Is making the Andre The Giant Memorial Battle Royal an annual event at Wrestlemania a good move?
I feel like it's a nice touch for this years Wrestlemania. It put on show a match in tribute to a man who helped put Wrestlemania as a grand spectacle and was adored in the WWE circle. It gave screen time to a man who is making his return to the WWE Universe. And it kick started a push to a wrestler the WWE hope to push.
But when I ask myself, can they do that every year? I can't keep my face straight.
Why? Because it's a Battle Royale. And only a battle royale. Other examples of these annual events is the WWE's "baby", The Royal Rumble which gives a guaranteed Wrestlemania title match. A Money in the Bank 6-8 man ladder match which gives a guaranteed title match within the next year. And the King of the Ring, which again, gave a title match. This is just a Battle Royale. All it gave "was a trophy". A Battle Royale isn't going to be a classic match either.We've become so accustomed to seeing Battle Royales through our lifetime as fans of wrestling.
And then we talk about Cesaro thus far. His new found affiliation has drained him of all heat. The crowd were 100% ready to accept him as a babyface following the Real American's tag team splitting. I'd go out on a limb and say that his win in the Battle Royale came only because of the plans to put him together with Heyman. And instead of elevating Cesaro, Heyman has spent the past few weeks using the Brock Lesnar / Undertaker match-up to give Cesaro "heat". But wait, instead it has drained the heat, replaced the public interest in Cesaro with more disstain for Heyman & Lesnar.
And after Cesaro, who's next? Just like it was after Edge or CM Punk, who's next to win Money in the Bank? No guy who has won it immediately went onto the successes that Edge experienced. The same with Bret Hart when he won King of the Ring. It took a once in a generation talent (I.E Steve Austin, The Miz, Daniel Bryan) to break otherwise what would of been vicious streaks of those tournament winners going to waste.
If it did come back in the future, to what purpose? For Roman Reigns to put both Curtis Axel and Alexander Rusev over the top rope at the same time? For another 6'4 280lb guy to put another superheavyweight athlete over the top rope? But that isn't even the biggest problem. The problem is that what do you do once again when you run out of wrestlers to push? There is a limited pool to select for winning a Wrestlemania 3 tribute Battle Royale. And when you already have two other matches to look towards for giving hot-potato pushes. It's going to start chipping away at the pool to win the Money in the Bank and inevitably, the Royal Rumble.
I like the idea of celebrating a wrestler with a match-up. And I think making memorial matches has potential. If they've already been inducted into the Hall of Fame and they had a certain hype behind them, then what's the harm? But how many times can you celebrate the career of just Andre? How many times does it run until the crowd just lose interest? There isn't DVDs coming out about Andre, there isn't promos showing his history in the match-up beforehand either. No, this year was all about the celebration of the first "instant" Wrestlemania moment, the "slam heard 'round the world". And they gave their best recreation of that. The "Swiss Superman" picks up and throws the man dubbed as the "World's Largest Athlete" over a 6ft ring rope to win the match and begin his reworking process into a main eventer.
Placed into scope, fast tracking pushes doesn't work in annual events. Cesaro's push isn't even working right now and only one time will you have the magic for a Battle Royale match which only sole intent was to recreate the Wrestlemania 3 moment.
And then there is only two words to say to the topic. No. It isn't a good move. I like the idea of a different year, a different moment, a different match. But if it's the "Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royale", then no thanks.
I had a debate ready to submit but I haven't had the time to refine it this past week. Since there is added time, I'm going to use that time to work on it a bit more, so as to submit the best debate possible.
I didn't do nearly as well with this as I hoped. I'm submitting because I'm obligated to, but this is still very weak.
Should Transgenders be allowed to be School Teachers and teach children?
There is a lot of emotional investment in this issue on both sides; transgendered individuals have been marginalized by their societies for centuries, told that their condition is a result of mental illness, being denied the promise of Freedom, even in countries that assert that all men are created equal.
Conservative patients feel a sense of deception when they find that their government funded public school systems force their unsuspecting children to be subjected to the influential presence of a transgendered individual who will confuse their children, distract from the learning environment, and corrupt the religious values they've worked hard to instill in their offspring.
