face unlike Ziggler who gets a instantaneous reaction”
Saying that was the only way he could get over as a face is a tad hypocritical seeing as Ziggler was a failed heel who had a smark following before WWE booked him in a double turn with Del Rio who viciously attacked his previously concussed head, a sure fire tactic to gain baby face sympathy. So what is it? Both guys are shit and need help from booking, or are both guys actually capable of connecting with an audience and that’s just wrestling booking in a nutshell within those two scenarios?
Your “effort” was weaker than an AlexHumph erection in the playboy mansion and probably just as short as well. T’was a garbage debate written by what seemed to be a severe mark with a tendency to spew nonsense. OFF TO THE DOJO YOU GO.
The Fourth Wall:
This debate starts well by giving fair credit to both guys and eradicating the possible notion that we might have another mong on our hands. However, you even admitted yourself that Cody is doing well in a tag team, so what about his current scenario suggests that he’s ready for singles stardom that would break up his current team? Then you acknowledge that while it’s not his fault, Ziggler has lost momentum at a time that Cody is GAINING momentum, therefore making Rhodes the safer bet. That was a good argument. However, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that Ziggler’s mediocre reign should count against him considering the circumstances.
“Rhodes has been in and out of pushes for years now, and has just never had the chance at claiming the Gold” suggests that he isn’t ready to become one of Vince McMahon’s top babyfaces, seeing as he hasn’t even been tested in the main event like Ziggler has. You could have saved that argument by suggesting that Rhodes doesn’t carry the baggage of past failures, unlike Ziggler who has essentially been brandished a joke/jobber world champion by the WWE, a stigma which is hard to shake off. While I’m inclined to agree with you about Cody being better on the mic you didn’t really give any strong examples or make a clever argument in order to highlight how in WWE good mic work is likely to take you a lot further than in ring work which is Ziggler’s main asset. I’m also not going to give you big credit for highlighting the sympathy gained from Cody’s great performance against Randy Orton in his "retirement match", just like I said to Lane with his Ziggler cash in example. Every dog has his day, as the saying goes. This debate had some good ideas but never really elaborated on them, while the debater shot himself in the foot with some of his comments. More DEPTH and EVIDENCE next time please.
First of all I need to point out that this debate was about who Vince should pick as ONE OF his faces of the company, not as "a perfect choice for the ‘face of the company’". Therefore Vinnny Mac daddy wouldn't necessarily have to "push one of these two guys to the moon, and over John Cena and Randy Orton". ONE OF meaning that Cody or Ziggler could be pushed to the same level as Cena or Orton, or even just below them. Regardless, nowhere does the topic suggest that either man would be THE face of the company.
After that odd start you took a great step forward by suggesting that WWE are more interested in personalities than in ring work, therefore the wrestler with the stronger and more definable character would be a safer bet. By showing that Cody doesn’t have a definable and well worked character whereas Dolph does you instantly established that Dolph has more potential RIGHT NOW, although I disagree that this character is “particularly unique”, especially within recent WWE history. A minor quibble though. However, as much as this proves that Ziggler is in a stronger position RIGHT NOW I must point out that Cody showed elements of good character work with his undashing character from 2011, while he also showed great character work in his “win or you’re fired” Raw match against Orton. Thankfully you didn’t fall into the pit and suggest that Cody’s character work is shit, just that he didn't have one, therefore the creative team haven't put him in a place where he's ready to be pushed as one of the faces of the company.
While it’s not a perfect measuring stick in regards to popularity the twitter stats do suggest that Dolph is more popular than Cody. It’s at least some evidence to back up an argument circling around which wrestler is more popular and therefore has the potential to make the WWE more money. So while I believe that you could have gone into greater detail in order to expand upon what these stats potentially mean in terms of money I will at least give you credit finding some evidence to support the basic argument, which is something that Lane and The Fourth Wall failed to do.
…but then you finished with this:
“But Ziggler’s one bad concussion away from retiring so the answer is Cody Rhodes.”
As funny as that was, if you’re going to do a flip flop at the end then you need to make it clear if you’re being sarcastic or not! I know that there are rumours about Ziggler and his concussions, but by being so vague your comment just undermined the rest of your debate which was solid…and I thought I had an obvious winner. FOR FUCKS SAKE!
Lane's was shite, enough said about that disaster. The Fourth Wall dreams of being mediocre on a good day, but it was at least…there. Meanwhile, Oxi had an odd start which suggested a lack of reading comprehension, but after that it seemed like the clear winner...until the final sentence which seemed like an autistic kid pretending to be DDMac for a weekend.
Seabs, can I just murder all three of them instead of picking a winner?
The Fourth Wall: *
Oxi wins my vote despite trying to be a funny/clever cunt and failing miserably. It’s lucky for you that your opponents were probably the same people who awarded CGS a first in accounting…
Good job identifying your stance right from the opening, although the sentence is phrased kind of awkwardly.
I like the recall of the reaction for Ziggler's cash-in on Del Rio being one of the bigger pops in recent memory. As a suggestion, link the video here as a footnote - give the judge the cash-in and reaction right there, and let the roar of the crowd do the talking. It's great if the judge remembers it, but allowing him or her to re-LIVE it only strengthens your statement.
There are a couple grammatical or spelling issues throughout, which don't really cost you any 'marks', because your point is still clear. However, eliminating those and turning in a good clean product will only enhance the opinion of it in a judges' eyes. (Examples: "The crowd on the edge of their seat" should be "The crowd WAS on the edge..., "weather" instead of "whether")
The second paragraph is kind of weak. I mean, you're stating your opinion but it's just that - an opinion. Some facts to back it up (ie: merchandise sales figures, if WWE has any, Twitter followers, videos of Cody coming out to no reaction, ANYTHING) would make it much more convincing than "Ziggler is way more popular and people demand to see him". SHOW THAT.
The final paragraph showing Cody's career has been successful as a sort of "tag specialist" is good, especially when contrasted with the majority of Dolph's career as a singles guy. I would've gone a little further and try to say that Dolph basically became a face in spite of his role as a heel due to fan appreciation, so an arrogant face role might be an even better fit for him.
Overall, the debate is okayyyy, but there are several areas for improvement - most importantly in the second paragraph, and giving some facts or proof to back up your stance.
The Fourth Wall
As with Lane, good job immediately identifying your pick.
The opening paragraph doesn't really separate Rhodes from Ziggler in terms of ability, other than the vague notion that he went out and "gave it his all" every night. This is immediately after you give Ziggler props for selling his ass off. Then you hype up his tag abilities. Nothing here really furthers your argument, which is why it's somewhat weak.
The second paragraph makes a little more sense, pointing out Cody's rise and Ziggler's presumed fall down the card. I REALLY like your acknowledgement that this isn't really in the control of the wrestler's as that's an easy counterpoint that you at least addressed. If unaddressed, I would've snarkily said "but it's not in their control". You prevented that.
I LOVED the part about Ziggler's cash-in, as that was what gripped me the most in Lane's debate. This portion of your debate basically says, "yeah, that was a great cash-in, but what happened after that?"
I like the opening of Paragraph 3, further burying Ziggler's push to the title as not being the "wisest option" and saying it was "rushed". The comment about finding a solid character isn't all that helpful, as couldn't that be said about ANYONE on the midcard? And if Ziggler already has a solid character (as the Show-Off), might that even strengthen the argument for him instead? Not a major point against, but just something to keep in mind.
The mic skills opening isn't the strongest. It's difficult when you're giving props to both guys and then the reason you choose one is "I feel someone does x better". Of course you do, that's why you picked him. You need to show WHY it's better one way than the other. Can you give examples on how it's more effective to a large audience? If your argument is "I like how this guy talks more than that guy", it doesn't carry much weight.
When discussing the match with Orton where the crowd was hot throughout, why not add a footnote with the link there. I made a similar criticism in Debate A. I mean, if I'm watching that clip for 10 minutes right now and coming back to review, I'm going to be even more in support of this statement.
The conclusion is good, and just rounded out the structure of the debate.
Overall, a good job. There were some areas that needed some kind of factual or video support, but a well-structured, well-written debate that was a pleasure to read.
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the opening to this debate. Also, burying both guys right from the get go (in your second paragraph) as an imperfect fit will not support the guy you do choose, whenever you do choose him.
At the halfway point, we're still in this little rut of stating the obvious. Wrestling ability is not the main factor for superstars. The face of the company is entertaining and popular. Okay, great.
A breakdown of the characters is solid - I enjoyed the writing style here and how you went about it, and shows some support for Ziggler. Finally, we're getting somewhere in terms of an opinion! Followed up with the next paragraph's opening line "the lack of a true character essentially proves that Cody isn't a better choice", I like it, finally establishing a strong opinion. It may have took 3/4 of the debate to get here, but this is a nice development.
The Twitter numbers are nice, and is a nice reference point to gauge some aspect of popularity. As the only one who attempted to bring in some facts, I commend you. So you've built up Dolph reasonably enough (using half of the space in your debate to do so, essentially), and we head to your conclusion.
A nice, quick little recap of your selection of Dol--- Wait. WHAT?! I'm utterly confounded by the closing line. If this was going to be where you were going with the debate, why build up Dolph at all? Why not hide the negatives that surround Cody and give a couple positives? Why not present a debate that explains "hey Dolph has had five documented concussions, and here is medical research on how concussions are terrible for athletes and his career is pretty much dead"? You have one line in this entire piece that supports Cody, and it simply reads that Ziggler is one bad concussion from retiring so Cody, by default, I guess. Not a good look. Memorable, but for the wrong reasons.
The winner of this debate, for my money, is clearly The Fourth Wall. Lane was too sparse in terms of facts and argument. Oxi shot itself in the foot by taking too long to start, and then concluding in COMPLETE OPPOSITION to everything it set out beforehand. The Fourth Wall's was solid, well-written, and open to only minor counters. The clear best effort of the three.
Winner via Split Decision - The Fourth Wall
MoveMent vs RMSTGO vs Alim vs Klunderbunker What should be the WWE World Heavyweight Title match for Royal Rumble?
Spoiler for Debates:
In my opinion, I think the WWE World Heavyweight Championship match that should be held at the Royal Rumble Pay-Per-View is the defending champion Randy Orton against 2013 Superstar of The Year, Daniel Bryan.
As far as the WWE Championship picture is concerned, Daniel Bryan has been a loose end to Orton's reign as Champion. Bryan's rivalry with Orton over the title has not come to a definitive end, and I believe giving this feud closure at the Royal Rumble would be the best move, whichever direction the company wants to go with for the title, whether it's Daniel Bryan becoming a bona fide main eventer, or further cementing Orton's position as the Champion of Champions in the WWE.
The story begins at SummerSlam. Daniel Bryan defeats John Cena and wins the WWE Championship, shortly before Randy Orton cashes in the Money in The Bank contract he'd won the month before, after Bryan was pedigreed by Triple H. 8 seconds later Randy Orton is the new WWE Champion.
The next time they fought for the title was at Night Of Champions, where Bryan had seemingly won the WWE Championship for a second time... until the next night on Raw, where the referee's fast count was subject of controversy, and the title was held in abeyance until Payback.
Bryan faces Orton again, and has him in the Yes Lock until the Big Show comes in and starts knocking people out left and right. Greaaaaaat.
Fast Forward to Hell in a Cell, and Orton defeats Bryan, after Bryan gets hit with Sweet Chin Music by the special guest referee, Shawn Michaels.
This has been fairly decent booking in my opinion, the title had changed hands between the two, and there wasn't a clear, decisive decision on who was the better man. It seemed like it was leading to a penultimate decider, the match to settle it once and for all, but then nothing happened.
Big Show lawyered his way into a title match, and then they ran with a title unification angle with Cena.
It left a hole in the thick of it all, Bryan and Orton both robbed of the oppurtunity to settle it once and for all, one on one, who is the better wrestler. On the Raw after TLC the two tangled in a pretty good match, which ended in Orton low-blowing Bryan, giving Bryan a DQ victory, which was alright. This was a non-title match on Raw, the payoff didn't need to happen then.
Now they have the oppurtunity to use the months of build up into one epic main event. Orton vs Bryan. The one to decide it all, with the grandest prize in sports entertainment on the line. The winner will undoubtedly head into the Main Event of Wrestlemania, and he will do it as WWE World Heavyweight Champion. When everything this business stands for is at stake, who will come out on top?
Both men clearly want it. The last time Bryan was in a singles match at Mania, he was opening Mania' as World Heavyweight Champion. And he lost in 18 seconds. EIGHTEEN FUCKING SECONDS. Now he has a shot to erase the memory of losing the opening match in WM28, by main eventing WM XXX as WWE's undisputed number 1, the WWE World Heavyweight Champion.
Randy Orton may be a multiple time WWE Champion, but he's yet to main event Wrestlemania as the WWE Champion. The last time he was WWE Champion at Mania, he wrestled the 7th match in a 9 match card at Wrestlemania XXIV, with the combined drawing power of Edge's World Heavyweight Championship and The Undertaker's streak making their match the clear main event. The next year he was in the main event, challenging Triple H for the WWE Championship, and lost.
It's been 5 long years, and Orton wants his moment. He needs his moment. He wants the shot to prove that he DESERVES to carry this company on his shoulder, that he is where he is because of the hard work he's put in day in and day out, to silence the critics who pin it all to his last name. And he'll get that shot, by beating Daniel Bryan one on one.
Essentially tying this storyline up will do both competitors good heading into the road to Wrestlemania. Giving this feud closure will help build credibility to the Champion's legacy as a deserving champion, and allows both men to advance into other storylines, especially with a new number one contender after the Royal Rumble. This feud is begging for a resolution, and what better way to kick off the road to Wrestlemania than with a match 5 months in the making (Which is more build-up than Rock-Cena II).
The WWE World Heavyweight Title match at the Royal Rumble should be Randy Orton vs. John Cena. First off, the challenger should realistically be John Cena because he lost his World Heavyweight Championship at TLC in the World Title unification match. That should’ve been set in stone the minute that match was over.
Secondly, who better to be the challenger than Cena? Say what you want about him; he’s boring, he’s plain, he can’t wrestle. At the end of the day, it’s always going to be Cena no matter what. He brings in the money and the fans which make the WWE operate. Cena is a 15 time World Champion. He is capable of putting on a entertaining match at a given notice. No one on the WWE’s roster is able to bring what Cena brings to the fans and to the WWE.
Wins and losses don’t do much for the full-time wrestlers. If Cena loses, he has the rest of the year to be the WWE World Heavyweight Champion. The Rumble is the first Pay-Per-View of the year, and to start the year off, Randy Orton has to face Cena. No other wrestler on the roster can draw the fans in and make the WWE money like John Cena can. Without part time wrestlers, Cena can stabilize not only the buyrates of Pay-Per-Views, but the ratings for the WWE programs. People want to see Cena be the champ. Other people want to see Cena lose. Cena has had a mixed reaction from fans for a very long time, and what better way to see what happens than to put Cena in the WWE World Heavyweight Title match at Royal Rumble? The Rumble sets the tone for the rest of the year. More importantly, the Royal Rumble sets the pace for the WWE’s biggest show of the year: Wrestlemania. Realistically, no other wrestler has proven to be a draw like Cena. Until then, the Royal Rumble WWE World Heavyweight title match should be read as: Randy Orton vs. John Cena.
The Royal Rumble is one of WWE’s premiere annual events as it’s the first stop on the Road to Wrestlemania. The show’s main selling point is the 30-man Royal Rumble itself, where the winner gets the opportunity to challenge the WWE World Heavyweight Champion at the grandest stage of them all. However the main title match itself should not be forgotten.
In the past we’ve seen the Royal Rumble pay-per-view as a “test” for some wrestlers who are hovering around the upper midcard to see how they do in a pay-per-view title match. Some examples include Lesnar/Holly (04), Angle/Benoit (03), and Orton/Hardy (08). This is the ideal event for the WWE to try someone who usually isn’t in the main event match on a pay-per-view in a main event like scenario by competing in the title match. More often than not, the Royal Rumble match is the one that headlines the show and not any other title match unless under very specific circumstances like last year.
The title match for this year’s show was announced a couple of weeks ago and it’s Orton versus Cena in a rematch from TLC. I’d say that’s a pretty good title match, but it’s definitely not the route I would have went. Although the thought of having a Dolph Ziggler or Big E Langston challenge Orton for the title might be appealing to some, that also would not have been the choice I would have gone with.
Instead, my perfect WWE World Heavyweight Championship match at Royal Rumble would be Randy Orton versus CM Punk. The story basically writes itself. Orton is the handpicked “face of the company” and is the authority’s “guy”. And Punk is basically the anti-authority who goes against everything Orton and co. stand for. The seeds for this match have been planted for a few months now but we have yet to see WWE pull the trigger.
However the underlying reason I wanted this match to happen at the Rumble is because it would have been a perfect set up for the long time coming, HHH versus Punk at Wrestlemania. It’s been rumoured for months that this match is being heavily considered for the big show and week by week it looks more likely. What better way to set up Punk’s redemption against the authority that screwed him in 2011 by having him get screwed again in 2014? You could have Orton retain the title by outside interference from Triple H or a disqualification finish, there are so many options. Either way, it would be easy to make Punk look strong heading into the Wrestlemania season to gear up for a match against The Game. It’s not like Punk is doing anything of note right now anyway, other than having a mini feud with The Shield and inevitably getting fed to Roman Reigns.
What should be the WWE World Heavyweight Title match for Royal Rumble?
For a question like this, you have to use logic over personal preference. I could say Daniel Bryan should be in the match because he’s the best thing WWE has going on right now and they’ve already screwed him out of his previous opportunities, but it simply wouldn’t make sense considering they’ve actually put him in a solid storyline that is going somewhere. Title hunts aren’t exactly in his immediate future. How about Brock Lesnar? He’s a big name and WWE does love to bring in the big names for the “Big Four” PPVs however if you put Lesnar in a title match against Orton, odds are he’s going to win and can WWE really afford to have a part time champion again for the Road to Mania? The Rock at the very least is one of the most famous names in entertainment so while he was not always at RAW he was still promoting elsewhere. Lesnar won’t exactly be doing the same thing.
Then there’s Batista…..Batista….well while he had become a pretty great wrestler in the latter part of his career I can’t see the face of WWE looking like this
No. His opponent has to be John Cena. The Road to Wrestlemania is approaching and giving Orton a new opponent now wouldn’t make sense considering Cena would clearly get a rematch for losing his title. That storyline needs closure or at the very least it needs to continue to be built on. They did a good job of having solidifying Orton by having him beat Cena clean for the title but now they can either have him beat him again clean, or have him win in more of a heel fashion which would be the better option. The same way they had Orton beat Ch*** B***** clean for his first WHC then had Evolution help him retain the night after. He needs reaffirmation that he is a heel now. It’s hard to predict what they’re going to do since Wrestlemania plans change often until the Road to Mania actually starts but this is the next logical step before we get to that road.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs RMSTGO - This felt too descriptive and lacked depth to your argument for your actual pick for me. There's a lot of stating stuff which is good if it leads somewhere or supports an argument you're making but it didn't here. It was just a lot of description that left me a bit confused at the point of it all since you really summed up your entire argument right at the start and then everything else felt like a history lesson. Your point about the Orton/Bryan saga needing a conclusion and this giving it either no matter what outcome as long as it's clean was good but then you never developed your main argument. By the end of it you got so distracted from the actual topic you were talking about what both deserve to get at Mania which really had nothing to do with what the title match at the Rumble should be because the topic is just focused on the match, not the winner and there's still loads of time for the winner of the title match to drop the title before Mania. Started off well and had a good conclusion but the middle was all drab that didn't enhance your argument sadly.
Klunderbunker - This was way too brief and not all that great in its content. I know there's a minimum word count but really if you want to be looking at a good debate let alone possibly a winning debate against debates that aren't shit you really need to be getting up to at least 600 words to really develop a compelling argument. I thought you did a solid job arguing why Cena was a draw but I thought you needed to relate it to the actual topic here better and then build on the argument for that match at the PPV. Instead you just had an ok and basic argument. Next time try and set yourself a minimum of 600 words and 3 reasons for your stance that are developed on. AND PROPER PARAGRAPHS.
Alim - I'm 3 paragraphs in and you still haven't stated your stance or really begun your actual debate. Normally that's ok but you only have 5 paragraphs so here it's an issue. Your debate needs way more content in the form of reasoning. What you had was good if there was a second half to it. It's exactly like you forgot to finish the debate and it ended just as your reasoning was getting started. Which is a shame too because it felt like you had the potential for a strong debate if you had more reasoning and went in greater detail on the points you did make.
MoveMent - Another debate that felt like the 2nd half was missing. Which is a shame because what you had wasn't terrible. It wasn't good either but mostly because you barely actually had anything. It was short and you spent longer telling me why other picks shouldn't be the title match compared to telling me why your pick was the right one. With so few words supporting your argument it's really hard to develop much of an argument, let alone a convincing one. The massive Batista pic kinda put me off for a reason I'm not totally sure of. I thought your Batista argument was kinda terrible too. Rest of it was decent. There just wasn't much of it.
I have to give the win to A because they were the only who had something resembling a complete debate regardless of the lack of quality content inside it. Fuck.
Winner - RMSTGO
Solid opening, identifying your choice immediately. I like the second paragraph highlighting how either result works in terms of directions the company can go. The "loose end" comment makes sense too, and justifies the match.
The next couple paragraphs were short, quick-hits, and I thank you for that, even though it was pretty much all recap. Not necessarily the best use of the word count, but it did lead to your ultimate point of NOTHING HAPPENING.
You do a good enough job hyping the matchup. The backstory for each guy is acceptable, with Bryan's last single's match at Mania driving him to the star he's become, and Orton having never main evented the show as champion. That's some good factual background stuff.
Nowhere in the debate do you dismiss any other potential matches (ie: Cena, after having just lost in the unification match), which leaves you open to potential counters.
A solid effort. Well put together. A dash of facts, a pinch of passion, and an all-around decent sell of your proposed main event. It fails to address counter-proposals, but it's still a fairly good debate.
Good job identifying your opinion from the jump. I'm going to say that I'm not crazy about the formatting of the debate, which appears like a wall of text. Preview your message before you send it in - paragraph spacing in Word doesn't always translate perfectly on the forum. Just a heads up.
Like RMSTGO, you present a logical reason why the match should take place (Cena having lost the unification bout).
The paragraph about Cena being boring, can't wrestle etc is okayyyy.. but doesn't really strengthen your argument a bunch? Why not focus on the POSITIVES? He gets a reaction, he gets people invested, he draws more than the alternatives. You bring that up afterwards, but why not just say that instead of putting all the shitty aspects of Cena in the match up front?
Speaking of alternatives, like RMSTGO, you don't really delve into other possibilities (and then shut the door on them). I would be nice to see you dismiss Bryan or anyone else who may come to mind. I would've liked to see you address my concern (and presumably many others) who are quite simply BORED of seeing Cena / Orton. How can they make it fresh? Why should I be emotionally invested? There seems to be plenty of word count available to delve into these areas. Also, the point of Cena being a draw is countered by the fact that the Rumble event is kind of a draw in itself. Do you need your A+ matchup on the same card as the biggest gimmick match of the year?
Overall, it's okay. You advance your ideas but don't really go into any real DEPTH behind your decision-making. I was left asking more questions than I was agreeing with what you were selling.
The opening is okay.. stating some fairly known facts about the Rumble PPV itself and setting up its place as a "test" PPV for upper-midcard wrestlers. You bring good matches to the forefront to expand on your comment, well done.
It takes until the halfway point before you actually state your opinion. This doesn't kill the debate, but I still generally prefer that a debater's position is front-loaded.
The paragraph where you reveal Punk to be your choice is okay. The "storyline writes itself" comment is iffy (in a debate, that is, where you're trying to prove your choice is the best), so I'm very glad that you still take the time to dive into the potential storyline and give me something to go on.
The focus on setting up for Mania is similar to RMSTGO, and the reasoning behind putting Punk in the match with Orton is sound. You could've gone even further, noting the chemistry the two have going back to their earlier feuds from years' past as the groundwork for a potential match of the night. I also would've liked seeing you address the counter options a little bit better, beyond "I wouldn't have gone down that route". I know there's a word limit, but you go as far as bringing up the choice of Cena. Explain WHY you're not going that route. Hammer home the point again that the Rumble is the selling point, and why waste Cena / Orton there?
Overall, it's an above average debate that I feel just misses in the sense that while good or valid points are often raised, they're never hammered home into submission.
Although I'm not typically a fan of keeping your answer hidden (or simply front-loading your answer), this approach kind of works. This debate is doing what the others have failed to do, and that's eliminate potential contenders one by one.
Getting rid of D-Bry was well done, given his current storyline situation. The Brock argument was sound too, especially when comparing him to the Rock. Not sure if I'm as on-board with you getting rid of Batista due to his odd taste in RayBan glasses, but at least you chose something.
The logic behind picking Cena makes sense. Calling upon the past angle Orton had with (*name redacted) was smart, and also brought some humour to the proceedings (beyond the giant image of Batista's head).
The conclusion is the first part where you waver. Yes, things change, but this is where you slam your stamp down and state how this is OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY the best way for everything to go down. I would've liked to see you go a little further and perhaps suggest what the best way to move forward actually is, as the other debates did.
All four are kind of in the same realm of being close together, but this comes down to RMSTGO and MoveMent for me. Although MoveMent's was the only one to really address counter-options, one of those options was "this guy made a duckface one time". Although RMSTGO's wasn't perfect, I found it had a better flow than the rest. However, MoveMent countered the choice of Bryan well enough, that my vote goes there. MoveMent is the winner.
THE DARK ANDRE RMSTGO:
The first half of this is far too narrative based; you wasted too many words telling the judges what they should already know without actually strengthening your argument. That could and should have been condensed into a couple of sentences, leading on to an actual argument. Okay, so I can’t actually find any arguments within this telling my WHY this match HAS TO HAPPEN at the rumble. Why couldn’t this match occur Mania XXX? The point about having this match at the rumble because it would give both men a strong motivation to reach WrestleMania is cute, but you could say that about ANY potential wwe title match up at royal rumble 2014, as well as the thirty participants in the rumble match itself. Couldn’t Bryan just win the rumble and “erase the memory of losing the opening match in WM28” via that route? None of your arguments distinguish a difference between DB/Orton and any other match happening at the rumble.
