TDL XVII: ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY SHOW - THE RESULTS - Page 8 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling Forums

LinkBack Thread Tools
post #71 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 07:21 PM
Friends Come And Go, Banners Hang Forever
Invictus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 24,638
Points: 15,422

Originally Posted by Aid180 View Post
Speaking of TLK, I think this show was the first time ever TLK voted for me.
it's because noto wasnt debating. srs.

Invictus is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #72 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 07:25 PM
Andre's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ROYAL RUMBLE AUCTION DRAFT THREAD (wrestling fantasy games section)
Posts: 5,114
Points: 4,443

Originally Posted by Elipses Corter View Post
Most people have a 50% chance of winning. Unless it's a 4 way, then they have a 25% chance. But, I'm not most people. Regardless of the set up, I always have a 100% chance of winning. How? Pretty simple. When I lose, it's negated by the fact that I actually won, via beating myself. Pretty simple.

What's not pretty simple is that, despite nobody beating me, I don't get a push, damn sure don't get a title shot and get saddled with a rookie tag team partner. So, to continue the tradition, I beat him, which offsets the fact that our team lost, so that's actually a draw for me. Nobody beat ME except for ME. But, I beat somebody else, which means I didn't really get beat.

And some people say, 'EC, you're not gonna get a title shot like that because it still knocks you down the rankings.' Yeah, well, fuck your rankings because in my rankings, I'm currently undefeated and based upon that, I should be champion. But, I'm not. And make no mistake about it, Seabs is a worthy champion. Came pretty damn close to beating me but couldn't do it because I always win. But, let's real, that title don't mean shit.

The only title that matters to me is the FTW Division Championship. Or, should I say the Fuck The Wrestling Division Championship. Because...fuck the Wrestling Division Championship. It lost all credibility when the only legitimate undefeated debater has yet to receive a shot at it. I've beaten EVERYBODY I've faced and NOBODY has beaten me and guess what? They never will.

But, Seabs or whoever the fuck is holding that piece of scrap metal when the time comes and you face the real champion, you'll be just another victim. Because I will win that belt and piss on it. No unification because I'll be damned if I merge that piece of shit with the sexy muthafucka in my sig.

I'm the FTW Division Champion. And the Path of Rage begins. And I'm leaving a trail of dead bodies on my journey to the top, as the only champion that matters and the only debater that matters in TDL.


Andre is offline  
post #73 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 07:26 PM
The Man Who Killed TDL
Anark's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,385
Points: 2,829


Anark is offline  
post #74 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 07:26 PM
It me.
RetepAdam.'s Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Denver, CO.
Posts: 12,333
Points: 15,377

Originally Posted by Elipses Corter View Post
Most people have a 50% chance of winning. Unless it's a 4 way, then they have a 25% chance. But, I'm not most people. Regardless of the set up, I always have a 100% chance of winning. How? Pretty simple. When I lose, it's negated by the fact that I actually won, via beating myself. Pretty simple.
RetepAdam. is offline  
post #75 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 07:31 PM
The Lady Killer's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,344
Points: 30

Originally Posted by Hollywood Hanoi View Post
blarg return plz


Credit: A$AP
The Lady Killer is offline  
post #76 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 09:22 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,406
Points: 4,457

Originally Posted by Red Viper View Post
Btw fuck 800 word limits. Like altogether. I know it makes the judging tougher but I really don't think there would be a limit under 1000 words because it's damn near impossible to cover all the things that the judges want you to improve on.

Peter's debate was clearly better, but like Rush said even with all the stuff he was able to say he still wasn't really able to go into his own analysis simply because of the constraints of the word limits. I would not have gone that far into stats even with 200 more words, because i refuse to make a research essay(no offense peter ) but yeah. the extra 200 words allows you to go deeper into your arguments and just gives you more room to add things that you otherwise cant in 800 words.
If this was a university essay then i'd agree with you but taking someone else's analysis and presenting it doesn't make a good debate imo.
Rush is offline  
post #77 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 11:27 PM
Here for Fantasy Sports
Stax Classic's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 12,508
Points: 9,947

Congrats Rab, that was the outcome I was expecting. I took a sampling that was too wide and didn't go deep enough. I could have gotten a split decision win if I had just added a couple more sentences and dropped a couple examples I guess.