Setting the emotional reactions aside for a moment, the question remains to be extrapolated upon. According to this question, the reason that a transgendered individual would be disallowed from becoming a teacher would have to be due solely to being transgender. The idea that someone could be completely well-suited for the job, have comprehensive education of all the subjects taught, and have decades of experience working with children, but be denied even the possibility of working as a teacher calls into question the importance of a teacher's gender.
The nature of someone's gender, whether they're transgender or not, has nothing to do with fulfilling the responsibilities and roles of a teacher. A teacher prepares lessons, assignments, and homework for classes, assists students with learning the materials, discipline students in a respectful and dignified manner, etc. There is not a single responsibility as a teacher that someone wouldn't be able to fulfill because of their gender or their genitalia.
In most first world nations, it is the government's role to decide who is and is not fit to work as a teacher. They set the standards of background checks, affirmative action, and guidelines for the conduct of teachers, especially in government funded school systems. It would be completely inconsistent for several modern nations to forbid transgendered individuals to work as teacher, because they have transgendered individuals working in the very offices that decide who can work as a teacher; United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Poland, Italy, New Zealand, India, and Spain, for example.
Concerns are raised with the idea that a transgendered person could be a teacher in a public school, and that their transgender nature might confuse children, causing them to become distracted and unable to focus during class. These concerns don't have any basis and are founded upon outdated speculation instead of evidence. Research into the relationship of children and transgender teachers is scarce; however, studies do show that children with transgender parents experience no adverse effects as a result of having a transgender parent (source). This establishes that children can handle transgender adults.
The other major issue people have with allowing transgendered people to teach children is that transgenderism violates their religious ideologies. The argument is that schools should not be taking an ideological stance on the issue by hiring transgendered people as teachers because it teaches children that the government 'endorses' transgendered people. They have invested time in teaching their children that transgenderism violates their religious principles, and the government would be undoing their teachings.
Unfortunately for these people, the government can't tell people that they're not allowed to ever have certain jobs because someone whose religious ideologies disagree with them might come into contact with them. Homosexuals can't be disallowed from working at a post office in case some Christians need to mail off Bibles to Africa, and the Christians might get offended if they have to talk to a homosexual.
Transgendered people deserve the same guaranteed right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, and that includes the opportunity to work as a school teacher and teach children.
My computer crashed last night, and I had this saved so I just whipped something up at the last minute.
I believe that the WWE making the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal an annual event would be a good idea for future WrestleMania’s. In previous WrestleMania’s, we’ve seen plenty of gimmick matches over the years. Matches such as Hell in a Cell, Tables, Ladders, and Chairs, Submission, and Iron Man matches just to name a few over the years. It’s beneficial in more ways than not.
First off, it’s a Battle Royal. It’s a simple concept. Take 30 guys, and have them tear each other apart to win the match. In previous WrestleMania’s, some superstars have complained that they haven’t had a match at WrestleMania. The Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal can provide wrestlers ranging anywhere where they are on the card to get in a match for a WrestleMania paycheck. If you look at this year’s WrestleMania, 30 wrestlers that would more than likely not have been on the card, were given the opportunity to wrestle at the biggest show in professional wrestling. Obviously, there can only be one winner, but to defeat 29 other superstars on the biggest stage would be an achievement that the other 29 wrestlers wouldn’t achieve.
Secondly, it gives the WWE a chance to create some new stories and superstars. Look no further than last month’s edition of WrestleMania. Cesaro came into the match and was just one of the 30 wrestlers trying to elevate him to the higher spot in the card for the future. I believe it did just that. Cesaro’s booking helped him recreate himself and put him in the higher spot of the midcard section for the WWE. WWE can throw 25 wrestlers with about 5 wrestlers in mind to go out and put on a show for the fans to see their ideas for future pushes and higher type feuds in the later months to come.