I also wasn’t convinced by your argument for Orton needing to successfully defend the WWE title at Mania XXX. Surely the fact that he successfully defended the WWE title at Mania XXIV and main evented the following year means he has been given more opportunities than most, so why does this regressing performer actually DESERVE to defend his title in the main event at Mania XXX? Whether it's in a kayfabe or non kayfabe sense, you need to be clear. Let’s not forget that the WWE title might not even main event WrestleMania. A far more appropriate and concise argument would have been: “Orton has only just become UNDISPUTED champion, to have him lose the WWE title and not be a part of the Rumble title match would be horrendous booking and would have dented the credibility of the newly forged championship.” That’s literally all you needed to say! I’ve got to be honest and say that this was a really shoddy debate that didn’t convince me in the slightest. Fair play to you for some excellent writing that was enjoyable and easy to follow, but unfortunately you didn’t make one rock solid argument.
The tragic thing about this match is that this was less than half the length of RMSTGO's, yet it actually made a far stronger argument than RMSTGO did at any point!!! For example: “First off, the challenger should realistically be John Cena because he lost his World Heavyweight Championship at TLC in the World Title unification match. That should’ve been set in stone the minute that match was over” is better than any argument that was raised in RMSTGO's debate. However: “Say what you want about him; he’s boring, he’s plain, he can’t wrestle” was worse than anything that was contained within RMSTGO's, seeing as it made an argument that other potential main events could be far more entertaining. If you’re going to look at this debate from a business sense then you need to bring STATTAGE, comparing the difference that Cena can make business wise, but you didn’t do that. You also needed to explain how “He is capable of putting on a entertaining match at a given notice”. It’s not that I disagree, but it’s YOUR job to fill in the blanks, showing that YOU can make an argument. Your final paragraph was a total mess although this had some merit: “People want to see Cena be the champ. Other people want to see Cena lose. Cena has had a mixed reaction from fans for a very long time, and what better way to see what happens than to put Cena in the WWE World Heavyweight Title match at Royal Rumble?” This debate actually had a decent start, but fell off quite dramatically. There was no real structure to your debate and your arguments came across more like opinions than facts. There were nowhere near enough words included either.
Your first two paragraphs were pointless. None of this argued your stance. In fact, I didn’t even get to find out your stance until the third paragraph. Okay, so I had to wait until your FOURTH paragraph to find out your actual stance, meaning that the first three paragraphs where you didn’t make one convincing argument were a complete waste of time. So then you finally got your debate under way and you made a brilliant argument for Punk vs Orton, declaring that the background has already been laid out for the feud, while the match needs to happen at the Royal Rumble in order to set up the long anticipated HHH vs Punk rematch. The idea that it would finally give Punk a purpose after having drifted along in the upper mid card wilderness since SummerSlam was also a reasonable argument. FUCK. If only you had built on those arguments, cut out the garbage and built a stronger conclusion, then you would have had this in the bag.
This started out really well with some really concise counter arguments against other potential candidates. Your points against Bryan and Lesnar were actually really decent. The Batista picture made me laugh but it didn’t make for a strong argument at all. I’m also against the use of pictures in debates becoming a trend, so I’m not going to give you any real credit here. You made a similar argument to the one that debater B did about Cena being a logical opponent in terms of kayfabe, while you also expanded upon that and showed how this could establish Orton as a top line heel. The censorship of Chris Benoit also made me chuckle. I’ll definitely give you credit for that. This was a very short, but very sweet debate, almost all killer and no filler. Against better opponents I’d advise you to make more of an effort, but this was good for what it was.
Well, that was an incredibly shite match up. RMSTGO had a real go but completely missed the target, Klunderbunker didn’t even try and only mustered up one truly good point, Alim didn’t even realise that he was in a debate until it was too fuckern late and MoveMent liststfully floated across the sea of sewage that was created by his opponents, oblivious to the fact that his effort would be a waste of time in any match over than this.
MoveMent wins my vote, but fuckern warz at that match, I’ve seen better contests in Jim’s gym.
Winner via Split Decision - MoveMent
The Wrestling Junkie vs RichardHagen vs killacamt vs AwShit Assuming that Batista is indeed confirmed for Wrestlemania, who should his opponent(s) be?
Spoiler for Debates:
Assuming that Batista is indeed confirmed for WrestleMania, who should his opponent be?
If Batista is confirmed for the card which by now is a given, his opponent should be one of two people. Triple H or Randy Orton. Either one of those matches wouldn't be the match of the night but the WWE could easily play off the history Batista has with them. With Triple H they could do something along the lines of Triple H had a losing streak against Batista and he is ready to show him why he is the "king of kings". Triple H would come out and cut promos on why he was always the leader of Evolution and why Batista was and always will be beneath him. Batista with help could probably talk about how Triple H always puts his ego over everyone including his best friend HBK, strike a chord with Hunter so to speak. Don't really let either guy get the upper hand as to keep the fans guessing on who will win and how. Might not be a bad way to go.
Batista vs Randy Orton is a better idea and it would probably draw a tad bit more interest than the above mentioned match. They could also bring the guys history they have with each other in regards to evolution. I am thinking they play up on how Orton was always jealous of Batista and how close he was to Hunter and Flair, Batista could say Randy is a coward or a chicken sh*t to get his blood boiling. This match would probably go 17-27 mins and would be on the backend of the card, maybe have it be a street fight or a last man standing. I don't know that this match needs the title involved in it. Sadly it probably will be.
I am looking forward to Batista's return just to see what they do with him. Whoever his opponent is hopefully can bring out the best in him and work smoothly through his ring rust as I'm sure this would be his first one on one match since his impending return.
Assuming that Batista is indeed confirmed for Wrestlemania, who should his opponent(s) be?
After a little consideration, I decided that Batista must face his former rival Randy Orton at Wrestlemania XXX.
Why did I come to this conclusion?
I briefly pondered the question and decided that Batista’s opponent must have three things: star power, size and some form of history with “the Animal”.
What do I mean by these?
By star power, I mean his opponent must be able to draw. Batista will obviously have to be a focal part of the show, therefore he needs to face a credible opponent. What does this mean? None of your Kane’s or Big Show. Let’s look at shows in which these guys were featured at a centrepiece. At Survivor Series 2013, Big Show faced Randy Orton in the main event for the WWE Championship. The approximate buyrate for that show? An appalling 179k. Kane? Well, his highly anticipated return with the mask around January 2012, should have resulted in a larger buyrate, wrong? This PPV also saw a drop from previous PPV’s. Kane and Big Show were just examples though, there’s plenty more where that came from.
By size, I mean his opponent must not be a vanilla midget. As stated before, his opponent must have credibility, and let’s face it, your Rey Mysterio’s, Cody Rhodes’s and even your Daniel Bryan’s don’t have this compared to your John Cena’s or your Randy Orton’s. This takes about half of the roster out of the equation.
Finally, we reach the final and most important necessity for Batista’s Wrestlemania opponent. The final requirement of whomever this may be is that they must have some form of history with “the Animal.” Why is this? I understand Batista will return 2 months before the event and that this is plenty of time in the WWE, but this is the 30th Wrestlemania we’re talking about. The significant matches of this event should feature the culmination of a long-term rivalry or a match that was destined to happened. Triple H vs. Randy Orton (Wrestlemania XXV) and Hulk Hogan vs. Randy Savage (Wrestlemania V) are key examples of this. Now, this leaves only a few members of the roster.
Which wrestlers fit all of the above criteria? John Cena? Been there, done that. Plus, he will be preoccupied in what I feel should be the main event against Undertaker. Brock Lesnar? A quality option, yes, but I’m allowed to fear the worst after Brock Lesnar vs. Goldberg. This leaves us with one man, and by far the best option. Batista’s Wrestlemania XXX opponent must be Randy Orton. Orton has the star power. Ignore Survivor Series 2013, PPV’s featuring him in high-profile matches generally result in a good buyrate. The clear example for this is Wrestlemania XXV, in which he took on Triple H. This event received the tenth highest amount of buys of all time. Randy Orton has the size. Billed at 6 ft 5 and 245 lb, it’s actually believable that he could go toe to toe with “the Animal”, especially compared to your Rey Mysterio (175 lb) or Daniel Bryan (210 lb). Lastly, there’s the well-documented history between Randy Orton and Batista. It began with Evolution. The two, as well as Ric Flair, fought together at Wrestlemania 20. It would be fitting to see the two square off ten years later. This was a match that was always going to happen, and despite the fact that it has on numerous equation, the two of them, for whatever reason have never faced off on the Grandest Stage of Them All.
For Batista’s match at Wrestlemania XXX to reach the highest standard it can, it is vital that he face Randy Orton. “the Animal” vs. “the Viper” must happen at the 30th Anniversary of WrestleMania.
Assuming that Batista is indeed confirmed for Wrestlemania, who should his opponent(s) be?
Batista coming back till Wrestlemania and speculations of him taking time off after the event and working a Brock Lesnar type schedule, the last thing Batista needs at Wrestlemania is a victory. Batista coming back is a perfect way for the WWE to put over new and upcoming talent. Batista may not be John Cena caliber and is certainly no where near The Undertaker, but a win over Batista could assist with helping the talent springboard themselves into a good and credible summer run and boost them to the level of main event talent for the next year or so.
The question is who? Who does WWE trust enough to put up against The returning Animal at Wrestlemania. If they can do it right, my pick to go up against Batista would be Roman Reigns. Roman Reigns has not reached his peak yet, If the WWE wants to push Roman Reigns to the next level away from The Shield, as a good guy or a bad guy, Batista would be the man to match up with him and give him the credibility that the WWE is looking to give Reigns before pushing him into the main event scene.
Roman Reigns attack is smash mouth, physical, in your face, run you over with a semi truck and fill up with gas and grab a Coke on his way. This perfectly matches Batista's in ring skills and attitude. Reigns shows little to no mercy on any body that he faces and from what I remember and watch of Batista, him and Roman Reigns could put on a power house of a matchup at the grand daddy of them all. It wouldn't even be one of those slow Ryback/Henry matches either. It would be a quick powerful attack from both men.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is how they would set up the match, but what I do believe is that Reigns has the ideal look and physique to put on a hell of a match up at Wrestlemania. This would put Reigns over against a credible opponent, and also give Batista a way to still look powerful heading into the Summer by putting him against someone that the WWE has built to be an up and coming star the past few months in Roman Reigns. Especially if the match is given enough time and the proper balance of power between the two men.
WWE Creative could also use this as a way to split The Shield up once and for all. Ambrose and Rollins could cost Reigns the match because they are jealous that Reigns is getting the opportunity over them. That is, if they want to keep The Shield together that long.
The Wrestling Junkie
As we all know, one of the most successful wrestlers in the world today ‘The Animal’ and Former multiple-time World Champion Batista is making his return to WWE for the first time since 2010 on January 20th edition of RAW. But there leaves one important question. Who should Batista face at the 30th annual edition of Wrestlemania?
Well at the moment we are completely unsure as to whether he will be returning as a heel or face but will most probably turn out to be the latter due to the recent video packages. But regardless, I am going to go through a list of options in which I believe could be Batista potential opponent(s) and make a conclusion to who it should be.
We have Randy Orton & Batista for the WWE title. This seems like a no-brainer situation really as I am sure many of you know their history together from Evolution. A man like Batista will most surely be involved in the top program, and at the moment the Authority/Orton is at the top of the card. With guys like Batista/Hunter/Orton all in the main feud, it could surely be interesting as the history writes itself and can be very entertaining watch seeing as the last time we saw Orton/Batista feud was back in 2009. But with this added spice of the Authority in the stable, it could lead to be an interesting reignited feud and solidifying Batista back as a main eventer on his return to WWE.
Another top potential candidate is The Undertaker. The last time we saw these two face were back at Wrestlemania 23 in which Taker won. As we all know, Undertakers match are no shy of being repeated so to see a returning Batista challenging the streak could be potentially interesting. Although this would not be a uncommon choice, I personally would have to shoot this down as a match that will not happen for the fact it seems that The Undertaker will be going to feud with Brock Lesnar as rumours have been circulating.
On the subject of Brock Lesnar, a potential match of Brock Lesnar vs Batista would be a very interesting match-up as we have yet to see these two fight on television. The match-up creates itself, ‘The Animal’ vs ‘The Beast’ and is one of my dream matches I would love to see. I have a video-clip interview of Batista actually stating he would like to return to fight Lesnar back in early 2013.
As I have stated with The Undertaker, it’s to my understanding that rumors have been circulating that Brock Lesnar will be working with Undertaker, so this kind of hurts the chance of this happening but is a serious contender to who I believe his opponent should be.
Other potential opponent(s) are John Cena & The Shield. Jon Cena is obviously a common choice depending if Batista returns as a heel, because in kayfabe terms, John Cena was the reason why Batista left the WWE. But with recent video packages, it seems quite likely that Batista will be returning as the protagonist. And a likely feud with The Shield could happen seeing as they are in the Authority type storyline, so Batista not to cross paths with The Shield will be unusual. I suspect this will not end up being a Wrestlemania feud, but it could potentially be.
I will have to make my overall conclusion, and to make a guess that Batista will be entering a program with Randy Orton for the WWE Championship. Although Lesnar would be a great opponent, I just believe that WWE would prefer to introduce Batista back to the WWE and take him to the top and challenge for the championship and perhaps allow Batista to enter a program with Lesnar in the summer. But I will have to agree with WWE decision if Batista does face Orton, as I feel this is by far the most interesting angle they have to offer, and will be the reason why Batista will have a very big chance in winning the Royal Rumble.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs killacamt - This was like you just sat down for 10 minutes and typed your immediate thoughts down and that was it. That isn't what a debate should be. You should be picking a stance and then ARGUING why your stance is the correct one rather than just typing up a quick opinion. If Batista vs Orton is "the better idea" than don't argue points in favour of another stance without discrediting them like you did here. Even if the content was good it's still too short really. Next time try to get the fundamentals of a debate right and aim to get as close to the 800 word limit as you can and I can pretty much guarantee you'll have a better debate than this. Until then you're probably gonna keep getting similar feedback until you do something to act on it.
AwShit - I don't like your debate 4 words in. Those first 4 words set the debate off in a bad tone by basically saying to the reader than you haven't put much consideration into this which immediately kills any passion for what you're supposed to be arguing for. And you do again two sentences later. Unless you're using this wording to state how obvious it is then it's a really bad idea because it makes your debate look lazy. However I do like that you're setting a criteria for the opponent to base your debate off as well as stating your stance at the start so the criteria means something to me. Good. Your buyrate argument is killed dead when you mention Big Show vs RANDY ORTON aka the same guy you're arguing to face Batista based on your criteria of star power. Really you should be able to pick up glaring flaws like that with just a quick read through of your own debate thinking about the topic a bit more critically. Go through your own debate and try to counter argue it to highlight the holes in your argument and you should spot things like this easier. The size argument was weak and very brief. I wasn't convinced that it eliminated someone like Bryan from the running at all. There was possibly a point to be argue here but you didn't bother. Instead you just stated it and left easy counters open which isn't at all convincing. Disagree about history being the most important criteria but I'll see how you well you argue it. Not really convinced by your argument for why it's needed tbh. It's more of a criteria that directly favours your pick so it's more of a reason than a criteria for me. Your dismissal of Cena was oddly brief as he fit all 3 of your criteria but you just brushed it off like you'd already destroyed any arguments for a genuine contender, even by your own criteria. Lesnar dismissal is much stronger but could have used more depth too. Something about who benefits from that pairing perhaps? Again I'm not convinced at all by your buyrate argument and I could easily destroy it by crediting either the Wrestlemania brand, Hunter or other matches on that card for that buyrate and point to the poor buyrates that every other PPV since Orton became champ have done. His fault or not it's still evidence that contradicts your argument. At least you attempted to prove why Orton is a draw rather than just stating it thought which is something a lot of people neglected on this card. You at least link Orton into your criteria pretty well despite the drawing flaw and the weak dismissals of other contenders. What about Triple H? He first the criteria. I liked at least what you attempted to do with your structure, the content just wasn't quite what it needed to be to produce a really good debate.
Hag - I liked this. It was a tad too brief and had some annoying spelling/grammar issues but I liked your pick and I liked your argument for it. Good stuff focusing on the benefits to be gained from the match and how Reigns and Batista are a good pairing. " What I'm having a hard time understanding is how they would set up the match" - hated this line. Never bring up arguments against your pick that you can't discredit to support your stance. Just leave them in the background and hope nobody thinks about it. If you bring it up yourself then we'll definitely be aware of it and it's bad practice arguing against yourself because it makes you look a bit silly. Other than that I really liked your pick and you argued it fairly convincingly. Room for improvement with more depth and taking some inspiration from some debates at the top of cards though. Not sure if the "Thanks!" was meant to be part of the debate or the message but if it was the end to your debate avoid that next time.
The Wrestling Junkie - Your first two paragraphs were really a waste of word count for you and reading time for me. They were short at least but they didn't produce anything. You should really try to state your stance on the topic at the start as it gives your debate direction and doesn't leave the reader reading your debate unsure of what you're arguing for or where your debate is going. Your argument for Orton is decent but very basic. The argument for Taker is odd because you seem to argue against it but the only reason you produce is they seem to be doing something else with him. The question is SHOULD not WILL. Therefore booking plans like that don't really matter unless they're already in motion on TV which it isn't. Then you do the same for Lesnar and the second time round it gets irritating that you're making solid points for Batista facing Lesnar when you're not arguing for that pick and you aren't discrediting that pick at all really. Same story with Cena and The Shield. You keep on making good points for other picks than your own without discrediting them at all. At this point you've made good arguments for 5 different opponents of which only one is your own pick and you didn't even address the possibility of Batista vs Hunter. Next time state your pick as early on as you can and don't argue for other stances if you can't discredit that stance to support your own.
Winner - Hag
The Lady Killer
killacamt = Well, this was...concise. A debate this short and yet it had two answers . Your reasoning for the Triple H match was probably better, yet you basically shot down your own answer by stating that the Orton match would be a better idea. Then you shoot that down with lines such as "I don't know that this match needs the title involved in it. Sadly it probably will be." I think you should've stucked with one option and gone into far more depth than you did.
AwShit = Perfect intro - stated your choice early and then developed a criteria for why Orton is the best option for Batista's WM opponent. So far, so good.
The next few paragraphs spent delving into the three metrics were good, if not a bit excessive. I think you could've trimmed them down a bit, since 800 words isn't a lot to work with. Ironically, your size paragraph was likely the perfect size, but also the weakest. You're trying to tell me that Bryan doesn't have credibility?
I also have some issues with giving Orton credit for the WM25 buyrate. That is a large LOL. It was the 25th anniversary show, featured HBK/Taker for the first time in over a decade, and and he was up against Triple H - a far bigger draw than he is. I know your objective is to support your choice as much as possible, but some of these claims seem rather outlandish. Overall, a very well-structured debate that suffered a bit in terms of supporting arguments.
Hag = Well, already I think your intro is flawed. It's been documented that Batista actually signed a 2-year deal that will see him being a full time member of the roster, unlike Lesnar.
That being said, I felt your choice was suitable for the reasons your provided - to get someone over the hump and into the main event echelon of superstars. Also makes sense to happen when Reigns splits from The Shield as a way to separate himself from the other two "dragging him down," but that would likely cause Reigns to be a face, and in all likelihood Batista will be a face upon his return. That's just hypothetically speaking, of course. I actually felt you had a good debate going despite the rocky start, but then it just seemed to end. A bit more depth would've done wonders, and maybe could've gotten you the win. As is stands, the structure and effort of AwShit, despite its flaws, is still the frontrunner.
The Wrestling Junkie = Again, I know the topic said "opponent(s)," but I think that was intended for multi-man matches. To me, choosing one opponent is the way to make your claim seem the strongest. You make a few choices, then narrow it down to Orton, which is OK, but isn't as strong of a structure as that which AwShit utilized. In the end, you reach the same conclusion, but not as directly.
Winner = AwShit
This needed way more. Like I always say, this was more like a post in the wrestling section and that's not a good thing. It was too short and it missed so much. And on top of that you couldn't pick just one person. Read through the other debates in your match to get a better idea of how these debates work. Hopefully you'll improve next time.
Most of your debate centered around eliminating other opponents based on your criteria to better show why you felt Orton was the best choice. You did a good job of this and it was quite convincing. However, I think you did a roadblock when you said that Batista's opponent should have history with him. It's not convincing at all and leaves way too much room for counter argument due to the appeal of dream matches with opponents that have no history. Other than that, your build up of Orton at the end was ok. Solid effort.
I liked the approach. So many times we think of someone that should have star power. Instead you went in the opposite direction and said that it should be someone that's on the rise for Batista to put over. It was somewhat convincing and you showed how a loss for Batista doesn't harm him while a win for Reigns elevates him. You closed it out by saying it could be another way to break up the Shield. Ok ending. Ok effort.
The Wrestling Junkie
Honestly, I wasn't a fan of this debate. Reading this debate made me feel like you were unable to truly pick an opponent yourself. And when you finally chose at the end, you didn't convince the audience nor did you explain why Orton was the best choice other than the WWE title picture. You attempted to eliminate other opponents but it was done a little poorly. You were probably better off focusing on why Orton was the best choice instead of giving your attention to other opponents.
Picking a winner sucks because no one stood out enough. But since I have to pick a winner, I'd give the nod to AwShit.
Winner via Split Decision - AwShit
DwayneAustin vs Desecrated Should Andre Villas Boas have been given more time as Tottenham manager?
Spoiler for Debates:
Should you continue to drive with a flat tyre?
Nope. It simply came to the point where you can't get any further without removing it. Slap on a new tyre and resume the journey. As a coach, he showed no progression over 18 months. As a man manager, he showed no progression over 30 months. As a tactician, he went out there every day with the same exploitable set-up with only one thing on his mind. Countering their style of play with his hundred page dossiers, rather than focus on building a familiar tactical set-up for the team and working around it. How do you continue with that following the soul crushing defeats to Liverpool & Manchester City?
Should you continue to eat steaks while high on cholesterol?
Well, if you aren't too fussed about the inevitable heart attack, go for it. Otherwise, no. I see it as a fitting summary for his relationship with the press & media. He dug up a few holes, buried his head in each of them to see if they were going to welcome him. But each time, he found a few moles to bite back. And that never stopped him from continuing to do it after every match. Public relations has always been his weakness in England. Since his Chelsea days, the journalists have only become more shrewd and aggressive as the inevitable festering wound that was AVB's position as manager became less and less secure. But he did make every situation worse. He said the wrong things (blaming everyone except himself until the end), he backed the wrong opinion and even had the audacity to target the fans for one of his sides poor performances against Hull City. Could he really continue after two high class thrashings by two rivals for key league places, with how his relationship is with fans and media? Any public relations progression he made in the first season of the job, fell down quicker than taking out that wrong jenga tile.
If a square doesn't fit in the circle, don't keep trying to jam it in!
Tactics? Obviously. They've always been a problem at Spurs' for AVB. AVB's progression of Gareth Bale gave him another term. And in exchange, I'd personally think he didn't get to see a penny of that on signings he desired. But nevertheless, he had to reshape the team. How did he do that? Methodical playing style. Passing and playing pressure that went nowhere and roles made for players that didn't play for him. I really doubt any sane man would look at the Tottenham defence and think "We'll be playing a high line". Throw in that none of the wingers track back and when the midfield reset possession, they lose 10 minutes of work because they lack guile to play a killer ball. Which leads to a starved striker, wingers who run at the defence and lose the ball, midfielders just passing it around and a defence who wouldn't win a 100m sprint at the Olympics for disabled athletes. That was four months before his sacking. Nothing changed during that time. The players obviously weren't responding to him. He had to go.
Couldn't think of anything catchy for a final summary.
A case could be made to salvage his job. Yes, he inherited a freshly new squad of players that weren't handpicked and identified by him. Yes, he was still firmly in contention for the Champions League spot that Tottenham oh so graciously desire. But wouldn't it be easier to look for a coach that will accept what he is given & work his best with them? That would listen, believe in him? Tim Sherwood is the man for that. He'll without a doubt be more tactically flexible than Villas-Boas. The only red lining is that no one knows how exactly he'll deal with the media to the wrath they unleashed upon Villas-Boas. But AVB dug them holes themselves. So it is most likely a problem that Sherwood shouldn't fence with. As far as I am looking at it, Spurs' made the right decision. They need to regroup and look to see how another mans ideas progress their squad. If it works out, then they have a potential long term head coach. If it doesn't, they can bring in a big name in the summer. No harm done. Keeping AVB however might of led to long term harm to the club. Alienating fans, more media problems and players feeling disrest. The right decision was made.
What has two thumbs, plagiarises posts from two separate forums, and firmly believes AVB should still be Spurs manager?
A: Cookie Monster
B: A complete fucking moron
C: All of the above
As A and B are the same thing, the correct answer here is C, because only a complete fucking moron could believe that AVB deserved even a minute more at the helm at White Hart Lane.
In his first season in charge at Spurs, he guided them to a fifth place finish, only narrowingly missing out on the Top 4 on the very last day of the season and Spurs ended the season with an impressive 72 points. A fantastic start to his Spurs career, especially following his fall from grace at Chelsea. This was AVB's chance to prove to the footballing world that he wasn't just a flash in the pan, that the Porto AVB was the rule and Chelsea AVB the exception to it. To go from this position of strength in May 2013 to a position of laying around his house on the couch, watching repeats of Jeremy Kyle in December means some serious mistakes were made on his part. Spurs Chairman, Daniel Levy, is possibly the most shrewd man in English football and he deemed these mistakes a worthy reason as to why AVB could no longer remain in charge at Spurs; you won’t find me disagreeing with him.