I'll get you next time though.

Not sure on my spelling mistakes Gonna have to go back and see on that, but I've always struggled with self editing.

Stax Classic is offline  
post #78 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-27-2014, 07:52 AM
Ben Wyatt's Low Cal Calzone Zone
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Golfing with Stephen Hawking, he lied about his handicap. Didn't need a golf cart though, I just sat in his lap.
Posts: 5,891
Points: 464

Can I just do tag-team debates from here on out please

Really want to congratulate Michael on his debate. I gave him constructive feedback on the drafts he sent me, but in fairness very little needed to be altered and he did superbly well to make the necessary changes within two attempts. ROSE BROS tag team debating technique pays off again. But still, super start to your debating career and hopefully we see you as a regular participant now

Seabs. No complaints. I put a lot into the tag debate and by the time I sat down and wrote the HHH one I knew what I wanted to say but then got muddled in whether to flat out attack him or spend some time considering people he put over. It's one of my weaker entries and that's a shame because I know we can both put together something fitting of the title and it's a shame it had to come on the One Year Anniversary.

Perused a few of the other results, shout out to Rigby for a mighty fine first impression. Very good debate which could have given many people a run for their money.

Anark . Feel for Hanoi but the right debate won. Your rematch topic looks very intriguing so hopefully the quality is maintained and the rubber match is the best of the three to date.

Shame to see Andre & Greg bow out for the time being, but a good contest to go out on by both. Loved that you both went in different directions, because I feel the answer is in the middle of both stances with both sides having contributory factors for the lack of genuine heel heat.
WOOLCOCK is offline  
post #79 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-27-2014, 08:27 AM
Oxi X.O.'s Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: OCEANIA
Favourite(s): Eddie Guerrero
Posts: 13,676
Points: 15,031

Apparently replying to this stuff via chatbox is a fairly bad idea whether it be the inevitable quarrels that come after it or the inability to convey information, so I'll try to be more in depth to understand the criticism and possible lack thereof, properly.

Originally Posted by BkB Hulk
The first part of this debate reminded me of the concussion debacle in a way, but acknowledging the opposition side isn’t always a bad thing.

You provided solid evidence as to why Ambrose’s style lends itself more to a heel with the use of the Del Rio example, and the Regal stuff brings up his best traits. You’ve effectively done more than the other debaters here because you’ve answered the question and provided evidence, and as a debate this is respectable.

Advice that I’d give you is that you maybe need to provide more examples for what you’re saying. You brought up strengths of Ambrose taunts and the like, but you’ve not really used them. They could be in a debate like this to provide more evidence for your case. You could do with not explaining stuff that doesn’t need to be explained either, like what FCW is. That wastes words, which you can’t really afford to do in 800 words.
Originally Posted by Andre
Quoting yourself in a debate? LOLOXI, forever string to be "different".

This wins simply by virtue of being the only submission to actually answer the debate given debate topic question. You gave relevant examples in places, although I think your writing became overly narrative based at times because it came off more like a biography than an argument in certain areas. With the part about mic skill in particular you could have at least given some examples via youtube with arguments/explanations. This is hardly an amazing debate but it did more than enough to cross the winning line with your opponents trailing far behind.
Originally Posted by Aid180
Okay, obviously you didn’t have the problems that the other two had. You picked a side and actually wrote a debate on the question asked. Congrats. I’m sure you probably want some advice though on what to improve upon. I know I did even when I won.

Intro: I think you did a solid job here. I like your throwback to how surprising it is that Ambrose is a face and doing a remarkable job at it. I do like that you explained what you are going to debate and your choice. So no real improvements needed here. I don’t know if you need to worry about exposing who you are, but then again, if a judge is holding a grudge against you because of who you are, then they probably should hand the debate off to someone else.