Thirdly, the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal should provide some storylines and/or feuds to be blown off during the match. Take Cesaro and Jack Swagger. Earlier in the night, Cesaro turned on his former tag-team partner. At the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal, an example of a feud finishing would be Cesaro eliminating Swagger in a fashion that ends his role with his former tag-team partner and establish himself as superior and moving him up higher in the card. At WrestleMania, it did just that. Cesaro won the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal and on the next night on RAW, Cesaro announced that he was finished with The Real American stable, and moved on to be managed by Paul Heyman. This move will help Cesaro move up the card now because Cesaro is no longer stuck in a tag-team that was going absolutely nowhere. It also positioned himself to be not only a Paul Heyman guy, but rather as a singles competitor looking forward and to be higher up in the card.
Lastly, The Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal should be featured at future WrestleMania’s because it gives the fans something to look forward to every year. It’s WrestleMania. What better way for the WWE to push newer talent forward than a simple gimmick match, a battle royal, at the company’s biggest show of the year? For newer talents and wrestlers looking to move up the card, the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal is a great way where wrestlers with nothing to do at WrestleMania, to get in a match and a WrestleMania payday. In all likelihood, The Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal would be a better way to show off wrestler’s skills than a quick squash match or a simple singles match with no stipulations on the pre-show.
*EDIT: WOOLCOCK is going to judge the Space Mountain and Rigby debates because I'm absolutely knackered from all of the judging, but if you guys want me to look at your debates at a later point then don't hesitate to ask *
Finally! Here we are, the start of the feedback. I have a couple left to do which I'll judge in a bit, but most are here already:
Spoiler for feedback:
Your writing was articulate and well constructed, meaning your debate was easy to follow. You referenced the idea that United’s young players would have a greater chance to develop and Implemented useful and appropriate statistics to back up your co-efficient argument, whist also making a decent contrast between the United and Liverpool squad situations. I liked the idea that the Europa league could give United options late in the season if they’re still in the competition, especially if they’re struggling to reach fourth which wouldn’t be easy in a very competitive league, regardless of European competition.
Your spelling was sloppy in places, although that’s a minor factor. The point about Moyes having a chance to prove he can develop youngsters is irrelevant, but even taking that argument into account I fail to see proof or strong arguments suggesting signs of how he had shown he was on the verge of backing a potential youth movement. You needed to counter claims such as Januzaj being frozen out even though he was largely needed by Moyes, etc. The co-efficient paragraph was good but dragged on and I think you could have cut some of it out to make another argument. All of your ideas in the paragraph were good…yet they all only led to the same overriding argument. With the centre back partnership chemistry argument I felt you scored a bit of an own goal because this could also lead to fatigue and wreck part of United’s potential spine.
This was a decent debate and proved that you have potential in the basic categories such as forming a solid debate structure with clear individual concepts in each paragraph and creating effective arguments, while you also attempted to address counter arguments. Your future debates would probably benefit from a tad more flair and a greater flow causing paragraphs to build on top of each other.
Spoiler for feedback:
You made a good argument for the MITB being a better option as a WrestleMania multi man match in terms of excitement and your writing was passionate. You also did a good job of helping me to visualise certain scenes, with your descriptive writing being your obvious strength. You also made it fairly clear what stance you were talking throughout the debate.
You made too many submissive and weak admissions such as “I say that because we don't know the degree of success…”, “I cannot produce an accurate guess as of now on that specific topic” and “I know that's not giving the current talent enough credit, obviously they're not as bad as that, but you get my gist, hopefully”. Don’t admit to any weaknesses! Your arguments against potential andre battle winners were weak because WWE is currently producing lots of top young talents who are ready to come up from NXT, or who have already arrived, many of them being more than efficient on the mic. You never BURIED any of these rookies by pointing out their individual flaws either, so that whole section was a bit vague and pointless. You also didn’t really nail the counter argument against MITB being an individual ppv at a time when bigger stars are available. Since 2010 how many of these matches have actually been taken over by top guys in comparison to ones filled with jobbers? Is the problem really that bad? You could have made a stronger point by suggesting that with potentially just one MITB match from now on at the MITB ppv, due to the whc and wwe titles being merged, there would be less opportunities for rising stars to have their moment, unlike if the same match was to take place at Mania. I also needed you to convince me that scrapping the MITB ppv wouldn’t hurt WWE as a business in the long term due to the loss of a “special event” that could draw good house money and merchandise.
So this was well written and interesting to read in terms of style, but lacked enough arguments to form a solid debate, let alone totally convincing arguments. In future also try to use your entire word count and use it efficiently, scrapping awkward and overly long linking fluff such as “Now that I've emphasized my stance on needed mic prowess to hype up the win, I want to discuss the prospect of a much more attractive match happening in the Royal's place and still serving the same purpose”. So keep the style and the passion, but try to make more quality arguments which include greater detail and the use of relevant examples.
Spoiler for feedback:
I liked how you defined the question by classing Children as just primary school students, while the explanation of how transgender teachers can be useful in education elsewhere was helpful as a persuasion tactic in order to show that your stance wasn’t bigoted. You also showed good descriptive writing with sentences such as “they are embarking on the adventure known to all as life”, which helped to convey your point.
Your debate really lacked competent arguments, I mean SEVERELY lacked them. When saying that children can become distracted by transgenders because they’re not used to them, what happens if an overly effeminate male or an overly masculine female were to take the job? Do you then sack non transgender people on the basis that they might be “a bit odd”? Your quoted example was also weak because the woman didn’t suggest that her child had been affected by a transgender teacher, but that the child MIGHT or COULD be. The same could be said of someone from another race or with a different skin colour that’s not common in the area where the child goes to school. Would you then have to stop them from working as primary school teachers too? The same extends to religion. What if a parent doesn’t like their child being taught by a Muslim in a non-religious school, should the parents have power to remove someone like that on the basis of what MIGHT happen. Your stance is weak and points towards a slippery slope of potential bigotry placed on nothing. You should have scrapped all of the “ifs, buts and maybes” and provided actual examples of how transgender teachers have directly affected primary school children.
Your stance was clear and you defined the question will while you also implemented good use of descriptive writing, but ultimately this debate fell apart because it didn’t have any real credible arguments to support it. Greater research was needed in order for you to provide clear examples of how transgender teachers have been a problem in primary schools and why they shouldn’t be allowed to teach for those reasons.
Spoiler for feedback:
Your style of writing was obviously good and intriguing, while you also had me hooked with your INITIAL interesting stance that defined the question in a very balanced and unique way. You originally made good points for having a battle royal at Mania and your general intro was excellent…for where I THOUGHT you were heading and where YOU SHOULD have headed with your debate.
Your debate structure was all over the place. At first I thought you were going to argue for the Andre battle royal, then you made me think that you were going to argue for a battle royal at Mania, but not for the Andre trophy, so effectively taking the NO stance. That was fine and would have made an excellent debate if you had followed through with that idea whilst explaining how they could have a battle royal with a better prize, but you didn’t do that. While your burial of the trophy was looking semi effective, you undermined that by failing to point out how a better prize such as a title shot could improve the prestige of the match, so in essence your digs at the trophy had no effect, because what’s the harm in having a trophy as a prize as opposed to just pride? You then continued to put over the idea of a battle royal as an event at Mania which was fine, but then you buried the long term prospects of the match by saying it would lose its touch. It wasn’t very clear, but if you meant that the trophy would become meaningless, then what would the match become without a trophy? If that’s indeed the point that you were making then why juxtapose two paragraphs, one arguing for and one arguing against a battle royal, so close to each other without a seamless linking sentence in order to structure an effective counter argument? This same scatty positioning continued throughout the rest of your debate before you finally settled on a position right at the end which was completely different to what you started with.
This was basically a giant mess because none of your arguments were grouped together in a convincing fashion, while your stance kept changing therefore creating a very confusing debate. A lot of your ideas were good, but most of them were good ideas that didn’t fit or ended up cancelling out some of your other good ideas. I appreciated the fact that you were trying to be creative, but I don’t think you’re a skilled enough debater to be attempting complicated debate structures that involve incredibly nuanced stances. In future keep your writing style in terms of language, but stick to an obvious and consistent stance while also building your arguments effectively from one paragraph to the next without undermining any of the points you make.
Spoiler for feedback:
This is a very good debate. Throughout your piece you presented good clear arguments within a solid and swiftly flowing structure. Your use of references was good and added credibility to your arguments. Your writing was concise and articulate enough to hold my interest, whilst you presented a plethora of angles and often wrapped them up within a sympathetic stance that was easy to connect to. I could repeat all of the good arguments that you made, but there’s really no point because I would just be repeating everything in the debate. Your outro was powerful and used emotive and persuasive language in the form of “If that teacher ends up touching, saving even, a student who might be in a similar situation to a situation that the teacher survived, doesn’t that all make it worth it?” That was a brilliant line and added weight to your argument.
Your third paragraph was a bit vague and lacked detail. Your ‘41%’ stat was well used, but would have been enhanced if compared to other statistics outlining the potential for mental illness’ in so called ‘normal people’. I would have appreciated a link to a reference for “At the end of the day, America is facing a severe shortage of teachers”, outlining statistics while also explaining how crucial every teaching demographic is.
This was a very good debate that just needed a bit of polish in order to make it a great one. Keep up the good work; you’re definitely getting on track to becoming a good debater.
Spoiler for feedback:
Your debate structure was simple but incredibly effective with your breakdown of each potential match. Your analysis of why HHH jobbing to Bryan again could diminish The Game’s star power was well made, while you brilliantly buried the idea of a potential Bryan vs Orton rematch by suggesting that it has happened too many times and noted that fans have grown tired of that feud. Then you absolutely had me chuckling with well placed comedy in the form of the LOD and Anne Frank jokes that buried Evolution’s return with the assistance of the video. You then made a strong argument for Bryan vs Kane because in kayfabe and reality Bryan has been positioned above all three Evolution members. The idea that fans would also desire to pay to see Bryan in a match where he’s 99.9% guaranteed to defend his title was an interesting point as well.
You NEED to provide references for buy rates if you want them to support your arguments. The same goes for HHH’s rumoured injury. I wasn’t sure that your argument against The Shield vs Evolution as a main event worked in terms of potential buy rates. What’s to say that WWE couldn’t build up Bryan vs Kane with the most air time, yet let the six man tag go on last? That wouldn’t have affected potential buy rates because fans will have already bought the event before seeing how the card unfolded.
This was a good debate that would have been worthy of a main show mid card match. In future remember to use references to support your claims and also avoid arguing for things that are irrelevant, such as how the potential card positioning could affect buy rates.
Spoiler for feedback:
I think you already know that this is a strong debate based on what I’ve told you in the chat box. There really aren’t many weaknesses here at all. The writing is articulate, flows well and provides clarity throughout, underpinning solid and logical arguments that suggest this could be another star making avenue for WWE, providing opportunities for multiple stars on the biggest stage. You also compared the awarding of the Andre trophy to the crown and robe of KOTR which was a successful tournament in the 90’s, so this added weight to your argument that the trophy is worthwhile. I also loved the idea that WWE could squeeze in quick “I’m going to win” type promos (on tv) building up to the match, therefore giving mic time to those who might not usually receive such a chance, even if the chance is limited. You also included a brief conclusion which was good to see, it’s always useful to be given a reminder of your main arguments.
I only had one real gripe with this and that’s the idea that WWE creative aren’t forced to commit to a direction with the winner of the battle royal. You portrayed this as a good thing, but this can also be a problem with the stop/start booking culture in WWE. At least with MITB the WWE have to commit to a superstar to a certain degree, even with a wasted potential star like Sandow who was given storylines pertaining to his MITB briefcase and eventual cash in. With the Andre battle royal having no end game in terms of a future title shot there’s the issue that WWE could get someone over by making them win the match, before letting them fade into obscurity due to lazy booking and rapidly changing mind sets. So for me you needed to address this while also suggesting how the Andre battle royal WOULD force WWE to commit to the winner.
Despite that one gaping hole, your debate was otherwise completely on point and was of the standard I expect to see on main cards at the mid card level. Keep up the good work.