Let’s look at the factors which ultimately cost AVB his job:
Failure To Replace Bale
Gareth Bale scored 21 goals in 33 league games last season, leading him to be crowned the Player of the Year in England. His world record transfer fee breaking move to Real Madrid brought Spurs an enormous war-chest with which AVB was expected to use to help Spurs make that final jump. Bale’s transfer earned Spurs around £85million pounds, more than enough to be able to elevate Spurs to another level by bringing in some world class replacements. However, Spurs did not replace Gareth Bale, they came nowhere near to achieving this. Spurs spent approximately 100 million pounds during the summer transfer window, most of which went on a striker who depends greatly on the service of wide players for his goals (Soldado) and a young Argentinian wide player who looks about as comfortable in the Premierleague as a gay penguin attending a World Cup in Qatar (Lamela). Others players, such as Eriksen, Paulinho, Chiriches, Capoue(when he’s not being forced to play at centreback against a magician) are reasonably good buys, nothing spectacular, but good; however, as a whole, they have come nowhere near close enough to making up for the loss of Bale. It would be unfair to place all the blame for these players’ shortcomings entirely on AVB; Lamela was touted as one of the most promising young players in Europe, so he was worth the risk, however, I feel Soldado’s poor start is largely due to AVB’s neglectance to set up the team to suit Soldado’s strengths. From the beginning, Spurs appeared to play with only one true wide player, which was Andros Townsend, a left footed player playing on the right wing; one might expect a player like him to provide the chances which Soldado craves, but if you were to check the stats for the Spurs players in the league this season, you would see that in just 10 starts, Townsend has had the second most shots on goal of any Spurs player(46) and zero assists(LOL)* mainly due to his insistence on cutting in on his left foot all the time. This is just one example of AVB’s tactical errors while trying to replace Bale.
If there was the slightest possibility of forgiving AVB’s handling of the transfer window, there was absolutely none after a number of deplorable defeats this season. 0-3 West Ham. 0-5 Liverpool. Man City 6-0. These are not acceptable results for a team striving to be in the Champions League or for a club which had just splashed £100million. After AVB’s final league game, Spurs had massed 27 points in 16 matches, which put them on course for only 64 by the season’s end, and had a staggering goal difference of MINUS SIX.
Finally, in less than a month in his very first managerial role, Tim Sherwood has made AVB look like a complete mug. Although, of course there are signs of inexperience and mistakes, but these are to be expected of a rookie manager, he is so far unbeaten in the league and has managed away wins at both Southampton and United. He has also somehow coaxed the once exiled Adebayor into looking like a footballer again and he is being rewarded by a fine run of form by the Togolese.
Desecrated – Solid entry. You cover and highlight AVB’s woes very well, and I liked how you linked his PR troubles (was Myra Hindley his press advisor or something?) against the poor performances and deteriorating relationship with the fans. I think you could have expanded a bit more on the technical failings and really hammered home where AVB got it wrong in this aspect, however you do a good job of demonstrating how stagnant and stubborn the tactics were, which undermines how AVB struggles to change and display versatility, a clear weakness in the modern game. I didn’t think the conclusion was necessarily stellar, as a lot of it was based on Sherwood being a better fit which is still a far cry from certainty (let us not forget in the madness of AVB that he almost took them to 4th place the season prior, form is temporary class is permanent as they say) as opposed to really underlining where AVB got it wrong and why these failings were sufficient to justify his departure. I enjoyed your use of humour here too, it was a nice segue into each paragraph and was understated and never the centre of your debate. For future reference, I would look to improve your conclusion as I do feel this is where you should be taking everything you’ve argued and construct a real strong ending note. Offering AVB a reprieve at the beginning of your conclusion, having spent the rest of the debate arguing so categorically against him for example is the sort of thing I’d personally look to avoid. Aside from that quibble, solid entry.
DwayneAustin – I think this fails tbh from a very confident and passionate opening, before ending abruptly. It really feels like 2/3rds of a debate, as you set your stance well and definitely gauge the reader’s attention almost immediately. The problem for me however, when people make such emphatic openings is that you really have to then justify such a profound stance, and here whilst you supplied some strong supporting evidence, I really didn’t think you covered enough of AVB’s key failings compared to Debate. Not replacing Bale is definitely a problem for Spurs, but at the same time the blame can also be attributed to more than just AVB, especially if we’re to believe he wasn’t afforded all the targets/players he desired. I did like how you broke down his tactical failings with the Townsend example, but the following paragraph was very sparse and the more I read your debate the more it appears you’re basing your argument entirely around the Bale paragraph. I feel it’s just too marginalised a viewpoint, and doesn’t significantly cover key aspects attributable to his departure. I’m not sure if this was rushed or not, but the structure and flow doesn’t feel strong so I’m inclined to believe this is definitely something you can easily improve upon. I would also encourage you to rethink your conclusion, as what you provided was a very abrupt ‘summary’ which really ended the debate on a mundane note, which was in stark contrast to your eye catching opening. So to summarise, structure, key arguments rather than one sole argument to salvage your debate and a proper conclusion to hammer your key points to the reader. Also, “Sherwood good make AVB sacking look good.” – ARF :~
Winner – Desecrated
Should you continue to eat steaks while high on cholesterol? Yeah sure, just get a leaner cut of steak and you’re fine…
Anyway, this was a good debate and provided a good overview of why AVB went awry. Tactics, poor form, poor media handling, poor squad management. Pretty much every aspect was covered which I liked. There’s really nothing I can majorly fault in this debate, covered everything adequately, flowed nicely and was well written. If there was one thing i would nit-pick on it’s that you didn’t really cover much on the departure of Bale and being specific on why the players brought in have failed.
“Sherwood good make AVB sacking look good.”
What are you, a fucking caveman?
Anyhow I liked that you looked at the individual players signed to replace Bale, but aside from Soldado you didn’t really look at anything to do with how AVB could affect them. As you said, AVB can’t be blamed entirely for some players struggling, but you made a good point on AVB’s tactics and Soldado and then moved on. You could’ve gone a bit more in depth there and really hammered the point home about how AVB’s tactics affected the new signings and the rest of the team in general.
You covered the poor results and embarrassing results nicely, as well as the bit on Sherwood achieving good results which was good. You brought up Adebayor which I think could’ve formed a bigger part of your debate, as it was a really nice point that only came in at the end. Could have been used to highlight how AVB wasn’t tactically sound, nor using his players effectively and contrasted that to how Sherwood has them playing at the moment.
Overall, I’m giving the win to Desecrated. I feel he did a better job covering the various aspects surrounding AVB’s sacking and it flowed nicely.
THE DARK ANDRE Desecrated:
Your intro was really good, conveying your stance effectively with the use of a decent metaphorical question. However, instead of launching into your debate from then on with loads of great examples of HOW he had muffed up in different situations with the British media and WHAT significance this had in regards to his team’s fortunes you just skated along the surface of most of the issues without really going into detail. Example: “He said the wrong things (blaming everyone except himself until the end), he backed the wrong opinion”…you need to offer MORE than that. You only really touched on this area with AVB’s relationship with the Spurs’ fans, which again didn’t go into enough detail to convince me that AVB’s position was untenable.
“AVB's progression of Gareth Bale gave him another term. And in exchange, I'd personally think he didn't get to see a penny of that on signings he desired” was a massive own goal. So, they’ve just sacked this guy who had a very modest net spend and was ordered to play all of these jokers that Baldini brought in, right? You should have left that comment out. However, your breakdown of AVB’s tactical shortcomings was fantastic, so you regained a lot of credibility after having essentially buried your own stance, although I think that Kyle Walker might take issue with “a defence who wouldn't win a 100m sprint at the Olympics for disabled athletes”, although that’s a very minor criticism.
“Couldn't think of anything catchy for a final summary” made me smirk fwiw. “Tim Sherwood is the man for that. He'll without a doubt be more tactically flexible than Villas-Boas”…errrrrmmmmm, isn’t this the same Tim ‘nice but dim’ who has started with 4-4-fuckern-2 every game so far? That definitely weakened your stance. Your last few lines were good though, suggesting that Tim can easily be binned off when Spurs find a suitable long term candidate and that AVB would have continued to damage the club if he had stayed on until that point. This was an okay debate overall, including some great arguments mixed in with some credibility destroying comments. At least this was well structured and an enjoyable read.
The cookie monster joke fell flat for me because I’ve actually seen murmon posts on glory glory admitting that AVB probably deserved the sack. Just saying is all. I also think that it’s possible to make far funnier jokes that use up fewer words while also conveying a stronger argument.
The first half of the paragraph starting with “In his first season in charge at Spurs” was a waste of words that actually strengthened the argument you were arguing AGAINST. You should have either BURIED AVB’s failure to reach the top four in 2012/2013 or just ignored that part of his Spurs’ tenure. I also had a huge problem with this: “Daniel Levy, is possibly the most shrewd man in English football”….erm, didn’t he sack the triffic’ top four breaching ‘Arry Redknapp for AVB in the first place? Also, wasn’t this the guy who sanctioned the signing of £100 million worth of fitballing garbage last summer? I’m not sure that Levy’s judgement is something that you should try to use as support for your argument!
The first half of your ‘Failure to replace Bale’ section was pointless because you failed to take into account the idea that Franco Baldini is largely responsible for Spurs’ player recruitment. Should AVB really be sacked based on relatively poor signings that were probably mostly made by another bloke? Not really. There were plenty of reasons why AVB wouldn’t have been able to replace Bale, that being the main one. Your break down of AVB’s tactical misuse of Spurs’ available playing squad was much, much, much better. You should have deleted the guff about signings and just buried AVB’s tactics even more.
Highlighting the piss poor results was a good move, as was the idea that based on form Spurs were probably going to fall quite short of the number of points needed for a top four finish. I like the fact that you pointed out how despite being a rookie manager Sherwood is proving that it isn’t difficult to gain great results from Spurs’ squad, which is the biggest indictment of all, the fact that some no mark gump like Sherwood has walked in and instantly motivated Spurs into perform again. This was an okayish debate overall. The first half was the drizzling shits, but from “however, I feel Soldado’s poor start” onwards you made some decent arguments.
Neither of these efforts are any great shakes, so it’s really a case of who put their foot in their own mouth the least amount of times. Desecrated's was flawed and shallow, but it had far less fundamental errors than DA which was fuckern awful until about half way through.
Desecrated wins my vote for being the least shite.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Desecrated
TAR vs Bullseye vs ashes11 vs Comedy Inc Has the introduction of T20 come at the detriment of Test Cricket?
*Comedy Inc no shows*
Spoiler for Debates:
TAR Has the introduction of T20 come at the detriment of Test Cricket?
My answer, is yes. It’s a reflection of what modern cricket today is all about. The common fan can become bored of watching a test match all day and would rather the fast paced slogging action of the T20. This is why at has become so popular in today’s modern world. Even now having it’s own international tournament thrown in.
Myself, I prefer traditional test cricket over a quick 20 overs match. But a lot of people, who complain about the test being too long and boring, switch to t20 for that fast paced action.
On a player perspective, former Australian international player and interim coach of Sri Lanka said in an interview with cricketcrowd.com that the focus on t20 is detrimental, and that focus is less on tests or statistics and focused more so on player’s bank accounts. He said in the interview that consistency is the key and people will take notice of you. He believes that you should teach the young players coming a through a technique that works, and that technique can get ruined by playing all 3 aspects of the game: Test, ODI’s & T20s. He believes that 5 day cricket is always number one, because it is the true test of a players ability. Law said that if test cricket was going to die because of t20 and ODI’s, it will be the greatest tragedy the game of cricket has ever seen.
For example, a 15 minute bad spell in a t20 could cost you the game, and a good 15 minutes and you’ve already the game. a really bad 10/15 overs in a ODI could lose you the game. Test cricket is a full day, and the momentum can swing back and forth in a test match.
In an article that I found in the Sydney Morning Herald, the day after Australia’s collapse at Lord’s during the English tour last year, England legend Graham Gooch (who served as batting coach of England during the English tour of the Ashes) said he fears that the skills of test match batting are being eroded by Twenty20 and one-day cricket.
“It's the whole package of not only having the technical skills but having the attitude, the mental toughness, the discipline, the concentration. Anyone can concentrate for 15-20 minutes, but to score Test hundreds you have to concentrate for a long period of time," He was quoted as saying.
But it’s just the Batsmen that are affected from playing test cricket and t20. Australian spin ‘guru’ Terry Jenner, who taught spin legend Shane Warne feels Twenty20 cricket was only for mature spinners as it hardly as a role in development of slow bowlers. He said that in t20, turning the ball is not a priority in the game. He feels that it’ll wreck a young players development as a spin bowler.
“Though T20 is here to stay, I consider it popcorn cricket. But it's nice to see cricketers earning huge money, but the format is never going to work for the development of spinners." He was quoted as saying.
Simply put though, as much as it has found to be hurtful towards players development of the game, it does draw crowds and puts bums on the seats. And we won’t find out until the next generation if test will be here to stay, or will die off in favour of more modern forms of the game. Sri Lankan great Arjuna Ranatunga said that 'you don’t need intelligence for T20, you don’t need skills.’
Bullseye "Has the introduction of T20 come at the detriment of Test cricket?"
Has the introduction of T20 cricket come at the detriment of Test cricket? That is a question that has polarised cricketing opinions since the inception of the T20 format in 2003. Detriment is defined as the state of being harmed or damaged. Has T20 cricket harmed or damaged Test cricket? Absolutely not.
In the 2003 county cricket season in England, the concept of 20/20 cricket was introduced and started to be contested, and the first ever match, played between Middlesex and Surrey, attracted a crowd of 27509 which was the largest attended county cricket game other than a final since 1953 . It was a successful beginning for the format, and one which had high hopes of restoring attractiveness to spectators at the ground, viewers on the television, as well as the vast array of supporters willing to throw money at the brand of cricket.
For a very long time the common perception of test cricket was that it was catered towards the true ‘die-hard’ fans of the sport, those who would have no issue sitting through 5 days of competition where runs would trickle at a steady pace and the lengthy spells of action were limited to aggressive batsmen who went out for a flurry of runs to be scored. It had the stigma that it was a ‘block-a-thon’ and was considered by many casuals as ‘boring’ and some people would only keep up with the sport through nightly highlights of the days play on the news. Test cricket has been considered the ‘pinnacle’ of cricket since its existence, as it is the format where there are no restrictions in place in terms of bowling and batting. A bowler can bowl upwards of 40 overs a day if their body holds up, whilst a batsman can slowly compile an innings of a large score, entering into the triple and in Brian Lara’s case, quadruple centuries.
The question is asking if the introduction of T20 has been a detriment to test cricket, and the answer is absolutely not. The introduction of T20 has afforded cricketers the world over with a vast new skill set that enables them to score runs very quickly, which can result in sometimes insurmountable 4th innings targets being approached and in some cases achieved. The usual plodding along and ‘block-a-thon’ stigma attached to test cricket has started to diminish as the batsmen become more aggressive in their approach to a test innings. Prior to 2000 the average runs scored by a team in a day’s play, typically 90 overs, was around 250 runs and teams would be very happy with that score. In this current environment, the average runs scored per day has increased to over 300, and teams usually deem 325-350 as a ‘good day out’ now. This can be attributed as a positive impact of the introduction of T20 cricket as the batsmen are not being confined to slow run scoring and are encouraged to play their shots.
Another reason for why the introduction of T20 cricket has not been a detriment to test cricket concerns one man, a man by the name of David Warner. David Warner, a 27 year old power hitting opening batsmen for Australia, did not progress to the test side through the traditional methods. The traditional method would be to play grade cricket, first class cricket, and score enough runs at a consistent rate to be picked in the national squad. Warner debuted in the NSW state one-day side in 2009, and playing in the domestic T20 tournament, Warner stamped his authority on bowling attacks from around the country. His explosive batting and power hitting brought the fans in in droves. Warner earned an Australian T20 debut through these efforts, becoming the first Australian player in 132 years to debut for any national cricketing team without prior experience in first-class cricket , and blasted 89 off 43 balls in his debut innings against South Africa. Due to his phenomenal effort in the T20 format of the game, Warner was then selected in the Australian test squad, and he has since taken his big hitting and fast scoring approach to the international stage, fast becoming a cult icon amongst the Australian public. The introduction of T20 cricket has not been a detriment to test cricket at all. Rather, it has enabled players to re-evaluate their skill set and add a new dimension to the wonder that is test cricket, allowing it to offer a bridge between the casual cricket fans and the die-hard tragics to enable a heavy following for both formats of the game.
1. Weaver, Paul (25 May 2009). "Usman Afzaal gives Surrey winning start but absent fans fuel concerns". The Guardian.
2. Coverdale, Brydon (11 January 2009). "Warner will be hard to resist—Ponting". Cricinfo.
Has the introduction of T20 come at the detriment of Test Cricket?
Test cricket, in my opinion is the pinnacle of professional cricket, and it always will be. Offer me the chance to watch a test match or a T20, I’ll always choose the former. Test cricket has changed dramatically since the introduction of T20, but this change should be welcomed, cricket like any other sport must evolve, in moderation T20 is a huge step forward for the game.
So no, T20 has not come at the detriment of test cricket…
Personally I believe T20 can be so beneficial towards the game; we must realise its potential to capture such a large, widespread audience. The 2012-13 Big Bash, for example drew an average crowd close to 15,000 people per game. Short format or not, lots of people watching cricket is good for the game. Matches taking place in the evening mean that families are accommodated, parents have greater opportunity to take their kids to the cricket and as a result these kids will want to go out and play cricket themselves. Of course the benefits are obvious; more youngsters taking the game up early will result in a greater group of talents at national level.
Assuming these youngsters watching T20 begin playing cricket, it is absolutely essential that coaches focus on formulating technique as opposed to seeing who can hit the ball the hardest. Former cricketers such as Arjuna Ranatunga have suggested that when it comes to youngsters the “talent and technique has gone” (http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2013/d...natunga.htm)we must ensure that this is not the case, and kids learn core technique, and then expand to more aggressive approaches, in a similar way to the current generation have. Mike Hussey a perfect example, a man with brilliant technique that has thrived in every format of the game. Otherwise, we will have a generation of “sloggers” that are only good at T20 and then Test Cricket will be in jeopardy.
Whilst some have argued that the introduction of T20 has affected the quality of Test cricket, I would argue that it is going some way to improving it. With every run being so valuable in the shorter game, I believe fielding is improving rapidly as a result. Just a week ago, Jordan Silk took one of the best catches I’ve ever seen in cricket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZty3srho1c) If we see these skills transferred into test cricket, and this guy taking catches like that, I will be delighted.
Furthermore, T20 cricket has been a part of making test cricket more exciting, more aggressive stroke play has made the game far more interesting to watch. A team looking to score at 3.5 runs an over offers a fascinating contest, everyone is thinking, batsmen are positive and as a result, bowlers and fielders must be more intelligent and talented to contain batsmen. This as opposed to the game in the past which was all too passive, and ultimately boring. Additionally, more positive play is more likely to bring about results in test matches which is hugely important to the games future, surely boring draws is more detrimental to test cricket than exciting, fast paced matches ending in results?
Finally, T20 cricket if anything has been an amazing platform for players to showcase their skills and make there way into test cricket. David Warner, in my opinion is the greatest example of this, once considered just a T20 player, he finished the last Ashes series leading run scorer. (523 @58.11) Another reason to be thankful for T20, players like him coming into the test arena.
In summary, T20 cricket is something that we need to use to benefit the game, it has a lot to offer to the game right now, and to the future, as a result, tests have an edge and excitement to them. Providing youngsters are coached knowing that technique and test cricket is of the highest importance, test cricket will not be harmed.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I didn’t really like this debate. It felt incredibly rushed and very last minute. There’s numerous spelling and grammatical errors, plus it is missing a name in the 3rd paragraph for whoever said the quote. There is really no argument in this debate at all. It is said at the beginning what side the debater is on, but besides that, there’s no real argument. The debate is full of quotes, but no justification of said quotes, no argumentative position using the quotes. It feels much more like a discussion based post, especially with the tl;dr at the end. Would never, ever use that in an argument, the debate will be read, that’s the basis behind the competition. The quotes are a nice touch, and the debate had potential, but in the future there has to be an argument formed using the quotes, otherwise it is basically just different people arguing for you.
This debate was better. The debater clearly outlines their stance, and gives their definition of what detriment is, making it easier to understand what they are arguing. For me, the arguments saying that T20 hasn’t been a detriment make sense. The second paragraph is a good start, but it should’ve been expanded upon. What about television revenue? The IPL, the Big Bash League, there are countless more examples that T20 has helped cricket go further. However, there seems to be a presumption that it is because of T20 that Test cricketers have become more aggressive. There’s no real evidence provided to argue this viewpoint, more so it’s just a presumption. I liked the final paragraph though, the use of David Warner as an example makes sense and is explained well. Argument is wrapped up nicely at the end and reinforces the debaters view on the debate.
This debate feels similar to Bullseye's, and it also argues the view that T20 hasn’t been detrimental. The debate has a good introduction, giving a decent explanation as to why the debater has this opinion. I like the use of the Big Bash League and marketing cricket to kids, everyone knows that kids are the future of cricket, and there’s no doubt that the Big Bash League brings in the crowds, many of them youngsters. Next paragraph is good too, focuses on one of the negatives of T20 and reinforces that technique is so important in cricket, and it should not be lost due to T20. The catch part is a bit redundant; people were taking spectacular catches long before T20 was even thought of. Once again there is the presumption that T20 has made teams more aggressive, a nation like Australia has always been aggressive and looking to score, there’s no direct link provided to prove that argument, the same as Bullseye. Debate is once again well ended, using Warner as an example and the final paragraph wrapping up the whole debate nicely.
Overall, this match up provided two solid, if unspectacular debates, and one debate that had potential due to providing the opposite viewpoint, but needed much more work in the way of creating an actual argument. For me it was close between Bullseye and ashes11, being similar, but I have to give it to ashes11. I feel it explores the effect on crowds and the future of cricket more than Bullseye, which kind of rambles on a bit at times. ashes11 was more to the point, allowing there to be a bit more substance than Bullseye.
If I had to sum up my thoughts in a few words while reading your debate it would be “where’s the proof?” You have a few good half points regarding crowds, batting technique and spin bowling but there is a big difference between saying something could happen and providing a solid link between the increase of T20 and the decline of leg spin bowling for example. Hell it doesn’t have to be actual ‘proof’, you could just say something like
“The increase of T20 has definitely come at the detriment of leg spin bowling. Having a varied attack in test cricket is important and young bowlers are being dissuaded from practising their art as it can be too expensive in a game where you’re trying to keep the runs down. Spin bowling in t20 is only about taking the pace off the ball, not about the art of spin bowling. You can already see the lack of leg spinners in first class cricket. With less kids taking up leg spin bowing, these stocks will continue to be diminished and thus take away something that has been a key part of test cricket for many years.”
Now I don’t know exactly how many kids are bowling leg spin these days, but it is at least a persuasive paragraph which is something your debate was lacking. In these debates you need to make your position clear, and try to persuade the judges into thinking you’re correct. You have a good outline, and the basic structure there, you just needed to expand on it a bit more and make it more persuasive.
I’ll start out with some cons b/c they’re always easier to write about
The crowd figures for the first 20/20 is absolutely irrelevant to the question if you don’t link it in with anything else. The question is around a cause and effect, if you’re going to bring in crowd figures then try and bring in that link ie higher crowd -> more kids watching -> more kids playing -> potential increase of star players for cricket in general in the future.
Then the next paragraph reads like something I’d expect from someone writing on the other side of this debate, ie test cricket seen as boring, t20 seen as fun, less interest as a result in test cricket. It’s actually not a bad paragraph, I’d just have liked to see something in there about how T20 isn’t impacting on test cricket being the pinnacle. Hell even just moving the line at the start of the next paragraph “The question is asking if the introduction of T20 has been a detriment to test cricket, and the answer is absolutely not.” to the end of the previous one would’ve made it all flow nicely. Bit of an annoying thing for me to pick on but I like style as well as the content when I’m judging a debate.
This 2nd half of the debate is very much spot on. Well written, great points, and most importantly a clear connection on how t20 isn’t having a negative impact on test cricket. Overall a really good effort.
This debate is very similar in terms of the points raised in the 2nd debate. You even linked in the crowd to youngsters playing cricket which is great. You also raised the point of technique and how coaches still need to train them with the proper style for batting which is again a solid point that wasn’t raised in the 2nd debate. Fielding is another point I hadn’t really thought of before so again, another great point.
Overall it was really tough deciding between Bullseye and ashes11. On the one hand I really liked the points raised in ashes11's debate, while I liked the writing style of Bullseye's more, who also raised good points.
Winner: Bullseye, by the slimmest of margins.
TAR – Overall this was solid, albeit unspectacular. It felt a little too descriptive and introducing the general jist, without expanding and clarifying the argument in great detail. I did enjoy the consideration of a young spinner in the T20 format, and how from a bowling perspective the growing rise in popularity of T20 can see bowlers, especially slower bowlers struggle to remain economical. Furthermore, the focus on a batsman’s technique was interesting, although I feel your competitors did a more admirable job of actually arguing a good technique can see batsman becoming more versatile. Overall, I feel you either needed to expand on your ethical/purist stance a bit more (i.e really sell me on why the integrity of the game resides in test cricket, and how the growing popularity of the shorter format might leave this treasured system antiquated), as your fellow debaters acknowledged that test cricket is the pinnacle of the game, yet still made convincing arguments that T20 offers positives to cricket as a whole.
Bullseye – Likewise, this debate introduces some interesting arguments although again I wasn’t in love with it. The focus on how batsman have adapted their proactive and aggressive style of batting into generally scoring quicker in tests, thereby producing more impactful and watchable games to the average casual fan not immersed enough in the beauty of the game to bear though a ‘dull match’ was a solid argument. I would add the Warner example was a bit out of place, at least in how the writer presented it. Warner’s story is no doubt an indication that a player of that attitude can flourish in test matches, however the focus on Warner’s story did feel more applicable to a more general question about T20’s impact on cricket as a whole, rather than just solely on test cricket. The conclusion, specifically the final few sentences however was a good closure to the debate, with the final sentence being a strong ending and arguing passionately for how test cricket is evolving, which can only be promising in attracting more casuals to games.
ashes11 – I’d say the first main paragraph strayed a little far from the question asked, concerning itself more with general attendance as opposed to the effect on test cricket (I get the writer used this to then outline his stance on young players and improving their technique should they show an interest, but figured I’d point it out anyway). There’s really not much difference between this debate and debate b, both consider the development of test cricket as a result of more aggressive/expansive batting which stems from the demands of T20 and the effect this has had in generating more runs on average per day, thus slowly eradicating the unfair and simple stigma test cricket often attracts. It’s hard to really pick a winner truthfully, because neither debate really expands upon solid arguments, which leaves little room to distinguish a worthy winner.
It’s marginal, but I’m going to give it to ashes11. I appreciated the writer being mindful that test cricket needs to be respected, i.e proper technique and teaching should be afforded to aspiring cricketers, as opposed to mere sloggers with undeveloped ability past that, however also highlighting the exposure T20 does give cricket, and the manner in which test cricket has slowly developed with batsman now developing a more expansive array of shots through playing more regular limited overs cricket.
Plenty of work to be done imo if any of the three debaters hope to challenge the pinnacle of the sports division, but there were some intriguing arguments posed that with more substantiation would have elevated the overall quality here.
Winner – ashes11
Winner via Split Decision - ashes11
IJ vs Notorious vs DARTH COCK Was the punishment handed out to Richie Incognito for his part in the Miami Dolphins bullying scandal the right course of action to take?
*DARTH COCK withdrew and IJ no showed so Magic filled in.*
Spoiler for Debates:
Dolphins took the wrong course of action the moment they signed Incognito and allowed him to become a leader on the team, going as far as putting him on the 6 man leadership council. He was originally signed a year after he won the dirtiest player of the year award, voted by his fellow players, yet he was still given the responsibility of molding the younger players of the team and setting up player meetings. Those responsibilities eventually led to the Martin situation and was easily avoidable had the Dolphins placed a tight leash on Incognito and made him change his ways. They obviously didn’t and instead allowed him to become a mentor on a team and someone the players look up to.
The situation was overexposed and the media sided with Martin to make him look like a sympathetic figure. This resulted in “Trial by Media” and Incognito was guilty before anyone even heard his side of the story. However, this was hardly a character assassination on Incognito and the guilty verdict was so easy to push because of Incognito’s past and the Dolphins carelessness with how they handled him.
So what was the Dolphins’ solution to the problem that they allowed to happen in the first place? Essentially paying Incognito to stay away from the team and hoping the whole thing blew over, which to their credit it mostly did as fans refocused on football and the situation was mostly forgotten. And as a result of Martin leaving the team and Incognito being suspended, they lost two of their starting linemen and the real downfall of the Dolphins began.
Incognito was as faulty of a leader as you can get, but he was still a solid player and helped the Dolphin win games; the following week after the suspension and Martin’s leave they lost to the previously 0-9 Buccaneers team, which foretold how the rest of the season figured to play out. They finished out the season barely being able to score on offense and being easily defeated while competing for a wild card spot. While Dolphins continued on this downward spiral, more and more of Martin’s true nature came out and it became evident how little he was actually bullied.
Spoiler for Martin being BULLIED:
This picture comes from the same man that claimed he was being forced to go to these strip clubs and wanted no part in any of the things that happened during the player meetings that took place in them.
And after the media released a voice message left on Martin’s phone by Incognito where he used racial terms and seemed to be insulting Martin to a terrible extent; it was revealed it was actually just meant to be good natured banter, which many of us also share with our friends.
“We also know investigators have obtained hundreds of texts between Richie and Martin, which show they often exchanged graphic taunts ... and that Martin gave as good as he got.”
Now once again this was all a result of Incognito being allowed to mold the young players of the offensive line and being TOLD by the organization that he needs to toughen Martin up and help him fit in. The Dolphins caused the entire situation with poor decisions on their part and essentially allowed Incognito to take the fall and be the scapegoat. When Martin came to the general manager, Jeff Ireland, to discuss his relationship with Incognito, Ireland’s suggestion was to punch Incognito in the face. That once again shows how pitiful the organization was and how futile their real attempts were to solve the situation before it escalated. If the team had properly discussed what was happening and taken action to strip the power they wrongfully handed to Incognito in the first place, this might have all been avoided. What occurred, instead, was Martin refusing to go that far and deciding to leave the team and let the situation go public.
These stories rarely ever do get put out in the public as players and teams develop bonds and a certain type of locker-room camaraderie with one another, but that was hardly the case with the Dolphins and it again was result of how the organization was being run. The correct course of action would have been to immediately remove and fire the people that were to really at fault, which was the head coach that ignored Martin’s pleas for help, the GM who gave an absurd, and equally laughable, solution to Martin’s problems, and the offensive line coach who clearly had no idea what was happening to the players he was responsible for. But once again, the Dolphins failed to take the right course of action and instead allowed Incognito to take the fall, until they fired Ireland in the offseason.
Notorious Was the punishment handed out to Richie Incognito for his part in the Miami Dolphins bullying scandal the right course of action to take?
The Richie Incognito-Jonathan Martin story was the talk of NFL media during the middle of the 2013 season and it brought a fierce debate over what really goes on inside the locker rooms of NFL teams, the interactions that take place among the players on the teams and when things are just taken too far. There were fiery debates over which player was in the right and what the appropriate course of action to take should have been.
The back-story is in the middle of his second NFL season; Jonathan Martin had a breakdown at the Miami Dolphins practice facility due to excessive harassment and bullying from his Dolphin teammates, most notably Richie Incognito. Incognito sent Martin threatening text messages and voicemails using various racial slurs and threatening not only Martin but Martin’s parents. In the summer of 2013, Incognito allegedly pressured Martin into giving him $15,000 to help finance a trip to Las Vegas for Dolphins players even though Martin was not going. Martin was reportedly “Fearing the consequences if he didn’t hand over the money.” At one point, Martin allegedly feared for his safety and it was a major reason for why left the team. From what was reported, the Dolphins coaches told Incognito to help toughen up Martin but Incognito just took it too far. And when Martin went to Jeff Ireland, the Dolphins GM about the situation, Ireland told him to defend himself physically against Incognito, but Martin never took that course of action. Once all of this information got out for the public to see and the media frenzy ensued, the Dolphins dismissed Incognito from the team and eventually suspended him with pay for the rest of the season.
Now do I think the punishment Incognito received was justified? I absolutely do. Locker room rituals and hazing aren’t uncommon at all, they happen in practically every locker room in every sport on every level. But there is a certain line that you just shouldn’t cross and Incognito crossed that line. Regardless of if you think he’s your friend or not, when you threaten a guy’s family, that’s going completely overboard. I believe that not only was Incognito’s suspension justified but the Miami Dolphins as an organization should have been punished seeing as the higher ups in the coaching staff were the ones who put Incognito up to the harassment of Jonathan Martin. Maybe it wasn’t their intentions for it to escalate to this high of proportions but they are the ones who instructed Incognito to go at Martin to “toughen him up”, despite the fact that Incognito has a questionable past. Incognito has a history of getting into fights, being a scumbag on and off the field dating back to when he was in college, hell he even got drunk and sexually harassed a woman at a celebrity golf tournament in 2012. This is the guy the Dolphins chose to be their veteran leader. The Dolphins higher ups knew exactly what was going on between Martin and Incognito and turned a blind eye to it. Who knows, if Martin never had an emotional breakdown and went to the press about the situation, the rest of the world may not have ever found out what went on in that locker room and Incognito would have gotten away with this.
Another point to stress on is that this situation is bigger than just Richie Incognito, Jonathan Martin and the Miami Dolphins. Whether there’s good or bad intentions at hand, locker room hazing goes on with every team in the NFL. The NFL’s higher ups are not only disciplining Incognito for what he did, but they are also making an example out of him to show the other NFL teams and players that there is a line not to cross and that situations like this will not be tolerated in the league. This situation not only sheds a negative light on Incognito, but also the Miami Dolphins organization, as well as the NFL as a whole.
In conclusion, I believe the punishment given to Richie Incognito for his actions and harassment towards Jonathan Martin were more than justified. Not only should Incognito be held accountable for his actions, but it should also set a precedent for current and future NFL players that this type of behavior and these antics should not happen.
The Lady Killer
Magic = Although well-written, this read like more of a synopsis of the situation, and never really addressed the question that the topic presented in any detail. I think you set the precedent that although Incognito has a checkered past, a lot of the back-and-forth nonsense between he and Martin was often of a playful nature, with Martin contributing his own fair share. That part was really good, and makes for a great argument, but you never really answer the question head-on - rather, you're tap-dancing around it.
Notorious = This actually answered the question directly, when you're limited to only 800 words, it's best to maximize every one of them. Otherwise, a solid effort. Magic had better support imo that likely would've won and provided some rational support. Constructively speaking, I would've trimmed the backstory summary a bit - it's definitely nice to get the reader up to speed, but had they been pieced together and came to fruition, but you directly answered the topic without any doubt, and were thus more convincing.
Winner = Notorious
This was a nice well rounded debate. You started off strong by acknowledging Incognito's troubled past and Miami's carelessness and lack of awareness by making him a team leader. You also made mention of how the media overexposed this and assigned blame based on reputation. While small, I thought this was a strong point in the debate because it helped shape the perception amongst the viewing audience. You also went into Martin and Incognito's relationship to show that Martin was not the victim everyone made him out to be. You also showed more Miami carelessness by discussing management's remarks in the situation while showing how they allowed Incognito to take the fall.
I would have liked to seen you define your answer at the beginning rather than the end. It just makes for a better debate instead of going on and on, and then finally submitting your answer. But your ending was pretty solid.
This was a solid debate if you were to focus on Incognito alone. But as Magic pointed out, Martin was not this bullied victim that the media made him out to be. Like Magic, you did a solid job pointing out his history, and assigning blame to the Miami management. I do like your ending where you discussed how NFL's discipline will also effect the future of the league.
While you both had similar debates in some areas, I'm awarding this one to Magic for being a little more well rounded by showing that Martin was a willing participant in some of the foolish behavior.
Both of these are pretty good offerings. They take the same stance, but Magic sees things a bit differently than Notorious. That slight contrast made it more interesting to read. Notorious' was a tidier, better structured debate, but Magic used pics of STRIPPERS. So this is a tough call. Let's take this moment to laugh at Jeff Ireland, a man that ran a multi-million dollar company and told one of his employees to punch another employee.
So yeah, I'll give Notorious the win here. While both were persuasive enough, I give the slight edge to Notorious.
Winner via Split Decision - Notorious
DestrosSecret vs BOLO YEUNG vs TehJerichoFan vs Tater Does the internet bring more harm than good?
Spoiler for Debates:
Does the internet do more harm than good?
According to my research, the internet is quite big, even with the closure of geocities.
Jokes aside, the question offered could be framed easily as one similar to the gun control debate in the United States. The internet is passive, and therefore harm or good comes from those who wield the 'loaded gun', but the argument goes deeper than that as the 'net wasn't designed to be a library of information, it was developed to expand human interaction, and that’s what it should be judged on.
First the good, the easy exchange of knowledge and ideas, particularly in the sciences, has allowed us to progress in leaps and bounds. Crowdsourcing is now an thing and the internet has allowed us to discover galaxys which could have gone unnoticed alongside other incredible feats. The Kony video has shown that affairs that go missed in the traditional media can be blown up into big deals thanks to amateur journalism and artists who could do undiscovered now have places they can show off their talents. Is it perfect? No. Generally when we go online we only check the same 10 websites, so there is a reliance on social media to keep us in the loop, but all in all its a good situation. There is a forum/blog/chatroom for everything and people who have struggled to find acceptance in their localised world can find people to share with online, if you want to know that the world is not an evil place check out the 'It gets better' campaign (http://www.itgetsbetter.org/). In my town, a young guy I knew came out the closet and was left for dead in a field by his step-father, for simply being what he was. Plenty go through the same thing and struggle to find acceptance in their local community, but now, thanks to the internet these people can create or find a support network of those who do give a damn, making the world a whole lot less lonely for them. Single mums, victims of abusive spouses, and others can now have easier access to support. But the focus on the evil side of human nature (kept in part by the traditional media) would have you think everyone online is out to rape one another.
So is the internet full of predators waiting to pounce on children, terrorists skyping to discuss their latest diabolical plan or Satanists posting pictures of sacrificed animals? Hows this for a statistic, Pornography accounts for a total of 4% of the internet. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23030090)
All of it.
Every fetish, however mainstream or kinky is included in that figure, all the weird and dangerous stuff, is a tiny portion of that number, websites numbering in the hundreds rather than the thousands. Is there still horrid stuff in their, of course there is, but its not exactly overflowing. Its also important to note that those involved in the darker side of the internet are not causal fans, they are driven extremists, who, even without the internet, would find away to carry out their perversions.
Yet the internet does not act as a lawless pirate island as some perceive it, check it out and log on to http://isohunt.com/. The fact is that the internet is subject to local laws; police departments and others actively sit online to seek out those breaking the law to bring them to justice,. Crimes occur, of course they do, one survey found that 1 in 5 kids under the age of 17 had received unwanted sexual solicitations, but the survey fails to mention that the majority of these requests tend to come from other minors engaging in puberty. Are these difficult topics to discuss? Yes, the online world can be a dangerous place, but the expansion of the internet has allowed the police more ways to locate those who do seek to do harm. Malicious people always found a way of hurting people prior to the internet, but now the evil people are getting dumb and networking so when police bust one, they generally get others involved in other rings, just look at Operation Yewtree (outside of Saville).
So the question, does the internet do more harm than good? This is the briefest of overview of the internet, but the overriding argument is that whilst it allows us to create more meaningful interactions and support networks, and properly policed, the internet does more good than harm.
The internet has not brought more harm than good because for every ‘harm’ caused by the internet there is a corresponding benefit which far outweighs it. I shall demonstrate.
Fraud vs Business Opportunities
Whatever we invent, there will always be somebody somewhere who tries to take advantage of it with criminal activity. This is a human problem, not an internet problem. There are also plenty of measures you can take to protect yourself from identity theft and fraud.
Besides, fraud has only increased since the internet’s invention because the internet itself has provided so many opportunities for businesses to expand by operating online. Business outlets can be set up cheaply while providing instant access to a global market, plus the internet not only allows individuals to work from home and small, independent businesses to flourish, but also allows larger established businesses to expand their enterprise by providing access to an even wider demographic. This platform the internet provides for businesses both large and small in turn creates more choice for the consumer and allows us to easily compare prices and services. We’ve never had it so good.
Some people are going to get done by fraud, it’s true, but that negative factor is massively outweighed by the positive effect of this online business boom of opportunity for all.
Piracy vs Artistic Platforms
Yes, some big corporations may not have made quite as many billions of dollars as they would without piracy, but that doesn’t actually harm me, you or anyone. Nobody’s going without a meal because of illegal downloading. That is a fact.
Counter-acting this so-called ‘harm’ of piracy is the provision of a platform for all kinds of artists to share their work and reach an audience that would otherwise not be available to them. Before the internet we relied solely on what some pony-tailed A&R prick decided his record company could make a few dollars out of, but now we can experience new and exciting music created by independent bands and songwriters from all over the world.
Paedophile Rings vs The World
The internet has indeed helped perverts contact each other and organise themselves, but their very use of the internet also provides an opportunity for law enforcement agencies to track them though ISPs and bang the bastards up. Plus, this opportunity to meet like-minded people is not just for perverts as everybody can discuss their interests with people they would never normally meet, be it pro-graps or gay cartoon ponies. Similarly, keeping in touch with far-away friends and family has never been so easy.
The internet brings and keeps people together in a way that just isn’t possible without it, and the vast, vast majority of it is wholesome and healthy, if sometimes a bit geeky.
Inaccurate Information vs Information
There is certainly enough bullshit online to warrant this being a potential ‘harm’, but inaccurate information is not a problem unique to the internet as inaccuracies and outright lies have appeared in print publications since the invention of the printing press. However, the internet has an advantage over printed publications in that with so much information available online, there is nothing preventing you from reading contrasting reports and comparing facts and figures from various sources.
Yes, there is bullshit to trawl through, but the truth is out there in an abundant and accessible way that is not even nearly possible without the internet.
Hateful Propaganda vs People Power
Hateful propaganda can indeed be spread more easily via the internet, but it is only those open to it that will be influenced by it, and this stuff won’t just suddenly appear on your screen and warp your mind before you know what’s going on. You have to be looking for it, and if you’re already looking for it then it doesn’t matter where it is, you will find it somewhere.
Compare this negative effect with the internet’s ability to spread positivity. A grand example is how it helped the cause of democracy during the Arab Spring, where the internet was used to organise pro-democracy demonstrations and protests which eventually toppled cruel dictatorships that would otherwise have remained in power. The people living under corrupt regimes have never before had such a powerful tool with which to organise themselves against the often tyrannical leaders who rule them. Previously unheard voices can now sound out around the world.
Thanks to the internet, our knowledge of what is happening in our own and other countries has never been more well-informed and we no longer have to accept what our governments and agenda-driven media tell us as we can go directly to the source and hear from the people actually experiencing the events of their countries. The voices of the people have never been louder.
And for that, internet, I salute thee.
The internet is arguably the primary focal point of our everyday lives, an unstoppable entity. Approximately 2.3 billion people across the globe have some form of access to the internet, a number that is bound to skyrocket in the coming years. As its significance continues to balloon ever-so rapidly, it has restructured the entire landscape of our society, from our culture to our economy and, most importantly, how we communicate and interact with other humans. We could argue about the moral and ethical implications the internet has spawned—in of itself subject to public and academic debate—but perhaps cyber bullying, cyber crimes, and other ethical woes are to be inevitable side effects as the internet evolves into a more accessible medium for the public. Which begs the question; does the internet bring more harm than good? Clearly the answer to that question is a resounding no.
If [the Internet] were a national economy, it would rank in the world's top five, behind only the U.S., China, India, and Japan, and ahead of Germany.
To simply say the internet has changed the fabric of our society would be a rather obvious observation, if not an understatement. I mean, duh! Everyone is aware of this. But if one is to quantify and truly realize the internet's contributions to society, one must explore the specifics. How has the internet become such a fundamental aspect of our lives? How has it reshaped media, commerce, leisure, economy, etc on such a colossal scale?
The above graph, taken from The Huffington Post, examines the internet's present and future economic contributions to the United States economy. Prognosticators expect the internet's global economic impact to surpass $4.2 trillion (in US currency) by 2016, at the same time consuming 5.4% of the American GDP. In the United States, the internet is already outperforming tradition industries such as agriculture and education, and accounts for 5% of all consumer sales. It provides a much more convenient medium for advertisers to display their product to the public, thus inspiring productivity, competition, and innovation especially among small businesses. The Brookings Institute found a "considerable scope for management efficiencies in product development, supply chain management and a variety of other aspects of business performance" as a direct result of the internet economy. And just as in its infancy, new technologies will continue to facilitate the internet's exponential growth.
Perhaps the most drastic change the internet has fostered is the advent of social media. For the most part, our social lives revolve around social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. In this digitized age, they are almost essential outlets in maintaining communication and/or a relationship of any kind with another being. Public debate on the effects of the internet and social media have inspired a wide spectrum of conclusion; early research often concluded that social media stunted the development of interaction skills. More recent studies, however, asserted the contrary, that reserved, shy individuals were more likely to be more anxious in an online environment rather than a offline setting. Such was the case with a study conduct by Joseph Mazer and Andrew Ledbetter, who found that socially inept individuals were compulsive internet users rather than "excessive" users.
To the extent that socially anxious individuals are drawn to the Internet, such anxiety seems to stimulate compulsive, but not necessarily excessive, use. Rather, excessive users seem to have a more realistic perception of online communication as convenient but sometimes limited in communicative effectiveness by a lack of social cues often available in face-to-face interactions.
I reiterate, one certainly could argue about the moral implications brought on by the internet. Because yes, with this new medium naturally comes waves of abuse. But by a large margin, the negative effect of the internet are far weighted by the positive effects. Therefore, the verdict is that more good comes from the internet than harm.
I do love to get drunk. Beer, liquor, wine, whatever. Booze is awesome. As a matter of fact, I'm a little drunk right now as I type this. Good times, good times. Admittedly, I kinda drink too much. Yeah, I know. I shouldn't drink so much. It's bad for me. Goddamnit, it sure is fun though!
You know who's fault it is that I drink too much? It's mine. It's my fault. I do not blame the alcohol, unlike some people in this world. Drinking too much is not a disease. It always pisses me off when I hear that shit: alcoholism is a disease. GTFO with that nonsense. Basically, what this is, is people who do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. It's displacement of blame.
Psychological projection.  That's what people do when they want to blame anything but themselves. Something bad happened on the internet... so let's blame the internet. Because, that's so much easier than blaming yourself and taking on a little self responsibility.
“Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.”  Blaming the internet for anything comes down to this basic fact. People do not like taking responsibility for their own actions, so they blame the things that allowed them to misbehave in such a manner.
I'm a firm believer in the evil of FaceBook. The kind of shit that goes on there is beyond my comprehension. I can't really blame FB, though, can I? I must blame the people who abuse it. Abuse of any technological advances is still, ultimately, the fault of man.
Man invented fire (well, not so much invented it but learned how to create/control it, but you know what I mean). I think we can all agree that it's a pretty epic moment in the history of mankind. In modern times, an uncarefully flicked cigarette can and has created forest fires. Is that the fault of the fire? I think not. It's the fault of the carelessness of a man.
Man invented cars. That's a pretty huge moment in the history of mankind, as well. When someone gets drunk and kills someone in an accident, do you blame the car? Do you blame the booze? Nope. It's the person who gets blamed. It's the person who gets arrested. It's the person who goes to jail.
Man invented alcohol and it's a wonderful invention that has helped create many a great time. For example: it's been helping white guys dance for centuries. If that's not a good thing, then I don't know what is. Man should be hailed for having the ingenuity to invent alcohol. However, if they deserve the credit for inventing it, they also deserve the credit for abusing it. Alcohol does not have a mind of it's own. That drink did not force itself down your throat. It was your choice.
To question if the internet has caused more harm than good is to question whether any invention in the history of mankind has caused more harm than good. Sure, online bullying , cyber stalking , phishing  and other bad things that happen on the internet would be eliminated if we got rid of it. How many other areas of life would suffer without it, though? As a species, we are defined by our inventions. The inventions of man have made a much better life for all of us. We can't just go getting rid of inventions just because a select few have abused them.
In closing, and to answer the question posed, no... the internet has not caused more harm than good. The bad things might get sensationalized but they are just a tiny percentage of the overall good this wonderful invention has done for mankind. As a species, we are more connected than ever. I consider that a good thing.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
DestrosSecret – I enjoyed the bulk of this, as it produced a fine overview of a number of key aspects relating to the internet, though I’m not convinced it can be judged the winner. The general argument that the people who abuse the internet are the problem, rather than the internet itself has merit and is a strong stance, and I feel you expanded on that point well whilst also covering the educational benefits the internet has afforded the world. I also loved the line in the introduction about ‘expanding human interaction’. However, I would strongly advise for future reference that you clarify your stance in your introduction. As well written as this was, by not clarifying your stance from the outset you can never truly convince me because a part of me is always aware you could adopt the opposite stance at any moment. Introduce your point of view and plan your answer around that. Your arguments were generally fine, but by not outlining your position until the very end you’re creating a disconnect between the reader and the writer, because the very essence of a debate is to convince someone of your argument: and that can’t truly happen if you don’t inform that person of the side you’ve taken until the very end.
BOLO YEUNG – The winner for me. I really liked the structure and layout here, as the writer touched upon many arguments raised in the other debates, however they were able to succinctly argue their point well without occupying too much time on one issue, instead allowing for a broad consideration of key areas that encompass the internet, and the way in which good exists in addition to potential harm and misuse. Rather than focus solely on where the internet aids and develops us, the writer openly highlights the potential for abuse (though again, smartly identifies this as a human problem), but outlines how the internet itself can guard against this abuse, as well as how the potential for development and creativity far outweighs the potential abuse by a specific minority. I really think the other debates would be wise to study the structure here, as the flow was very impressive and the writer allowed himself the time to argue a wide range of factors with sufficient detail to be making a clear argument, and not a mere sentence without an appropriate evaluation.
TehJerichoFan – I felt this ended too abruptly imo, which really impacted on its ability to engage and convince me in light of DestrosSecret and BOLO YEUNG which really broke down and covered a lot of key variables. The consideration of the way the internet can increase productivity and drive business was a unique focus, given many others would typically focus on aspects such as social media, research and crime, so I commend for you an unorthodox approach. I also found the social media paragraph a bit too sparse and struggling to really convince me of what it was arguing. It felt like something you saw as necessary to include, but perhaps struggled to piece together in the most engaging manner?
Tater – Personally I found this a little too rigid and marginalised. I really admired the concept and thought that went into the setup, but in light of the topic and how the winning entry managed to really dissect a number of contentious issues pertaining to the internet, I just think this entry struggled to persuade me with the writer finding varying ways to arrive at the same conclusion. The overall point is very strong, but I feel you missed a trick imo by repeating the same paragraph in terms of scope many times over, even if the point you were making wasn’t false in my eyes. I also feel your competitors did a very good job at acknowledging the ways people can abuse the internet, but noting the measures and ways in which the internet can be used to locate and stop those who abuse it. In contrast, a brief sentence acknowledging issues such as cyber bullying with a brief overview just wasn’t able to compete when closely analysed together. Don’t be too disheartened, as this is more a case of a very well rounded matchup as opposed to a clear problem with your entry.
Winner – BOLO YEUNG
The Lady Killer
DestrosSecret = Great intro. Love the connection to the gun control topic as an analogy. I really like that it's not the internet that's bad, but the onus being on those who use it. First paragraph is pretty good, despite the spelling/grammar errors. Please proofread next time. I like that you've established the internet as a form of community that people can seek support and acceptance in places they couldn't before. The 4% stat for porn on the internet was great, but you could've touched upon other things like gruesome depictions of murder scenes and what-have-you. I'm sure it wouldn't have bolstered the % all that much, and would've shut the door on counterarguments. It also would've allowed you to address parental controls/privacy settings. The policing paragraph did a great job of this, though. Overall, a strong debate. Can't really offer too much criticism here, other than the obvious spelling/grammar laziness.
BOLO YEUNG = Great opening, and I'm a fan of your structure providing brief examples of the internet's pros outweighing the cons. Business opportunities vs fraud was a good example. Music industry section was good, but was the weakest of the bunch, which is a shame because I felt it had the most potential. I think you could've expanded a bit on why piracy doesn't deprive people of $$$. Paedophile/perverts bit was the strongest imo. I really like how you use each of these examples - which are essentially counterarguments in themselves - and use them to support your claim that the internet does more good than harm. Very wisely orchestrated.
TehJerichoFan = I thought this was awesome, but very narrow. It seemed to focus solely on the US, and failed to really address the "harm" side of the topic. You basically just say "oh yeah, there's negative shit too, but that doesn't matter." So even though (all the things listed in BOLO YEUNG) are prevalent, because the internet bolsters the economy, everything is OK? It might be the case that the pro of having a strengthened ecomony outweighs all the cons, but I think this should've at least been addressed. A shame, because this was a very well-written piece. Right now, a toss-up between this and BOLO YEUNG.
Tater = This had wonderful personality. I think if this was somehow combined with TehJerichoFan, it would've been an exceptional debate. However, you suffered from the same pitfalls as TehJerichoFan. You really only argued one side of the debate. Your spent your entire debate claiming that man is to blame for his own wrongdoings/abuse of things, which was wonderful, but I think it could've been condensed to one paragraph with a couple examples. You then could've gone into the cyber-bullying, phishing, etc. part in regards to the internet and shoot it down by blaming man and citing all the positives that the internet brings about (something the other three debates did). Like TehJerichoFan, very good, but a bit narrow.
Winner = BOLO YEUNG; approached both pros and cons, and effectively argued why the pros outweigh the cons.
I get that this is a question that offers a broad variety of things to talk about but reading this I get the feeling like you were a bit too all over the place trying to cover a lot, but not really covering anything in depth. You went through the fact that “There is a forum/blog/chatroom for everything and people who have struggled to find acceptance in their localised world can find people to share with online” which I thought was a really great point but it also felt a bit lost being jammed into that paragraph. So while I liked the content, style-wise I would’ve preferred to see all of the ‘good’ spaced out a touch.
I liked that in addition to pointing out the good, you also raised a few good counterpoints as to how the harm isn’t as bad as the media will point out. Overall this was a solid effort, just lacking a few things to help push it past being solid.
I liked how you contrasted between harms associated with the internet and the good that outweighs them. As I said above, this question offers a broad variety of things to talk about and I think you managed that very well. I will say that I wasn’t a huge fan of your opening or conclusion. I get that there is a word constraint but I feel everything flows better if at least one of them is done well.
This debate is definitely the most rigid in terms of the language used, not that it’s a bad thing as it’s well written. Very facts based which is okay, but try not to get too caught up in just listing the stats and a graph. This debate didn’t really cover anything regarding potential harms, other than a sentence here or there. While it’s not a prerequisite or anything, I do like to see at least a bit more on debunking the other side of the argument. Aside from that you covered some good points regarding the ‘good’ side of the internet, it was well written and solidly backed up with evidence.
While TehJerichoFan's was very rigid, this debate flows a lot more and has a far more causal, persuasive vibe to it. This debate was interesting as it took a different approach than the others did, blaming the users for the harm rather than the internet itself. While it was a good, and interesting approach to take I think you spent a bit too much time saying how it is the fault of mankind and would have preferred to see more on what makes the internet good, or why the bad wasn’t so bad.
Overall: Going to give the win to BOLO YEUNG. It was a good, all-round effort and was half a step ahead of the other debates.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - BOLO YEUNG
CGS vs CamillePunk vs Jupiter Jack Daniels vs TheLoneShark Should WWE do an 8 man one night only elimination tournament on PPV in 2014?
Spoiler for Debates:
Should WWE do an 8 man one night only elimination tournament on PPV in 2014?
For decades the WWE and the wrestling industry as a whole has used tournaments to settle situations. From #1 contenderships, to the crowning of a new champion, to even to just being able to say “I beat all of you, I DEMAND, NO I DESERVE RESPCT! Tournaments have become a staple within the company and are an easy tool to employ whenever required.
So in that case having a tournament based PPV in 2014 WWE is perfectly logical right? LOL No
Let’s start with the obvious fact. We currently have 12 WWE PPV’s on the 2014 schedule, Of Which 7 carry a specific gimmick. Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Money in the Bank, Night of Champions, Hell in a Cell and TLC. Most of these PPV’s really serve zero purpose other than just be a gimmick show for the sake of it. So why throw another into the mix? Many fans have been crying out for a reduction in the number of gimmick based PPV’s anyway. Last thing we need is adding yet another when most of the current crop is considered excessive and pointless
“But an 8 man tournament is far from pointless. If anything it can even elevate a superstar’s status”
Hmm let’s just think about that one for a second.
Like I said, there are a bunch of reasons as to why these tournaments are held, some are used to crown a new champion or #1 contender(s) while others are just to say “I’m better than all of you”, But mostly they are used to put someone over, possibly a rising midcard talent, possibly a high level star just looking to add to their long list of accomplishments. Whatever the reasons it can be useful. But we have to remember, we have Wrestlemania, we have the Royal Rumble, hell we even have the MITB briefcase to help put over talent. Realistically is another PPV that will probably just shoot someone into the limelight for say 2/3 months before sending them back down the totem pole in typical WWE fashion required?
“But you can never create TOO many opportunities to try and create new stars”
Which is a great statement, especially considering WWE’s current level of star power. But I gotta ask then, where exactly are you gonna find the time to fit in this tournament alongside a WWE World Heavyweight Championship match and possibly 1/2 extra lowercard matches in order to really put this guy over on a 3 hour show?
Bar Wrestlemania your average WWE PPV tends to have between 6- 8 matches. Lower card matches taking around 10 minutes a piece of showtime while the bigger name matches take upwards of 30 minutes. If you’re gonna put a tournament on PPV then realistically you’re looking at a 9/10 match card. With most matches lasting what? 6/7 minutes each? Let’s assume it’s a midcard star you’re trying to build. Surely you can’t expect to show off their real ability under those circumstances. This isn’t 1985 after all.
“But as long as it’s booked cleverly the match lengths are irrelevant. As long as the winner looks good”
But why should timing even be an issue in the first place when you currently have 5 hours of prime time TV every week which could easily be used instead. Just look at Raw which broadcasts for 3 hours each week. Why have a whole PPV of 5/6 minute matches when you could just as easily break a tournament down into say 2 matches a night lasting 15 odd minutes each and spread it over a month and REALLY show off your superstar’s ability?
Fact is we live in an era where many people are beginning to value a superstar’s in ring ability over everything else. Back in the mid 90’s, the early days of the King of the ring PPV the WWE were able to get away with having an entire tournament on PPV since wrestling wasn’t exactly the main focus of the WWE (seriously). Fast forward to 2014 however and well you’re considered pretty WOAT if you’re not producing at least 3* star quality wrestling matches month after month in the eyes of many. You can try and argue that the winner looking good is the only thing that matters but that’s no easy feat when in ring ability is king and short quick matches count for very little.
All in all there really is no need to be hosting an 8 man tournament on PPV in 2014 simply because they don’t need to. In terms of pushing talent you have the MITB and the Rumble to push guys and in the long run it’s doubtful a tournament based PPV would actually do much to enhance any superstar significantly to prove worthwhile.
TheLoneShark Should WWE do an 8-man one night only elimination tournament on PPV in 2014?
Absolutely. In fact, with the dearth of stars on the roster truly ready to carry the company and take the torch from Cena and Orton, I’m a little surprised that the King Of The Ring wasn’t resurrected for June rather than moving Battleground – a PPV which did horrible numbers last year – into that slot.
The company is, whether they or their fans like to admit it or not, in the beginning of another transitional period and they need to start building stars for the future. Guys like Ziggler, Swagger and Del Rio are useful to have around in the Jericho role – guys who can take the title for short runs but are best served elevating others – but they don’t have any real stars on the rise. The KOTR tournament used to do exactly that, making stars of the likes of Austin, Helmsley, Rock and both Harts who got a rub just by being involved, regardless of whether or not they won.
From a business perspective, one night tournaments make money. They draw an audience. Why? Because nobody knows who is going to win, because you get to see eight stars battle it out and, in the latter days of the KOTR, for a prize – a shot at the WWE Title at Summerslam. KOTR should be Summerslam’s Royal Rumble, every year.
Even with the 2014 schedule set, it would make for an excellent addition to the WWE Network – something exclusive to draw in viewers with a real purpose and build on TV. An opportunity to take the guys who look like they could make it – Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, Cesaro, Wyatt, Langston, Cody and Brodus Clay – and give them a chance to shine. They could even use it as an opportunity to use guys who don’t get a shot on TV often and those in NXT to pad out the tournament with qualifiers during the preceding weeks, which could draw interest to the B and C shows like Smackdown, Superstars and NXT, meaning it’s an all-round win.
An 8-man elimination tournament – call it King Of The Ring, give it any other name – should not only be scheduled for 2014, but an annual event that should be elevating stars to main events and title shots every time. Cena can’t carry the company forever, Orton has never proven capable of carrying the company, CM Punk talks about retirement every time his contract comes up and there are still question marks over Daniel Bryan. So who’s next? A tournament can create an instant star, a white hot talent with real momentum and crowd backing. A shot in the arm that the company is going to need very, very soon.
On a wider scale, having a regularly scheduled annual tournament takes pressure off of the creative team – as things stand, they’re trying to build stars for Wrestlemania, create stars for Wrestlemania and find the best way of utilising stars at Wrestlemania, which is a massive ask for them. They should be able to cycle their focus through the year. So why not use a tournament to make stars, the Survivor Series period to build stars and Wrestlemania season to showcase them. It’s an all-round win for the company, the fans and the guys on the roster.
So yes, the WWE should do a one night 8-man tournament on PPV in 2014. And 2015. And 2016. And every year thereafter. Because that’s what’s best for business.
No, WWE should not run an 8-man elimination tournament on PPV in 2014, for three main reasons.
First, as WWE has learned (which is why we don’t see tournament PPVs anymore), tournaments simply do not draw. People buy wrestling PPVs to see a specific match between main event talents that has been built up over time, not a myriad of unknown matches which are guaranteed to be lacking in quality, as the advancing superstar has to stay in condition for his next match of the night, and by the time the finals come around both talents will not be at their best. Loading the front of the bracket with top matches doesn’t work either, as then the PPV will be played backward in terms of attractive matches, creating a very odd-feeling pay-per-view.
Secondly, WWE just doesn’t have 8 guys that people care about. I’m not even sure it has 4 at any given time, mainly due to WWE’s “one-thing-at-a-time” booking style in which it can’t seem to focus on more than a single storyline. In the meantime all the other talented guys simply aren’t getting focused pushes, and thus lack the credibility to be an attractive element in an 8-man arrangement.
Lastly, what prize exists in the WWE which could titillate viewers enough to buy a PPV which will suffer from the weaknesses highlighted above? The WWE title? Ha, just take a look at 2012 to see how much the WWE values its top title in comparison to its top stars. Punk had the title and only main evented PPVs when he was fighting John Cena for it. All throughout the year Cena, and whichever heel was being built up to challenge him at the time, was main eventing PPVs over the WWE title. The WWE title only got respect in 2013 when Cena was injured and WWE had nothing else to build their shows around. Of course, as soon as he returned, he once again became the focus of the main event picture.
Despite what some may wish to believe, the titles have become nothing more than props. People pay to see a select few talents, and there aren't enough of these talents to justify a pay-per-view built around a tournament.
I could go on but there’s really nothing more that needs to be said. There’s no reason to run an 8-man elimination tournament on PPV, and several reasons not to.
Jupiter Jack Daniels
The Wrestling Classic and King Of The Ring are WWE’s past experiments with one night PPV tournaments. While The Wrestling Classic wasn’t a notable success and didn’t really spawn any next generation talents that weren’t already established, the King of The Ring, a tournament that randomly took place at live events in the 80s, went on to become a huge success, as well as something fans have been hoping would be revived. And 2014 would be the perfect time. So, yes, I do think WWE should have a 8 man, one night only elimination tournament on PPV in 2014.
I’m pretty sure the most obvious reason is the potential of a star breaking out, citing Owen Hart, Steve Austin, Triple H & Brock Lesnar as examples. But, my reasoning is quite different.
Now, while the potential of a breakout star is there, imagine the possibility of, for example, Night of Champions being an 8 man elimination tournament. And that tournament is full of World Champions. Depending on injuries & schedules, imagine the possibility of guys like the Undertaker, John Cena, Brock Lesnar, Batista, Randy Orton, The Rock, CM Punk & Daniel Bryan in a one night tournament. Not only would that be a fans dream but also a possible box office smash. The interest factor alone would be a major selling point, based on the possibility of a variety of dream matches. Would be too good to be true and likely won’t turn out like this at all.
But more importantly, the potential for something different from the past several years. Only 2-3 PPV’s have true meaning anymore and the rest just seem to be rematch heaven. The idea of a one night tournament presents a sense of unpredictability, among other things, as well as the potential to birth some interesting angles. For example, imagine 2 members of The Shield competing in the finals. That would be a perfect way to officially split them and take one, likely Roman Reigns, to the next level, regardless of a win or a loss, as well as make the other (likely Dean Ambrose) into a bonafide top heel, pending a win.
This is one of those situations where, in my opinion, the reward outweighs the risk because I don’t see a risk or a legitimate reason why WWE chooses not to do these tournaments. Maybe it’s because of Money In The Bank, which I feel is expendable, as it has lost all of it’s appeal or at least enough of it where it doesn’t require it’s on PPV setting. As a matter of fact, the same can be said for TLC, Elimination Chamber and Hell in A Cell, all PPV’s that are named and maintain a selling point based on 1 match. Why not compress those into other PPV’s, making way for a tournament-esque PPV that can, without a doubt, do more good than harm?
As I’ve said before, 2014 is the perfect time. Pretty stacked roster, with a lot of hungry, young talents who seem to just be there. Some are engaged in pretty interesting angles but those angles can be even furthered with the prospect of certain situations playing out in a tournament. And as for the rarely used guys, it can be a way to test them out and see if something is really there. And for us, the fans, it’s a helluva lot better than watching PPV rematches for 3 months. It’s the potential of a break from that, a possibility of seeing some good matchups and if WWE can pull It off well, a potential good business move. Because it is a business and while business isn’t really down, it doesn’t seem like it would be a bad idea to try something “different” and give the fans something “different”, just to see how it turns out.
And my guess is that it would turn out great, as there are various directions it could be taken, especially on the creative end. To me, it’s one of those situations where nothing can go wrong.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs CGS - I really liked your setup of basically basing your debate entirely off counters and using your decimation of the opposing side's arguments to create your own argument. I don't think it'll work in every debate fyi but it worked with this topic and more importantly it worked outstandingly well against the debates your opponents turned in. The first point I thought was really great and it really destroyed your opponents' debates too when they used that argument because you countered it without even seeing it and did so in a way that easily trumped their arguments for the opposite side. Rest of your argument is strong and really convincing too. Bit iffy on your point about the importance of having great matches because this is still WWE and the Tyson Kidd's of the world still get minimal opportunities unlike the Khali's of the roster. But that didn't hurt your debate because of how strong the rest of it was. Great stuff.
TheLoneShark - This debate was good and I probably would have been higher on it if CGS hadn't ripped it to shreds with his debate. Especially his counter to needing a PPV Tournament to make a new star when they already have Rumble, MITB and Mania. You argue the need for new stars well but sadly it couldn't relate back to the need for a PPV Tournament. I didn't like the drawing power paragraph for two reasons. 1) you just stated that they draw money and didn't show that as a fact and 2) I'm pretty sure they've never really drawn well. I wish I had the time to get up all the old KOTR, etc buyrates/show ratings to destroy that argument but I don't. I don't even need to really because you failed to prove it yourself so it was just a statement with no evidence backing it up. A good debate that was ridiculed by a great debate.
CamillePunk - Same criticism of the drawing power argument here. You need to show that they don't draw rather than just stating it as apparent fact. It's not hard to find KOTR buyrates. They're even on wikipedia. If you had some buyrate evidence then your first paragraph would have been strong. 2nd paragraph I disagree with. People care about Bryan/Punk/Shield/Bray/Cesaro/Orton/Cody/Show/Rey/BROCK. It's not hard to find 4 or even 8 guys that the audience cares about. 3rd paragraph I was iffy on. You seemed to go off track into burying WWE for not letting Punk main event over Cena when he was champion but I didn't think you related it back to the topic. You could have but you didn't. I could easily bring all the Rumble buyrates to squash that argument too. Or recent MITB buyrates. Or just strong drawing shows main evented by the title. Decent debate that left too many holes to pick the debate apart.
Jupiter Jack Daniels - You're the 3rd person to slip up with just stating that something was/wasn't a success without proving it. HOW was KOTR a success? 3rd and 4th paragraphs were good and managed to mostly stay away from CGS' shark of a debate to stay alive for now. You lasted longer than the other 2 at least. I'd question the business sense of your all star tournament idea because you're blowing your load on a bunch of big drawing matches on a PPV with no brand value that could be saved for an occasion where they can pop a big buyrate just on their own without 2 or 3 other "dream matches" to pop the same buyrate just once. The creative argument was strong though. Opening line of the 5th paragraph and DAT SHARK CGS strikes again. You might not see a legit reason not to do it but he did and he made that line really hurt your debate. I suggest you read my MITB debate that I buried Tater with as to why MITB still has value as its own PPV. You slipped up there too. Same for the other gimmick PPVs which draw stronger than your Battleground PPVs. The PPV rematches point I thought was weak because it's really easy to still book PPV rematches with the same guys using this concept. Still a solid debate and better than TheLoneShark and CamillePunk's debates but still open to too many counter arguments.
One debate was not only the best stand alone debate but also the debate which crushed their opponents' debates to make them look like trash. Outstanding effort.
Winner - CGS
THE DARK ANDRE CGS:
This is a really strong debate. You made a great point about there already being too many gimmick pay per views on WWE’s schedule (although Jupiter Jack Daniels made a good argument to suggest that a tournament event could replace one of the garbage gimmick pay per views), while a pay per view tournament wouldn’t make much difference in a climate where WWE already has vehicles such as MITB and the Royal Rumble to put its rising talent over with. I absolutely adored the argument you made where WWE would be better off having a tournament on television where the matches would probably be given more time, seeing as great matches can help lots of wrestlers get over, not just the tournament winner. However, you should have pointed out that FAR MORE people would see these tournaments on tv than they would on ppv. The only strong criticism I’ll make is that you completely glossed over the business aspect of the debate and that allowed Jupiter Jack Daniels to trump you with his argument for a star studded one night only pay per view event. Other than that this was a really strong effort.
Your point about creating new stars was countered by CGS who pointed out that WWE already have many star gimmick pay per views (which WWE already fail to pull off correctly) and that they’re in a situation where they need to reduce these gimmick events. You could have countered him if you had stated that KOTR should take MITB’s place instead of Battleground, thus pointing out that there doesn’t need to be an increase in gimmick pay per views. Jupiter Jack Daniels managed this. He also pointed out that there’s a greater opportunity for WWE’s wrestlers to get themselves over in longer tv matches during a longer term tournament, so in order to counter him you need to give evidence in order to prove that “one night tournaments make money”, but you failed to do that. CamillePunk also made a stronger argument as to why people might not be tempted into buying a tournament pay per view, although your comments about intrigue hold merit.
I had several problems with your fourth paragraph. First of all, “it would make for an excellent addition to the WWE Network – something exclusive to draw in viewers with a real purpose and build on TV”. How would this be exclusive to the WWE network when all WWE pay per views will continue to be made available without a subscription? You previously said that a reason to have a tournament is because it’s (apparently) a proven draw, but you then wrote: “An opportunity to take the guys who look like they could make it – Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, Cesaro, Wyatt, Langston, Cody and Brodus Clay”. I find it hard to believe that those guys would draw buys, not to mention that they would garner more exposure during a television tournament. Also: “They could even use it as an opportunity to use guys who don’t get a shot on TV often and those in NXT to pad out the tournament with qualifiers during the preceding weeks” kind of goes against the point of arguing for a ONE NIGHT ONLY tournament ON PAY PEW VIEW, which is what the debate is asking you to argue for or against.
Look, I do like what you’re arguing for in terms of creating new stars, but not once have you given me strong evidence to suggest why a tournament HAS to happen on ppv and not tv. The argument about a ppv tournament making it easier for the creative team to map out future plans does hold some merit, but nowhere near enough to make this a strong debate.
You made a good argument as to why WWE’s fan base might not order a pay per view with a one night tournament, pertaining to match quality, lopsided cards and a limit on the number of matches that can be hyped to sell the pay per view. However, if you’re going to come out with statements such as “tournaments simply do not draw” then PROVE IT PLEASE. “WWE just doesn’t have 8 guys that people care about” is a very borderline argument seeing as WWE’s full time roster is very sparse, yet they could easily bring in “Undertaker, John Cena, Brock Lesnar, Batista, Randy Orton, The Rock, CM Punk & Daniel Bryan” just as Jupiter Jack Daniels argued. You didn’t make a convincing argument to suggest that this wasn’t possible so he trumped you on that one. However, your point about a potential tournament lacking prestige holds some merit as you argued that even the WWE title doesn’t hold enough prestige for people to become invested in a tournament on pay per view, although the addition of the stars that debater D suggested would certainly make a wwe title ppv tournament victory far more worthwhile, so while I think that you’ve made some interesting points I’ve once again found flaws within your stance. With “there aren't enough of these talents to justify a pay-per-view built around a tournament” I have to again point out that Jupiter Jack Daniels convincingly argued otherwise. I also disagree with “there’s really nothing more that needs to be said” after having read CGS' entry. This debate started off well but gradually fell apart as your own self destruction gathered momentum with every passing comment.
Jupiter Jack Daniels:
This took a completely different route to every other debate in this match, arguing with greater effect than TheLoneShark, completely trumping CamillePunk and going toe to toe with CGS. Citing the names that you did for a night only tournament pay per view, you suggested “Not only would that be a fans dream but also a possible box office smash”. It’s hard to disagree and I’m assuming that your opponents feel the same way seeing as there wasn’t one counter against the possibility of such an event occurring. However, leave out statements such as “Would be too good to be true and likely won’t turn out like this at all” because it reads like you’re suggesting that an event like that would never happen.
I like your idea about the Shield clashing in a tournament, but when you look at that calibre of wrestling star you have to assume that they’re not put in a pay per view tournament to draw a large crowd, so in that case why can’t you have a tournament full of guys like that on television like CGS suggested? However, you found great success by suggesting that a series of shitty gimmick pay per views could be shifted in favour of a tournament pay per view, thus countering CGS' argument about the overabundance of WWE gimmick pay per views. Then you went back to talking about unused guys which, as already stated, CGS has made a great argument for these types being better off wrestling in tv tournaments…this is frustrating me now because your third and fifth paragraphs are brilliant and I feel that if you had delved further into the concept of a mega drawing star studded pay per view tournament then you would have won this easily, if you had made that your main consistent angle throughout your debate then you would have been untouchable. By trying to cover so many bases you’ve exposed yourself to counters. This is a strong debate that would have benefited from greater consistency.
This ended up being a close one between CGS and Jupiter Jack Daniels with the other two debaters falling off a cliff. I feel like Jupiter Jack Daniels had more potential to be a classic due to its third and fifth paragraphs, but in the end it was far too inconsistent and fell into the brilliant traps that were laid by CGS.
Jupiter Jack Daniels: ***1/2
CGS wins the vote
You started off good. You defined your answer and stated that the concept would be just another gimmick PPV while explaining that fans already want to see a decrease in gimmick PPV's. I liked your attempt at shutting down counter arguments as this seemed to be the basis of your debate. Your first attempt was good by showing WWE's start and stop pushes, and how the tourney probably wouldn't be beneficial in today's WWE especially considering they already have these type of elevation PPV's in RR and MITB. Your second counter argument was ok. While they did pull these PPV tourneys before, you made a solid point by explaning that short matches doesn't show off the person's ability. Your last counter argument was good because you provided a better alternative to the 8 person PPV tourney in which the wrestler's ability can be better displayed especially in this era where ring ability means so much now.
You jumped into the debate immediately by acknowledging that Cena can't be on top forever. You then went on to explain how the KOTR made Bret Hart, Austin, Rock and Triple H into the next stars of the company. Later on you would make this point again by mentioning how a tourney could create an instant star. You then went on to describe how this could benefit the WWE network, B and C shows by showing how qualifying matches can gain interest. You finished very strong with this line: "So why not use a tournament to make stars, the Survivor Series period to build stars and Wrestlemania season to showcase them. It’s an all-round win for the company, the fans and the guys on the roster."
Way too short. This was more like a post in the wrestling section. Your second point was ok. Highlighting the mid-card hell treatment that wrestlers get. Your 3rd point was highly questionable. Attempting to bury the WWE title. Meh. I'll just stop there. There's really nothing to give feedback on because you didn't attempt to go deeper and get some more detail in this.
Jupiter Jack Daniels
This debate took a unique approach by showing the greatest potential of the tourney when you have the biggest names in the company competiting which creates numerous dream match possibilites. Like you pointed out, that would definitely catch interest. You also did a good job explaining how these type of tourneys can create storylines in the future based on the opponents and outcome of these matches. Then you went into the diminishing returns of MITB, Hell in a Cell and Elimination Chamber, and how it's time to switch gears to an idea that can do more good than harm. Solid debate, unique stance, and straight to the point.
This comes down to CGS and Jupiter Jack Daniels for me. I choose CGS because he put forth a solid effort in attempting to take down counter arguments.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - CGS
Magic vs Rush Who is the better center in the NBA right now, Dwight Howard or Roy Hibbert?
Spoiler for Debates:
Magic Pre-back surgery Dwight Howard: 3 time defensive player of the year; 4 time rebounding leader; 2 time block leader; 5 time All-NBA first team; 4 time all-defensive first team; NBA finals appearance.
There is absolutely no doubt about that fact Dwight Howard was by far the best center in the league before his back surgery and no one was even remotely close. Yes I said fact as it was indisputable at the time. This even being a question goes to show how far Howard has really fallen.
But worry not, Howard does have some impressive accolades since his back surgery: he has gone through 4 coaches, two of which he got fired himself, greatly exasperated two local fan bases as well as NBA fans as a whole, and gone through three teams. All while creating two years of a media shit storm known as the Dwightmare.
On the other hand, Hibbert has firmly established himself as the top defensive big man in the league that has perfected the art of going straight up when contesting shots. What is the importance of going straight up? Well according to the NBA rules if a player maintains their position and doesn’t “contact the opposing player in a way that results in the re-routing of an opponent” then no foul will be called. Hibbert avoiding fouls allows him to stay in the game which is absolutely crucial to Pacers league leading best defense as he is the anchor and backbone of the defense. The Pacers perimeter players take comfort in the fact that if they get beat off the dribble they know that Hibbert can provide the best help defense in the league. No player protects the paint better and that’s why the Pacers have the best defense in the league by a far margin. Their current defensive rating is 4 points higher than the team in second and three points higher than their last season’s mark, when they also lead the league in defensive rating. When Hibbert isn’t there to protect the rim you get what happened to the Pacers in game 1 of Eastern Conference Playoffs last year where Lebron simply drove past Paul George and scored an EASY layup to win the game. After that game Hibbert was never again taken out of the game down the stretch.
In those same Eastern Conference Finals that involved George, Wade, Bosh, and Lebron James himself, no player had a bigger impact than Roy Hibbert. Not only did he continue to dominate defensively, but he also dominated the Heat’s interior defense by putting up TWICE his career PPG, averaging 22 points, while grabbing 11 rebounds a game too, demonstrating what he is capable of doing against the team that has won the past two titles.
Dwight meanwhile had a chance to show that he deserved to be the man in LA when Kobe suffered a season ending injury before the playoffs began. The final result was a first round 4 game sweep at the hand of Spurs with Howard being unable to control his emotions and getting ejected in the final game. Combine this with all of the fired coaches, all those excuses to fans, and all of those trade demands and does this really sound like a guy you want to be on your team, let alone leading it?
Well he has gotten yet another team to prove that he’s still what he was prior to his back surgery and the results are more or less the same. He puts up adequate numbers, but his impact defensively isn’t really seen. Houston is currently sitting at 10th best in the league in defensive rating, which is the exact same rating the Rockets had all last season when Omer Asik was on the floor. Asik is a hell of a defender in his own right, but you don’t see anyone making any ludicrous claims about him being the best defensive player in the league. So really it is just as preposterous to claim that Dwight, with essentially the exact same supporting cast Asik had last year, is the currently the best defensive player in the league.
Lastly, Howard succumbs to hack-a-Howard where a team will foul him in the fourth quarter to put him at the line and hope he costs his team the game with free throws. This would obviously stop if he managed to just hit his free throws, but instead he falls into the pressure and costs his team many wins by shooting a paltry 56%.
The conclusion from all this is simple; Hibbert is the best center in the league because he allows and helps his team win and be the best in the league while Howard does as much damage to his teams as he does to help them win.
Rush Who is the better center in the NBA right now, Dwight Howard or Roy Hibbert?
Basketball is a team sport where individual stats are looked at so highly. All the greats of the game predominantly get compared via their stat line. It never comes down to the personalities of each player, and what they brought to their team. It comes down to purely, who had the better individual performance. On which player has contributed most on the scoreboard, who has rebounded more, who got more assists, the list goes on. It is on this interpretation that in the NBA this year, there is only one right answer to this question. Right now, the best center is Dwight Howard.
There are a number of attributes that come together to make a good center. They need to be a good defender down in the post, have a presence in the paint, and they can’t be a liability on either end. Other positions are more forgiving in that sense, but to be a good center you have to be well rounded. This season so far, each player’s stats look like this;
Clearly each player has their strong points and their weaknesses. Looking at their respective offensive outputs, it is clear that Dwight Howard is ahead of Hibbert in that area of his game. Dwight Howard scores more points and assists slightly more. He does turn the ball over more than Hibbert but that is the only area of his offensive game that is weaker on paper. Stats only tell half the story but watching each of them play it remains the same. Howard has a stronger presence at the offensive end, he is more aggressive and he gets to the free throw line more often than Hibbert. This is important as it means that the players guarding him are picking up more fouls, and are potentially limiting their time on the court. This can help the team, in this case Houston, out by forcing the opposition’s best center to sit on the bench thus freeing up more space inside for Harden and the others. In addition this means Howard is now playing on a weaker opponent and thus can have even more of an impact on the team’s offense.
Defensively it gets a bit trickier to separate the two players. Hibbert is an excellent blocker of the ball and can control the defensive end. Howard blocks the ball less but has a much higher defensive rebound, and overall rebound average. One could argue that Houston has less rebounders so Howards numbers are inflated a little bit, but for mine the fact is he still hustles and works hard on the glass to get those rebounds. Limiting second chance points for the opposition is an important factor contributing to the team winning matches. Howard isn’t as known for being able to come up with big blocks on defence and this is where Hibbert’s advantage is. Roy can block plenty of shots, forcing the opposition to the perimeter to take lower percentage shots. However that isn’t enough for me to put him ahead of Dwight Howard.
Team play and chemistry is something I have yet to touch on, mostly because I believe in a debate about who is the better center, your teamwork with others is irrelevant. If the question was “Who would you pick as a center for your franchise?” or “Who is a better teammate?” then the answer would be Hibbert every single time. Hibbert is a valuable member of the Indiana side, he has good leadership qualities and he isn’t a troublemaker. Howard on the other hand is a little rougher, little harder to get along with and that can cause problems in a locker room. Nevertheless, he is still a better player than Roy. His offensive output is higher, he gets more points, more rebounds, more assists and more steals. He’s shooting at a higher percentage for field goals, and while he isn’t as good at blocking as Hibbert he is still a good defender. Put it all together and it is clear that Dwight Howard is the best center in the NBA right now.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
The Lady Killer
Magic = I liked the intro. Was a nice SWERVE~! in that it looked like you were making a claim for Howard, yet you nullified it by saying that he isn't the same player that he was before the back surgery. I also really like how you use the topic itself as a case against Howard with, "This even being a question goes to show how far Howard has really fallen." That was pretty great. Next paragraph is funny and effective all the same. Using Howard's on- and off-court antics against him as they've been more of a focus than his actual in-game production.
The Hibbert part was pretty great as well. Nice contrast to the Howard bit. You establish Hibbert as the anchor of the best defensive team in the league, and provide STATS~! to support your claim. You then go back to Howard, and establish how he was swept in the first round of the playoffs. This is where it gets a little tricky. You establish Hibbert as the defensive anchor, but you don't really consider what would happen if Indy's best player (George) were to suffer an injury. Pacers lost to the Heat even with a healthy George. Lakers got swept without their best player (Kobe), and it might be unfair to place the blame solely on Dwight.
Also, a majority of your debate is focused on the defensive end, which I concede is a naturally desired attribute for a good center, but the most dominant centers (Kareem/Wilt/Shaq/etc) were also offensive forces. I think you could've touched upon this a bit more, or at least shot down the fact that Howard being a better offensive player doesn't detract from your stance of Hibbert being better overall.
Rush = This started off pretty great. I definitely like the "definition" of what makes a good center, well...good. I think this was something that Debate A could've touched upon. I thought your paragraph on the offensive comparison between Howard and Hibbert was pretty good. You establish Howard as the better offensive player (something Magic didn't really touch upon in detail), and the bit about Howard getting the opposing centers in foul trouble, thus opening up the lane for slashers like Harden was a really good point.
Next paragraph is really shaky. You concede that Hibbert is the better defensive player without really rendering it negligible when it comes to the overall argument. You point out Howard's weaknesses (a valid counterargument), but don't do enough to squash the importance of these weaknesses. You simply say "well that's not enough to put Hibbert ahead of Dwight Howard." This fell a bit flat for me.
Last paragraph is a bit of the same. You're addressing yet another counterargument - Hibbert being a better team player - yet don't do enough to make that counter not matter. Since basketball is a team sport (as you pointed out in your opening line), I don't think it's fair to disregard Howard's childish antics when they're a detriment to the team. That's just my opinion, however, and obviously won't affect my judgment here. Based upon the facts/stats that you presented, I wasn't convinced that Howard was the better player. You basically said Howard was better on offense, Hibbert better on defense, yet Howard is the better center. Does this mean offense is valued over defense?
Winner = Magic
After reading both of these debates, I'm not totally sold on either guy being better than the other. I like Rush's use of head to head STATS, but then he disregards the intangibles of leadership and teamwork because it seems to favor Hibbert. Rush is quite adamant that Hibbert is better, but he never did a head to head STATS comparison. Ultimately though, STATS don't tell the whole story, and Magic hammered his points home a bit more effectively by my reading.
So congratulations to Magic, you win.
Your intro was good. I like how you documented Howard's past success to his current failures and mishaps. Good stuff to support your choice of Hibbert by discussing how he's been an asset to his team and what happens when he's not there. You went further in your defense of Hibbert by showing that Houston's defensive ranking did not change with a guy who's suppose to be the best big man in the league, and you finished this with a strong exit. Good job.
Numbers never lie. You posted a graphic that showed the STATS between Hibbert and Howard. It's very clear cut who the better center is statisticaly an you did a solid job breaking down the graphic to explain why Howard is the better center. Your conclusion paragraph really wrapped this debate up because you explained that the debate question does not include outside actions & attitudes which eliminates many of the things that were said in Magic's debate. This tied in nicely with your conclusion on why Howard was the best center in the league. The graphic and the conclusion gave this debate strength.
Winner via Split Decision - Magic
Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up II
The Lady Killer vs Scott Hall's Ghost Is the notion that Sting was a big star false?
Spoiler for Debates:
Scott Hall's Ghost
Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up II The Lady Killer vs Scott Hall's Ghost Is the notion that Sting was a big star false?
He has been called the Franchise, the Icon, the Legend, and one of the top wrestlers of all-time in lists ranging from PWI, to John Molinaro, to IGN, to WWE itself. He was a 6-time World Heavyweight champion, as well as holding numerous other titles in each of the promotions he’s wrestled for. Sting was seen to have it all; being awarded 5-star matches early in his career, having feuds of the year, as well as winning PWI’s Most Popular Wrestler title a record-tying four times (as well as being runner-up and second runner-up 3 and 5 times, respectively).
To speak of Sting is to speak with some reverence about one of the greatest professional wrestling stars of the late 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s. From his time being long-built into one of the cornerstones of NWA/WCW in the late 80’s, to his rise to WCW’s franchise star and resident “Hulk Hogan” in the early 90’s, through his reimagining as ‘the Crow’ (or ‘black and white’) Sting in the mid-to-late 90’s, and including his time as the foundation of TNA in early-to-mid 00’s, there is no question that Sting always was, and should always be remembered as, a huge star in the business.
Sting is the only man to hold each of the NWA, WCW, and TNA championships. While we won’t spend much time on his latter years in TNA, it’s worth noting that even in that waning era of his career, Sting was not only one of the most pivotal figures in the company, but also one of the most decorated, relied on, and completely over talents TNA had to offer. As TNA is to wrestling what ABBA the band is to… well, wrestling… we’ll focus on his WCW tenure primarily.
Ric Flair is undoubtedly one of the greatest stars of all-time, and arguably the run-away greatest heel in history: that Sting was chosen as the face-of-a-new-era against Flair is telling. What set him apart from Ricky Steamboat and even Dusty Rhodes, was the heights of popularity with the crowds, and his marketability as a prime star. During Sting’s rise in the first quarter of his career, he faced all the top heels WCW had to offer; from Cactus Jack, Jake Roberts, the Great Muta, and Rick Rude, to Vader, Ric Flair, the Horseman, and Lex Luger—Sting was the face that stood above all others.
He became so pivotal, in fact, that he was featured along-side Flair in the first match on the first Nitro ever. However, when the time came that the 80’s and 90’s fads were fading, and a new era was gripping the wrestling world, Sting updated his image to a darker, more compelling black-and-white Sting. This Sting gained even more popularity, eventually becoming the only real, legitimate threat to the wildly popular, and (kayfabe) completely dominant, nWo.
It was here that the height of Sting’s star power became even more obvious. Not only was he the only real legitimate threat to the nWo, it was Sting who would finally end Hollywood Hogan’s title reign—one that had lasted 500 out of 505 days in 1996 and 1997. Even Goldberg, one of the biggest stars the business had ever seen for a time, while a threat in matches/personally, was never presented as an actual threat to the nWo itself as Sting was.
A further testament to his enduring, and extreme, star-power lies in his relation (and consideration) with WWE. Having never wrestled for WWE (we’re not going to count the last Nitro, technically under WWE ownership, as Sting was fulfilling his WCW contract); that Sting has appeared on both WWE’s all-time great lists and topped their ‘best wrestlers who never wrestled in WWE’ list is a sign of his legitimacy as a true star in wrestling.
Even more telling; as we near Wrestlemania season again and talk of the Undertaker’s “Streak” (one of the most revered and focused-on runs in modern wrestling), the man who has stood on top of most people’s list for the best match that hasn’t happened yet for the last decade has been none other than the Stinger himself. In fact, in the world of ‘dream matches’, Sting vs. ‘Taker has regularly sat at, or near, the top of most fans’ lists.
To be booked against Flair at the peak of his popularity, become the face of WCW, gain the long-standing devotion of the fans, put on excellent matches and feuds, win endless titles and recognitions, transition and adapt through-out your career, be the foil to the two most popular stables of all-time (the Horsemen and the nWo), be a cornerstone star of two separate organizations, and be recognized by a company you refused to even work for, all point to Sting being, without a doubt, a huge star.
Every performer in our business needs that intense personal issue, that rivalry, that FEUD that truly puts them on the main event map. I was lucky enough to have had those feuds at the right times along the way. I was lucky enough to have had those feuds when I needed them – with Sting in 1991, and with The Undertaker in 1996 – the right opponents at the right time to put me on the main event map.
As a fan of professional wrestling for over twenty years, the nature of this topic insults my intelligence. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the industry, and especially the now-defunct WCW, has heard of Sting. To me, that’s the definition of a big star.
If you insist on getting technical, however, allow me to oblige.
Originally Posted by the fuckin’ dictionary, where else?
star, adj.: celebrated, prominent, or distinguished
Well, this should be fairly easy to prove. Let’s start back in the late ‘80s, when Sting was a babyface on the rise in Crockett’s territorial attraction, the National Wrestling Alliance. After Ted Turner purchased what would later be named World Championship Wrestling, Sting was looked to as “the franchise” of the fledgling promotion. During professional wrestling’s tough times of the ‘90s when the likes of Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair were tap-dancing between companies, Sting was the one constant - the backbone. He became prominent as the company’s #1 babyface for his feuds against Cactus Jack, Vader, Ric Flair and (see: a few paragraphs down) the NWO. He became celebrated as WCW’s most popular homegrown star when he had the privilege of wrestling the company’s last ever match on Monday Nitro. Perhaps most importantly, he became distinguished due to his overwhelming charisma, largely unparalleled rapport with the fans and his unique, iconic look. In every city, there were hundreds of kids whose faces were either painted or donning a Stinger mask.
Originally Posted by RATINGS THREAD VIRGIN
But he’s not even in Dave Meltzer’s top 100 draw list~! He’s a jobber, not a star!
First of all, for the love of God, please venture outdoors. Secondly, even if you extrapolated the dictionary definition to apply to pro wrestling, you wouldn’t find a direct correlation between drawing power and being a star. Flair isn’t on that bogus list, either. I’m assuming that means he’s not a star? Pls GTFO. You don’t have to sell out MSG in order to be a celebrated, prominent, or distinguished character in the business. The man won multiple world championships in a number of promotions. His accolades speak for themselves.
Oh, and since you’re so fixated on the opinions of wrestling GEEKS, I’m inclined to assume that you’ll find this little nugget of FACT irrelevant: WCW Starrcade 1997 = 1.9 buyrate, the best WCW ever received. Main event of that PPV? Leader of the NWO Hogan vs. #1 anti-hero babyface with a new, cool CROW gimmick, Sting. Oh, and this also gave WCW the edge of WWF during the Monday Night Wars. But I guess we’ll just have to chalk that one up as another win for Hogan, though. After all, he was on Meltzer’s list, brother.
Originally Posted by THE Tony
LOL @ his TNA run. Tarnished his legacy.
Even if this were true, the topic merely asks whether or not the notion that Sting was a big star is false. Notice the emphasis on the past tense there. I just explained how the very thought of Sting as anything less than a star is completely ludicrous, but I suppose I can take a few moments to bury you as well.
Often heralded as the “biggest star never to work for Vince McMahon (who has tried to recruit him on multiple occasions),” Sting was and still is without a doubt one of professional wrestling’s few household names. To this day, a vast majority of wrestling fans agree that one of the last remaining “dream matches” features The Undertaker taking on Sting, despite being 54 years of age and well past his prime. That speaks volumes and is a true testament to the lasting aura his character has manufactured over the years. After all, his nickname is “The Icon.”
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs Scott Hall's Ghost - I think this read to me more of a testament to Sting's successful career rather than dissecting how big of an actual star Sting was. You talk a lot about how Sting was pushed as a top act and seem to take it for granted that that made him a big star. People can be positioned as a big star without actually being a big star and I thought you failed to really argue that Sting was positioned as a big star because he WAS a big star. I liked your first paragraph even though it read as a list of his accomplishments but it worked in this debate because they were all a good base to WHY Sting was a big star. 2nd paragraph I thought was mostly a lesser version of what you achieved in the 1st so I would have lost that paragraph as you'd already achieved the purpose of it previously. The TNA paragraph read to me more like WHAT Sting was to TNA rather than WHY Sting was what he was to TNA and HOW that made him a big star. You took a very kayfabe focused look at the topic which I think gave you a good base for your debate but also restricted it because you didn't look past the kayfabe view of a star. The final point about "It was here that the height of Sting’s star power became even more obvious" is the best case of where your kayfabe focused view restricted your debate because it didn't allow you to look at Sting's impact for WCW but rather just how he was pushed by WCW. Ok, he got pushed as a big star. Did this allow him to become a big star though and did he actually become a big star off these opportunities such as ending Hogan's title run. The legacy part was stronger because it explored HOW Sting was a big star more and with a wider view.
The Lady Killer - Now this debate put to bed any of the questions as I had coming from the previous debate such as "Sting was pushed as a big star but did fans really buy him as a big star". The definition of a star paragraph was neatly executed and something that SHG missed out on which I think really did hurt his debate. If he'd stated that his definition of a big star fell more in line with the kayfabe focused view of a big star that he was arguing then his debate would have been stronger. But he didn't and you did and you basically put all my counters I had before reading either debates and especially after reading SHG's debate to rest. I loved the aggressive pissed off tone of the debate too. I don't usually but it clicked here. It came off like you were so disgusted at the notion of the question and that you had to waste your time even defending the sheer notion that he was otherwise. That passion rung through in your words brilliantly. The Starrcade buyrate argument was exactly what I thought SHG needed to bring his debate up to that next level. Something that showed he succeeded in the role he was positioned in. I chuckled at THE Tony. Mostly at THE in caps. Destruction of the TNA counter argument was godly and I thought you made the same WWE point SHG made but better and more concisely. Top stuff.
Winner - The Lady Killer
Scott Hall's Ghost –I thought the bulk of this was fine, but I’m not quite certain it has enough about it to really elevate it past that. The intro was fine, although cutting it down a bit wouldn’t have been a problem. I appreciate given the nature of the question, that a more descriptive opening to establish Sting’s credentials seemed appropriate, but at the end of the day you don’t convince people with mere figures, you convince people by expanding and evaluating those figures and clarifying what they represent. I feel like you could have expanded more on the notion of what a ‘star’ is personally, and really all I can say about the main body of your debate is that it outlines Sting’s consistency and versatility well, but it’s not screaming at me to agree with it. Conclusion was nice though imo and suitably ended the debate on something of a high, which was necessary given the solid yet unspectacular middle. I feel with the right amendments and tweaks, this could have posed a greater threat, but as it is take on board the feedback and feel content that you’re on the right track.
The Lady Killer – You know, it’s the little things that can often distinguish debates which cover and argue similar points. Loved the breakdown and consideration of what a star is, which always adds credence and support to any argument by defining the term and applying it’s meaning to an individual. Furthermore I really liked how the writer identified the past tense in the question in relation to Sting’s run in TNA, that being that despite being a career low-point it doesn’t invalidate his star power in NWA and WCW – which only adds to the general argument the writer is making. Even then, the writer does an admirable job at demonstrating Sting’s continued rapport with the fans even in the desolate land of TNA. This wasn’t perfect, but the writer appropriately defined the question and identified how Sting applied to the term, before succinctly highlighting Sting’s career star power and documenting his longevity as a performer, spanning three decades and relaying strong supporting evidence to enhance their argument.
Winner – The Lady Killer
Headliner Scott Hall's Ghost
The first three paragraphs was a nice solid opening to highlight Sting's accomplishments. You then went into his placement in the card early in his career, then adapting to change when the wrestling business was shifting. And you also put over how big of a threat Sting was to the nWo. Even bigger than Goldberg. All of this was good. The opening of the WCW portion needed more work because you were missing a couple words to make that opening sense read correctly. The legacy part of this debate was the best part because you showed how WWE treats him like a big star yet he never wrestled for WWE. Good way to finish it out.
The Lady Killer
Strong intro. Using a legend like Foley to show that Sting was a big star early in his career in the intro gave this debate immediate strength. In the body I really liked how you used and broke down the definition of star to show how Sting was actually a big star. It's one thing to say that someone is a star, but the way you displayed each adjective in the definition to prove it was outstanding. Nice LOL moment when you shut down the NOT A DRAW argument while showing that Sting was apart of the biggest buyrate in WCW history. The ending was good because you showed that even later in his career Sting was still a big star when he helped TNA achive their biggest PPV buyrate and their first 1.0 rating.
Winner-The Lady Killer
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Lady Killer
TDL Sports Division #1 Contenders Match
BkB Hulk vs Kiz Who should win the 2013 FIFA Ballon D'Or?
Stats for 2013 as of the original voting deadline. Appearances counted are domestic league, Champions League, and competitive international games.
We have three options left who can become the winner of the Ballon d’Or: A, B or C. Put together the goals of A and C for the year 2013 and you still fall short of what B contributed. B contributed when goals and assists are combined more frequently than A, and did it much longer than C, thus showing greater consistency.
That’s all rather robotic, isn’t it? Okay, to make it simple – Cristiano Ronaldo should win the Ballon d’Or. Any other option just doesn’t make sense. As good as Lionel Messi (C) is or as successful as Franck Ribery (A) has been in 2013, Cristiano Ronaldo (B) is the clear winner.
The reason for eliminating names is simple – a lot of people will argue for who they want to win based on emotions. Take out the names and there’s one clear winner. Take away the bias and Ronaldo wins. He has to.
People love Lionel Messi. He’s often positioned as the angel to Ronaldo’s devil – the favoured superstar. And Messi may actually be a better player than Ronaldo – he’s won the past four Ballon d’Or awards, and he’s deserved every single one of them. He doesn’t deserve this one though. Any other opinion is purely emotional.
Messi played only just over half of the games of Ronaldo this year up until the original deadline, and yet Ronaldo’s contribution is on par with him per game. Ronaldo has been as good for longer. How can you then argue for Messi? You can’t. Great player? Sure. Best player in the world? Most think so. Best player this year? Absolutely not. His body hasn’t allowed him to be. You can’t grant someone an award for how good they usually are. You can’t say, “Oh, sorry you’ve had injuries Lionel. Here’s a prize anyway.” No, that’s bullshit. Messi simply hasn’t been able to deliver for as long this year.
Ribery is a more curious case than Messi. He’s a different type of player. Messi and Ronaldo are very much the focus of their teams, whereas Ribery is a cog in a machine. Brilliant clog in a brilliant machine, yes, but a different player all the same. He’s been very successful in 2013 too, but again, so has the machine. Bayern Munich have been immense, but that doesn’t make Ribery the best player in the world for 2013. That just makes him a part of the best team in the world for 2013. The Ballon d’Or is about the best individual, and Ribery’s Champions League medal, Bundesliga medal, German Cup medal and European Super Cup medal show team he’s in, not the individual.
Ribery may have been the best player in a great team, as shown by him winning the best Champions League player for 2012-13. Ronaldo has been better than him overall though. He’s been the better individual. It’s commonly accepted that the best two players in the world are Ronaldo and Messi, so if Ronaldo has had the better year of the two, and a personal best goal-scoring year, then surely Ronaldo wins. You can’t just give it to Ribery for playing for a better team for the year. The people saying he should win on the Ballon d’Or website are Guardiola, Beckenbauer and a French basketballer. Essentially, either you have a vested interest in Bayern Munich or you’re French if you think Ribery should win. Nobody wants to be French.
Look at Ronaldo’s year. Not just the numbers, but also the games he’s scored in. He’s scored against both Dortmund and Barcelona this year, the two biggest games Real Madrid have played. But there was more to come.
The stats above are from when the voting was originally closed. Voting, however, was (rightly or wrongly) extended after Ronaldo told his team-mates to get on his back and carried them to Brazil with a superb hat-trick against Sweden. That’s the difference between Ribery and Ronaldo. Ronaldo can just carry a team. Ribery, as good as he is, doesn’t. This just adds to Ronaldo’s numbers. Sweden may not be a superpower of any kind, but the magnitude of the game and the goals was amazing. At a time when it looked like Portugal would fall and Ibra succeed, Ronaldo simply said “No”.
Should someone other than Ronaldo win? Ronaldo says “No”. Who would you be to doubt him after all? The only reason for ignoring Ronaldo can possibly be bias. Look at the numbers. Look at the individual performances. Ronaldo is the best player of 2013.
So, once again, another year has passed in the world of football, and now we get the continuous arguments on who had the best season in football. All the analysis, discussion, arguments that happen on television, in magazines and on forums, for a trophy that doesn’t actually affect anyone besides those on the shortlist. Welcome to Ballon d’Or season. Who is it going to be? Cristiano Ronaldo? Lionel Messi? Franck Ribery? Jordan Henderson!??! PHIL NEVILLE!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Simply, it has been Cristiano Ronaldo’s year.
