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.