Spoiler for feedback:
You made a good effort to describe how 17 offered a variety of different match types in comparison to 19, while you also briefly pointed out the matches on the former generally had greater significance. You also quickly touched upon the idea that Booker T’s angle and match lacked a satisfactory ending at 19. The idea that 17 also defined an era was well explained and that was probably your strongest paragraph. By comparing 19 to this you buried the significance of the 2003 show. I also appreciated your unique presentation paragraph which covered crowd noise and commentary, two aspects that I didn’t cover in my own debate. You basically covered most aspects that there were to argue for or against in this debate and it made for a complete debate.
However, by bringing up loads of arguments this unfortunately denies you the opportunity to go into detail and hammer home your arguments. This wouldn’t have been a problem if you hadn’t wasted so many words on your intro which dragged on quite a bit without really adding anything to the debate. Otherwise I haven’t got any real complaints to make because this was a good debate that was full of ideas, albeit basic and brief ones that would probably be trumped a narrower but far more technical debate from a very good main card debater.
You should be happy with this debate because it was good enough for a main show mid card match, but when you do make it to the main card try to use your word count a bit more effectively, while sacrificing some of what you deem to be weaker arguments in order to strengthen your strongest arguments with more words.
Spoiler for feedback:
You made a solid start by concisely stating your stance, by putting over the idea that it was a good idea to have the match, but only once. That type of nuanced position definitely works in your favour if you can pull it off. The paragraph that started with “Why?” was excellent and generally on point, suggesting that WWE already has enough star making gimmick matches that actually have an end game, unlike the Andre battle royal which simply offers the prize of a trophy. I also appreciated how you buried the creative potential of the match towards the end of your debate. Your argument that having another gimmick star making match would dry up WWE’s potential star resources for other bigger gimmick matches was an interesting point.
You strayed FAR off course with the Cesaro/Heyman paragraph which was really about WWE’s poor booking rather than the Andre battle royal being a problem itself. Couldn’t WWE have done the same thing with the winners of the MITB briefcases, or even the Royal Rumble? Of course they could, hence why this was a poor argument. Based on that theory WWE should stop making star making matches altogether! I didn’t see the relevance in you using KOTR as a reason why the Andre battle royal can’t be a star maker, seeing as Bret, Austin, HHH and Brock have all gone onto big things soon after winning KOTR. Otherwise there were several glaring grammar issues that probably could have been cleaned up with a proof read.
This was a mixed bag, but at least half of your debate was solid and on point, whilst I always knew what side you were arguing for. Try to use greater creative control in future by axing your weaker arguments, especially ones such as the Cesaro/Heyman paragraph which had no place in the debate. Also, remember to proof read!
Spoiler for feedback:
You made your stance very clear without going on too much, but also managed to make comparisons with other star making gimmick matches in order to enhance your position. The second paragraph was good and outlined how the match is easy to book and gives an opportunity to multiple wrestlers who otherwise might not receive it. By pointing to the effect that winning the match had on Cesaro you also managed to point out how crucial the match could be when WWE wants to make a star, if the match is booked correctly. I also liked the idea that the match can create many potential storylines that would set up the post Mania season, while the idea that it can assist the break up of aimless tag teams while freeing the one obvious star (aka Cesaro) within the team was on point. The idea that it also gives fans something to look forward to every year as an extra special attraction was a simple yet effective idea, but one that has been overlooked by many other debaters who took on this debate.
With the opening you mentioned other star making gimmick matches that have occurred at Mania, but you could have mentioned some of the stars that were made in order to strengthen your stance. You did lose me for a bit with the wording in your fourth paragraph when describing the break up of Swagger and Cesaro. Try to tighten up your grammar in future. Your debate was solid but seemed quite short, try to use more of your word count in future so that you can add extra details to your arguments. With your closing paragraph you mentioned that it’s better to have Wrestlers take part in the battle royal at Mania, rather than in a throwaway match on the pre card…but what if WWE ends up booking the battle royal as a throwaway match on the pre cards of future Manias? Wouldn’t that be a bigger waste of LOTS of talent, rather than just a couple? I needed to see a counter argument to suggest how that was unlikely.
This was a decent debate that only had one big hole in it in terms of potentially being counter argued. I’m really pleased with the progress that you’re making because I’ve seen obvious improvements with your last two debates. The next step is for you to improve your grammar, tighten up weaker arguments and make sure you use most of the word count that you’re allowed.