The Ballon d’Or came into existence in its current form in 2010 when the France Football’s Ballon d’Or merged with FIFA’s World Player of the Year award. Fellow Real Madrid legends Zinedine Zidane and Luis Figo have won the Ballon d’Or, even a Stoke legend in Michael Owen has been a recipient. The Ballon d’Or itself has existed since 1956 and is a who’s who of footballing legends. Ronaldo himself has already won it once back in 2008, as a Manchester United player.
Ever since Lionel Messi’s spectacular emergence, it has been forever the bridesmaid, never the bride for CR7. 2013 was the year that changed. Messi, hampered by niggling injuries, mixed with Ronaldo really stepping up his game this season to become more prolific than ever, with 69 goals across 60 games for club and country. Utterly staggering numbers. None more important than his hat trick vs Sweden to qualify Portugal for the 2014 World Cup, reducing world class striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic to stunned onlooker, even applauding Ronaldo during the game.
Diego Maradona, Argentine legend and Messi supporter, said this to Le Buteur: "Cristiano Ronaldo should win. Messi has been injured a lot this year." When Diego Maradona says something against Messi ever, usually it’s pretty big. Really it cannot be questioned. Ronaldo has scored more goals combined than Messi and Ribery put together in 2013, the two other players shortlisted for the award. Dominant.
Another thing that will most likely have helped Ronaldo’s cause was the re-opening of voting from. FIFA decided on the deadline that due to a ‘low number of responses’, the original deadline had been extended from the Friday to the following Wednesday. Cristiano Ronaldo’s hat trick vs Sweden occurred on the Tuesday, allowing his feats to be fresh in the minds of any voters. Rightly or wrongly, this change definitely assisted Ronaldo’s chances of winning.
It will be argued against Ronaldo that his team, Real Madrid, failed to win any trophies in 2013, with the La Liga going to Messi’s Barcelona, the Copa Del Rey going to Atletico Madrid, and the Champions League being won by Franck Ribery’s Bayern Munich. However, the Ballon d’Or is a reward for the best individual player in football. It takes an entire team across many games to win trophies, and if 59 goals for Real Madrid across all competitions is not enough to win a trophy, it reflects moreso on Ronaldo’s team mates than Ronaldo himself.
All things considered, this does not mean that Messi or Ribery have had poor seasons. Messi finished with 45 goals in 46 appearances for club an country, still a fantastic record for the little maestro. RIbery wasn’t as prolific scoring wise but created 14 assists for Bayern Munich, helping them win six trophies in 2013. But neither of them can compare to the sheer scoring that Ronaldo has shown.
2013 has seen the evolution of what already was a world class footballer into one of the very best the world has ever seen. The constant battle of who is better between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi seems to change weekly. One week Ronaldo is the best, the next it’s Messi. Ronaldo has finally had the season that has seen him more than likely finally end Lionel Messi’s run of four Ballon d’Or’s in a row, and finally allow him to get his hands on that trophy that he has so craved since moving to Real Madrid from Manchester United for a then world record fee in 2009. For all the continual arguments, the bickering amongst self-appointed football experts, maybe there will come a time where people will just enjoy the prodigious talents in front of us. Maybe one day there will be just JOY~! from all sides, whether it be Lionel Messi dribbling through a maze of players to finally slot the ball into the bottom corner, Ronaldo hitting an absolute rifle from outside the area or Ribery with a delightful run down the touchline to square it to a team mate to finish, no matter who wins the Ballon d’Or, football is the overall winner, but Ronaldo is the one deserving of that little Ballon d’Or trophy.
For your viewing pleasure, a visual experience of Cristiano Ronaldo's 2013 season.
First things first, stellar outing from both here. Hats off to the pair of you, but I do feel there is a deserving winner.
BkB Hulk: I really loved this, if I could end the judging there I would but apparently 6 days is too long to judge and I need to justify my time. Anyways, being serious this was just a very efficient and articulate breakdown of the question, and a deserving winner. Really loved the initial stats which segued into removing bias and going purely by the numbers, with a very concise but convincing breakdown of Ronaldo’s consistency and potency throughout the calendar year. The real money though imo, was the analysis of Messi and Ribery, Ronaldo’s closest challengers. Honestly this was just a real joy to read, with the writer superbly clarifying that the Ballon d’Or is an individual award, thus Ribery’s success isn’t pertinent to justify him as winner when it can be agreed Ronaldo had the more impressive year. ‘Brilliant cog in a brilliant machine’ was such a majestic way to convey how Ribery is a great talent, but undeserving of this particular award. Likewise, the evaluation of Messi’s body and injury woes robbing him of the opportunity to match Ronaldo for startling consistency further distinguishes Ronaldo’s achievements from his closest challengers, which again enhances the overall argument. Outstanding work.
Kiz: Credit where credit is due however, I had BkB Hulk pegged as the initial winner and it’s testament to this debate that I had to re-consider briefly my position, although in the end I still believe BkB Hulk's is the better debate. Still, much like BkB Hulk this does a superb job of evaluating Ronaldo’s tremendous success whilst smartly clarifying how his level of individual performance is of paramount importance, not the success of his team. Really loved the summarisation of Madrid, noting it speaks more about Madrid as a team than it does Ronaldo’s efforts that such a talismanic figure enjoying an iconic year still can’t drag the team to success. It’s easy to point to Ribery’s accomplishments and argue his integral play to Bayern supersedes Ronaldo’s prowess, but the writer quashes that viewpoint by outlining what the ballon d’OR measures, which is the individual’s performance. I thought your conclusion was stronger and more engaging than that of BkB Hulk, however BkB Hulk’s into and middle for me was the difference between the two pieces, however you can be proud of this effort and much like Messi and Ribery, you’ll just have to accept someone else was that bit better this time around.
Winner – BkB Hulk
THE DARK ANDRE BkB Hulk:
This is amazing. Starting out with pure stats and eliminating the emotional element was a genius move. Eliminating international friendly and domestic cup stats was also a clever move on your part and an appropriate way to spin stats, seeing as this eliminates matches that a) don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things (yes this includes the Spanish cups, sadly enough) and b) include a lot of inferior competition, thus just leaving stats from the games that mattered in the most important competitions. Looking at it objectively, I can’t criticise your decision to do that because you proved that Ronaldo was easily the best performer (stats wise) even after all of the guff matches had been eliminated. The arguments against Messi (shouldn’t win based on what he might do if not injured) and scar faced Gary Neville (working as one of the agents in the Matrix, aka he’s part of the machine at Bayern) were strong and concise. “Nobody wants to be French” would probably win most debates. “Bayern Munich have been immense, but that doesn’t make Ribery the best player in the world for 2013. That just makes him a part of the best team in the world for 2013”…brilliant. Holding off the bit about Ronaldo’s performance versus Sweden until near the end was a triffic’ move because instead of blurting your load all at the start you left the reader (aka me, you dopey mare) with a lasting impression as to what separated Ronny from the rest in 2013 and batted away any doubts as to why Ronaldo shouldn’t win an INDIVIDUAL award based on INDIVIDUAL merits, an argument that was built on top of the idea that Ronaldo did it against the best in 2013 (Bayern and Barca). This debate also includes two brilliant lines which set up a great ending:
“At a time when it looked like Portugal would fall and Ibra succeed, Ronaldo simply said “No”.”
“Should someone other than Ronaldo win? Ronaldo says “No”.
I thought your intro was mildly amusing, but it was weaker than BkB Hulk’s intro where he established why Ronaldo was ahead of the competition based on stats without emotional bias. It wasn’t a terrible start because you eventually made your stance clear, but you wasted a lot of words that could have been used to make an actual argument. I could have also done without the history lesson on the award, which again was a waste of words. Your use of stats was good, but it would have had an even greater effect if you had compared Ronaldo, Messi and Ribery side by side like BkB Hulk did when he took away the emotional element. However, I felt that you essentially matched his piece about Ronny versus Sweden in terms of how you conveyed the significance. I also enjoyed your piece about Ronaldo being so good that he convinced Maradona of all people to say that he was better than Messi, this matched BkB Hulk’s piece which buried Ribery’s supporters. Again, your arguments against Ribery and the Bayern machine are great and are essentially as good as BkB Hulk's. “It takes an entire team across many games to win trophies, and if 59 goals for Real Madrid across all competitions is not enough to win a trophy, it reflects moreso on Ronaldo’s team mates than Ronaldo himself”. That was a fantastic argument. Sadly your conclusion was a bit wishy washy and far too descriptive in areas that didn’t really strengthen your debate. BkB Hulk used that as an opportunity to hammer his argument home whereas you had a kind of “let’s all be friends” ending that would most likely hold merit at any other time other than during this debate. Regardless, this was a good debate with some fantastic arguments in the middle.
BkB Hulk had a much stronger intro and conclusion, it was also just as strong as Kiz in the middle and had a greater flow/structure. I also thought that the dry humour in BkB Hulk came across as more natural than the jokey intro in Kiz's. BkB Hulk also has the advantage of including the emotional bias killing writing method at its core, which was simply first rate.
BkB Hulk: *****
BkB Hulk wins the vote, but both debaters should feel really proud in what was a stupendously strong match.
First off thanks to both for restoring my faith in the quality of these debates. I'm judging after judging the 3 wrestling undercard debates that were pretty tough to find compliments for. Thankfully finding flaws in these two debates was just as tough.
BkB Hulk - Pretty much flawless. Not sure if I'd say it's on par with Andre's debates at II and IX but it's in that ball park so you should be confident going in your title match assuming you get it. I loved the way you started with the robotic nature to remove any bias. Pretty fucking amazing move. The other judges will probably tell you everything that's great about this so I'll just sum it up with, everything about this was great. Loved the personality in the debate. Loved the way it just flowed and seamlessly transitioned from one part to the next effortlessly. If I was being really picky and had to make one criticism it'd be that I thought there was room for more words showing Ronaldo's output for 2013. Really though the start was all you had to do there to convince anyone.
Kiz - Wow I feel bad for you because this was basically a carbon copy of Bulk's debate but presented in not quite as effortless a writing style. This would beat just about anyone else in the Sports Division though so don't feel bad about this. This mostly just came down to writing style and injecting personality into a debate. I would like to point out a couple of quick gripes I had though. And they're gripes/advice rather than flaws of your debate. The 3rd paragraph I would have cut. I'm personally not crazy about describing context or history because 95% of the time it doesn't relate back to your argument and it didn't here. What did Zidane, Figo and Owen winning the award have to do with Ronaldo deserving to win this year? There's a couple of paragraphs that seem to be misformatted in that you're missing the line space. You probably just needed to preview message before sending. Your last paragraph/conclusion I thought was a little long relative to the rest of your debate. Longer than it needed to be and you missed out on word count you could have used in the more important middle of your debate when you're arguing your reasoning. " and finally allow him to get his hands on that trophy that he has so craved since moving to Real Madrid from Manchester United for a then world record fee in 2009" - here is where I would have stopped. Cutting that extra word count in your debate that wasn't really adding to your reasoning for your argument will give you more detail to develop and strengthen your argument.
Winner - BkB Hulk
Winner via Unanimous Decision - BkB Hulk
TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Match - 4 Way Eliminator: Stage 2
ZOMBO vs STEVIE SWAG vs samizayn Which member of The Shield will have the most successful singles career?
Spoiler for Debates:
To assess which member of the Shield is likely to go on to more success, it bears ascertaining exactly what each of them bring to the table in terms of their talent package, and what that’s done for the wrestlers that have come before them.
Ambrose, considered the leader of The Shield, has a very unique promo style. Veterans and legends have referred to him as having a Pillmanesque mode of delivery. The compliment is apparent when you’re compared to someone as respected as Pillman was, so early into your WWE career.
All three men are solid workers, but it is Rollins that is the standout best from an in-ring perspective. If given the chance he will continue to impress in his solo matches; his willingness to go all-out means he’ll always be at the top of people’s highlight reels.
The ideal ‘superstar look’ is often talked about, and it doesn’t take much looking to realise Roman Reigns is as close to this ideal as is seemingly possible. As the largest member of the group in terms of muscle, as well as the most conventionally good looking, Reigns ticks the ‘main event appearance’ box moreso than the two other members.
All three members, no doubt, are valuable assets in their own rights. That being said, in the year plus that Shield have been a unit, Seth Rollins has failed to mark his individual presence in any significant manner like Ambrose and Reigns have. It’s easy to think he’s merely being overshadowed, and that he’ll shine once he gets a chance at singles, but unfortunately in any and every group dynamic scenario that’s not what happens. When you’re outshined in a pairing or group, as Gangrel was to E&C, or as Jannetty was to HBK, it doesn’t get better once you’re forced to go alone. That’s because if you can’t stand out among a handful of people, there’s no way you’ll be distinguishable in a large roster of thirtysomething, especially today with such strong characters like the Wyatts on the roster to name a few. Rollins will be a top worker in the company no doubt, but lacking the all important superstar presence his teammates have above him means occasional uppermidcarder is his ceiling.
It’s also very easy to tout Reigns as the above and beyond breakout of this group, considering the kind of talent he is and the kind of push he is being primed for. Unlike Rollins and Ambrose, Reigns has the marketable look that upper management look for that means he could be face of the company – evidently more than anyone else in The Shield could work towards. He could be #1 in theory, but in practise that is a reality that becomes more and more difficult to achieve the more you examine it. Much as Reigns has potential, there’s just no telling what will happen in pushes like these because they are so unpredictable, and there are so many things that effect it that aren’t even in a wrestler’s control. Reigns’ push is much more of a roll of the dice – if the creative direction they take with him is engaging enough, how much of a priority his momentum takes, and just generally how management feel when they wake up in the morning – because the top face position is the pressure cooker of the company. Everything related to it brings ten times the stress and hardship, and it is so easy to fall into flavour of the month territory by management, or even the audience simply losing interest. If you don’t make it to the very top, and fast, you become just another guy – Sheamus or Ryback or any of the other recent names who didn’t quite get there. His being on the green side also doesn’t help; the experience he lacks would be crucial for succeeding frontstage and backstage.
Ambrose, on the other hand, practically has his career guaranteed for him. There will always be plenty of room at the top of the card for a heel with his unique mannerisms – as a company that has always been face-heavy at its highest levels, a performer as versatile as him would be valued very much. Having entertaining match programmes with babyfaces at the highest level is easily obtainable for Ambrose, to carry on what was previously undertaken by wrestlers like Edge, Triple H before him, and many others with very illustrious careers. He definitely has the skills to make it there, especially if his mic work Monday with Roddy Piper is anything to go by. More importantly he won’t have the roadblocks and expectations associated with the top babyface spot like Reigns, which is why Ambrose as top heel is my pick for most successful.
Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns - three men who claimed to be a shield from injustice, arrived, whooped ass, won titles, screwed everyone over and literally wrecked havoc in the WWE. The trio made a definite mark in the months to come, and it was quite clear that down the line, all three of them were gonna have a bright future. But the question was, once its all set and done, who would be singled out for superstardom?
Originally Posted by MeanDeanFangirlWho'sProbablyAGuyLOL
Ambrose. The man's smooth as butter in the ring and is a gun on the mic. He's the only one to win a singles title, was and is given more time on the mic than the other two, and was handed an opportunity to face the legendary Undertaker just months after his debut. So we fans aren't the only ones who're high on him, even the WWE brass is.
Originally Posted by SethMakesMeWet
Rollins. Maybe he isn't the finest on the mic, but he's definitely amongst the top in-ring workers. He's also the only one who's put on singles bouts which have really stood out, like against Bryan, and recently Cena. If you've seen his work in the past, you can tell he's got this likeable personality about him so there's no doubt he's gonna be a solid babyface once he turns.
So who will it be? Ambrose? Rollins?
Before I go all Big Kev and talk about how Reigns is gonna be more successful and not the other two vanilla midgets, let me make some things clear. I'm taking nothing away from Ambrose and Rollins, they're probably better in some departments than Reigns is, but they don't have what Reigns does. THE LOOK.
No matter how many times they tell you that they're giving you what they want, at the end of the day, its all about what Vince wants. And I'm sure you're no stranger to Vince's fetishes about muscular men. Its always been that way in this business. You had an Angle but you had an Austin, you had an Eddie but you had a Brock, you have a Punk, but you have a Cena. Maybe the smaller guy is actually good, but the bigger guy's the one who headlines the show. Because its simple, big men draw. There's a reason why Big Show is booked in the mainevent scene even in 2014.
Originally Posted by iHateItWhenItReigns
Ambrose and Rollins might still draw just as good if given the chance.
They haven't headlined a PPV on their own yet, so I don't have any direct evidence to back my claims, but history doesn't lie. There were two similar men who climbed the ranks through the independent circuit and made it huge in WWE - Punk and Bryan. Both Punk's and Bryan's summer storylines were probably two of the best things to happen in WWE in the past three years, but lets have a look at the numbers they drew even when they were hot:
One can even argue that both Punk and Bryan are much better superstars than Ambrose and Rollins, and even they couldn't draw well. I'd love to watch them prove me wrong and turn out to be huge draws, but for now, I'm going to go with what history tells me. And the way history tells it, its the men with the look that draw, and that's what gives Roman an edge over the other two.
And it isn't just the look that favors Reigns' chances, there's certainly much more to him. He comes from the same Samoan royalty that has given us superstars like Rikishi, Umaga, Yokozuna and Rocky. With him growing around the business, one can assume that he has a smart mind for it. As far as Roman Reigns the performer goes, he's not particularly the best mic worker, but with both time and management on his side (1), he's just destined to improve. And his in-ring skills, although he's no Rollins, he's pretty damn good, and to my knowledge hasn't had a single bad match on the main roster yet. With the exciting Superman Punch and that deadly Spear, his moveset is something the fans can get behind irrespective of him being a babyface or a heel. The fact that we remember last year's Survivor Series for Reigns being the sole survivor and not for the mainevent speaks volumes about him being a stand out performer. And the look that we've been talking about, it isn't just his size, if things go the way they're supposed to, he can be the guy who can represent the company outside the squared circle as well.
He told us to believe in the Shield. Now, its time to believe in him.
(1) From the Wrestling Observer Newsletter:
[quote=Dave Meltzer]As of this week, the Reigns turn is scheduled to be fast-tracked and they are looking at him as being the new young golden boy of the promotion.
While I don’t believe any member of The Shield will have a lousy career, only one of them is destined to put the “super” in “superstar” going forward, and that individual is ROMAN REIGNS.
This question revolves around the definition of a successful singles career. There are different degrees of success, from a long career as a respectable midcarder (Jake Roberts, Honky Tonk Man, Mr. Perfect), a main eventer (Punk, Batista) and a legend (Hogan, Austin, Rock). Success in the WWE is about making money, cementing a legacy as a LEGEND in the business by becoming a larger than life superstar. Roman Reigns is the only Shield member with the chance to become LEGENDARY.
What must you do for a long time to become a megastar? It involves performing in the ring, on the mic, and – most importantly – connecting with the mass audience. Ambrose and Rollins are flawed in different ways, capping their potential and lowering the ceiling for potential success in their respective singles careers. Reigns isn’t a perfect product yet, but his flaws aren’t fatal to superstardom. Let’s look at what makes a great superstar.
In-ring work is needed since feuds are ultimately determined by matches. It’s not everything though. Case and point: Hulk Hogan was the standard-bearer for superstardom longer than anyone in the business. Goldberg. The Rock. All remarkably average, or worse, in the ring. However, they were still competent enough to tell a story and play their characters well during a match. All three guys in The Shield can go. Rollins and Ambrose have years under their belt already from the indie scene, and Reigns has never looked out of place amongst them. This applies to their 6-man tags as well as their singles matches.(1) Ring-work is supposedly Reigns’ weak point. Not true. Each of these guys gets by just fine in the ring.
Mic work is a critical area for success in the WWE. Dean Ambrose has been the Shield’s “leader” on the mic, opening most promos. And it makes sense – he’s a naturally captivating speaker. Rollins, unfortunately, talks like a bad guy from a cheesy gangster movie when he’s ON his promo game, and sounds like he’s struggling to read words off a teleprompter the rest of the time. There’s a reason he gets about 2 lines per promo, wedged in the middle: he’s forgettable, and forgettable doesn’t lend itself to a top superstar.
Then there’s Reigns. The closer. He doesn’t need to say much, because when he does, he delivers his threats with PURPOSE. He looks like he could grab your throat right through your TV and MAKE you pay attention if he so desired. This is a guy who looks like he can hurt you, sounds like he can hurt you, saying he’s going to hurt you. As soon as you can believe what a guy is selling, he’s done his work in a promo. Reigns and Ambrose pass this area, but Rollins falters here.
I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but the “it” factor – the “presence” – of a wrestler is ultimately what’s most critical to separate the very best from the very good. For all of the awesome moves Rollins pulls off in the ring, the only time he’ll have “it” is when 95% of the WWE Universe are emo teens. Too many great workers don’t get far because of their lack of mic skills or look. It’s not difficult to see Rollins slip into the Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, or Kofi Kingston roll of jumping around doing athletic things somewhere on the midcard… and that’s about it.
Unlike Rollins, Ambrose can talk and has a good wrestling frame. So did Jake Roberts. Scott Hall. Ted DiBiase. All of those guys are wonderful, memorable stars, but they were below that upper-echelon reserved for the BEST. Frankly, Ambrose will most likely end up fitting in with this group and that will be a great little career for him.
However, the upper echelon is reserved for the guy who looks, talks and carries himself like a main-event player already: Reigns. There’s a reason he speaks last. There’s a reason that Punk had singles matches against The Shield in the order he did – Reigns is the “end boss” of The Shield. The biggest, baddest motherfucker of the three and already a force to be reckoned with in today’s WWE landscape. There’s a reason that Reigns has the explosive TV spots.(2) The reason is that Reigns is already a star, and they’re only building him to be something much, much more.
Who will have the most successful singles career? It boils down to this: only one Shield member ticks off all the boxes on the mega-star checklist, including the all-important IT factor. That member is the Powerhouse of The Shield, Roman Reigns.
(1) Hell, Reigns and Punk got a THIS IS AWESOME chant from an otherwise blah Baltimore crowd on Old School Raw
(2) Spears through barricades and the centerpiece of the Triple-Powerbomb that’s laid so many main-eventers to waste.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs samizayn - I liked the way you set your debate up but after that I didn't really feel that you did what you said you were going to do. Not effectively at least. You set up promos vs in ring vs look well but I wasn't convinced by the end of your debate that was one was more important to success than the others. Your paragraph discrediting Rollins is strong. Your discredit of Reigns is much less so though. I wasn't convinced that the "roll of the dice" and "flavour of the month" arguments couldn't be applied to Ambrose either. It's the last paragraph and you're only just revealing your stance on the topic. Not good. You should have stated this at the start and this was a pretty basic cock up for anyone in this debate. This felt like your debate was missing a final third. I really liked the argument about Ambrose being a natural heel giving him more opportunities than a potential breakout babyface like Reigns but your actual argument supporting Ambrose was just way too brief and suffered as a result. You spent too much time discrediting Reigns and Rollins than crediting Ambrose for me.
STEVIE SWAG - First off I loved the personality of this debate. "iHateItWhenItReigns" had me on the verge of laugh until cry status. The personality really helped give your debate that something extra. Your probably could have made the same point in less words that you used in the Ambrose and Rollins quotes that could have given you word count to use later on when it was maybe needed a bit more. Your argument based around the look being the most important factor effectively did what I think samizayn tried but failed to do. Plus it allowed you to argue for Reigns at the same time as arguing against Ambrose and Rollins which helped a lot. I really liked the supporting arguments about his heritage and moveset too. I thought they gave your main argument the support it needed to really strengthen your debate. The buyrates argument was the only part of this which flopped for me. You compare the buyrates and then blame Punk for 2013 but lazily glossed over the fact that Punk main evented the last 2 Summerslams too which you used as evidence against guys like Punk being a draw. Also the Summerslam 2013 main events that you were blaming on Punk and Bryan for doing a poor buyrate also included Cena and Brock which I thought hurt your argument. Take that part out and this was great.
ZOMBO - I was a fan of the way you set your debate up with the definition and criteria of success. No issues with either of them. The in ring work argument I thought was one of the peaks of your debate. I thought you would have spent more time showing that Reigns IS a good worker but you covered it well by saying that really it doesn't actually matter as long as he connects with the crowd. The crowd connection you could have evidenced more though. Mic work paragraph to eliminate Rollins was strong. The Reigns promo work argument was probably my favourite part of the debate. Totally agreed with it and I thought your use of language communicated your point really effectively. Then I expected you to eliminate Ambrose but you went back to eliminating Rollins who I thought you had already effectively eliminated. So I would have cut that paragraph. You get back to Ambrose after though and you make a good argument but it could have done with that word count you wasted on Rollins to really argue WHY in this paragraph. Argument for Reigns is good but I felt at the end of your debate that you needed to spend more words arguing FOR Reigns. It felt like you got to Reigns, realised you were low on words and just went for a quick wrap up. Could have done with going back and making previous points more concise, cutting filler like the extra Rollins elimination and adding more beef to your Reigns argument like STEVIE SWAG was able to have. This did convince me that your stance was the correct one though which is the ultimate aim. You and STEVIE SWAG both did that. samizayn didn't. That's why I vote to eliminate samizayn and give STEVIE SWAG the win as I thought their argument FOR their pick was the strongest while also doing a strong job of discrediting the other 2 picks.
Winner - STEVIE SWAG
Eliminate - samizayn
THE DARK ANDRE samizayn:
Your intro, while a tad languid and cautious in terms of actual debating, was a fair assessment of all three shield members’ abilities. I thought that your assessment of Rollin’s potential and his inability to stand out was decent, although there are obvious counters to suggest that those who don’t stand out in a group or a pairing (HHH in the original DX where HBK was the real star while Hunter was the lackey instantly came to mind, he’s certainly above being an “occasional uppermidcarder”) can go on to forge their own particularly noticeable niche later on. There are flaws in your logic, but as a basic point it makes sense, so I’ll give you a bit of credit, although you could have made this a much stronger point by cutting out “but unfortunately in any and every group dynamic scenario that’s not what happens” and adding that it's “less likely” rather than being a certainty.
With “Much as Reigns has potential, there’s just no telling what will happen in pushes like these because they are so unpredictable” couldn’t you apply that logic to all three Shield members, in fact ANY member of the WWE roster that the company wants to push? WWE’s horrendous stop /start pushing method ISN’T something that just applies to the guys that Vince likes because their bitch tits are as big as his, it applies to EVERYONE. Guys like Cesaro, Fandango and Sandow have all suffered from this in recent times and none of them were anywhere close to being pushed as face of the company. I just found this to be a poor argument because if you’re applying this logic to guys who the WWE are going to offer more protection to, then what happens to guys like Ambrose and Rollins if they receive pushes with LESS protection? FYI Sheamus and Ryback were both forced down the fans throats in an attempt to get them over (twice in the formers’s case) whereas Reigns is over having been built up steadily and naturally (aka correctly) as part of a three man trio, so I found that comparison rather off.
With your final paragraph you’ve made a good argument to suggest that Ambrose will have a job for life in WWE because they’re always going to need heels, most likely to feed Vince’s pet Cenasaurus that has a dietary requirement of at least two heels a month. However, you haven’t made a convincing argument to suggest that either of Ambrose’s partners will fail, so I’m not convinced by your argument for Dean being the one who will do the best.
Loved your intro, it’s always amusing to see people take a swipe at those spinster shield thread girls. The fake quotes were also actually useful in setting up a counter, so fair play for giving an example of how to make a joke while still constructing an argument. So you’re going to argue for Reigns based on his LOOK. Okay, that’s a fairly easy and obvious route to take so I can’t blame you on that. “No matter how many times they tell you that they're giving you what they want, at the end of the day, its all about what Vince wants. And I'm sure you're no stranger to Vince's fetishes about muscular men. Its always been that way in this business” is the type of writing that could potentially win you am match like this. “Because its simple, big men draw” is not such a convincing argument, especially when you’ve failed to provide evidence and there are plenty of examples suggesting that this concept isn’t consistent, Psycho Sid and Kevin “vanilla midget hater” Nash as Diesel being two. You should have just focused on the Vince likes muscles line of thought and left that comment out.
When you are forced to type “They haven't headlined a PPV on their own yet, so I don't have any direct evidence to back my claims” that should be a clear sign that YOU NEED TO TURN BACK because you DON’T have a good argument on your hands. I also don’t understand the comparisons between Punk/Bryan and Ambrose/Rollins, because while the latter two certainly aren’t “big guys” they definitely aren’t short houses (by WWE standards) like the former two, while Punk has nowhere near the muscle mass that Ambrose has. I also thought that your presentation of buy rates was a bit skewed, seeing as Brock was a returning former UFC star in only his second fight back at that point, so he was always going to draw more than a standard SummerSlam main event. You could have made a more convincing argument with other examples, that’s for sure.
“With him growing around the business, one can assume that he has a smart mind for it”…David Flair, Michael McSillicutty and Ted Dibiase Junior all say hello. Never leave a judge to make assumptions within a debate, because you will be torn apart. YOU have to make the argument WITH supporting evidence. With “he's not particularly the best mic worker, but with both time and management on his side (1), he's just destined to improve”, what if he just doesn’t have the potential to do so? If you’re going to make an argument like that then you need to give EXAMPLES of where he has SHOWN potential and explain WHY this sets him in good stead for a main event slot. Your point about him standing out at Survivor Series was fair, although that also had a lot to do with the main event (and the general card) being absolute garbage. You made some good arguments FOR Reigns but you didn’t convince me that the other two guys couldn’t have greater careers than him.
Your intro was a good read and I appreciated your definition of what makes a legend. You’re correct in stating that being amazing in the ring isn’t the be all and end all to WWE (the examples given were good) while your argument that Reigns has enough in ring ability to get by made sense. Your assessment of Rollins’ mic work made me chuckle and it was a good way to put across your point. While I thought that maybe you had damaged your chances by giving Ambrose too much credit you surprised me by spinning Reigns' role in the Shield in terms of mic work. The paragraph concerning how he SELLS believability via mic work was top notch and it was at this point where I was fairly certain that you would gain my vote, barring a few almighty fuck ups in the closing stages of your debate. Now while I didn’t think that you botched your lines towards the end I did feel as if your arguments became weaker after the assessment of Rollins’ potential. You should have found a way to BURY Ambrose, but instead you compared him to guys who, while they didn’t quite make the very top of the card, were working in an era where the size requirements to be a top guy were greater (and in Hall's case business and personal decisions fucked him over. If he had stayed in the WWE he would have been the top guy at some point, while he never fulfilled his potential in WCW due to his alcoholism), the sort of guys who would probably be main event players if they were to be debut right now as their younger selves. So I don’t think that you made a convincing argument to suggest that Ambrose doesn’t have as much going for him as Reigns does. What you SHOULD have done is pointed out that Vince prefers BIG RIPPED guys >>> relatively average muscle men like Ambrose, just as STEVIE SWAG did. That would have made your debate all the more convincing and, while it wouldn’t have suggested that Ambrose couldn’t make it as a main event player, it would have shown that Reigns has a MASSIVE edge over Ambrose. Despite the petering out at the end this was a good debate.
samizayn convinced me that his Ambrose could have a job for life, but failed to convince me that he would fare better than Rollins or Reigns. STEVIE SWAG convinced me that Reigns could have a great career, but failed to convince me that Rollins and Ambrose couldn’t. ZOMBO convinced me that Reigns was the guy and WOULD fare better than Rollins, but not Ambrose. So basing it on that this is an easy decision:
STEVIE SWAG: **1/2
ZOMBO wins the vote.
The Lady Killer
samizayn = I like your intro. Sets the tone for what you'll be using as a metric to measure the potential success each member of The Shield can achieve. Next few paragraphs are spent addressing the strenghts of each member - Ambrose the promo guy, Rollins the in-ring BEAST, and Reigns having the look of a main eventer. So far, we're 4 paragraphs in, and I'm still not sure who your choice is.
Rollins paragraph did a good job of discounting him as the breakout star with the most potential. Good comparisons such as Gangrel and Jannetty.
I felt the Reigns paragraph was a little weak. You basically put the onus on management, who really could make any member of the group their chosen one. You discount Rollins because of him being overshadowed. You discount Reigns because of management. Couldn't this happen to any of them? You ended the paragraph with what I felt was the strongest part of it - the fact that Reigns is the least experienced of the trio and is definitely still green. Is he ready?
So Ambrose wins based upon his mic work? You disregard his inferior ring skills, and although that's not the most important attribute by any means, there are counterarguments galore for this logic. What is your measure of success? For Ambrose it's being the top heel down the line, but for Reigns it's being a top babyface? This debate just lacked consistency and focus. The process of elimination approach was fine, but I would've liked to have known who your choice was based upon some set metric prior to getting into each member's respective paragraphs.
STEVIE SWAG = I'm only one paragraph into this and it's already better than samizayn (sorry if that's harsh, but it is what it is). Humor mixed in using the quote boxes (a page out of THE CHAMP TLK's book) is apparently catching on like wildfire. I guess I should take that as a compliment? Regardless, it works here in setting up REIGNS as your choice. Love the personality infused here.
Next paragraph is a bit confusing/contradictory to me. Austin was never considered to have "the look." In fact, he was basically the antithesis of your standard WWE main eventer, which was a big part of his mystique. Plus, Angle is just as JACKED as Austin, and Eddie is even more ripped. I see the point you're trying to make, but I think you could've used much better examples. Punk is really the only one on that list who isn't all that muscular relatively speaking, and all pale in comparison to BROCK. Also, please provide proof that Big Show is a draw, because I'm finding that hard to believe. All big men don't draw - see: Ryback, Show, Viscera/Mabel, Tensai, etc. Leaving yourself open to counterarguments here.
The next bit I felt left itself wide open as well. The SummerSlam buyrates didn't do much to support your claim of stars who have "the look" drawing better than, say, Punk and Bryan. Yes, SS12 buyrate was larger than both the year prior and the year after, but in reality, it's all the same group of guys. SS11 is Punk/Cena, and SS13 is Cena/Bryan and Punk/Brock with almost identical buyrates. You state Cena and Brock as big men who draw, but clearly there isn't a difference in buyrate adding Brock into the equation for SS13. He boosted SS12, but Hunter, a proven draw, was involved as well. I just felt this evidence was a little weak. The concluding paragraph w/the Meltzer quote was probably the strongest part of your debate, and probably is what will save you from elimination.
ZOMBO = Intro is good but also a bit confusing. You say there are different levels of success - long-term midcard "jobber to the stars," main eventers, and LEGENDS. Then you follow that up by saying being successful is all about becoming a legend. Well, you just said there were three levels of success. Now there's only 1? Which is it? Hopefully this is minor, as it appears you're running with who out of The Shield has LEGENDARY potential. Or maybe you're trying to say they will all have success, but REIGNS will have it to the highest degree? Intriguing if that's the case, and I'm inclined to think it might be.
I like your criteria for what makes a megastar, but I hope you go into detail as to why you believe Ambrose and Rollins have a cieling.
Well, you did. Discounting Rollins as solely a good hand in the ring due to his lack of mic skills and presence is solid. However, keep in mind that you said REIGNS has a lot of work to do as well. If he can improve, why couldn't Rollins?
Ambrose paragraph is fine, though it seems like you're giving him a bit more credit than Rollins, but maybe that's the point you made in your intro. He'll have a successful career, but not AS successful as Reigns.
"It" factor paragraph was strong, and clearly makes the best case for Reigns. Well done there.
Winner = ZOMBO
Eliminated = samizayn
Winner via Split Decision - ZOMBO
Eliminated From The Eliminator - samizayn
THE DARK ANDRE vs DDMac Who had the greater impact on professional wrestling, Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin?
Spoiler for Debates:
THE DARK ANDRE
Only one thought comes crashing down while leaving a certain Texan feeling hurt inside. Hulk Hogan allowed the WWF and WCW to hang on to the largest back in the world as he swam them to the top, while he also paved the way for Steve Austin’s ascension, therefore Hogan had the “GREATEST impact on professional wrestling”.
"If Wrestlemania one had not succeeded, I would not be doing this interview, we would not be having this television facility and we certainly would not be where we are today." – Vince McMahon: ‘The true story of WrestleMania’
McMahon took a huge gamble by investing $1 million into the first WrestleMania event. Without Hogan the WWF/WWE wouldn’t have been established as a long term brand, let alone WrestleMania. While the first event was celebrity heavy, the show wouldn’t have worked as a concept without a wrestler who had enough star power to rub shoulders with bona fide mainstream celebrities. That’s where Hogan stepped up brother! His weeks of work out promos with Mr.T caught the imagination of the North American public and he was a huge reason for the acceptance of wrasslin’ in mainstream U.S culture at that time, which itself translated into a profitable event which saved the WWF from going bust...
Hogan was advertised as the star attraction on ALL SEVEN of the first WrestleManias, including Mania IV where Hogan versus Andre was the most hyped match. The Hulkster established WWF and WrestleMania through his charisma driven star quality for almost a decade and created a legacy. Those brands were strong enough to survive during ‘the new generation’ era in the mid-nineties when the WWF severely lacked star quality, fresh creative ideas and modern production values. That’s how strong Hogan’s influence was when establishing the WWF and WrestleMania, his initial impact had a huge effect when he wasn’t even with the company!
By virtue of having been in the right place at the right time Hogan had a greater impact on the WWF and WrestleMania than Austin who merely reignited the torch that Hogan constructed in the first place. Even with that said Austin wouldn’t have been able to bring the fire without Hogan’s influence. The foundations for this were laid in 1996 when Hogan changed the wrestling industry by becoming a heel and ‘in turn’ making WCW the number one wrestling company in the U.S, which is something that Austin failed to do years earlier. Hogan’s alignment with the nWo, where he established himself as the first mega drawing “antihero” in mainstream U.S pro graps, lead to WCW’s two most profitable years in 1997 and 1998. Through this WCW kicked WWF’s rapidly diminishing posterior in the mid-nineties.
However, Hogan’s kayfabe actions also cleared the path for Austin in his own particular quest for glory. One month before Hogan’s turn at WCW’s 1996 Bash at the Beach Austin cut his infamous ‘3:16’ promo. However, this didn’t spark a major push for Austin, in fact he was still being wasted as an also ran two months later during the free for all at SummerSlam 1996 and was completely left off the proceeding WWF Mind Games event. McMahon was still content with his cookie cutter product at the time, but as the nWo gathered more and more momentum in WCW with the antihero Hogan WWF lost more and more business, as well as television viewers who decided to watch Nitro instead of Raw. It was this pressure that eventually forced Vince McMahon to try something different by pushing Austin in an environment that suited him.
Austin was initially pushed as a heel, but the Hogan led nWo had caused a seismic change in the industry which led to fans cheering for the antiheroes. This situation was the Zamboni that Austin drove to beer soaked glory, being cheered over babyface Bret Hart with the WWF allowing the rattlesnake to do anything that might gain reverence with the 18-35 year old ‘attitudinal’ males who were a product of generation X and counter culture, those same fans who Hogan had drawn to WCW and wrestling in general during his nWo run. Flipping the bird, swearing, you name it, McMahon allowed Austin to do it all in order to compete with Hogan’s WCW. Those situations greatly aided Austin’s rise to mega stardom, but none of that would have been possible without Hogan’s impact where he reset the standards for what a likeable main event personality should have been.
Hogan was the biggest influence on the creation of the attitude era which allowed Austin’s rise to the top. Without even being in the company Hogan actually had the GREATEST lasting impact on the WWF while he also had a GREATER impact on WCW and the WWF in his original run than Austin did at any time.
Vince McMahon quote (starts at the 20 second mark):
I grew up in the 1990s. I was eight years old when Austin gave his famous King of the Ring Speech in 1996. I was nine years old when he has his I Quit Match with Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13. And I was ten years old when he won his first WWF Championship at WrestleMania 14.
My adolescence is riddled with the moments that Stone Cold helped create during the WWF’s Attitude Era – its last boom period. From the beer bash with The Rock and the McMahons, to the Zamboni, to the concrete truck, to the monster truck, to Bang 3:16, to Dr. Austin, nobody brought the World Wrestling Federation more notoriety, more gate and pay per view income, or more eyeballs to the television screen on a week in, week out basis than Stone Cold Steve Austin did.
Not Hulk Hogan. Not The Rock. Not Triple H. Not John Cena.
An entire generation grew up walking, talking, acting and thinking that wrestling was cool. Austin made wrestling mainstream. It’s something that wasn’t done much at all before, and most certainly has not been done since.
And that is the problem.
Stone Cold was an anomaly. Austin was a glitch in the matrix. Stone Cold Steve Austin retired and slowly but surely things have gone back to the way they were. Back to the status quo.
Back to the formula.
And THAT is why Hulk Hogan is the most important figure in the history of professional wrestling.
Hulk Hogan IS the formula.
And by that, I’m talking the Hulk Hogan of the 1980s.
Much like Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hogan’s cool heel phase in the mid-90s was a controlled explosion that reaped benefits – great benefits – during its time, but it hasn’t had ANY lasting effects on the time periods that have followed.
In the 80s, Hulk Hogan’s colorful, larger than life, clean cut, pandering personality and monstrous physique spearheaded the WWF’s explosion, and with every subsequent generation – hell, with every subsequent couple of years, Vince McMahon looked to the Hulk Hogan model.
The Hulk Hogan formula.
McMahon tried to pass the torch to the Ultimate Warrior, another colorful, muscular superstar with a larger than life persona. Then it was Sid Vicious/Justice. Then Lex Luger and the Lex Express. It’s the Hulk Hogan formula that Vince McMahon believes is the formula to having a successful professional wrestling organization.
Big, strong wrestler with a colorful personality at the forefront, and you build everything else around it. It worked with Hogan, and McMahon has tried to capture it since. Granted, with varied results, but there is no mistake that that is what he is going for.
The Hulk Hogan formula.
Stone Cold Steve Austin’s run in the late 90s came out of desperation – when McMahon no longer had any Hulk Hogans to turn to, and McMahon promptly found his neck underneath the boot of Hogan, Bischoff, Billionaire Ted and WCW.
Now that the Austin-led Attitude Era has come and gone, what has changed? What has been Stone Cold’s lasting influence? I can’t think of one. The WWE has gone right back to it’s PG content led by their colorful, muscular babyface: John Cena.
The Hulk Hogan Formula.
Almost immediately following Stone Cold Steve Austin’s last match, the WWE began to REALLY push John Cena. And Cena’s character was very much comparable to an Austin for a new era. He was loud, and arrogant, and abrasive, and immediately connected with the WWE audience.
Then what happened?
As we moved further and further away from the Attitude Era, Cena has been slowly but surely transformed from the outsider, from the rebellious but talented star, to the smiling, preening, colorful T-shirt wearing, fan-pandering, kid-loving and kid-loved, muscular, quintessential babyface.
The Hulk Hogan formula.
Week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out, as the boos and jeers for the WWE’s top babyface grows louder from the adult male members of the WWE audience, many wonder why Cena isn’t turned heel. They wonder why his character isn’t livened up, and infused with some of the characteristics that made in him so popular in the first place.
Simple. Because this is the way it’s supposed to be. It’s the way it was before Stone Cold Steve Austin. It’s the way it’s been after Stone Cold Steve Austin. While Austin’s impact was massive during its time, the results were fleeting, up until the point now where they are non-existent.
It’s why Hulk Hogan, with all of his flaws, with all of his shortcomings as a character, as a wrestler, as a mic worker, ESPECIALLY when being compared to Stone Cold Steve Austin, is STILL the far more influential superstar in the history of professional wrestling.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs THE DARK ANDRE - First off I thought the gimmicky formatting was a bit OTT here. The bolding I'm fine with but I thought the large font wasn't needed. It didn't hurt anything but I wasn't crazy about it either. I like the bolding of your key lines to make your most vital points really stand out but I don't think that applies to having an intro and conclusion in bigger font. Your arguments both for Hogan and against Austin are strong but I thought Mac presented and communicated more or less the same argument in a more convincing and articulate way. Not that there's anything wrong with how you did it, it was just done better by Mac. This was B+ so to speak and Mac's was A+. The Wrestlemania argument is great but I thought you could have expressed that argument just as effectively in one paragraph rather than two and added another dimension to your argument with the spare paragraph you'd then have. I don't think you were holding Austin not being able to do what Hogan did in WCW against him but it sounded a touch like it which obviously isn't a fair comparison due to opportunities, context and points in each career. Again, strong arguments but I thought they lacked the style of Mac's similar arguments that made it that bit more convincing as well as that bit more enjoyable of a read.
DDMac - I adored your opening. Absolute brilliance. I thought for sure you were arguing the opposing side at first because you build up this connection between you and Austin so wonderfully in so few words. AND THEN you flip it around to saying Hogan had the greater impact. And it worked so well because you're thinking well if this guy who's clearly so emotionally connected to the Austin character is arguing against him then Hogan MUST be the one with the greater impact. I had to double check the lengths of both because even though they both came in at 800 each this one felt like it communicated a lot more. The argument that Hulk Hogan IS professional wrestling is great and enthralling read. I thought you could have maybe brought in Hogan's other influences outside of the core impact on WWE's formula like Andre did. For example Hogan's impact on the Wrestlemania brand and on promotions like TNA trying so badly to copy his cool antihero NWO run. There's even more areas than the one you explored where you can effectively argue that Hogan had a bigger impact on after he was all done in the ring than Austin had. Even ROH who are extremely anti the Hogan/Vince/WWF formula of wrestling still copy the Hogan led NWO angle on multiple occasions whereas Austin's impact is not only much less but also much narrower.
Winner - DDMac
THE DARK ANDRE - This was really great, with a really well orchestrated breakdown of Hogan's legacy and impact, with the writer perfectly outlining how Austin reinvigorated an industry, but how Hogan truly created and defined that industry in the beginning. I thought the evidence of this by considering Hogan's influence in the first Wrestlemania, in addition to Hogan's heel turn and the deconstruction of the vanilla babyfaces, in favour of more anti-hero and edgier characters was a stroke of genius, and really added credence to the writer's argument by showcasing Hogan's influence in separate decades. The flow and structure was perfectly contrusted, very little if anything was wasted and everything segued perfectly into the next aspect of the debate. A very very impressive showing, worthy of the hype surrounding this rematch.
DDMac - This however, is my winner. I absolutely adored the initial personal consideration of Austin, before the expertly timed bait and switch. It was expertly done and left me more impressed with the shrewd opening to set the stage, rather than bemoaning the wasted opening. The 'Hogan formula' was such an inspired way to approach this question, and the writer superbly illustrates how Hogan's formula has been the basis for Vince's business strategy since his first cash cow. It truly exemplified Hogan's continual influence, even long after his involvement in the company, as McMahon is still trying to find his next Hogan in terms of the beloved and star-like talent. The writer was also superb in continually reverting back to Austin and showcasing how Austin's tremendous legacy is contained to the period in which he erupted, whereas Hogan's legacy extends not just to his initial period of success, but in the countless number of prototypes Vince has lusted after to recreate the success Hogan originally bestowed upon him. It was just an utterly fantastic way to tackle the question, and the compelling writing tone alongside the well supported examples to reinforce the writer's argument just leave me unable to not vote this the winner.
Sensational match, not that anyone doubted anything to the contrary.
Winner - DDMac
The Lady Killer
Well, this debate's topic is fitting, as you two are essentially the Hogan and Austin of TDL. Both debates were pretty extraordinary imo.
THE DARK ANDRE = Great intro - love the fusion of Hogan's theme song lyrics with your actual debate. Good personality there. Overall, I gathered that your argument is that Hogan came first and basically paved the way for all others that follow (btw, Hogan/Andre was WMIII ). Right away, I see an option for a counterargument - Hogan may have been huge and paved the way, but what about Austin's peak years? WWF w/Austin on top ended up overtaking WCW w/Hogan on top. It has been documented that Austin is the highest draw of all time during his peak years. Clearly that gave WWF the edge, and one could argue that WWF overtaking WCW is the biggest impact in pro wrestling history. You still do a good job of attempting to negate this, however, by stating how Hogan made it cool to cheer heels, etc., while Austin was still on pre-shows months after the infamous KOTR speech. Truth is, Hogan was already established, whereas Austin wasn't, so it's not entirely fair to compare them during this particular timeframe. Not sure it'll matter in the end, however, as the debate overall was rather convincing. Just pointing out a few things I thought about as I was reading. I realize you only have 800 words.
DDMac = Amazing intro, and I really like the SWERVE~! you threw at the reader. Totally seemed like you were going to argue for Austin, but then the bit about Austin being the "glitch," and then everything returning to the status quo after he retired was incredible. Loved the personal touch you added as well. You also acknowledged Austin's superior drawing power during his peak years - something Andre neglected to touch upon - and then shot it down as basically a "freak occurrence." I love the reiteration of "the Hogan formula" throughout. Really drives home the message, and all of your supporting arguments are cleverly chosen and worded. The only nitpicking would be the bit where you said Austin was pushed out of desperation because there weren't any other "Hogans" to choose from. Technically, there were guys like Taker (Sid was still there too) and others that could've been passed the torch, but for whatever reason, he chose Austin. A minute detail, but something I noticed nonetheless. Otherwise, a fairly flawless debate. Well done.
Winner = This is a close one. Both argued for Hogan, and did a great job in doing so. I'm going to side with the debate that addressed the biggest qualm I had about THE DARK ANDRE's debate, so I'm choosing DDMacas the winner.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - DDMac
Originally Posted by The Manager of MANCHESTER UNITED
You know who I am, but you don't know why I'm here.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING - THE RESULTS
zero bullshit-- humbled.
Snobs in our head; marks in our heart.
Spoiler for My Top Favs:
80's: Jake Roberts, Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Ted DiBiase, Hulk Hogan, Rick Martel, Arn Anderson
90's: Scott Hall, Bret Hart, Steve Austin, the Rock, Vader, Mr. Perfect, Bam Bam Bigelow, Jeff Jarrett, Earthquake
00's: Randy Orton, Chris Jericho, Shane McMahon, Edge, Christian
10's: Wade Barrett, Daniel Bryan, Bobby Roode, Dolph Ziggler, Cody Rhodes, Austin Aries, Damien Sandow, Dean Ambrose
Hon. Mentions: Prime Time Players (Titus O'Neil and Darren Young), Michael McGillicutty/Curtis Axel, Ted DiBiase Jr., Drew McIntyre, Bray Wyatt, the Miz, DDP, Curt Hawkins, Corey Graves, AJ Styles, Antonio Cesaro, CM Punk
Spoiler for Things I've booked, written, put together...:
Re: TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING - THE RESULTS
Not enough time to do skits this show.
Special mention for Mac, Bulk and CGS' debates. CGS' improvement is pretty amazing and his debate was this show was really strong by any standards. Bulk's debate makes me think he has a good shot vs Andre. Mac's debate was just fucking classic stuff. Congrats to Magic for a strong debate vs Rush too.
My comments about the Shield debate in the card thread were a bit premature. Two of them seemed amazing on first read and obviously less so when I judged them. Honest to god thought Debate A was STEVIE SWAG so I was surprised when I got the names of the debates.
Sherwood good make AVB sacking look good
For the undercard guys who got buried with the feedback don't take it personally. Just actually take note of the feedback and your debates will improve. Feels like some of you get the same feedback every time off the same mistakes.
Hope to have the next card up tonight.
Originally Posted by The Manager of MANCHESTER UNITED
Re: TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING - THE RESULTS
ugh at MrMister's judging. Magic deserves the win but "but then he disregards the intangibles of leadership and teamwork because it seems to favor Hibbert." when i clearly explained about that point is just WOAT judging. There are so many reasons as to why Magic's was better or where mine was flat, fucking pick them out like TLK did.
Re: TDL XI: MANY A PRINCE, BUT ONLY ONE A KING - THE RESULTS
4 in the last 4 and survived Andre's Burial . Honestly wasn't even fully happy with that debate on top of it. Still, building DAT STREAK. Whats TLK's record again? lol not gonna reach it though
Also once again nothing against Sami but quite happy to see both Stevie & Zombo in the final on the next show. That should be fun as hell. Funny how Zombo did nothing but bury himself all throughout and yet came out with the win.