Body: I like your example of Ziggler and Del Rio. It points out that being brutal can turn fans against the wrestler. Since Ambrose’s bread and butter is being unhinged and crazy, this makes sense to link brutality. I have mentioned how I look for “knockout blows” in debates, or points that make me say, “here is the winner.” I think you may have had one here. Your final section before mic skills about what makes him a good heel is that part. You mention all of his good heel qualities and then put it together in one last part. Your mic skills section is where you lack a bit. I would have linked a video of one of his FCW promos as an example and built upon that instead of that whole Wyatt and De Niro rant. Give me real examples and show me why he is so good on the mic as a heel as opposed to on the mic as a face. Just remember, examples are your friends and they can put your debate over future opponents.

Conclusion: Yikes. This is a mess bro. You answered no to whether you agree or disagree? So neither? Fortunately, you explained the stance as the beginning and in your debate, but do try and make sure you avoid doing something like this. If anything, all you needed to say was, “No, I do not agree that Ambrose is a better face.”
Let's all remember the Ziggler v Rhodes debate was more of a test that probably should have went in the DOJO.

Obviously in the past and in this debate I have had problems with either mentioning the side I am not arguing in a positive light (too positive?) or not at all. I understand not mentioning it at all is a bad idea as I found out, I believe, last debate. I always thought it would be worse to ignore the other option than address it, however in the debate I did address the other side (I think it was a Big E debate, I can't remember), I think I was told that I went too far into it and it was hard to tell which side I was taking.

I tried to find a middle ground in this debate. To me, mentioning that Ambrose is a surprisingly good face, but a better heel, not only obviously shows I believe he's a good face, but also amplifies what I think of him as a heel.

What I mean is, I think it's more effective to say he's a GREAT face but a much better heel, than to say he's an okay, or bad face, and then say he's a better heel. It not only seems less biased, but also more informative and fair.

What I don't understand is if this is a bad thing to do, or if I did it badly, or if the way I did it just didn't translate to the judges?

I completely understand the lack of evidence in the speaking area. That's a definite flaw I'll try to fix in the upcoming debate(s).

But the first line left me confused (obviously considering the large body of text above). It's not always a bad thing, but, did I do it badly, or decently, or just at a mediocre level? Any explanation on that would be great.

I realised I fucked up quoting myself. I completely forgot about that until Bulk mentioned it in the chatbox a few days before judging was in. But someone (possibly Bulk) also told me that a lot of other debaters, even long-time debaters, give themselves away in debates, not just through their style of writing, but say, by mentioning their opponent in a one on one. I can't tell if your first line was just a joke at my expense because I screwed up or if you seriously thought negatively of my overall debate because of it. You of all people should know my inability to tell if something is or is not banter. :|

Also, I definitely see how it became a bit too narrative and/or sounded like a biography eventually. I would assume you think it got like that around the "It’s no question Ambrose was originally signed to the WWE because..." line up until the conclusion? I completely understand the criticism in hindsight.

I'm really biting my tongue atm Andre.

I already thanked you for the lengthy criticism (much needed), and I think I apologised immediately upon realising that abysmal conclusion...
Yea, I explained in the first or second page how that happened, but no excuses. That was a horrendous fuck up.

Thanks again for all constructive criticism.

Naturally any serious response from any person is more than welcome.

Spoiler for Thoughts on People who try to overthrow my wrestling fantasy games de-facto rulership:
Oxi X.O. is offline  
post #80 of 81 (permalink) Old 05-27-2014, 09:32 AM
Keep The Faith, Reds.
Fanjawi's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 521
Points: 247

Knew I was gonna lose because I was so busy that day I had to rush up my debate and start/get it done in like the last 10 minutes before the deadline haha. Doesn't mean I won't stop trying to improve!

Congrats, The Japanese Buzzsaw. You deserved it.

Fanjawi is offline  

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome