*A massive pyro display goes off to kick-off the one year anniversary show of TDL!! The two co-hosts are set up in the ring, and we're ready to go!*
Seabs: I still hate corny introductions so let's cut straight to the chase. Here with me is my co-host from TDL I, the inimitable SHEPARD!
Seabs: So... rolling right along, let's begin with our opening ma-
Shepard: Actually, Seabs, not so fast. This is the ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY show!! *crowd pops* It's great to be the humble host that you are, but the production boys have prepared a little something special for you. Roll it boys!!
*The lights dim and the video screen comes to life*
Spoiler for On the monitor:
Seabs & Shep: WHAT THE FU-??
*The feed comes to an abrupt end. Backstage, Headliner is seen forcibly removing WAGG from the computer room, pants around his ankles. Order is restored*
Shepard: Okay, sorry about that one. Anyways, Seabs, this is for you.
*A video package begins set to Bruce Springsteen's GLORY DAYS. The clip shows TDL highlights from early shows. Familiar faces and priceless moments come and fade on the screen. Evolution's title victory. BULLY's early wins. GothicBohemian and greendayedgehead because GIRLS. A lot of Dark Andre title defence celebrations. LEGENDS TLK and Mac returning. WOOLCOCK zipping up STEVIE's bodybag. CGS laughing at the TURNCOAT saga. SPCDRI and Anark posing with the title. Clique dominating then emotionally retiring next to Headliner. The rise of Anark. TLK's destined title win. ZOMBO's improbable title win. Rush hunched over a computer monitor, leaning SUPER-close to judge his debates. The regular debaters Alim, The Fourth Wall, obby, Elipses Corter, The Wrestling Junkie, Jupiter Jack Daniels, Aid180, Notorious and Magic speaking in front of a LeBron James poster, Lawls, Desecrated, ashes11, TKOK, and numerous others. Finally, a closing shot of Seabs in the gorilla position, ensuring each show runs perfectly. The video fades to black as the crowd roars*
*The entire TDL locker room emerges from the back, Shep steps out of the ring, leaving Seabs on his own as the competitors and fans applaud loudly and begin a dueling chant of "THANK YOU SEABS!!" and "ONE MORE YEAR!!" Visibly moved, Seabs wipes a tear from his eye and begins to speak*
Klunderbunker vs WrestlingOracle vs Maddoxitron Dean Ambrose is a better worker as a babyface than a heel. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
As mentioned last debate, there are many rising stars in the WWE universe. Three of these rising stars are Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose. These three have combined their strengths to form a unit called the Shield. Since day one, the Shield have been budding workhorses for the company producing volumes of widely acclaimed matches as heels and now hitting their zenith as faces. While Reigns and Rollins’ talents best suit them for babyface roles, there is cause to question if Ambrose is a better worker as a heel or face. Certainly, Dean Ambrose works best as a hybrid.
Analyze Dean’s in ring attributes that put him in the upper echelon of WWE ring workers. First, analyze the overall offensive approach of Dean. Ambrose through a decade has developed an unorthodox offense separating himself from the typical cheating heel or courageous babyface. This offense incorporates striking, mindgames and occasionally technical ability and strategic use of surroundings. Dean’s offense is very “high octane”, which primarily is a babyface quality. Dean uses mental acuity to achieve victory in the majority of his matches as opposed to babyfaces who defeat their opponent either by mustering great strength to win with a huge move. Ambrose has quite the penchant for selling effects of a wrestling move post impact, which consistent with my hybrid theory can either be packaged with his looks to cause Ricky Morton esque sympathy or is an effective tool for relaying the classic “heel getting shut up” effect.
One cannot analyze ring work without analyzing movesets. Ambrose’s aforementioned high octane offense can be employed with equal success as heel or face. While high energy is a face trait, constantly pressuring opponents with a ruthless expression on your face is a classic trait shared by many heels. Dean’s eccentric style leads to execution being sacrificed for aggression, which is another typical heel trait but generates a lovability akin to Terry Funk after reinventing himself from mat wrestler to brawler and later hardcore legend. Through these traits, Dean can tell multiple stories as hybrid. Look at Dean’s WWE signatures. The figure four lock is historically associated with heels but through audience’s respect to Flair has morphed to a move garnering a face reaction. The DDT especially with Ambrose’s high leg kick delivery gives a vicious effect akin to heels but works well to generate a hopeful crowd response to transition to a hot tag or individually set up a comeback. The recent Hansen esque rebounding lariat is an effective babyface tool,though if delivered with more malice could highlight Dean’s viciousness . The headlock driver mechanically is not a heel specific or face specific move.
Supporters of Dean being a better worker as face argue that Shield’s best feuds have been against the Wyatts and Evolution. In actuality, Dean’s increased performance is not from being in a babyface role, but stems from an evolved role. Originally Reigns was just about the sole focal point of the Shield; the balance has evened out as Reigns still gets top billing, but Rollins has gained much more traction and Dean’s ring time has been lengthened to heighten the wow factor of Seth’s offense/highspots by avoiding saturation and further cover for Reigns so he can go in and play the role of impactful closer while minimizing the audience’s exposure to Reigns’ current lack of craftsmanship in ring and endurance. Dean’s increased performance quality is not from being slotted in a babyface role, but stems from an evolved role within Shield. Supporters of Ambrose might also point out that he is too “good looking” to play a heel without being a chicken heel; hence it is not believable for Ambrose to be heel. Well, first of all, the question at hand is not marketability but rather workability and second of all, crowd interaction is a key component of working. Ambrose’s character isn’t one for pandering or one to care what side the audience is on, makingA for a perfect hybrid.
Besides, these hybrid qualities have been a part of Ambrose the majority of his career. Those who believe Dean is best as full blown heel don’t realize that in order to pull this off,Dean must sacrifice many characteristics that separate him from the pack and keep him in the top tier. A meticulous,corner cutting Dean with one sided offense would only hurt his match quality. If Dean retains current qualities , then he is not heel or face, but hybrid. Ring working doesn't include promos.
Ambrose is not best wrestling as face or heel, but rather best at being the fence-rider without “crossing the line”. Dean mixes qualities from both heel and face and blends them together nicely to deliver the best performances possible. Simply, Dean Ambrose works best when being Dean Ambrose. Believe that!
Dean Ambrose is a better worker as a face than a heel. It’s a fairly simple concept for young superstars to star off as heels than as faces. Ambrose is a key member of the Shield faction that gives them the spoken leader of the group. As a heel, Ambrose taunts the fans with threats to take down the fan’s heroes and favorites. In doing so, Ambrose is doing what’s best for himself and his group, The Shield.
Looking back since his debut at Survivor Series 2012, Ambrose has been a heel all along, up until about early spring this year. It hasn’t been that long for him as a face, but having all three members of The Shield turn face eased the process of having them be the bad guys and smoothly transition them into fan favorites. History isn’t kind to factions who are in the WWE. Quickly looking at past stables and factions over the years, which former faction/stable spent the most time together as a unit? I don’t have the answer, because it’s been quite a while. This leads me to the next point.
What are the points of stables? Think about the past stables over the years. nWo was created to allow WCW to compete with WWE and take over the ratings wars for a couple number of years. DX was created in WWE to counter the nWo. Yes this was a different time for this business. Think about the singles guy’s who have been pushed to the moon after splitting in previous tag-teams. Bret from the Hart Foundation, Miz from Morrison and Miz, Etc. The point Ambrose has going for him is that since he’s had success within his stable, he can easily transition to a singles guy as a face.
The reason being for that is easy. Look at the Shield’s progression from November 2012 to about mid-February of earlier this year. All the Shield’s motives were aligned to the heel alignment. It’s easier for a group of wrestlers or just one wrester in general, to become a heel. You can turn your back to the fans and align yourself by attacking the Fan favorites.
Dean Ambrose is a former Indy guy. He is an IWC favorite and if you don’t believe me, just go check any threads in the RAW discussion. Regardless of that, Ambrose has fans. He’s been supported by many fans internationally, and locally but it all remains the same. Booking 101 in the WWE suggests that the Shield will break up. How and when they do it is something we don’t know yet.
Remember back to May and June 2013. Ambrose defeated Kofi Kingston to win the United States Championship. This alone seperates himself as a good way to start him as a face for a singles push in the future. Ambrose’s faction teammates in Rollins and Reigns worked together to win the WWE tag-team championship. Rollins and Reigns could continue to stay as heels, reminiscent circa 2001 as the 2 Man Power Trip. Since WWE isn’t high on long-term tag-team consistency, Ambrose can use this to his advantage and give the reason to the fans why they should care about him. With Ambrose already a fan to the Hardcore fans likening, Ambrose as a face is a no brainer. WWE right now lacks top end heels. Rollins and Reigns can be pushed up the ladder and supply themselves as top end heels. Remember, Reigns and Rollins have been top end heels for about 16-18 months. Ambrose can give the faces a backbone to rely on with his superb, crisp, and demanding mic work to the fans.
Dean Ambrose is a better worker as a babyface than a heel. Agree or Disagree?
I can tell you, if this was the topic for a debate about four months ago, I would scoff at the idea of Dean Ambrose even portraying a face at all. In fact, I did: “I'd love to see Dean work as a marketable face” – A quote from yours truly.
However, the last four months have been a pleasant surprise. Ambrose continues to impress me, especially as a face. I went from laughing at the idea of Ambrose as a face, to being a genuine advocate of Ambrose as a face.
But is Ambrose better as a face than he is as a heel?
Absolutely not! I haven’t been sure about wrestling for months – things have always surprised me, like Ambrose’ ability to actually portray a truly likeable, sympathetic face – but I can with 100% certainty say that Ambrose is a much better heel as he is a face.
I definitely understand that Dean Ambrose’ strange, psychotic, and aggressive wrestling style can translate over to a face character – a unique, face character, to be exact – and the fact is, it works. We see it work week in and week out.
However just because it works well doesn’t mean it can’t and won’t work better a different way.
As a face, it’s hard to be brutal. It’s hard to be the right kind of psychotic. As we saw from the well-received Alberto Del Rio vs. Dolph Ziggler WHC rematch at Payback of 2013, the fans treat an overly aggressive face character distantly. Alberto Del Rio wasn’t really over as a face around that time, but he was cheered up until that match.
I know this match was intended to be a double-turn, and ADR was slowly changing from a happy, confident face, to an angry, self-doubting heel, but that’s the point. Del Rio changed because he became increasingly brutal and aggressive, and did anything to win.
This would translate to Ambrose. Although every wrestler has their diehard fans (and Ambrose sure has a lot), non-diehard fans could potentially be turned off by excessive brutality – which is something that makes Ambrose such a great solo heel.
It’s no question Ambrose was originally signed to the WWE because of his stellar heel work in the independent scene as Jon Moxley. During this time, he must have gotten some mouths talking in WWE, as he had a match in 2006 as a hometown jobber to take on MNM.
He proved his aforementioned stellar heel work when WWE officially signed him in 2011, in Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW) – WWE’s pre-NXT developmental system show. During this time, Ambrose had good word from multiple backstage personnel including multiple-time WWE world champion CM Punk, who himself travelled to developmental to have a match with Ambrose; and world-renowned wrestler William Regal, who rarely wrestles, and only wrestles opponents he deems worthy. For the record, Regal wrestled Ambrose two times, which is a huge nod to his ability.
In the second match, Ambrose countered the constant targeting of the arm by Regal, simply by attacking Regal’s head the entire time, and cutting Regal open at the ear. The match was ruled a no contest shortly after the displays of viciousness by both men, but the fighting didn’t stop – Ambrose went right back after Regal and continued assaulting him after, being forced off by officials.
So… what is it that makes Ambrose such a damn good heel?
It’s not just the sick, demented taunting.
It’s not just the crazy, nonsensical movements and grimaces.
It’s not just the moveset that is filled with dirty tactics – eye rakes, back rakes, boot rubs, face-to-rope rubs, extremely efficient limb targeting (the list goes on extensively).
But the most standout feature when it comes to his ring work is quite simply his relentlessness.
Pairing this with any of Ambrose’ other highly praised traits is what makes him a fantastic, demented heel – and possibly the best, most unique and interesting heel wrestler in WWE today.
“What about his mic skills?!?!?!?!”
Dean Ambrose could do Bray Wyatt better than Bray Wyatt. Better than Robert De Niro does Max Cady. Even better than Robert De Niro does Bray Wyatt!
Ambrose is certainly a Jack of all trades on the microphone, in the interviews, and even on commentary. If of course, Jack is a roided-up monster gorilla.
Dean Ambrose is easily one of the top guys in WWE history to speak, and grace us with a sadistic, psychotic presence. FCW promos prove this, and every time Dean picks up a microphone, he proves it again.
So, do I agree or disagree that Ambrose is a better face than a heel? No. Simply no respectable person who has seen Ambrose wrestle for more than an hour, or listened to Ambrose talk for longer than a quarter, ever say this.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
BkB Hulk WrestlingOracle:
The opening of this debate reads really poorly. I don’t know what you’ve written in your previous debates. These are anonymous (as best they can be), so that’s a really weird introduction. You’ve then elaborated on that by explaining who Dean Ambrose is, which is something I know. It’s assumed knowledge. You need to think about what the reader is going to know and what they aren’t, because currently you’re wasting words and not really setting the scene for a strong debate.
That kind of goes with how you just didn’t seem to assert yourself. The hybrid thing had no introduction (again showing the wasted words), while it seems to dodge the question. The question is whether Ambrose works better as a babyface than a heel. That’s straight forward – your options are either babyface or heel. Yes or no. You’ve written about something that doesn’t actually answer the question AT ALL. Does he work better as a babyface than a heel? We don’t know. You think he works as a hybrid of the two better than either, but we don’t need to know that. It’s not about what Ambrose’s best style is, else the question would have asked that.
This becomes a question for the entirety of your debate. You simply haven’t answered the question at hand. You’ve argued for neither option, and you’ve missed the mark as shown by the last few sentences of your debate. You’ve never argued conclusively one way or the other, which means this has just missed the mark entirely.
To give you some feedback on your writing, you need to read back over the debate. This is actually more than 800 words, but it doesn’t show up as such in the word count due to errors on your behalf involving spacing, both after commas and sometimes just between two words. The grammatical errors are mistakes that don’t need to be there if you take some time afterwards to read back.
I think time is the key theme here that you seem to struggle with. It’s all just really rushed. You haven’t read the question properly and thought about it, and you don’t seem to have done any proofreading. You’re not going to win this time because you haven’t answered the question, so I’d suggest that use of time should be your focus next time.
I feel like this missed the question entirely too. The first sentence signalled that you were going somewhere. You were clear in what your answer was. That, however, seemed to be the only point where you answered the question.
You didn’t provide any evidence to back up your claim. What you’ve written is a nice history of Dean Ambrose, The Shield and their booking, but you’ve not told us why Dean Ambrose is a better worker as a face than a heel. Why he’s been able to become a face has been addressed, and why he could be a face is addressed, but why he’s a better face than a heel is missed entirely.
Your conclusion is about the potential for Ambrose to fill a void as a face up near the top of the card, but it’s again not arguing that he’s a better worker as a face. After a start where you indicated you read the question, you’ve completely gone off point. You really can’t win either because of this, unless something goes horrifically wrong for the others. You’ve answered the question in the first few words, and then done nothing to provide evidence afterwards for what the question was actually asking.
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.
The best debate is clearly written by Maddoxitron
Your intro was a bit weird seeing as I can’t recall your last debate off hand. Maybe this is something you should have linked or referenced? Even then I’m not sure if that’s allowed (Probably not). I actually enjoyed what you wrote and found it very interesting, even if it was completely useless within the confines of this match. You were given a choice of face or heel, hybrid/tweener wasn’t part of the deal. Regardless of the fact that many of your arguments were true, you still had to choose one side that was given, even if in reality you could only justify Ambrose as being stronger by 1% as a heel or a face. There’s no point going into more detail than that, because it was a good read but totally inappropriate for the topic.
The problem with this debate is that it never really answered the question. You spent far too much time focusing on the Shield as a faction, as well as the potential of said stables, rather than focusing on whether Ambrose BY HIMSELF is a better worker as a face or a heel. Another problem was that you included far too many irrelevant elements, such as how he has been booked and what WWE require, rather than how he actually worked within those bookings and circumstances. You did briefly touch upon the idea that Ambrose can work the mic and that this might benefit him (and The Shield) as a face, but you never explained how and why. I’m not going to be too harsh, so I’ll just assume that you rushed this and misunderstood the topic.
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.
Alright guys. Let’s have a #realtalk for a moment. The debate question was “Dean Ambrose is a better worker as a babyface than a heel. Agree or Disagree?” So do you agree or disagree that Ambrose is a better face than heel. Debate A said he isn’t better at either, but a better tweener. Debate B talked about stables the entire time. Debate C ended his debate with the sentence, “Do I agree or disagree that Ambrose is a better face than a heel? No.” So you don’t agree or disagree? Just no? This was kind of a mess guys. Now I hope this doesn’t rub you three the wrong way. Everyone has a rough outing now and then. I’m going to try and give each of you some lengthy critique and advice so you guys can improve and keep competing.
Alright, right away I feel as if your intro has a lot of pointless words in it. Who cares about your last debate. We don’t know who you are as we judge the submissions with the author’s name hidden. Second, while they are his teammates, you don’t need to explain how you feel about Rollins and Reigns here. This is how you feel about Ambrose being a better face than heel and only Ambrose. It is fixable though. There are many techniques to making your intro better or more interesting. One is the short story route. Looks at Seabs’ Shield debate from TDL XIV. That sets the tone of the debate. Another way is simply just getting to the point. Andre’s debate from TDL XIV does this well. He says, “The traditional league system is a FAR better method of discovering a truly prestigious champion because the traditional American playoff system is unfair and unnecessarily convoluted.” Not only does he tell what side he is debating, he strongly states one is much better than the other. These are just two techniques, but in the end, just try being creative and show some passion. Intros are what grab the readers’ attention. Try to find something that will help catch the readers’ eyes and go with it.
Second here is picking a side. I think you did a decent job working the middle here and sitting on the fence. However, I’m just one judge. Many judges here hate not picking a side. If you truly feel Ambrose is just as good as a face as he is a heel, you really need to sell it. I think you would have been better doing this by having separate heel Dean and face Dean paragraphs. I think you are on the right track having paragraphs about his offense, but I would have combined some points of the moveset paragraph with it. Aren’t these essentially the same thing? Instead, if you indeed want to walk the fence, explain why this works perfectly as a face in the first paragraph, then mirror the paragraph but with heel Ambrose instead.
Your next paragraph still talks about performance and the performances of Reigns and Rollins. Here’s the thing, this is highly unnecessary. This is an Ambrose debate, not a Shield debate. Instead, you really should have expanded the looks argument. The best debates cover as many points successfully as they can. Right now you have a lot about moveset and a small bit on appearance. You need to flesh this out and even these points up. Perhaps even adding a third major point, like mic work, would have truly helped. Once again, you are on the right track, but you can improve.
This next paragraph was lacking a bit. I feel you really need to explain what he would have to sacrifice. It’s the examples that really put a debate together, and specific ones help. For example, Maddoxitron mentioned that Ambrose cannot be super brutal as that is what turned Del Rio heel against Ziggler last year after the multiple kicks to the head. Stuff like that is what pulls it all together.
Your conclusion is nice and solid. You briefly cover why you picked your side and end it with the paraphrase of the Shield’s “Believe in the Shield” slogan. The biggest issue is just the flawed choice of riding the fence. I agree that you can argue than Ambrose is the perfect tweener, but it is hard to do that and not many judges like that choice. But, taking the good with the bad, you have a solid frame here and you have potential. So I hope you take these suggestions and work towards improving your next debate.
Lots of wasted words in intro
Too much time spent on movesets and Reigns and Rollins
If you read the intro of my judging and you read my critique on Debate A’s intro, you probably have a good idea of what I am going to talk about here. So is Ambrose a better face than heel? You state that he is a better worker as a face. What do you talk about next? Superstars starting as heels. Then you go on about Ambrose being a member of the Shield and what he did as a heel, taunting and what not. Then you end with “Ambrose is doing what’s best for himself and his group, The Shield.” What is the point of this sentence? What does this have to do with the question. No matter how good the debate is, you will not win if you do not answer the question. Look at SPCDRI’s debate from TDL XVI: Captain Wars: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/debate...-complete.html
He had a great debate, but ultimately, he didn’t answer the question and lost. This doesn’t mean to answer it in the first sentence, then talk about something else the rest of the debate. It means build up and explain your reasoning and your side of the argument.
Your next paragraph talks about his history, stating he has been a heel since his debut up until earlier this spring. Then you talk about how a stable made the turn easier and then you talk about WWE’s history with factions. Why? Why talk about this? It absolutely does nothing to help argue your stance of Ambrose being a better face at all. Unfortunately, you continue this into your next paragraph talking about DX, the nWo, the Hart Foundation, and others. This debate isn’t about the transition of Ambrose and the Shield from heels to faces. This debate isn’t about the history of stables. Your next paragraph is now about the Shield’s motives and how easy it is to be a heel in a group. It still doesn’t answer the question. Next you talk about Ambrose, finally, but about him being a former independent guy and having fans. I think you know what I am going to say next, so I’ll just move on.
Your conclusion is the same thing. Why are you talking about his history and winning the US title? You just never answered the question at all with the exception of your first sentence. Why is Ambrose a better worker as a face? You said you agreed. So why? So you’ve probably already figured out that you just can’t win by not answering the question, but here are some ways you can improve when you do answer the question:
Explain your reasoning
Use specific examples that help your point
Counter and rule out arguments against your choice
Use as many points as you can for your side
Look at your choice not only from a TV/fan perspective, but a business perspective as well
Limit useless words/off-topic sentences
I apologize if this came off as mean or anything. I just hope you take this loss with pride and work on improving for your next debate. Nothing was wrong with writing itself, it’s just you were dreadfully off-topic. Good luck on your next debate though. I know you can write a good one when you answer the question.
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.”
Wrote about the topic/picked a side
Nice heel standout argument
Weak mic skills argument
Maddoxitron wins. WrestlingOracle had too much wasted space on Rollins and Reigns in my opinion and he wasn’t strong enough in debating the fence choice. Klunderbunker was off topic and therefore, never stood a chance. I wish you all the best in your future debates though. I hope you all continue to improve and work on your debates. Even TDL needs a solid undercard, and hopefully one day one or all of you step up and move up the card.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Maddoxitron
The Japanese Buzzsaw vs GoldenSilver Debuting someone in an angle where they win a Title in their first match is a good angle. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Japanese Buzzsaw
Debuting someone in an angle where they win a Title in their first match is a good angle. Agree or Disagree?
I DISAGREE with this topic
Obviously the roots of this topic come from Paige recently winning the divas championship in her debut match the night after Wrestlemania XXX. Now, because it is too soon to judge whether this angle will work out, I will refrain from using it as evidence in my debate because it seems to me you cannot base the angle of Paige winning her debut match for the title. If my opponent has any evidence regarding the Paige angle, regardless of which side they take, it is inaccurate evidence because one cannot judge an angle that has not reached its full circle as a success or a failure.
Point #1: Past examples show that this angle is a failure
Over the course of wresting history, many wrestlers have so much faith in the back, that they are given a massive push and given the title on their first night, some have succeeded, but many have failed.
Ted Dibiase Jr won the tag team championship with Cody Rhodes at the Night of Champions PPV in 2008. After this event, Dibiase was in the legacy stable with Randy Orton and fought people like DX. However, when Legacy broke up in 2010 and Dibiase had no one around him to make him look like a legitimate main eventer, he failed miserably and fell into obscurity after 2010 and was given his inevitable release in 2013.
Jerry Lynn won the light heavyweight title on an episode of Sunday Night heat in April of 2001. The reason that I chose this as an example to prove my case is that prior to me doing some research for this topic I did not even know that Jerry Lynn was in the WWF at all, he had a 6 week reign and then was released in February of 2002, Jerry Lynn’s WWF career is one of the most forgetful in wrestling history and he won a title in his debut match.
Santino Marella won the Intercontinental championship in April of 2007 in his debut match. For someone who the WWE seemed to have big plans for (why else would they give him the IC title in his debut?) Marella certainly has flopped in his career. Santino is now the biggest comedy jobber on the entire roster, and while jobbers are necessary, it certainly doesn’t prove that the angle is a successful one.
Point #2: It peaks wrestlers careers
Take a look at the three examples I gave In my last point. All of these wrestlers who have won the title on their first night really do not have anywhere to go but down. Many of the people that I listed the WWE likely had big plans for, but did they see them as anything more than a midcard guy? I highly doubt it based on the clientele. They cannot become champions forever and they have not proven themselves enough to become a full fleshed main eventer so they become comedy jobbers, are released, or are sent to developmental hell. When wrestlers that are not man event material peak, just being a midcard guy is not an option since in your debut you reach the height of midcard status which is winning a midcard belt.
Point #3: It raises expectations and sets fans up for disappointment
When a wrestler wins a title in their debut, expectations in that wrestler IMMEDIATELY skyrocket, in both a kayfabe and non-kayfabe sense. In terms of Kayfabe, if this guy can beat the champion in his debut, he should be unstoppable, now he can’t lose!(see Goldberg, although even he didn’t win the title in his debut). Obviously the champion can’t go undefeated for an extended stretch of time because then that just makes his/her matches predictable (see RYBACK and RUSEV). In a non-kayfabe sense, the fans now have more expectations that the guys in the back will be pushing him to the moon and that he will steal the show every night. All in all, propelling wrestlers to the top of the ladder only makes them reach the chute down again quicker. It is better to slow push a wrestler so that you don’t have a wrestler who can’t work or isn’t able to get over as your champion.
Have you ever thought, what would happen if a new superstar made his debut and won a title just after? Well, today we are going to be discussing about that.
Let's first think, what does a WWE Championship mean in the company? The WWE Title in specific. First thought in mind comes, you think that it is one of the top goals for every wrestler out there. Everyone would like to win it. Now let's say, this superstar makes his debut today. And for some reason, he is given the chance to face the WWE Champion for the title. Now myself, I would think that is very unfair to have a person make his debut, spend only three hours in this company, his first show and get a chance to win the title. Why?
- Unproved. We know nothing about this person. Maybe you would know, but most wouldn't since he didn't step his foot in the WWE ever before. We don't know how good he is. He could be the worst, he could be championship material, but even that doesn't make him a proper title contender.
- Many people stepped before him and weren't given a chance. Let's just look at this for a moment. How exactly is it fair for someone to just come in and get handed the title while there are hundreds of WWE superstars out there that came before him, might had better wrestling ability and skills, but never got the chance at the title?
And like I said, it all depends. Was the wrestler popular from other places? If the wrestler for example, made his debut from the TNA, I can see how WWE would think he has what it takes to be champion. If it was Sting winning it all, the fans would have a different reaction than compared to an unknown rookie.
I think that a wrestler needs to climb up the table slowly to be considered champion material. Imagine if let's say, Daniel Bryan won the WWE Championship in his first match here. How would you feel? Would you like it the same way you liked (or not liked it) when he won the championship right now? I don't think so.
Now, we all know that WWE want what the fans want (Generally) just so they could earn more cash. But how exactly is giving an unknown rookie the title away from Daniel Bryan (A champion that most really support) is going to help? If you are going to take away a title from a big champion, then you better give to someone who had stayed long here, know what it takes to be a proper champion and can take all the heat/cheers they can get. Small stars and get pretty nervous being in front of a big crowd, especially when given a title.
If WWE ever want to move into the right direction, they should be serious about this. If you give the title to someone who has never, ever had any experience in here before, then his name will forever be in the history books as former WWE Champion. Now imagine if this person actually stays and becomes a big let down. Goes down to the lower parts of the card. People will still laugh about it, "Well, he was a WWE Champion. They don't know how to make him bigger."
So in short, my opinion is WWE should stay safe and give the title to someone who has huge experience and can handle everything that comes with it. If they would like to give the championship to someone who has never stepped foot in the WWE, then they should at least try to develop him and try to make him look like a future champion before actually giving him the big thing.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Andre The Japanese Buzzsaw
I liked the intro and the counter argument against Paige. It wasn’t particularly detailed in the sense that you could have explained what could go wrong for her, but it still did a basic job of pointing out that this isn't a relevant example for the opposition stance. You gave some good examples of failed debuting title winners, but you really needed to give greater explanations for WHY these reigns flopped. For Lynn it would have been the fact that they didn’t have to commit to an on screen push or title chasing angle for him, so by pulling off stunts like this on a fairly irrelevant show they made it clear that the title and the worker were worthless in their eyes, therefore making it a poor and detrimental angle because they conveyed their own feelings to the audience. I actually remember him winning the title quite clearly so I’m not sure that the “couldn’t remember it” argument is the best way of dismissing it as an angle. The “nowhere to go but down” argument is much stronger in the sense that WWE are shooting their load in one shot with these characters. Your third argument was a decent extension upon this.
The grammatical use of language within your debate was fairly awful throughout and this made it difficult to follow or understand your arguments for the most part. You also focused FAR TOO MUCH on the idea of someone winning the WWE title on their debut, but what about a wrestler who wins another less significant title? You also failed to give any relevant real life examples that could have supported your stance. Creating hypothetical situations is only a good tactic if you have real WWE scenarios to base them off. I’m not going to be too harsh because this was a last minute stand in so I appreciate that you gave your opponent a debate to defeat, but in future you will have to improve upon your English writing skills, understanding of topic questions and ability to provide clear evidence. In the meantime, OFF TO THE DOJO YOU GO!
The Japanese Buzzsaw is the winner.
THE JAPANESE BUZZSAW - This was decent but I thought the quality and presentation of your arguments was a little off. Good start dismissing Paige for the reasons stated although you could still argue how it's a bad angle because you're talking about the angle in general rather than specific to Paige. For example, you could still argue how there's no excitement in the chase for Paige now because she won the title from day 1. This is an aspect of the topic that I think you missed out on. Wrestling fans love to cheer for what they can't have and wrestlers such as Del Rio who get everything straight away generally don't get as over as guys like HBK, Ziggler or Bryan who have to scrap from the bottom up to get success. The fans relate to that journey and it helps get people over. With this angle that's not really possible. Your examples were shaky because you failed to make the link between their lack of long-term success and the debut angle being the cause of that. I could easily argue from them examples that other factors rather than the angle were the reason for their failure so you have to make the causality link with your examples for them to work. Also in point 1 you say the angle is a failure but then kinda contradict it with "some have succeeded". That phrase just weakens your point needlessly so be careful with your language that you're always arguing positively for your stance. Points 2 and 3 were better as you started to provide reasoning. Your presentation of them wasn't the best though imo so the same point could have been argued better.
GoldenSilver - A lack of focus really hurt this. It didn't really feel like it answered the question because it kept going off on its own tangents rather than focusing on the actual question. Also you seemed to mistake "a title" for the WWE Title when it could be literally any title in WWE. Make sure you read the question properly so you don't make lazy errors like that which will really hurt your debate. It's hard to give really focused feedback on your content because most of it is off topic and doesn't answer the question properly. Structure wise it felt messy too, like you had one idea and then thought of something else and just started typing about that without making a connection from one point to another. Go read through the archive and read the top debates from guys like WOOLCOCK, ZOMBO, Andre and The Lady Killer and read their feedback too. Then do the same for debates at the bottom of cards and compare them to try and pick up on the good and bad debating traits to use yourself. Not a great debate but you're not the first and won't be the last to fluff your first debate up. Just try and learn from it.
Winner - The Japanese Buzzsaw
Aid180 The Japanese Buzzsaw
I think you have a solid blueprint here, but I feel I could have picked apart some of your arguments.
Your intro was okay. You explained your stance and why you won’t be using Paige as an example because it is too soon. Eh, I disagree, but that’s just personal opinion. At least you explained why you aren’t including the most recent example, so that’s good enough.
Now I want to get into your arguments. The past examples argument is the one I have the biggest questions. Is it the angle that failed, or the subsequent writing and booking of the character that failed? Ted DiBiase pulled a heel move, helped get Cody more over with the turn, and was introduced as a very sly and slimey heel. Then he was made cannon fodder in Legacy. Is it the angle that made him fodder or was it the subsequent booking later? I think the angle did everything it needed to introduce DiBiase Jr. to the audience. I don’t think I’ll go through all three wrestlers here, but that’s the question I have here. I don’t think that you really proved to me that the angle is a failure with the examples here.
Argument two I feel has some counters as well. There are two other examples of wrestlers that won a title on their debut night, Christian and Big Show. Would you say their careers peaked in 1998 and 1995? You do point out that the three guys you talked about kind of failed, but I think you really need to fight your counter-arguments here.
Alright, so I don’t think this was a strong debate. It’s not awful, but it could use some work. You do some things well though, so it’s not all bad. I think your layout was nice. I think it looks pretty good the way you laid out your points. Your writing was solid as well. However, I don’t think you used your word-count as much as you could. A quick copy-paste has mine showing you at about 711 words. I think you could have used that extra space to write a proper conclusion. Or maybe a counter to those who think it is a good angle.
A few holes in the arguments
Use of word-count
Have you seen Fight Club? If you haven’t, you should. It’s a pretty good movie. If you have, then you probably know about the rules of Fight Club. Well we have some unwritten rules of Debate Club. First rule of Debate Club: Always answer the question. This is the problem I think you had with the debate overall.The question was: “Debuting someone in an angle where they win a Title in their first match is a good angle. Agree or Disagree?” Instead you talked about someone winning the WWE World Heavyweight Championship specifically from Daniel Bryan after the title is vacated. What about the Divas title or midcard titles the the most recent examples of Paige, Santino, and Carlito? I think your conclusion pretty much shows you didn’t answer the question. I was almost okay with your choice up until then. It's not that you don't have a good point, but it's that the question isn't if WWE should give the WWE title to a guy from NXT or a guy that isn't currently on the roster. So unfortunately, you just strayed way too far from the question. That’s a real shame too as I feel your opponent dropped the ball a little and you could have won if you debated the right topic.
For what you wrote, I think you had a solid debate. It just wasn’t one for this topic. Because of that though, I simply cannot give you the victory. Sorry.
No PROS or CONS available due to not answering the question.
The Japanese Buzzsaw wins. I don’t think I need to explain why because of the obvious. Better luck next time though. If either of you want some advice for future debates, shoot me a PM or give Woolcock, Andre, or ZOMBO a shout. They have given me great advice in the past and I think they can help you guys with the little things you are missing if you want to improve and get better.
WINNER: The Japanese Buzzsaw
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Japanese Buzzsaw
Notorious vs MoveMent vs SPACE MOUNTAIN! Should MLB institute mandatory field dimensions for all of its stadiums to promote equality?
Spoiler for Debates:
Notorious Should the MLB institute mandatory field dimensions for all of its stadiums to promote equality? For me the answer is quite simply no. Having different field dimensions in every stadium is part of what makes baseball so much more unique than their other counterparts, there are historical and local reasons that prevent certain teams from being able to accommodate to those rules, having different dimensions in each park adds another aspect to the strategy of building a team in the MLB and also standardizing the dimensions of each MLB team would not necessarily make every field equal due to the amount of variables in baseball.
Here’s a fun fact. At one point in time there actually were a few MLB stadiums that had the same field dimensions. But fans and players universally hated them. Almost every stadium having different unique qualities about them is one of the things that makes the MLB special. There’s a lack of generic “cookie-cutter” fields. It’s not like the NBA or the NFL or the NHL where the inside of every single arena or stadium looks the exact same except for the difference in team colors and logos. Almost every MLB park has something different about them that makes them standout from the rest, and you really can’t say the same about the other major sport leagues that are just filled with teams with generic homecourts or homefields that all look basically identical.
Back in the early 20th century, cities and teams were limited in how big they could build their parks. There are also historical and local reasons as to why certain teams have different field dimensions. For example, when Fenway Park for the Boston Red Sox was originally built in the early 1910’s there were physical limitations that they had to work with while they were building the field. Fenway has a short left field due to the existence of Lansdowne Street. Based on a study done by Forbes, if the MLB were to standardize every MLB park and have every one be the same size there would be three options for a field like Fenway. They would have to close down that street, which has now become a historical landmark in the city and as a result there are numerous business that operate there that would be forced to close shop which may not be possible legally or financially; the city of Boston and the Red Sox would have to build an entirely new baseball stadium, which would also be unlikely for financial reasons; or lastly the rest of the teams in the league would have to add a “Green Monster” type wall like you see in the outfield of Fenway Park which once again, is also highly unlikely.
I think that ultimately the different dimensions in each fields adds to the strategy of building a team. There are 162 games in each season with 81 of them at a team’s home field. Certain ballparks are considered “hitter’s parks” and certain ballparks are considered “pitcher’s parks”. Based on ESPN’s MLB Park factors ratings there are 14 ballparks where the hitter has more of an advantage and there are 16 ballparks where the pitcher has more of an advantage. I think that ultimately promotes more strategy to building a team because every team has to look for different qualities in their players through drafts, trade or free agency. Coors Field which is the homefield of the Colorado Rockies has a field that gives the biggest advantage to hitters of any team in the league. Miller Park which is the homefield of the Milwaukee Brewers gives the biggest advantage to pitchers of any team in the league. Ultimately do you think they pursue players with the exact same strengths and weaknesses?
Lastly, even if the MLB did pass a rule to standardize the dimensions of every park’s field in the league, that would not necessarily guarantee true equality due to other variables that exist in a sport as complex as baseball. The vast majority of teams play in outdoor parks which means that weather can play a pretty big factor. If we truly want equality shouldn’t we also make every team play in an indoor park? If we truly wanted equality wouldn’t we also make every team have the same type of field surface? If we want true equality to each and every stadium in the MLB then there’s more to change than just field dimensions.
In conclusion, the MLB should not institute a rule standardizing the same field dimensions for every park because the differences in parks is part of what makes the MLB unique, there are historical and local reasons for why teams may have different dimensions, it can increase a team’s strategy and adding this rule would not effectively make every stadium equal.
I do not think there should be a mandatory field dimensions on Baseball fields beyond what is already in place. I think it would impractical for there to be league wide mandate on stadiums that made everything the same, and am also not sure it would effect the game for the better.
Most of the reason that baseball fields can be so irregular when it comes to how far the out the out field can go is because of practical and local reasons. In some places it would be hard to meet the standards, due to either land limitations or it being really expensive to build a new stadium.
For instance, if you were to standardize the MLB stadiums,places like Fenway park would have to make major changes. The reason that Fenway has a short left field is because of the street that is right beside it. Other stadiums would also have to erect something similar to the Green Giant in order to standardize themselves. In order to make left field larger, the Red Sox would have to buy out the street or build another stadium to play in, neither are really that practicable when Fenway is still a good place to play.
Also in some stadiums it would not really affect the play. if you were to standardize places like AT&T park and Coors field it would not make those places any different. Coors Field would still be a high scoring place to play due to the air being really thin up in Denver. the people at Coors Field have actually tried to make the games less high scoring by using humidifiers and lengthening the grass to slow down the ball. but that is counteracted by the thin air making the ball travel nine percent further than it would at sea level. And Standardizing AT&T would not make it more of a hitter park, because it would still be in San Francisco, a notoriously hard place to hit.If you wanted to standardize AT&T you might as well build a new stadium because it’s right on the ocean.
Also you had be moving thousands of seats in each ballpark to fit the new design or you would have to make a rule saying “ from now on, the stadiums have met these requirements” and grandfather in all the stadiums now. but is that really going to happen, grand fathering in 30 stadiums? Might as well just keep things they way they are.
I also feel like Home Field Advantage should be just that, an advantage. Take others sports for example, in the NFL, you often can have teams from one coast playing another from the other coast. Since teams usually fly out to the stadium the day before, its big advantage to the home team since their players are more rested than the team that has to deal with a long flight and jet lag. You will also have teams playing in whether they are not used to, like if a team from the California coast has to play in green bay or new England during winter, it can be an advantage for the home team.
Also during the coarse of a season, since you play everyone in your league about the same number of times at their place as you do at home, it may equal out. since while you have an advantage with your home field, you would be at a disadvantage somewhere else. Like if the Giants are playing the Rockies at Coors field a pitch the pitcher knows will lead to a ground ball out at AT&T may be a single up the middle at COORS. and vice versa.
So i do not think that baseball should have mandatory field and stadium dimensions. it would be impractical and expensive for every stadium to be uniform. and it would not affect the game much at all in certain stadiums. so to me its a bad idea to make every stadium the same.
Should MLB institute mandatory field dimensions for all of its stadiums to promote equality?
Well while I do believe this is a fair question to ask, before we can answer this we first have to ask each other will mandatory standard field dimensions for every stadium actually promote equality if it were to be done? How can we accurately determine what would be “fair” for a standard field dimension. Or perhaps, are the MLB’s vast unique forms of fields already creating an equal environment for professional baseball players everywhere?
Right from the start, in order for all fields to be standardized you’d have to take into account that some fields were built in order to accommodate the respective city. So you could either try to expand the field you already have or you could attempt to find a new location to create a new stadium. Both options would create a financial stress on any team that would have to do so especially if you consider what the immediate surrounding area for fields may be. Expanding an already built field would require acquisition of the space and whatever establishments may be in the current space in order to properly grow it.
Another thing you’d have to take into account in make a default field dimension is how it will affect the draft. Teams draft not only on the most talented but what players can most fit in the teams system and that system does include how well you can play at home to give yourself an advantage. The different type of fields allow for different types of players to be drafted and in its own way allows equality. Having an advantage at home is certainly common in any professional sport so not allowing the MLB to have its own home field advantage wouldn’t seem logical to enforce.
One of the biggest problems in making a standard field dimension is altitude. Look at Denver which is famous for being a high altitude place. Lower air pressure can allow the ball to travel further than most other Baseball fields. This could definitely be considered an advantage but not one that can be fixed do the problem being a natural occurrence but one thing to also point out is that if the fields were standardize this could either create a huge advantage or disadvantage depending on what side you’re on but regardless it wouldn’t be equal. The fence distances in Denver are where they are for a reason to prevent the possibility of high scoring games from the ease the ball travels in Denver air. If you change the dimensions then you change the game for possibly worst in Denver. If you keep them the same you then create a handicap for nearly every Baseball field in the MLB other than Denver. The solution? Keep them the same.
So while yes it is possible to enforce a standard field dimension for all MLB fields it will ultimately change the game and not for the better. With Baseball seemingly being left behind as the NBA becomes more popular and the NFL being so popular a decision like this would not be favorable. Unique fields give the fans an aesthetically pleasing and unique experience every time they go to a different field. Players are conditioned and drafted based off of their ability to adapt or can already strive in their home field. The MLB has already adapted to the unique stadiums, like I said earlier this is a great question because I don’t believe the answer was as common sense as it could come off but once you look at every positive and negative it becomes clear what the MLB should do and that’s keep the game as it is and find new ways to grow your business and continue to give fans a fresh experience. Not take away one of the elements that makes each team unique.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Intro: Solid intro that points out your stance and what you are going to talk about. This is all you need for a good start. My only suggestion for improvements here would be to try and find a way to gain the readers’ attention. Maybe something flashy, maybe a really interesting fact. Maybe even a cool quote. Other than that, you can’t really improve this method of intro as there is nothing wrong with it.
Body: I like the use of #FunFacts. Not just because it’s totally my thing, but because it draws attention to the fact. It works best with facts that are surprising or facts that the reader didn’t know, and I didn’t know this fact. Nice.
I really like how much you cover in this body of the debate here. You cover diversity, history of stadium limitations in location and design, how the uniqueness of each stadium works into the sport itself, and how changing the designs to a standard size would be very costly. Variety and multiple points can really help sell a debate. Great job.
For the little details, I enjoyed the examples of Fenway Park, Coors Field, and Miller Park. I like the statistic of how many hitter and pitcher parks there are. I can obviously look it up myself, but if I had to do that, it wouldn’t be a convincing debate. I like that you bring up all the things needed to make the parks equal in the last body paragraph. I had this issue with judging the D-League debate from the previous show. Why won’t it work? What needs to be done? These are questions that should be answered regardless of stance, and you did that.
Conclusion: Solid by-the-books conclusion here. You re-affirm your stance, you explain what you covered, and closed the debate. Solid overall effort. I guess if you are looking for something to improve in, maybe wow-factor. There is nothing wrong here from what I can see, but maybe try something special to hook readers. Look at the conclusion section of my feedback for SPACE MOUNTAIN!.
Good use of facts
Just Solid. Not much stands out. Obviously a minor con.
Intro: You make your stance known. That’s good enough. You explain what you will be talking about later as well. It’s good enough where you won’t get knocked for it. If you are looking for suggestions, try spicing it up. Maybe show some passion. Create a hook. Look at Seabs’ intro in his Shield from TDL XIV: Retribution. He had a nice creative intro that made you interested in reading it. http://www.wrestlingforum.com/debate...n-results.html
Body: You and Notorious used the same source here, so it makes it kind of interesting to see who pulled it off better with the same info. I think where you stand out here is with the Denver point and the thin air. You mention the need to change all the stadiums to standardize them, you mention the home field advantage, and mention specific examples like Fenway, Coors, and AT&T. My only issue here is that you mention travel and weather advantages and my question is that wouldn’t that be true if they did renovate the stadiums? I like that you tried to connect it with other sports, but I would have liked to see you connect more specific home field advantages of MLB like Notorious did. I did like the mention of a grounder at AT&T may be a single at Coors. I like specific examples. That and the nine percent further fact. I like fun facts like that.
A little complaint here would be grammar and spelling. I’m not a grammar-nazi or anything like that, and even I make mistakes and have typos, but I would try to limit them as much as you can. Capitalization of the first letter in each sentence, the letter “I”, or even spelling errors like “course of the season.” I don’t think it’s a difference maker, but it could be in a future debate or for other judges.
As for improvement suggestions, I’d think more specifics or details would help. Look at Debate A for example. You guys use the same source, but Debate A pulls out just a little more points from it. Also, try to find some sort of hook or selling point. Find something in the debate you really want to sell and sell it like you have to sell it to make money.
Conclusion: Your conclusion was just fine. You made sure to re-state your point and why. It helps to make conclusions a TL;DR. It makes sure that the reader remembers what you just said. A solid debate overall. Sadly, I don’t think it was a winner. I felt you needed a knockout punch so to speak. Something that would have put this debate over the others. Maybe something creative. Try having fun and going all out on your next attempt. Add some flair. Now that doesn’t mean to bold every word or things like that, but maybe try finding some quotes from the athletes the question involves and their opinion on it. That was probably hard to do with this topic, but I’m sure something can be done. But anyways, have fun with it and try to stand out. I think you can do it as you have a solid base.
Lack of standout material
Some spelling and grammar errors (minor)
Intro: I liked it. I thought it stood out from the other two because you took time to analyse the question and describe how you are going to answer it. I liked your take on it because it is true, does it actually create fairness. Nice. I think I know what side you are taking, but we’ll see if that becomes clearer later. I don’t think you need to outright state your stance all the time, but it needs to be clear what side you have taken by the end.
Body: I like that you bring up stadiums, financial stress, and accommodation right away. That’s a big detail for this question. Your next paragraph focuses on the baseball strategy aspect with how teams draft specific players. Love it. I like that you have focused on aspects both on the field and around it in management. I see in the next paragraph that you have mentioned Denver like the other two. I love how you point out that it cannot be fixed by simply changing the field size or wall size. It’s the specifics like this that help.
I can see with your words that you are leaning towards the do not change side. My only issue is that you do not outright state that you are against mandatory field sizes. I think you hinted enough though, but some judges don’t like that as much, so try to look out for that in future debates. Also, I would have loved some statistics if you had any. Any numbers or facts that you have that can help make your point is a must. Like for your team draft paragraph, I would have loved a specific player example. It’s not debate killing to not have one, but it helps to make it a debate winner in my opinion.
Conclusion: I liked it. I liked how you brought up uniqueness and trying to compete with the other sports. I like how you brought up both on the field and off the field reasons on why it works. I like how you point out that it is not as easy as simply changing the field size. I liked your last two sentences as well. I personally think you ended this on a high note. My only real con here is that there were no sources or extra info past your own knowledge. Not that you needed it by the looks of this debate. It still helps to pull in as many facts and information as possible.
Nice look at baseball on and off the field
The only real issue is that you didn’t have any sources. If anything, I think a big stat or quote from a source would help.
Boy, this is a hard one. All three were solid, but I can only pick one winner. I think I have to give the final edge to Notorious. I really liked all the information he packed into the debate. He managed to do a lot with the word count. SPACE MOUNTAIN! lacked the little standout material that would have given him the win. MoveMent's was really good, but I think you may have needed just one more specific example, a stat, or a quote to win. I feel kind of bad because you were so close. Notorious, look at my critique of SPACE MOUNTAIN! on intros for the improvement you need the most to keep winning. Good job overall guys.
All three debates were quite similar and nearly identical in some cases. The difference here was the organization and who did the best to stand out.
You all did a good job explaining why they can't create equal dimensions, but here is what separated each debate both good and bad.
Notorious- I really liked how you used the dimensions to put over how special and unique baseball is to other sports. Toward the end you did a good job explaining that dimensions aren't the only variable in making baseball playing fields equal. This portion really stood out because it showed that you had a deeper understanding of baseball and what truly makes playing fields equal.
SPACE MOUNTAIN!-This debate jumped around a little too much for me. I found myself reading this over a few times because it didn't feel consistent. It was like a roller coaster of one thing to the next. On top of that there was nothing that stood out after you explained in the first few paragraphs why they can't pass this rule. Everything else seemed just there.
MoveMent-Like SPACE MOUNTAIN!, you had a whole bunch of stuff that was just there after your initial explanation. The draft thing didn't make much sense to me and wasn't convincing at all.
The colossal run on sentence in the first paragraph really started this debate off poorly which left the rest of the debate to make up for that. Fortunately I think the rest of the debate was done much better. Most of the main points I was hoping to see were included with each one getting sufficient supporting statements. I liked how to touched on how the unique field dimensions sets MLB apart from the other major pro sports in North America. I think this is an important point because practicality and financial arguments can be countered or overcome, I don’t think this one can. I liked how you used a specific example in Fenway Park and how that park would be affected by a league wide mandate. My least favourite paragraph was your second last, about the other variables (weather), because I think it fell a little flat. This is kind of disappointing as well because this is the paragraph that really gets into the “equality” argument that the debate topic directly mentions. There are great points to be made there and I think you could have done a much better job with this one. Other than that, well done.
If I’m being honest this debate seemed rushed. There were a lot of spelling and grammatical errors from start to finish which left me going back to reread sentences to fill in the missing word or taking out the extra word. Made it really difficult to get into the debate. From there, you focused on a lot of the points I was looking for. I think you should have removed a couple of your arguments and instead focused on strengthening a smaller number of arguments with more supporting points. Quality over quantity is what I am getting at here. There was a lot of “also”. At one point 4 paragraphs started with an also. Cutting that down to 2 paragraphs, for 2 arguments, and strengthening those arguments would have been beneficial. I think you had a lot of potential here as you were getting deep into equality and how the elements affect the game on the field. Just needed to strength your execution.
Again, focused on most of the points I was looking for. I think this debate got off to a rather slow start but did pick up at the end. I didn’t really like the draft paragraph because A) I think it’s a stretch and B) I don’t think many people can relate to it. Players taken in the draft are (usually) 4 or 5 years away from playing in the majors, sometimes more. The baseball draft does not get much attention and certainly not to the point where guys are looked at for how they fit in with the team’s home field. It you focused more on just constructing a team in general, righties vs. lefties, pitchers and hitters, etc it would have been better. Your paragraph on altitude was good, I think there was more to talk about here as far as different elements and how the affect the game on the field. Again, this is the big counter for promoting equality and it fell a little flat.
These debates were all very similar. All touched on, for the most part, the same points and each one left me wanting a bit more. What this one came down to was execution and I think overall, Notorious did the best job executing. I think you have 3 solid argument paragraphs there, the 4th could have been better but the foundation was there for that one as well. SPACE MOUNTAIN! had a lot of potential but the fact that it seemed rushed really took a way from it, tbh. Maybe it wasn’t rushed, I have no idea, I was just disappointed that’s all. MoveMent finished strong but left me wanting more for the first couple paragraphs. With all that said, again, Notorious takes this one for me.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Notorious
Callisto vs Makaveli vs Hoopy Frood vs RAB Disney Princesses are bad role models. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
Chances are if you are a young child, a Millennial, or any woman born in the past 70 years, you embrace Disney's iconic princesses near and dear to your heart. It was a standard hobby to fantasize about being a damsel in distress looking for her chivalrous knight of a man, perhaps at one point a lifelong aspiration to live up to a similarly perfect life. Her personality resonated with you, she was relatable in a way that many animated characters could never dream to be. Feeding in the womb of her cultural relevance is her universal status as a moral compass. Indeed, millions of young girls emulate these fictional heroines, and I'm inclined to believe you're lying if you haven't known any child fascinated by Disney princesses. But just as she is the preferred catalyst for instilling basic moral values in children, she has also been accused of perpetuating archaic gender roles and social biases pertaining to female sexuality. Which begs the question: are Disney princesses bad role models? Disney characters can easily inspire positive and negative consequences, although I personally believe that they've brought in more harm than good.
Cinematic tropes in early Disney pictures, and even in contemporary Disney films, reflect the cultural norms of the period from which it was produced. Snow White and the Huntsmen featured its main protagonist being content with homemaking and validating her life with a husband. Likewise with Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella, which both offering a taste of patriarchal American society in the mid 20th century. They were passive and obedient, expected to be unconditionally subservient to her man. It would later clash with the ideals of feminism, and disseminate false messages of an easy life. By the 1980s, Disney had no choice but to evolve its princess concept. Thus came the inception of the "Renaissance" period, giving birth to a generation of headstrong, ambitious female characters. But even then, many still complied to gender roles and norms. The Little Mermaid's Ariel, for instance, sacrificed her entire livelihood to be in a relationship with the man of her dreams (albeit, her character was quite rebellious). Meanwhile, her husband sacrificed nothing. That, to me, undermines the idea of female independence, and reinforces the idea that women should shelve their desires for the ultimate goal of pleasing her partner.
Princess Merida, before and after her makover.
The most distinctive quality of a Disney princess is by far her physical appearance. They are always beautiful, naturally so. Long hair, doe-like eyes, and prominent bone structure illustrate her beauty; she inspires and captivates the public with her sexuality. And almost always, she has a rail-thin physique, accentuated by her perky breasts, narrow hips, long legs, and a tiny waist. Image is essential. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Disney has and will always create characters of a deity, a superhuman-like appeal; keywords "superhuman" and "deity", which are not at all attainable to most. We've all heard and seen harsh critiques pertaining to Disney's unrealistic, cartoony body image, countless journalists attempting to dissect the affects of body image on self-esteem in women. Some of that criticism is indeed justified, as in the case with Brave's Princess Merida. Merida, unlike previous Disney characters, sought to challenge social biases reinforced by a previous generation of Disney heroine. She was a red-headed gawk of a teenager, ripe with imperfection and not at all a superficial character, and she took control of her destiny. She was not a cartoon goddess, but was surprisingly regular, personality and otherwise. She was human-like. And when her character was beautified with an entirely new look, Disney came under immense scrutiny. Though the company's marketing team insisted that this makeover was "a special one-time effort to commemorate her coronation", in my opinion this was a failure to challenge and disintegrate female stereotypes and social protocol on feminine body image.
Disney's animated films have become a fixture of pop culture, and that is likely to stay that way in the foreseeable future. Likewise, future Disney princesses will continue to resonate with audiences around the world. But in the near future, I would like to see more female characters that challenge female stereotypes and break certain barriers that their predecessors failed to do.
To begin, let’s begin with a definition of what something ‘bad’ really means. There are many definitions of bad, from “not good in any manner or degree” to “having a wicked or evil character”. These are the two definitions of bad which I find to be most relevant when speaking about role models.
If we take a look at the disney princesses, we can see recurrent themes in all of them. Loyalty, determination, respect, humility and compassion are just a few that are prevalent amongst most of the disney princesses. Of all of these traits, none of them can be classified as bad. Any child who is watching a disney princess film and picks up on these traits and, as the princesses are role models, envelops them inside their own character will not be disadvantaged in later life as these are very admirable traits to have. Not only would I contest these traits contributing to the disney princesses being bad role models, but I would also push forward the argument that these traits make them a good role model. To steal a phrase from Seabs, they’re ‘good good good, not bad bad bad’.
One of the most common themes in disney princess movies is love. This means that the princesses are likely to be role models for the audience in situations where love is involved, as this is where the audience’s subconscious memory will kick in and remember what the princess did in a similar situation, right? In the disney princess movies, each disney princess displays compassion and loyalty in their relationships with significant others (males), which can only be a good thing. The princesses generally love one person and only one person, and chase that person until they get them, then stay with them no matter what. This is a good trait, as it shows young female (and indeed male) members of the audience that even if things get rough, if you stay with the love of your life you can make it out alright. This, again, is an admirable characteristic, and is another very good contender as a feature that makes disney princesses good role models as opposed to bad role models.
Let’s look at a very strong example of how the princesses are not only NOT bad role models, but are also good role models. Let’s look at Jasmine from Aladdin. In Aladdin, Jasmine forms an emotional bond with Aladdin, who is a street rat. Jasmine is a princess, born into royalty. As is customary in many Middle Eastern (this is an assumption given the setting of the film) royal families, she was set to go through with an arranged marriage with someone who she didn’t love. The plot ends with Jasmine and the street rat, Aladdin, being engaged. This could easily have gone a different way. If Jasmine had instead opted to go through with the arranged marriage in order to retain her wealth and high status, then, yes, perhaps she would be a bad role model, as this would have shown the audience a woman going after wealth instead of love. Thankfully, that did not happen. Instead, a story of a young princess was told, in which she opted for love with a lowly street rat as opposed to choosing an arranged marriage with someone of near equal standing. This is a good thing for the audience, as it shows them that love can overcome wealth and reputation, which is a life lesson which will subconsciously stay with them for many years to come.
Another example of disney princesses being good role models arises when we take a look at beauty and the beast. Belle is a normal young lady, who has a muscular man who many women seek coming after her, determined to wed her. Belle, however, rejects him repeatedly. The plot of the story is irrelevant to the moral of it, however, as in the end, Belle goes with the beast (a ghastly creature) over the muscular man who many other woman would have chosen. This teaches the audience that beauty is only skin deep, and it teaches them that looks are not everything, which is a very desirable trait for someone to have. This, once again, shows that the disney princesses are the opposite of a bad role model, and are in fact good role models.
It could be argued that the princesses have lives that are too perfect for them to truly become role models to normal little girls, but it’s not the background of the person coming into a situation that counts, but how they handle the situation and how they treat others around them, and the princesses always treat the right people with compassion and respect.
First, we must define what it means to be a role model before we can decide on if Disney princesses are bad role models. According to dictionary.com, a role model is “a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially by younger people.”1 The most interesting aspect of this definition is that the term role model was established in the late 1950’s, so within a decade or so of the first, real, Disney princess films, Snow White in 1937, Cinderella in 1951, and Sleeping Beauty in 1959. Looking at this, and other Disney films of the time, like Pinocchio, Dumbo, Peter Pan, and Alice in Wonderland, it can be fairly derived that Disney movies helped build the entire idea of role models, and it can be taken from that idea that Disney princesses, do not make bad role models. There is a Disney princess for almost every possible social, economic, and racial, standing, and each princess has a difference life lesson to teach.
There is an over arching them in Disney movies in which the female lead is instilled with hope for a better future and the ability to see people for what they really are. Take Cinderella for example. A poor girl abused by her family into slavery magically gets uplifted to a better station in life. Taken at face value, this seems like a terrible life lesson that magic will always save you, but Disney lessons are never at face value. It’s not about things magically getting better, it’s about making the best of your situation, and good things will happen to you. By an extension, Tiana from the Princess and the Frog shows that through hard work and striving for your goal, you can achieve anything in life. Jasmine from Aladdin did nothing to achieve her position in life, Belle from Beauty and the Beast was chased by every guy in town for her beauty, but they did not let their stations and looks get in the way of seeing people for who they really were and remained humble. There is no one person to look up to in the world; there are aspects of individuals to strive for instead.
Another over arching theme in more recent Disney movies like The Little Mermaid, Pocahontas, Mulan, are female leads that are head strong and refuse to back the status quo of society. Ariel refused to let her father’s fear of her own curiosity keep her from finally exploring the human world. Pocahontas refused to accept her society’s customs. Mulan refused to let her aged father go off to war. They all were free spirited, but learned life lessons from this stubbornness, without reigning in that spirit. Ariel had a disastrous encounter with the sea with Ursula; she learned to more respect for the wisdom in her father’s warnings. Pocahontas losses the man she was supposed to marry; she learned of the greed of man and the sorrow that comes from cultural misunderstandings. Mulan brought honor to the family when she was thought to have originally brought shame; she learned that no matter what the world told her, her sex was irrelevant. They all learned individual lessons, but also taught to think for yourself and to challenge what you feel is wrong in the world.
With the wide variety of princesses Disney has offered over the last seventy-five years, any child can find one just like them. But, the real value is not in admiring everything about a person, but the certain aspects that makes that person notable. The real problem with role models has always been that people take them too literally, and at face value. Children should be able to look at the world around them, and be able to derive inspiration from anything they see. Whether it is the strength they may find in a coursing river2, the rhythm of the beating drum3, or just their dreams4. In Disney, whether it is teaching such lessons as to always have hope, humility with what you have, or thinking for oneself, each character has traits that everyone could learn from. Does Disney gloss over everything a bit with dancing candelabra, sidekick raccoons, talking mice, and voodoo magic? Sure, but the real value is still learning those life lessons that everyone could use.
1 Role model definition
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
The Lady Killer
Callisto = This was OK. You provided some good examples of why you felt that the unachievable beauty and status of Disney Princesses made them bad role models, but failed to address any counterarguments by the opposite stance. I felt this debate lacked real depth. Your defense seemed a bit too narrow, as it really only focused on Disney princesses who are "perfect." What about Mulan? Pocahontas? They all dealt with hardships, so although their physique and appearance were what some may consider "perfect," their lives were hardly so. Also, you basically concede in your into that there are positives that come from Disney princesses, but fail to really address it later on, which leaves you wide open to counterarguments.
RAB = This was good, though a bit lopsided. I like the early definition of "bad." I would've also liked to have seen you define "role model" like Hoopy Frood did, as those terms are crucial to the topic, but it shouldn't hurt you much. You provide some great examples and offer strong support for your claim by use of particular movies and the key characters to tie into the good deeds/traits they possess. For the love of God, though, PLEASE capitalize Disney! That was driving me crazy. Anyway, solid debate, but you didn't really address the opposite side until your concluding paragraph, which isn't adequate. I would've liked to have seen a bit more on that and then come back to your stance and wrapping things up in a solid conclusion.
Hoopy Frood = I like the definition of "role model," but I felt RAB did everything else just a bit better. Some spelling issues throughout, so please proofread in the future. You also failed to address any relevant counters. Had you done so, you probably would've stolen this one, but since you suffered from the same pitfalls as your opponents, it's a moot point.
Winner = RAB
This was very well written and I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t quite do enough to win. You basically made two points, that Disney princesses reinforce subservience in females and that they project an unattainable standard of beauty that real females cannot achieve. Both very good points, but you only really back them up with opinion.
I thought your first point was slightly hampered by you stating that Disney films ‘reflect the cultural norms of the period from which it was produced’. While that is an accurate statement, if Disney films are merely a reflection than they can hardly be blamed for creating that cultural norm. Also, while you gave good examples of Disney reflecting this cultural norm, I would have liked to have seen some examples of how that reflection directly affected society.
The fact that Disney evolved as society changed reflects well on Disney as well imo. I mean, would a mouthy Princess Merida have sold cinema tickets and Disney-branded cigarettes or whatever else they made money from back in the 1950s? Maybe, who really knows. But it would definitely have made sounder financial sense to propagate the social norms rather than try and change them. And if they’re just reflecting real life culture, surely it’s the real people in real life culture who are the bad role models.
That’s just a couple of counter arguments I would have liked to have seen you deal with.
Now, there’s no doubt that you have a very bright future in TDL, but you need to get to the point a lot quicker in your intro. Flowery intros can work really well sometimes, but you used nearly 190 words before I knew what your stance was. Also, I note you came in just over 700 words total when you had an 800 limit. If you cut that intro in half then you would have had a spare 200+ words to add more arguments supporting your stance. That’s a hefty enough paragraph which could have swung the decision in your favour.
Seriously, if you had done that, you might have won.
RAB & Hoopy Frood
These two went toe to toe on stance so I’m judging them together.
On my first read through, I had RAB as a clear winner. I was impressed all the way through with RAB's. It was the best presented of the lot, extremely well written, and made several good points with decent analysis of why the examples backed up the stance. Hoopy Frood started off badly in my opinion; the whole Disney helping to define what a role-model is didn’t sit right with me. I would like to have seen more evidence of this other than a coincidence of timing. And there was really no basis whatsoever for the claim that even if Disney did help create role models, that this means they couldn’t possibly create bad ones.
After my second read-through, I was actually torn between RAB and Hoopy Frood. Despite the dodgy start, Hoopy Frood continued picking up momentum all the way through and I really liked the multiple examples of Disney films with positive role models. There are definite periods of Hoopy Frood’s debate which were superior.
To make the decision, I had a third read-through and this time I did it with my cunt hat on.
Hoopy Frood, that intro was fucking rubbish. I can’t award you the win solely because of the complete and utter tosh you tried to pass off as fact. It’s a shame, because an intro grounded in something even remotely resembling reality might well have swung the decision your way. But you made big claims with no real substance to them, whereas RAB was solid and consistent throughout.
So RAB is the winner, but this was a close match. As I said, Hoopy Frood could have won with a slightly different intro, while Callisto could have stolen the show easily had he established the stance a lot sooner and included something a little more substantial than what basically amounted to his opinion.
Intro: Solid intro here. I liked the way you brought up little girls wanting to be princesses. If anything, the intro made me want to read why you think they are bad role models and that is exactly what an intro should do. If I were to give any suggestions for improvements, maybe see if you can shorten it a bit. The only reason I suggest that is because you need every word possible for your arguments in the body, and sometimes a wordy intro can take away an argument or two. Other than that, solid intro.
Body: I think your strongest argument here is the Merida transformation argument. You even provide a picture for those unaware of this change (I remember it from when the story came out). My only complaint here is that I think you should have spent more time on this. It really could have been your knockout blow and debate winning point. The reasoning here is because it was so recent. We can say Disney gets away with the classic princess look of its characters because they were designed so long ago, but Brave came out recently, and Disney changing her to look like the others shows they still don’t understand the body image argument. You do spend a decent amount of space on the body and deity look, but I think you missed the opportunity to really drive the point home. It is a good argument overall though, so don’t be down on this at all.
Your other argument here is the cultural norms and the way women are presented in the movies. I think you might have the wrong Snow White movie here though. I think Snow White and the Huntsmen is the Kristen Stewart movie and you were talking about Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (I haven’t seen the Stewart movie though, so I could be wrong). I’ll be honest here, I’m not feeling your arguments for Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty being subservient to her man. I guess because both were rescued from their predicament by a prince. I guess I don’t remember much about Sleeping Beauty other than that she was placed under a spell where she would only awake from eternal slumber by the kiss from a prince. I don’t remember if anything happened after she was saved by him, but it seems like she was rescued by a true love. I think you probably would have been better off replacing her with another princess or expanding your Snow White example. The problem with this topic is that there are so many princesses that it is hard to cover all of them, so I understand the struggle.
Conclusion: It’s okay. I think you covered all you needed here, but I’m not feeling it for some reason. I think your side you’ve chosen can be a winning side, but I don’t know if you had any part that convinced me that this was the winner. From previous winners I’ve read, most of them had a point that I could point out and say, “this is why you won.” The knockout blow. I think you were on the right track with Merida but it was just missing that final pitch. Definitely try and find that last selling point on your future debates. Overall, you have everything here for a winner, but it’s just lacking one or two things. If you can find that, you can make a name for yourself in the division.
The Merida body image point
Weaker first argument
Lack of “knockout blow”
Intro: Short and simple. I may have been confused by the double negative at first though. Anyways, I found you defining the word “bad” to be interesting. I think defining what a role model is would have been more effective, but I appreciated reading something I didn’t expect. I do hope your two definitions of bad make it into your main arguments later on.
Body: Your first point about traits is good. I think the best part of it is how you mention that any child picking up any of these traits would be wonderful. We want to connect it to the children as that what the question is asking when referring to role models. I thought your love argument was solid as well. My only complaint, albeit minor, is that it almost sounds stalkerish with the chasing a male until he loves you idea. I do like how you ended it saying that even if it gets rough, you keep pushing on. So far a solid body.
I think the Jasmine example is fantastic here. I like specific examples as it really helps to sell the argument, and this one about a high society princess falling in love with a street level peasant is really helpful towards your love argument. I think you perfectly sell this by showing what the alternative route could have been. This may be your knockout blow here. Your debate winning point. You then keep this up by using a second example, Belle. You bring up the beauty is skin deep argument and finish it off with how these princesses are not bad role models at all.
Conclusion: I liked it. It is only one sentence, but it covers everything you needed. My suggestions column is a little low right now because I am struggling to find things you need to improve on. I really think you used your words well. I guess try to beware of double negatives like not a bad role model and stuff like that. It may get a tad confusing for readers. I guess you could also try working in a few counter-arguments. What would you say to those that argue about Disney making the princesses so perfect looking? I think you were on the right track with the beauty is skin deep point, but it might have been missing that last connection. Also, with so many movies, songs, and quotes from these Disney movies, it would have been nice if you utilized any of those. Sentence enhancers as I call them. They provide just the little spark and style that separates a debate from a school essay. I think adding a quote from one of the movies adding to your point would have been great. Other than that, I don’t have any more suggestions. Good job.
Good use of words
Great specific examples
No quotes or use of the Disney media
Intro: Good intro. I liked that you defined what a role model is and how you will look at it. You cite it too, which is a nice touch. Sources sell points IMO. I like how you make your stance clear and mention how there is a princess for every situation. Good job.
Body: Let’s get a count here. You reference not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but 7 princesses in your body here with Cinderella, Tiana, Jasmine, Belle, Ariel, Mulan, and Pocahontas. That’s fantastic. You even go into a little detail with Cinderella in the first paragraph. I liked how you covered all of them as much as you could and briefly explained why they instill hope and see people for who they are. I think you really sell your princess for every situation point when you mention all of these princesses. My only complaint here is that my word counter has you at about 722 words, so I feel you could have expanded some of your examples a little more. You really cover a lot of examples though. Your last sentence, “They all learned individual lessons, but also taught to think for yourself and to challenge what you feel is wrong in the world.” is what really puts it all together. You needed to connect all of your examples to one point, and I think you did here. I’m not entirely sold on the debate yet though, but it seems like you have a longer conclusion than the others, so we’ll see if it makes the difference.
Conclusion: I see you bring up variety again. That’s a good theme to follow for your debate. I love how you tie in the songs sung in the films with the theme of role models and the world around them. The biggest thing about Disney movies is the music, and you brought it up in references. I think your conclusion is pretty good. You touch up everything and add a few references. My suggestions for future improvements, try adding those into your arguments sooner instead of rapidly at the end. It would have helped to have strengthened your arguments. Also, do try to use as many words as you can. I’ve seen some judges pick a winner because of word count and that is something you want to avoid. I guess I can’t think of anything else. Do look at other debates and what the other judges say to get an idea of what to do in future debates and creating a style that is you.
7 different princesses covered
Overall connected theme of variety
Not using all of your words
This is a close one. I liked how Hoopy Frood covered so many princesses, but I liked how RAB went into detail on the examples provided. I think I have to give it to RAB here. The specific examples of Belle and Jasmine are what gives it the win. Hoopy Frood would have won if he would have gone into slightly more detail on one of his princess examples. That or mixed the song quotes in earlier. It was close for me, but good job overall guys.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - RAB
CGS vs STEVIE SWAG Was Ultimate Warrior a better wrestler than Dean Malenko?
Spoiler for Debates:
Was Ultimate Warrior a better wrestler than Dean Malenko?
The man of 1000 holds, easily one of the best technical wrestlers to ever grace the world of wrestling. The man has been able to have great matches with the likes of likes of Eddie Guerrero, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit… and even Scotty too hotty, The guy put on a clinic in the ring every time he stepped into it and has earned the right to be called one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time….but is he a better “wrestler” than the Ultimate warrior? Not one bit
Before going any further, the question has to be asked. What is a great wrestler made up of? It’s down to personal preference really. Some want technical skills others want brilliant larger than life characters. Really and truly every fan out there will have something that attracts them into the world of professional wrestling. All in all though the BEST wrestlers will be able to get the fans invested in him no matter what and on a grand scale history has taught us that fans are always swayed more with by a character and a charismatic persona than pure in ring skill. After all two of the biggest boom periods in wrestling history in the Golden era and the Attitude era were defined by characters and featured well…consistently poor standards of pure technical wrestling.
Simply put a lack of technical ability can be overcome by being as charismatic and entertaining as fuck whereas a lack of personality can’t make up for all the wrestling ability in the world and thus hinders your overall appeal to a wide range of fans. Which in turn can make you less of a complete “wrestler”. This is where Malenko falls off.
Look at guys like Lance Storm & William Regal for example. Two guys who were also great “wrestlers”…but if they were to release a boxset compilation of their greatest matches tomorrow I doubt you will see flocks of wrestling fans rushing to buy it. And why is this you ask? Simply because they lacked a lot of fan connection. Similarly Malenko could perform a brilliant match with damn near anyone but when it came to appealing to a wide range of fans his appeal just wasn’t there.
Now look at the Warrior. Here you have a guy who to put it nicely….sucked balls in the ring. But what he lacked in technical ability he made up for by being so damn entertaining and by giving the fans huge moments to remember forever. Just look at his match with Hogan at Wrestlemania VI. You have a match that lacked any real high profile technical ability, that lacked any real athletic skill, just lacked everything that many would consider to be good in ring work…and yet to this day it’s considered one of the best Wrestlemania matches ever and one of Warrior’s best career matches ever and why is this? Because what he lacked in ring ability he made up for in charisma and personality. Even on the mic the guy’s promos were made up of his either sounding like a crazy ass mofo high on something…or just him saying the first thing that came into his mind…and yet the fans, STILL remember and watch them two decades on.
Hell, look at guys like Hogan and Goldberg. Like Warrior on a basic amateur level both guys would have been considered awful “wrestlers”. Both had a pretty limited movesets, both relied heavily on their presence and characters to get them over….and yet both guys are considered to be some of the biggest “wrestlers” to ever step foot in the industry. Hell Hogan himself has the claim to being the greatest wrestler ever. Love it or hate it presence, charisma and personality is HUGE. Even to the point where fans who simply value ring work over personality will still be able to look at a guy like Warrior or Hogan and still rate some of their matches quite highly simply due to the atmosphere and emotion they can draw from the fans.
Fact is charisma and persona is not the be all and end all of what makes a great wrestler. However it is the BEST measure to use since fan interaction and emotion is the minimum a great wrestler should be able to achieve. While Malenko was a good technician in the ring he lacked that deep personality to have the fans truly invested in him for decades. He lacked the charisma and appeal to have the fans go apeshit over the simplest of and he lacked the ability to take a 2* quality match and make it a 3*+ quality match based solely on his presence. For those reasons the Ultimate warrior is indeed a better wrestler than the man of 1000 holds Dean Malenko.
Originally Posted by VladimirPutinEnthusiast
I'd say Malenko because the question says 'wrestler'
While one might consider the technically sound guys as wrestlers and the character driven guys more as 'sports entertainers', its no secret that pro-wrestling has been about all the theaterics just as much as it has been about in-ring skills long before Vince and company even coined the term 'sports-entertainers', so the 'sports entertainers' were also called 'wrestlers' at one point. At the end of the day, 'sports entertainment' and all, they're just buzzwords (hi andre). Besides, nowhere does the question say that it limits to in-ring skills. So with that said, I'm inclined to go with Ultimate Warrior.
Originally Posted by WifeBeatingMalenkoFanWho'sUsernameICan'tRecall
But Malenko very great in ring brother
Malenko was way ahead of Warrior in terms of mat skills, but like Foley once said, if wrestling was all about wrestling talent, then Taka Michinoku would've been WWE Champion. That's not how wrestling works, there's more to wrestling than just 'wrestling'.
People often talk about how Malenko was good in the ring, but honestly, if I were to tell you to make a list of top in-ring workers, I'm sure he won't make it in there. I even did a little survey with the WrestlingForum Universe~! and here's what they had to say:
Spoiler for survey:
All the comments, and especially the ones in red boxes are right on the money. I'm not taking anything away from him, yes, he did have the technique, but as far as the other departments go, like constructing a match in an entertaining way, working the audience, the ring psychology as they say - he really wasn't that special.
Like I said, there's more to wrestling than just 'wrestling', and rarely do you see a guy succeed big-time solely because of mat skills. The point behind the survey was to show that the only thing Malenko's known for, his wrestling, he wasn't even the best at it. And having the personality of a dry sponge and being as bad on the microphone as I am with uppercard debates didn't help either. So yeah, I don't see why he would even make a better wrestler than someone like Shelton Benjamin, let alone Warrior.
Originally Posted by HELLWIGisInHELL!
youre talking ring skills what bout warrior lol
Well firstly, Warrior was always supposed to be more of a Hogan-like superhero-ish wrestler than the guy who gets out there and puts on the most technically sound matches, so him not being all that good in the ring didn't really hurt him, as his other attributes made up for it. While Malenko had a thousand moves, Warrior had everything Malenko did not - look, presence, intensity and charisma. And with that, Warrior could do everything Malenko could not.
He just had 'it'. The 'warrior spirit', as he called it. You could feel it as the crowd would go nuts as he ran down the isle and shook the ropes with all he had, to an epic theme I might add. He just had that presence about him, that he would instantly connect with the fans. And while clearly not being as gifted in the ring as Malenko, he could still put on a match which could captivate the audience in more ways than the former could.
Speaking of captivating, lets talk about Warrior's promos. No matter how long he went on without making any sense, talking about rocket fuel and shit, he could still hold your attention. You could also say that it was one of those cases where it was so bad, that it was good. But nonetheless, it seemed to work, and that's what matters. So much so that the moment the word spread about Warrior and the 'E getting back on good terms last year, the first thing that people were looking forward to was listening to him give his speech at the Hall Of Fame, long before they even actually announced his induction.
Okay, now let me bury the fuck out Malenko in closing, just like this debate will bury the fuck out of CGS's.
While Warrior had this unique look with all the bright stuff in addition to his natural top-guy personality, Malenko was basically generic cruiserweight #2338. Warrior oozed charisma, while the other one was as charismatic as a piece of wood. Warrior could deliver those intense, one of a kind promos, while the only memorable promo involving Malenko was actually Jericho's, where he took the piss at Malenko. The only thing Malenko was better at than Warrior was at working the mat, yet Warrior could engage with the fans in a much better way while in the ring than Malenko could.
Basically, Warrior pretty much owned Malenko in every way, just like I own CGS everytime we face. Thank you.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
CGS - This was good but it felt like it was missing that one thing to tip it over into a really good debate. Something that really caught my attention and made your argument memorable. What you write it good and pretty fool-proof but I felt it was missing some oomph to it. Something other than just the basic point of personality > holds. I like your intro. Gives Malenko a ton of props before saying DESPITE all that Warrior was better. Makes Warrior look better when you give Malenko some praise and still shoot him down as inferior compared to STEVIE who just went for burying Malenko all out. Really good job getting what makes a great wrestler in there early on as it's essentially what the entire debate rides on. What actually makes a great wrestler for one to be better at it than another. I agree with your definition btw but I felt you were missing a part about WHY personality > skill. If you had added in a point about how the goal of any business including wrestling is to generate money and Warrior did that better than Malenko ever could then this would have been great. That goes for both debates. Because really making money is the end goal and imo that's what should have been the crux of this debate. Yes personality > skill is true but why? How does that relate to the end objective? Don't fully agree on your Regal comparison but I don't disagree enough to go off on it. If you included the money drawing element to what makes a great wrestler and then also linked your Hogan/Goldberg comparisons then this debate would have been..... money. Sorry . But yeah that's was missing here. Other than that good job with a pretty basic one dimensional answer.
STEVIE SWAG - If this was CGS' debate then awesome. Especially on the hack job with them screenshots. Read what I put in CGS' feedback because the same applies here and would have won either of you this debate. Relate it all back to the end goal of any wrestler. To make money. When you said you had a survey I expected a link to a thread with a big ass poll but instead you just had 2 opinions which isn't generalisable (new word ftw) in any way. Honestly you're better off just using your own words unless you're sourcing some massive poll with hundreds of respondents. It's your debate after all not SI's or ZOMBO's. The " Like I said, there's more to wrestling than just 'wrestling'" paragraph felt off focus. Didn't really get the Benjamin comparison because aren't him and Malenko basically in the same boat. " And having the personality of a dry sponge and being as bad on the microphone as I am with uppercard debates didn't help either." slayed me though. Analysis of what made Warrior great was pretty well done. Then you go " Okay, now let me bury the fuck out Malenko in closing, just like this debate will bury the fuck out of CGS's." and I scrunch my eyes because I'm like what the fuck is the point in this line. It feels like you're not willing to admit that Malenko had any upside which weakens your argument imo unlike CGS who gave him credit and then said DESPITE all this. Also " just like this debate will bury the fuck out of CGS's." is amusing to anyone who understands the English language.
Both debates missed nailing the topic on its head but CGS' was a tad more focused which gets him the win here.
Winner - CGS
This was ok, with some good arguments made. I'd say immediately the second paragraph could have been condensed a fair bit. Kudos on defining the question to set about your answer, but I don't think it required the extent of the word count as you utilised. The Malenko dismissal was concise but gets across your argument well. I would have liked though for you to contrast this with Warrior at the same time though, to really get across how Malenko is serviceable to a company but someone like Warrior could be integral to a company. That's something neither of you thought of and something that stood out to me as the crux of the issue. Malenko is fine and blessed with technique, but he's hardly the only wrestler blessed with those attributes. Someone like Warrior, is blessed with personal characteristics that are much harder to find in numerous people, and that's where the difference lies. The Warrior arguments were fine, but still I felt could have been expanded on and given more consideration. I felt like the first Warrior paragraph was largely repetitive, and feel you could have focused more on his persona and the impact it had on children and the audience as a whole. You're talking about 'what he lacked in in-ring ability he made up for in personality and charisma' but I feel you need to then be acknowledging just how impactful his charisma was. Identify his followers and how over he was in that time-frame, just something that contextualises and gets across his popularity beyond merely describing his attributes.
I immediately thought your intro was better and covered your breakdown of the question more succinctly than your opponent. The 'survey' was interesting, and even though I was part of said survey and agree with the comments, it's still a tiny representation of the forum, especially as Malenko from my past observation has a fairly popular following that sees his name thrown out in general ringwork related threads. I also would have liked to see you expand and critique him more through your own words, rather than through others. The Warrior arguments are better, as you compare and contrast Warrior's attributes against Malenko's to breakdown their respective strengths and the heights Warrior could achieve that Malenko possibly couldn't. The next argument is ok, but I feel could have been reworded to have more impact. You argue Warrior had the ability to connect more with the audience, but for me you need to expand on this and provide examples. Find instances of the responses he generated, something to add credence to your argument. Similarly in your next argument, you focus on the announcement of Warrior going into the HOF, yet it's here where I would expect you to take your argument relating to Warrior's impact as evidence of how impactful and memorable Warrior was and again contrast this with Malenko's niche and unimpactful career on the general masses. You're saying the right things but I don't feel like you're connecting them to the extent you could to strengthen your argument. Warrior is more charismatic and capable of invoking a response from an audience...but why is this crucial? Why does this make him better? You're not answering these latter questions, so much as just relying on Warrior's charisma >>> Malenko's charisma as your argument. You need to be using that basic argument and seguing it into a more evaluative and analytically driven argument which enhances Warrior's credibility by using it to show how Warrior made an impact on the audience, how he sold storylines and programs because the fans paid attention and become hooked by his character etc. The conclusion isn't bad, but again it reads to me like a fan summarisation of their respective attributes, but you've not taken that extra step to tell me why Warrior's enhanced charisma makes him better. There's pieces of a very good debate here, but I feel the brunt of it is sadly failing to go to that next level and taking basic starting arguments and then making them into more evaluative arguments.
It's close, because I feel both debates suffered a bit in terms of establishing promising starting arguments, but struggling to connect said starting argument and turning it into something of greater strength and credence. Neither of you really went into detail on how Warrior's charisma meant his character hooked the audience, which generated more interest in his storylines, which made he and his opponents more prominent, which made him a certifiable money maker for Vince, and which ensured he left an impact and legacy that very few can match. In comparison, someone like Malenko is serviceable to a company, but was hardly the best in-ring worker and in his era was easily outclassed in the ring-work department by a number of his peers.
Both debates really failed in my opinion to go from 'good' to very good and neither particularly made arguments that I felt blew away the other. That being said, after a careful re-read I'm going with CGS, only because I feel their arguments for Warrior were a bit tighter and they considered his impact and historical legacy that fans remember, which I feel was a suitable way to distinguish Warrior and Malenko.
Winner - CGS
BkB Hulk CGS:
You lacked force in the opening of your debate. Firstly, you’ve told us Malenko is one of the greatest technical WRESTLERS (WRESTLER is the key word here, thus you’ve put him on a pedestal instantly. By using the term ‘technical wrestler’, you’ve kind of ascertained that being a wrestler is what happens in the ring.
You’ve also said that the question is opinion based and that different people will say different things. No. You’re convincing me. Don’t be so soft and just say what you think it is so you can convince me. Don’t say that there’s others of another opinion and that could be right too. You’ve been very wishy washy about what makes a good wrestler, while your opponent was clear.
On the upside, you did use an example to illustrate how Warrior’s charisma made his matches exciting through the Hogan example. Storm and Regal also provide good markers for why Malenko wasn’t great. An example of his mic work to illustrate how widely they’re talked about and known would have really hammered your point home, and I feel like you could have included that mic work was included in your overall assessment of a wrestler earlier when setting out what made a wrestler. When opening up by talking about technical skills, it leaves the reader to believe you’re assessing based on what happens in the ring.
The conclusion was very Malenko centric, and could have talked about Warrior a lot more. You just said Malenko couldn’t do things without contrasting them. “Deep personality” certainly doesn’t contrast them if you were going for that even without mentioning Warrior too. A bit of a soft ending to the debate, which is a bit of a problem considering the opening was similar.
First off, my contributions weren’t highlighted. Shocking oversight there. :SPARKER
You set out your debate instantly by asserting just what wrestler meant to you. It’s a word that can be used in a few different contexts, so setting the parameters is vital to the debate.
Not so sure about the quotes. Honestly, it reads like you’re having people actually do the debate for you. You’ve not really formed these ideas, but rather had someone else explain something for you (while I discussed the scene where Moe is teaching an adult dance class with someone).
The other problem I have is that you haven’t REALLY torn Malenko apart. You haven’t provided examples that illustrate what you’re saying. SI did, and Kiz made a valid point about DA, but you’ve only provided a Jericho promo example. It would be an improvement if you had provided examples to back up your Warrior or Malenko claims.
The arguments for Warrior followed the basis you set early though, and this was solid. You can’t really refute what you’ve said about either of Warrior or Malenko, but I feel like you only just scratched the surface.
STEVIE SWAG gets my vote, having done a better job of outlining what makes a good wrestler that set up the debate better.
Winner via Split Decision - CGS
Red Viper vs RetepAdam. Which 2014 NFL Draft prospect will be the best after their rookie contracts are complete?
Spoiler for Debates:
Football is a young man’s game. A 2010 study conducted by Jason Lisk indicated that at any given time, roughly 62% of active players in the National Football League are in their first five years in the league. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which took effect in 2012, all rookie contracts are capped at a uniform length of 4 years (with a fifth-year option for first-round picks).
This means that only about one-third of active NFL players at any given time are players whose careers extended beyond the duration of their first contract. In a league where the majority of production comes from entry-level players, it is paramount for teams to identify players who can contribute early and continue to prove valuable well into their second and third contracts.
The difficulty in assessing the best prospects in any given draft is that the NFL, in particular, is a league in which there is a fairly significant disparity between the ability for players at different positions to impact the game. For instance, it is very well possible that the player in the 2014 Draft who emerges as the absolute best player at his position is Pat O’Donnell. However, O’Donnell is a punter, and — as reflected in his draft position (191st overall) — even the best punters are nowhere near as valuable as above-average contributors at most other positions.
Additionally, since the scope of our examination is which player will be best at the end of his rookie contract, it is also important to target players at positions for which the NFL’s age/experience curve typically predicts early success.
In other words, we are not trying to identify the player who is most likely to have the best overall career but instead, we are looking for the player who is likely to emerge as most valuable in 2018.
Earlier this week, FiveThirtyEight’s Neil Paine published a study analyzing the draft cost (volume and value of draft picks) teams were spending on players at each position, using the average number of players from each position typically deployed on each snap (1 QB, 5 OL, 1.3 RBs, etc.) as a weight to determine an “index” of how NFL teams valued each position. The results were as follows:
Spoiler for Appendix A:
As we can see, quarterback was far and away the highest-valued position, followed by defensive line and running back. While Paine’s index did not differentiate between pass rushers (defensive ends) and interior linemen (defensive tackles), the large gap between QBs and RBs would suggest that DEs, who are tasked with pressuring the quarterback, are rated significantly higher than RBs, while DTs, whose typical responsibility is stopping the run, likely lag slightly behind RBs in projected value.
So, it would appear that the top QBs have the greatest likelihood of generating value for their teams than any other position. However, quarterback is also the position for which the greatest age/experience curve exists. Football is still in the early stages of an analytics movement, so there are few reliable metrics by which performance can be judged. However, using All-Pro selections in the past 10 years as a barometer for success, we find that quarterbacks typically take the longest of any position to reach the highest level:
Thus, since very few quarterbacks reach the top threshold early on in their career, we can conclude that the best player from this draft class in 2018 is unlikely to be a quarterback.
Shifting focus to the next positions on deck, we see that both DEs and RBs have produced a significant percentage of young All-Pro players. The former is more valuable on the field, but the latter finds early success more frequently.
Ceding to the experts in the arena of scouting, Clowney is far more likely to emerge as an elite player than Hyde, and taking positional value and the age/experience curve into account, he projects to rank exactly the same in 4-5 years as he does now: #1.
Sometimes a player’s ability, athleticism, and overall potential are all so apparent that you simply cannot miss out on that player. This was true for Lebron, Manning, Luck, Crosby, and so many other great players. And this is also true for the first overall pick, Jadeveon Clowney, a title that he shares with the players listed before. Even with all the red flags-his lack of production in the 2013 season; his work ethic; and his desire to be a great player- the Texans still decided to pick him. Why? Because he fits, much like Mario Williams fit in 2006, and pairing him with Watt has potential to create the most devastating pass rush in the league. And after 5 years in the league, that is certainly where they’ll be after Clowney was placed in the perfect defensive system filled with other defensive superstars.
What stands out most about Clowney, and what makes him by far the best prospect out of everyone in this draft class, is his imposing physical makeup and athleticism. At 6’5, 250 pounds of muscle and a 40 yard dash time of 4.53 seconds Clowney has all the tools, literally, to be one of the most dominant players in the league. This is obviously no secret and glimpse of his impressive talent were on display during his college career. The tackle that made him famous demonstrates all of this:
[img] http://media.heavy.com/media/2014/02...lowney-hit.gif [/img]
That right there is pure speed and power. Not only did Clowney blow past the line before the ball was even handed off, he tackled the running back so hard his helmet went flying off and he fumbled the ball. That is the type of monster play that put Clowney at the top of everyone’s draft board…2 years ago. What he’ll be capable of in 5 years, after he’s able to fully develop his body and utilize it to its best ability, is scary.
How can I be so sure that Clowney will find success in the league and live up to his potential? The situation he was lucky enough to fall in. At the moment there is no room for Clowney on the defensive line, where he played in college, but only because of all the talent that’s already there. That includes two of the best defensive players in the league in JJ Watt and Cushing, who is a former rookie of the year player. That amount of talent will not only leave up PLENTY of room for the rookie defender to make plays, but also provide him all sorts of mentors to help him progress into a great player.
JJ Watt also happens to be a former first round pick by the Texans and has already amassed 37.5 sacks in 48 games while already owning a defensive player of the year award after 3 short years. Then there is the last former first overall pick the Texans chose, Mario Williams, who also is considered a dominant pass-rusher in the league. A reputation he established with the Texans and has had difficulty maintaining after leaving to the Bills. That shows that it isn’t just the players making the Texans great, but the schemes and defensive sets they employ. This is a team that managed to go 12-4 two years ago on their defensive efforts alone, which wasn’t possible last year due to injuries to Cushing and Watt.
Not only that, but Clowney’s competition isn’t exactly going to be hard to top. The best players out of draft classes typically tend to be QBs, but this year’s QB class was considered extremely weak. Only Bortles was drafted in the top 5…just to sit on the bench with a clipboard for all of next season. And although the class was loaded with quality linemen and receivers, those players aren’t exactly lauded as top players of the league outside of Calvin Johnson, who is on his way to being an all-time great. The other top defenders, such as Mack, Barr, Gilbert, have all shown to be great in college, but don’t possess that long term potential that Clowney has nor his impressive athleticism and build. They’re considered more NFL ready now, but in 5 years they’ll all be NFL ready and this will be a one man race featuring Clowney.
Make no mistake, Clowney was a pick for the future. The Texans didn’t need him, they had plenty of other needs being the worst team in the league last year, and yet still chose him because he is simply a can’t miss talent. The work ethic, the drive, and the success will all come and 5 years is more than enough time for him to not only be the best player out of this draft class, but one of the best defenders in the entire NFL.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I liked the presentation of this debate. While I think you were better off picking your choice at the start instead of the end, you did a fanastic job breaking down the metrics and fact based reasoning behind your choice. You were highly convincing while shutting down potential counter argument based on your factual assessment which was well done. I also liked how versetile the debate was. You had facts in several areas like rookie contracts, draft position breakdown, and peak time in each position.
A different approach here. You focused on more of the football side of things. You examined the strengths and weaknesses of Clowney compared to others in his position to show his superiority and long term potential.
Please remember that proper spacing and format is highly important in debates and it can ruin you with judges.
I would have liked to seen you dig deeper into the stats and facts like RetepAdam. did to back up your argument.
Overall RetepAdam.'s was just more convincing as he had a better presentation for his argument.
Now I know a lot of judges like you to state who your choice is at the beginning of the debate, but I personally love the reverse pyramid approach with the choice at the end. It’s a judge by judge thing, but I figured I’d let you know. With that said, we’ll get into your debate.
I liked your opening few paragraphs. I thought they were informative enough that people that don’t know anything about the NFL can understand it. Even better, you provided sources for them. It makes this debate seem very professional is a nice touch. The language you used in this paragraphs were wonderful and it drew me in as a reader to keep reading. The only downside I can see to this is that the extra imagery might cause some arguments to be lost in the 800 word space we have to debate. That said, these first few paragraphs before Appendix A are great. I really like how you defined how you interpreted the question and how you will answer it. The additional info about O’Donnell was good too. It helps explain that this isn’t completely about the best at his position, but value. You then reconfirm the importance of value in the bolded section. Overall, I enjoyed this whole section.
The next section here with the appendices is really good too. Here you build up that QB’s, RB’s, and DE’s are the most valuable pieces and then you tie it in to the question stating that DE’s and RB’s are some of the quickest to develop and that QB’s are the slowest, thus eliminating them. But you know this already. Honestly, I can’t pick anything apart here. I think you pretty much explained why QB’s are unlikely to be the best player after their rookie contract as they still may need a little more time to develop. You provided sources and stats to back this up. Awesome.
So the final section here includes the final two positions, RB and DE. You use experts as the tie-breaker here, and these guys are the people who are paid to watch film on these players. You then go on to say that this tie-breaker concludes, along with the other stats and factors, that Clowney will be the best after 4-5 years. Great final section.
Overall, my only suggestion would be to explain your Clowney pick a little more. What else makes him special in particular that made Houston select him number one overall. I think you nailed this one though. You had good sources, facts, good language, and it was a good read.
Nice opening/explanation of question
Great use of sources
Nice style/use of deduction
A little light on Clowney info
Ok, I’ll just go out and say it, I really wish you had sources. I try to make sure everything is accurate fact-wise, but two points in your main argument do not check out with what I found in a quick google search. First is the great fit argument. Every source I read says Clowney was a 4-3 DE in college and never played 3-4 at all, which is what Houston runs. The main argument on ESPN was that Clowney, despite being the best physical athlete, was a schematic mismatch with Houston. Now that can easily be fixed by changing the scheme to better fit Clowney or converting him into a situational pass-rusher, but the system currently in place was not the best for Clowney as it was not what he played his entire collegiate career. My second real disagreement is with the part on this being a weak QB class. It’s not as strong as the 2012 class with Luck and RG3, but sources I’ve read said it’s a class filled with a lot of value surrounded by a lot of other loaded positions like tackle, WR, and DT. In fact, Jacksonville and Buffalo have both said they would have taken Bortles and Watkins number one overall: http://fansided.com/2014/05/09/nfl-d...lowney/#!OBpiC http://nfl.si.com/2014/05/17/buffalo...sammy-watkins/
Anyways, I’m not saying you are wrong, I just would have liked a source for these statements.
So onto the debate. Besides what I mentioned above, this is a solid debate. You clearly mention how much of an athletic anomaly Clowney is and how good he can be comparing him to great players like LeBron and company. You have the athleticism and game-changing parts covered with this first section and the image. It was a very impressive tackle watching live and it is just as good now. I wish I could watch it for the first time again. It is definitely a tackle to highlight. So good choice.
The next section you bring up the already talented Houston D-Line. I am confused with this sentence though: “At the moment there is no room for Clowney on the defensive line, where he played in college, but only because of all the talent that’s already there. That includes two of the best defensive players in the league in JJ Watt and Cushing, who is a former rookie of the year player.” If I am reading it correctly, you are saying there is no room for Clowney on the defensive line because there is talent there, including Watt and Cushing. Cushing is an ILB. He doesn’t play on the line in the 3-4 defense. Just a minor complaint. Your next sentence though: “That amount of talent will not only leave up PLENTY of room for the rookie defender to make plays, but also provide him all sorts of mentors to help him progress into a great player. “ So is there room or is there no room for Clowney? I guess I would have liked some more explanation here. If anything, the second point is all you need as Clowney will be playing OLB in the 3-4, so he’ll be a situational pass rushing LB (like DeMarcus Ware when he was in Dallas) who will benefit from Cushing being a former OLB and Watt being a big force on the other side. Anyways, I think this paragraph could have been better. You have all the points needed to make a great argument, but it didn’t come out as well as it could have.
The coaching paragraph is kind of questionable too. Wade Phillips, the coach who was there for all of Watt’s career so far is now gone along with all of the other defensive coaches. Sure the players are returning, but the guys who designed the schemes for Houston and developed Watt are gone. Maybe it doesn’t matter and the new coaches keep some of the old playbooks and schemes.
Anyways, I’ve already mentioned my issues with the weak QB class statement. I would like more than just a side statement on this one. To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, show me the proof. Overall, I just wasn’t convinced. I felt there were too many questionable facts without sources.
Highlighting Clowney’s big play
Measurables and Potential
I guess if you have read this far and the pros and cons, it’s pretty obvious. RetepAdam. wins. RetepAdam. had a great use of language, multiple sources, and had a great style with the use of deduction. Red Viper, even if I didn’t question the information, I think the biggest point that made me pick RetepAdam. over Red Viper was how he eliminated counter-arguments. He went through the positions with research and eliminated QB and WRs that way. Besides that, just make sure your words are as clear as possible. RetepAdam., make sure you touch on your choice a little more in the future, but otherwise, great job.
This was an interesting debate despite both guys picking the same rookie. RetepAdam. went for the “I’m going to smack you over the head with stats” approach, while Red Viper went for the “I’m solely going to talk about this rookie and fuck the rest” option.
RetepAdam.: I really liked how you broke down the question and really defined what you were going to be arguing about. The O’Donnell paragraph really highlighted that in particular, and when judging it’s nice to see someone have some reasons as to why they’re ruling out someone as an option.
As I mentioned before, you went for the stats approach which is a fine option but at the same time your debate was solely backed up by what others have had to say about scouting. There wasn’t any sort of analysis from yourself, and there wasn’t any sort of analysis about the team that drafted Clowney. As we all know, for a player to reach his potential he needs to have the drive, but he also needs to be in an environment to do so and there was absolutely nothing about the Texan’s coaching, style, players etc. I think you did a really good job of presenting the stats and scouting opinions, but that for mine is only half the battle.
Red Viper: Just a nit-pick to start with, when you send in your debate make sure you space out the paragraphs more please.
This debate essentially had all the elements that was missing from the first debate, and if this were a tag team debate you guys would mop the floor together. As it isn’t I’m forced to pick about this debate as well.
I really liked the analysis of the Texans defence, players and coaching. If I’m being critical I’d say you need to go into more detail about why he’s going to progress well at the Texans behind Watt and Cushing. I thought you weren’t going to go into any analysis of the other players in the draft so I’m glad that you got there in the end. That rounded the debate off better than if you were to just focus on Clowney, however you also only briefly covered them and I know that there’s pressure from the word limit but it would have been nice to go more in depth in that area
Overall: This was a tough debate to judge as they both have their flaws, but I’m going to give the win to Red Viper. I feel that he covered why Clowney will be the #1 after 5 years better than RetepAdam. which I feel was more “This guy is going to be #1 because these guys say he will”.
Winner via Split Decision - RetepAdam.
WOOLCOCK & ??? vs Elipses Corter & Washington Irving Predictability in wrestling is a bad thing. Agree or Disagree?
Seabs: And now for our next match, we have ANDRE as the special guest ring announcer!! *crowd cheers*
Andre: Fuckern warz~! You guys can do better than that!! *crowd cheers louder* C'mon you fuckern bors, I'm the biggest DRAW of TDL for a reason, let's hear it!! *crowd goes wild* Anyways, for our next match, we have a combination of a rising force in the wrestling division and a TDL rookie who has already showed flashes of immense potential in the DOJO. Please welcome the team of Washington Irving and Elipses Corter!!
*Washington Irving and Elipses Corter emerge to cheers. The two both look PISSED for having to submit their debates to ZOMBO, who Andre revealed was their mystery opponent.*
Andre: And now on the other side of the spectrum, we have the current Wrestling Division CHAMPION WOOLCOCK, teaming with his mystery partner *Andre winks at the camera* who is arguably the biggest face in TDL. Please welcome....
*ZOMBO's music hits, and he emerges to cheers. However, as he begins to make his way down the ramp, SEABS viciously attacks ZOMBO from behind with a shovel!*
Seabs: We've got unfinished business you bastard, you think I'm gonna let YOU team with my Rose Brother??
*WOOLCOCK emerges from the back and high-fives his Brother Seabs. Wait a minute, WOOLCOCK and Seabs are making their way to the ring! Could THIS be the mystery partner? After all, the two have a title match as OPPONENTS later tonight...*
Andre: Please welcome, WOOLCOCK's partner...
*TLK comes running from the back, barreling into both Seabs and WOOLCOCK. Both competitors fall hard, with Seabs taking the worst of it, landing on his head. TLK jumps into the ring with ANDRE, his opponent later tonight, and grabs the mic*
The Lady Killer: You're right Andre, WOOLCOCK's partner IS one of the biggest babyfaces in TDL today, if not TDL history. Which immediately disqualifies that TURNCOAT on the floor. *TLK spits at ZOMBO*
Andre: Right you are TLK. That's why I always say, DTA.
The Lady Killer: Deferred Tax Assets??
The Lady Killer:
Andre: Don't Trust Andre *Andre hits TLK with a stunner, knocking TLK out cold.* Now where was I? WOOLCOCK, get your sorry ass in the ring, because here comes your partner. The most over babyface in TDL history and making his TDL debut here at the one year anniversary show, MICHAELDD!!!!!
*The crowd becomes unglued as MichaelDD strides confidently to the ring, beaming amongst the unrelenting adulation from the TDL Universe.*
Spoiler for Debates:
As a wrestling fan for over 24 years, I’m finding it hard to maintain interest in the current product. And from what I see here, the drastic change in ratings & buyrates over the past fifteen years and the reactions of those in the arena, I’m not the only one. The reason is pretty simple. WWE has become too predictable. We’re in an age where people would rather DVR it and skip through the bullshit. Or they’ll just change the channel and either read the results online or tune in next week because they don’t expect to miss anything. And more times than not, they don’t miss anything. And that’s bad.
In my younger days, RAW would go off the air leaving me excited, anticipating what would occur the following week. Now, I find myself struggling to remember what happened by Tuesday afternoon. I find myself struggling to suspend belief and buy into the story they’re promoting because, at time, Ray Charles can even see how it will play out. And that’s bad.
We know how good WWE can be. Excluding the past, the buzz they created after Brock Lesnar ended the streak was huge. Global news, sports channels, even hip hop blogs, the world was talking about the result of a pre-determined contest that few, if any, could have predicted in their dreams. In an era, pre-2012, where the MITB briefcase pretty much guaranteed we would see a new champion, John Cena failed to successfully cash in at RAW 1,000. Few, if any, could have predicted that in their dreams because “lol Cena wins”. But these surprises, swerves or unexpected occurrences are few and far between in this era. And that’s bad.
You see, the objective is to get from point A to point B, while producing a compelling program. And we don’t get that because the way the stories are presented, there are few doubts as to what could happen. Excluding the streak ending, the biggest moment in recent time was Daniel Bryan winning in the main event of Wrestlemania, which was somewhat predictable because of WWE running damage control and the way they had promoted Bryan for the eighteen months going into the event. And you follow that up by placing him in a feud with Kane, as if one should question if they’ll have him drop the belt to Kane, of all people.
I look back at Hogan in the 80s and in retrospect, some might say his run was predictable. But, WWE was able to place him in angles and situations where doubt was presented if he could prevail. It was done with Paul Orndorff turning on him. It was done with Andre, a guy touted as being “undefeated” for fifteen years, challenging him for the title. These were new challengers to Hogan and helped tell the story better, as well as strengthen his character even more. Today, we get a fresh champion vs. a guy that hasn’t had much main event success in his near seventeen years in the company. Or, you alternate that challenger for a guy who has a title to account for every year he’s been in the business.
It’s not the wrestling that’s predictable. No matter what people will claim, wrestling isn’t the draw in WWE. Angles and characters are. And they are becoming harder to buy into because of WWE having short term memory issues regarding certain characters, forgetting how to portray stories correctly or because, with the lack of direct competition, they can afford to be as predictable as they want. And that’s a bad thing.
It’s as if “lol Cena wins” is not really a jab at him at all but more so a jab at what WWE has become. Because it’s with just Cena. It was Batista at the Royal Rumble, it was Ryback losing in general, it was Rock winning the title at last year’s Royal Rumble. And the connection is all four are disliked by a portion (some more significant than others) of the audience. And that’s because the way they’re portrayed has become predictable.
It’s starting to become a chore. Many people hate doing chores. It’s not fun or exciting at all but it has to be done. And what WWE has to do is mix it up. Don’t freestyle it but present something consistently that’ll make fans question what they thought they knew. We need more jaw dropping moments. We need a reason to say fuck everything, RAW is coming on. We need a reason to believe because we’re not getting it. And that’s a bad thing.
To properly answer the question of whether predictability in wrestling is a good or bad thing, it is first important to understand that in either case, too much is a bad thing. Too much predictability or unpredictability can neuter a show or a company. The booking of WWE in the period of the late 80s and early 90s is an example of too much predictability, while the demise of WCW is the most commonly cited example of too much unpredictability. However, properly booked and with consistently good writing and characters, there needs to be an air of unpredictability – the feeling that “anything can happen”.
Take, for example, the most recent WrestleMania. The grandest show of the year for the WWE. Leading up to the event, Daniel Bryan was the most over talent on the roster with some of the strongest fan support in years. Engaged in a feud with The Authority, Bryan was booked in a match against Triple H with the stipulation that if Bryan wins the match, he will later enter the Main Event match between Randy Orton and Batista for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. This made the finish of the match very predictable – too predictable. So WWE changed the stipulation the next week on RAW when the stipulation was changed to whoever wins the match, either Bryan or HHH, would enter the Main Event title match. In this example, WWE used both the on-screen dominance of the Triple H character and the general smark opinion of Triple H burying talent to create an air of unpredictability going into the match, thus enhancing the appeal and quality of the match at WrestleMania.
Creating that air of unpredictability is essential for the product. Wrestling is at it's core a stage play telling a story, and the very best stories do not tell you the ending before it arrives. A master storyteller, in or out of the ring, in print or acting, build stories in a progression of events culminating to the climax of the tale. If the climax of the story is known going in, the story thus far now becomes boring. It now becomes unessential, tedious and an exercise in patience as the fan, or the person following along with the story, waits for the end they know is coming.
One might argue in the favor of predictability that when a fan sees the ending coming, that ending is still enjoyable even though it was evident because the ending that came was the one the fan wanted all along. This however does not outweigh the benefits of creating illusion of chance and does not address the problem arising when the ending is expected and is not an ending that the fan agrees with or enjoys. A dull, predictable story with a climax that everyone can see coming is bad for any show, wrestling included. It is impossible to tell a story with an ending that will please everyone watching. The best way to make sure, then, that everyone continues to watch is to convince them that the ending they see coming, that the direction they see the story going, is possible. This increases viewership and PPV buys, and can't occur if the show is predictable.
Professional wrestling, while ultimately a stage show and performance art, does emulate the workings of a sport. In sports, the outcome of a game or match is never predetermined, no matter the difference in skill between teams or players. In order to emulate this ideal and maintain that illusion, the kayfabe reality of the production, that same unpredictability is necessary. If people knew going in to the 2013 NFL football season that the Seattle Seahawks would go on to win the Super Bowl, the majority of fans would tune out and have no desire to watch the season. The same is true for wrestling. The very best formula for a wrestling show is to be unpredictable, but not to an extreme degree.
Predictability is often thought of as a bad thing, you can always find numerous people bitching on forums and various social media "OMG IT'S SOOO PREDICTABLE. Why is the Undertaker fighting Brock Lesnar at Wrestlemania 30?! It's so obvious Undertaker will win, Brock is filler!" Then suddenly…..
Originally Posted by Paul Heyman
MY CLIENT BROCK LESNAR CONQUERED THE STREAK
and nobody saw it coming. It was truly shocking. This turn of events wouldn't have gathered the reaction it did without WWE making the fans believe Undertaker would never lose. For these moments to really get the reaction there needs to be a predictable booking pattern that makes the audience not expect the swerve.
I feel for us to truly understand the appeal of the streak we need to go back in time. Ever since Wrestlemania 21 the streak has been the building point of the Undertaker's feuds, he's had huge matches with big names such as: Batista, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, CM Punk and Brock Lesnar. Every single year even if you weren't looking forward to the Wrestlemania card you could always rely on the streak match delivering even when the matches were predictable. The entire build up for Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker was built with Taker looking strong and everybody expected Taker to come out victorious. Every year the match would conclude with several false counts ultimately ending in Taker winning. Wrestlemania 30 comes around and everybody expected the same and that's why this truly succeeded. WWE taught their audience each year that the streak would never end and they did this through a cycle of predictable booking, they controlled us to think this would never happen, they told us the streak would never end and thanks to this predictable cycle it really was an unparalleled moment of unpredictability.
Another example of this was the Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels storyline at Wrestlemania 24. The storyline had Ric Flair going through numerous opponents until Wrestlemania and this journey helped us appreciate the love of wrestling Ric Flair had, this made us grow emotionally attached to Flair, like if you were in his shoes would you want to give up or go down swinging? His final moments at Wrestlemania were predictable, everybody knew that if Ric Flair was going to go out he was going out at Wrestlemania. However with the storyline that WWE managed to create, how Ric Flair was able to sell the angle, it really got the crowd emotionally attached and that's what made the payoff that much more special. In the end nobody cared about the match being predictable, everybody just cared about seeing the best possible send off for Flair. It didn't matter that everybody knew that his retirement was coming, WWE's writing department made you care about this journey through good writing and really let you know this was the final chapter for a legend in the business. They didn't want to see a massive swerve where Ric would win and then retire the following night, they wanted the expected outcome.
In the same way this can be compared to the Daniel Bryan win at Wrestlemania XXX. As soon as the final Wrestlemania card was decided the whole event was built about Daniel Bryan, he was the main attraction and the writing made you invested in the payoff to his journey to the top. In this instance you could even say the predictable outcome was what the fans wanted, they anticipated the Bryan win, they didn't want to be swerved, they didn't want Triple H beating Bryan and taking the belts, they wanted to see their hero finally win the big one. It was the most satisfying end and with good writing and the fans' love of the Daniel Bryan character they created one of the biggest celebrations in Wrestlemania history.
So, in summary is predictability a bad thing? No. Predictability is the basic platform in creating some of the biggest moments in wrestling history. Predictability helps make those shocking moments that everybody will remember for years. Predictability helps those impactful moments really have that little bit more and that little more can be the difference between something memorable and something forgettable. Entertaining writing can help create those special storylines and interesting characters that the fans love and want to see succeed even when the this outcome would be the more predictable one. You need predictability to exist so that it's more impactful when you stray from the usual booking path. Without predictability we'd have none of these moments and we'd be stuck in a world filled with twists and turns where the fans would become desensitised to these swerves and nothing would truly shock the audience and nothing would create such an impact compared to what predictable booking can create.
It only takes a brief consideration of what predictability can offer in wrestling to vehemently DISAGREE that it is a bad thing.
A form of predictability is essential in wrestling, as without it, truly ‘shocking’ and ‘unpredictable’ twists struggle to have the same impact and influence. As my partner alluded to, Lesnar ending The Streak was a truly historic and memorable twist, which succeeded due to WWE continually conditioning its audience to believe The Streak would never end.
Predictability establishes familiarity, or a status quo with regard to what an audience can expect. Without its existence, the moments which deviate from the norm in what the audience is trained to expect can never hope to achieve the desired impact in profoundly startling the audience.
Don’t believe me? Then consider Punk’s memorable promo on June 27th 2011. There’s a reason that promo had such impact and was influential in making Punk a commodity that he never was before the promo. Think it was merely his delivery? You’re wrong. In 1998/1999 it’s a fine promo, but the content is none too dissimilar from the shoot orientated style at the time. Context is crucial. By 2011, WWE’s audience were conditioned in what to expect from a standard promo, and it was only by establishing this protocol, that Punk breaking from convention succeeded in being instantly distinguishable and generating immediate interest.
It’s difficult to be revolutionary and transcendent when an audience has heard your act before. By virtue of training their audience to not anticipate a promo in this era which fused reality with kayfabe, Punk’s promo was truly un-anticipated and consequently memorable. It COULD NOT have achieved such success had WWE not established a predictable environment in which Punk’s promo differentiated from the norm.
Still doubting that a predictable context is necessary for ‘unpredictable’ moments to have their greatest impact? Then consider April 27th 1987, when Jerry Lawler lost his hair for the first time. By convention, Lawler never lost Hair matches. They were the culmination of any feud and the Memphis fans were trained to expect Lawler to always triumph over his adversary.
Lawler’s historic defeat therefore, is truly one of the most definitive and historical moments in Memphis history. Idol, Rich and Heyman have all shared tales of the frightening and hostile atmosphere that engulfed the arena when Lawler’s head was shaved. It broke tradition. It wasn’t what the fans were trained to expect. And like Taker’s Streak ending, and Punk’s ground-breaking promo, it was Lawler’s first Hair loss. The hostility, visceral hatred and intrigue in what existed next for Lawler was palpable, and it couldn’t have been generated had the Memphis fans not been convinced Lawler would prevail. Only when you do away from the norm, do you create the truly iconic twist that unpredictable moments in wrestling are designed for.
Originally Posted by Russo Apologist
But the Attitude Era succeeded with week to week unpredictability!
Again, context is crucial here. The week to week unpredictability of the Attitude Era was initially successful in establishing continual interest, but this was a by-product of the time. WWF and WCW needed to entice viewers and weekly twists succeeded in establishing consistent viewership to be kept in suspense, but this was never a sustainable long-term model.
The Attitude Era in principle succeeded because WWF deviated from their established programming in favour of risqué content in-keeping with the tastes of its audience. Continual twists and swerves were popular initially when they too were fresh and innovative, but a close inspection at TNA’s continual woes as well as WCW’s capitulation and failure to recapture their past glory should demonstrate the problem when audiences are conditioned to expect recurring twists and swerves.
Constant ‘unpredictable’ moments in wrestling effectively devalue and diminish the effect these moments are designed to have. Russo’s twist orientated booking gradually diminished in impact when fans grew to expect said twists, rather than creating a foundation upon which audiences could be legitimately surprised by a swerve. It’s why Hogan joining the NWO had considerable more impact and emotion than any of TNA’s ‘swerves’. In wrestling you need to first create a status quo which fans grow accustomed to, otherwise departing from the norm has no impact when your audience anticipates it.
So is predictability a bad thing? Quite evidently it isn’t. For the unpredictable and shocking moments in wrestling to truly succeed, you need to create a predictable precedent which creates familiarity so as to legitimately surprise the viewer when you deviate from what they anticipate. The events I alluded to in this debate could not have emotionally moved and hooked their audience if said audience didn’t invest in a predictable booking pattern which when departed from had substantially more impact than a climate where no status quo or predictability existed.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Elipses Corter - Biggest issue I had with this debate was the lack of convincing examples to back up your point and counter the opposing stance. The big argument that immediately jumped to mind when I saw you take this stance was what about Bryan at Wrestlemania this year? That was predictable as hell and look at the reaction it garnered. After reading not only your debate but also your partner's I didn't feel this argument was effectively countered which leaves a big hole in your stance(s) even before I get to your opponents' debates. There's also quite a few pretty bold claims in this debate that aren't backed up with the appropriate evidence to support them. Straight away you falling ratings and buyrates to more predictability yet I don't really see the evidence to support that. First argument that unpredictable moments such as The Streak ending being great was nicely countered by your opponents saying that for unpredictable moments like that to place a sense of predictability has to be created first. That applies to your Cena example too (which I think was way more predictable than you give credit for). Not sure how on point the Hogan example was. It felt clutching at straws a bit with how you presented it. Hogan winning was predictable but like your opponents argued, that predictability allowed Hogan losing to be unpredictable. Also I don't think it's fair to constantly refer to Bryan vs Kane as the reference point for predictability. A broader use of predictable booking being bad would have been better rather than just relying on one example. Then you cite Rock winning at the Rumble as being bad predictability but didn't that PPV draw a big number? So clearly predictability isn't stopping wrestlers being draws no? Next you say "And the connection is all four are disliked by a portion (some more significant than others) of the audience" but is that a large part of the audience that is significant to business or just a vocal minority whose posts you read online? Too many bold statements thrown out without being backed up properly.
Washington Irving - My biggest flaw with this is basically your argument rather than how you present it. Everything you say is pretty effectively countered by your opponents which really hurts your debate. Read your partner's feedback because a lot of that applies here. Again I didn't think you effectively countered the Bryan example this stance made me think of and I thought you needed more and better examples to support your stance. With the Bryan example yes the outcome was predictable but I didn't feel that you effectively showed me why the outcome being predictable was bad because you didn't have the supporting evidence to back your claim up. "If the climax of the story is known going in, the story thus far now becomes boring." - massively disagree with this. When a book gets adapted to a TV Show or a Movie and the story is already known to many do they still find it boring? Do Game of Thrones book readers not enjoy the TV Show? If you go and watch a superhero film it's as predictable as anything how it ends but do people still go and see them and become invested in the path even if the outcome is predictable? Of course they do. Good job by attempting to address the other stance even if the implementation of it was weak. Better argument and this is good practice though. When you're making a statement like "This increases viewership and PPV buys, and can't occur if the show is predictable." you really need the figures to back that claim up. Wrestlemania 30 was (seemingly) predictable going so did people not watch it because of that? It actually would have been interesting to see you use some good examples for this point for example citing big drawing main events between two big stars who rarely lose vs a more traditional predictable main event draw such as Extreme Rules last month. You could have also brought sports into it and how Play-Off finals when the outcome is at its most unpredictable is when the most people watch. The Seattle example was decent but I didn't feel it fully worked like the sports comparison could have done. Sub some better arguments with stronger examples in to this debate for another topic and you'll have a good debate.
MicahelDD - Until your partner referenced Lawler/Idol I had no ideas whose debate belonged to who. If the Lawler example was from someone other than SI then I'll have to cheekily edit this out. Point is this is a really strong debut debate. The core argument that both your debates are centred around being that for good unpredictability to happen, predictability has to happen first. Fantastic argument and the analysis of it was just as good too with great examples cited by both. Where your opponents struggled to cite effective examples to support their point, both of you nailed it with your examples. Some of the most emotional matches in wrestling history were predictable but it didn't stop them being classics. The presentation of your arguments is good too. Very easy to read writing style. Only major thing missing is an attempt to shut down the main argument of the opposing stance but your opponent did do that here. Just remember to do it yourself when you're on your own. In some ways this was fairly basic but that also meant you didn't make the slip ups that your opponents did. Very strong outing.
WOOLCOCK - More of the same of what I said to your partner. Both debates are pretty much the same but with different examples. Obviously you included addressing the counter as well though which I mentioned earlier. All the examples you both use are great and pretty fool-proof in terms of countering them imo. Argument that unpredictability as a general rule isn't sustainable in the long term is good and citing WCW and TNA to back that up was good. Your whole predictability is needed for unpredictability argument helped counter the opposing stance in a more indirect manner too.
Winners - WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD
Andre Elipses Corter & Washington Irving
Straight off the bat I had a problem with your ratings and buy rates argument, because this doesn’t take into account how the internet and streaming effects these mediums. The idea that people can change the channel also dents your argument because more and more television stations and forms of media are available in 2014 than there were back in the day.
“In my younger days, RAW would go off the air leaving me excited” came off across as far too nostalgic. I say this because I remember watching Raw in the AE as an 11-15 year old on Sky Sports late on Friday nights. I was always really fucking excited because I hadn’t been exposed to a lot of the angles (most of them quite standard in wrestling, with hindsight) at that age because I was fairly new to wrestling and rather impressionable. When you’re an experienced wrestling fan and have seen it all before, then how exactly can WWE excite you when it’s mostly all old ground? There are only so many different stories to tell. So what’s to say that a kid or teenager in the same scenario in 2014 can’t be as excited by the current product as we were by the AE back in the day? I’m not saying that your argument doesn’t hold any truth, but it’s a little bit flawed.
Your point about the streak being ended was effectively countered by team 2 who pointed out that without lots of predictable Taker streak wins the Brock win couldn’t have become unpredictable. Similar applies to the Sandow MITB failed cash in. How many successful cash ins were made in order to make that a shock? Again, you needed predictability to create unpredictability. Your Hogan argument was far more sound and you did make some other good points as to how predictability can be a bad thing, but not enough in the way to overcome the errors that you made.
I loved the position that you took with this debate, which was a very clever and cautious stance that did well to avoid potential counters. By arguing that wrestling companies should go out of their way to present EVERYTHING as unpredictable (regardless of hindsight) you made a great point that wrestling should be made to be seen as unpredictable even when in reality it’s quite predictable. I really don’t have much to criticise because everything you wrote rings true, although you could have provided more actually relevant wrestling examples. This is easily up there in quality with both debates from the opposing team, but unfortunately your partner let you down a bit.
WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD
This was a really convincing debate full of relevant examples. This stuff about Taker’s streak needing predictability in order to cause unpredictability was absolutely textbook, while the argument that Ric Flair’s send-off needed predictability in order to fulfil the emotional potential of the storyline was bang on the money. The idea that WWE needed to get fans on side by making Bryan’s ascension at Mania XXX predictable was also solid. You underpinned the whole debate with the idea that predictability is a fundamental factor that drives wrestling onwards as a concept, even when unpredictability is needed, therefore you countered a lot of debater 1A’s iffy claims. This debate might have been a bit narrow in terms of diverse arguments, but it completely delivered in the few departments that it visited.
This carries on in essentially the same manner that your partner’s debate started and finished off, by implementing lots of convincing arguments to prove that predictability created unpredictability and that this is an essential formula in wrestling. However, you used a more detailed comparison technique where you compared different eras and showed why predictability has been a constant necessity. The Lawler hair cutting was a perfect example of this. I loved the argument that you used in order to establish how Punk’s pipe bomb promo benefitted from being in a predictable environment, whereas those types of shoots were ten a penny in the late 90’s and more often than not lost their intended effect due to overexposure. You supported this by pointing out that the attitude era was only reliant on these short term shock tactics because they had to win a ratings war, whereas that’s not applicable now. You also provided evidence that constant unpredictability is not a proven long term formula, with this being a part of why WCW failed in 1999 and 2000. This was a top debate.
As a team this was a brilliant contribution, with both of you sharing and spreading out duties by focusing on one particular concept each, whilst also meeting a middle ground that helped your debates to mesh ever so well. This is easily the best tag team contribution that I’ve seen so far in TDL. Top work.
Three of these debates were excellent while one left a lot to be desired. Therefore WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD win. Btw, if debater 1A was EC then “your opponents didn’t beat you, you only beat yourself…AND THAT’S ON FIG!!!”
Aid180 Elipses Corter & Washington Irving
I completely feel ya on the interest feeling you used in the intro. I liked you mentioning that as a kid you went to bed excited and as an adult you wake up with memory loss. Maybe you are just getting old . I kid. I personally DVR and fast forward through parts of Raw because there are no consequences for losses in these regular matches on Raw, but that’s a different story. I like how Elipses Corter began building up the crazy media coverage that the Taker loss brought. It shows how something unpredictable can bring coverage. Your Daniel Bryan point is interesting. You bring up the predictability of pair Kane up with Bryan and compare it to Hogan’s opponents in the 80s. I think that was a nice comparison. I liked the chore line. You had plenty of good lines here. I guess my only issue here is that you covered why predictability is bad, but I don’t recall seeing a strong case for why unpredictability is good other that the mentioned predictability is bad point. Maybe this is where your partner comes in.
And the partner comes to the rescue it seems. Washington Irving covers some of why unpredictability is essential for the product. This was a needed point in the group debate. Before that you also covered a little bit of the Bryan Mania situation. I guess my only issue here is that I don’t think both of you needed to cover it so much with one saying it was somewhat predictable and the next person saying it was very predictable and then it was given an air of unpredictability with the HHH title stipulation. This kind of reminds of a three legged race and you guys kind of had a hiccup on foot movement with the tied together leg. It’s not costly, but just a minor issue. I think your fans wanted ending paragraph was solid. I feel it is missing something though, but I can’t quite figure out what it is. I guess I would have liked an example here that truly pulls your point together. Like the CM Punk vs. John Cena Title Match at MITB. That was a 5 star match in my opinion not because of the match itself, but the storyline going into it, the outcome, and the doubt on who would win. Maybe that would have helped your point here.
Solid work here though. I don’t particularly like the Seahawks example just because it actually was predictable that they would make the Super Bowl as they and Denver were the pre-season favorites last year. But that’s another point that an NFL geek like me doesn’t need to get into. Overall, teamwork was solid and you guys cover a lot. My biggest issue here is with the Daniel Bryan example as I feel you guys kind of overstep what each of you say here. Other than that, great effort guys. One of the best I’ve read for this show.
80s Hogan Example
Nice and funny one-liners in Debate A
Good use of teamwork cover both sides of predictability
Minor trip up with the Bryan example
WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD
Intro of the match has to go to MichaelDD here. I loved it. Not only does it capture how I felt going into it, but it captures the hilarity of the Heyman line and how shocking it truly was. That’s what makes this stance you guys chose interesting. Shocking events are truly shocking because of how predictable things are. I really loved how you continued the Undertaker example, then built upon this with the Ric Flair example. Truly wonderful here. Then you add a third example with Daniel Bryan, which was also brought up by the other team. MichaelDD truly builds up a great argument for why predictability is a good thing and is necessary for the big moments.
This is where you guys truly shine as a team. WOOLCOCK builds on the second part of predictability, connecting the debates in the first paragraph and building on MichaelDD by using the Punk promo. Damn it guys. I can only praise so much in one day. I loved how you compared the Punk promo to the times and how it would not work in the Attitude Era. I didn’t know that about Lawler and his Memphis days. Is that true? That’s a pretty neat example. In other judging I have been telling the newer debaters that I look for a “knockout blow”, or a point in the debate that I feel gives it the win. This sentence, “Only when you do away from the norm, do you create the truly iconic twist that unpredictable moments in wrestling are designed for.“ is the knockout blow guys. I love it.
I can keep going and tell you guys how I loved each paragraph, but that’d be silly and rather boring at this point. The Hogan nWo example was another great example. Debate B had a good conclusion as well. Really, the best part of this debate is the teamwork. Both debates flowed well together, they didn’t repeat each other, and they were not only on the same page, they were on the same word. That’s how in sync I felt you guys were when I read it. Truly wonderful guys.
Debate A had the best intro of the group
Debate B had a great connection between the Eras
These were all great efforts. In the end I have to award the decision to WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD. This was a fantastic use of teamwork and examples. You guys covered a lot of ground and connected the debates nicely. Elipses Corter & Washington Irving was close, but I felt the teamwork was a little a tad off with the Bryan example in particular. I also felt Team 1 was just behind in the use of examples compared to WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD. There is no weak link for the team though. I thought you were both very close. All four of you should be proud of your debates though. I’m glad I didn’t have to pick an individual winner as that would have been hard.
WINNER: WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD
Winners via Unanimous Decision - WOOLCOCK & MichaelDD
TDL Social Division #1 Contenders Match
Rigby vs pinkandblack Is Social Media good for society?
It's important to note that SM's not perfect; there's room for improvement. However, it doesn't have to be perfect to benefit society. A petty complaint, i.e. the criticism of "slactivism", doesn't discount the good that SM accomplishes.
Studies show that too much social media can cause "psychosocial risk factors; physical impairment; emotional impairment", the key phrase being "too much". Too much anything is harmful; too much water can kill you. Too much of the medicine that cures our diseases would kill you. The risk that someone may overindulge in social media doesn't reflect its value to society.
SM has enabled many people to commit crimes, ranging from copyright violations to murder. SM will be used by people to harm. Adam Lanza used SM to commit the Sandy Hook shootings in 2012. Does that make SM itself "bad"? Is the car he drove in "bad' because it was used to transport guns? Of course not.
People can use any tool to cause harm. A hammer can be used to build homes for the homeless, or commit murder; hammers have benefited society for over 2.5 million years. How a tool is used is a reflection of the person using the tool, not the tool itself.
People who use SM to commit crimes can be easier for the police to catch. Crimes caught on tape can be uploaded anonymously by observers to Youtube and then become admissible evidence. Infamous Craigslist killer Philip Markoff used SM to find victims, and records of his SM media activity helped prosecute him (e-mails sent to the victims). SM has produced numerous lists of criminals caught through SM.
Lanza and Markoff could've put their disorders into a search engine, and instantly find resources for help. If they didn't know your disorder? They could've put in their symptoms. What if they couldn't afford health care to treat their disorder? SM could've showed them local free health clinics or similar resources to receive treatment. SM could have avoided those tragedies, and it can prevent future tragedies if taken seriously as a tool for the good of society.
A rising concern is the invasion of privacy that comes with SM use. With major SM sites, such as Facebook, data mining and surveillance disclosures particularly draw criticism. Proper education about SM can raise awareness of these risks and enable individuals to use SM responsibly.
It's all a small price to pay for unbelievable access to knowledge. Musical genius, Usman Riaz expressed in a TED lecture how SM allowed him to become a musical prodigy.
Without SM, this debate and the entire debate league wouldn't even exist. The very forum on which we're having this debate is a part of SM. Research for this debate was only possible because of SM. SM allows all of us in this league and everybody with access to SM to exchange thoughts and ideas in order to improve themselves as intellectuals. SM is the digital printing press that gives us virtually unlimited access to ideas, art, information, and culture for the rest of all time.
The title of my debate, "is social media good for society?" is one of the most culturally relevant questions one could ask. While I tend to avoid beginning a debate with an emotive appeal, I thought a personal testimony would be permissible for this topic. A good friend of mine in high school passed away at the age of 17 years old. Not because of a car accident, drugs, alcohol, or terminal illness. My friend, who was an honor roll student and saxophone player in the band, was frequently picked on due to his weight. A group of kids created a page on Facebook called "Frankie the fatass" the summer after our junior year. 89 students joined the group. 24 hours later, my friend Frank was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. He was set to turn 18 in 3 weeks.
Was my buddy Frank a typical example of social media side effects? Admittedly, no. I found myself at the wrong end of a few vindictive pranks via social media, but never considered suicide. With that said, I did spend many afternoons in the school counselors office. I was hardly a mean person, simply a quiet kid who was an easy target. I wasn't alone, and neither are millions of students daily who are afraid to go to school because of issues that are found on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and many other social network sites that are frequented by the majority of middle and high schoolers.
Are there benefits of social media? Absolutely. Would bullying still exist without the internet? You bet. With that said, Do the benefits outweigh the negatives? Viewing the pros and cons from an intellectual standpoint, I would concede that it is NOT good for society. While bullies would still be relevant in schools, it would take more than a simple click of the mouse to get even at a person. Facebook is simply the middleman to the schoolyard confrontations that students fear. It gives somebody a mouthpiece (and behind a keyboard nonetheless) to say whatever they feel like saying with often no consequences. And what about anonymity? While I would hardly ever cite MTV as a source in a debate, the show "Catfish" does a great job highlighting social media gone wrong.
To cite some statistics outside of Music Television, PEW Internet and American Life Survey did a fantastic study on cyber bullying. I can link to the study if necessary, or a simple google search should reveal it. According to the study, only 7 percent of parents in the United States are worried about cyberbullying. With that said, 33 percent of teenagers admit to have being made victims of cyberbullying. This obviously does not include the children who have been bullied over the internet and did not admit it. What does this study show? It outlines the fact that social media is more of a negative issue than even parents are making out to be. In my opinion, that's what makes social media even more harsh on our society. It is often overlooked and ignored, when in fact it has offered a negative effect on over a third of American children.
So to play devil's advocate, what about the positives? Of course there's the ability to socialize and communicate with friends/family. Beyond the apparent age gap between users and non-users, I find one of the most ironic negatives regarding social networking sites to be the onset of alienation (or perhaps isolation.) It seems a quick message to former friends has replaced actually talking to them or going to see them. In some ways, I find that the sites have allowed us to engage in "easy friendship," where relationships are cyber-oriented and made more convenient. It seems like just one big step towards being left alone. Paradoxically, social networking sites may lead us to isolation or alienation (which is even worse). They give us the illusion to keep easily in touch with our friends, but in reality we just spend more time alone.
To summarize, I do have a Facebook and a Twitter. Does that make me a hypocrite? I say no, simply because I am not a poster-boy for society. I've often considered social media to be similar to electricity: It can light up your world, or burn everything to the ground. Because of the latter overriding the former in many cases (too many), I present and summarize my arguments with the following sentence: Social media is NOT good for society. Thank you very much.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
This is a brilliant debate. You made excellent definitions for what social media actually is, whilst you also provided brilliant examples for how it has benefitted mankind. The argument that any device or piece of technology is dangerous in the wrong hands was also absolutely inspired. I really don’t need to write much because this is one of the best debates that I’ve read in TDL so far. What I will say is that the way you linked your debate to how the debate would have never happened without social media was an absolutely genius moment.
Your stance wasn’t really clear until about the third paragraph, which made the start of your debate rather vague and ponderous. The debate was also far too narrow with you concentrating far too much on bullying aspects, with you essentially glossing over all of the vast areas that Rigby covered in depth. Rigby also destroyed you with his argument about any medium, device or piece of technology being dangerous in the wrong hands. That was something that you had no answer to. Should we all just give up on life and using social media and other technology because there are dangerous people out there? Fuck no. Your paragraph about alienation was a lot stronger than anything else you wrote and really that concept was what you should have based your debate around, because the idea that people might interact less and less in the flesh due to social media is an interesting concept.
Rigby wins by a country mile. No further explanations needed.
Good debate here.
You did a good job attacking the criticisms of social media by mentioning the drawbacks of many popular society tools and necessities to show that social media is not perfect just like everything else. You did an even better job putting over the strengths and effectiveness of social media. Your end paragraph was a nice tie in to your intro which summarized your debate in a definitive manner.
The part where you mentioned social media potentially stopping the craiglist and Sandy Hook shootings didn't add much to your debate. I see what you were trying to say, but it's unlikely that mental illness people are going to google their problems and suddenly be cured or enlightened.
Besides that, good stuff.
Wasn't sure how to feel about this one. The personal thing was a nice touch to your stance (which I didn't know until the end). I thought you focused a little too much on cyber bulling which made your debate somewhat one dimensional. Then you made references to social media leading to potential alienation which leaves room for quite the counter argument when you consider the networking that happens through social media.
Eh, this just wasn't convincing.
Aside from the argument that social media could have prevented the Sandy Hook & Craigslist killings (far too circumstantial and hypothetical in second-guessing how said killers would/could have acted after the fact), I found this to be very good and most importantly you really covered the depth to social media to validate your argument. You gave good examples of the ways in which social media aids individuals in terms of research and knowledge, whilst also giving a pertinent example in how people can utilise it to gain fame and recognition for their talents. I also felt you smartly addressed counter arguments in terms of how people manipulate and use social media for criminal acts, noting how this reflects the individual and their respective mindset, rather than a failure on the part of social media as a whole. "However, it doesn't have to be perfect to benefit society" - . I liked that you didn't pretend social media was perfect, however the extensive opportunities and advances it presents society as a whole definitely signify it's benefit rather than those as a minority who misuse it.
Your writing, structure and overall flow was also impressive, though in future you might want to occasionally use footnotes with some of your links, rather than using hyperlinks in the text. It wasn't a massive issue here, but something for future reference.
Firstly, sorry to hear about your friend and his struggles with online bullying. Truly a sad story to have to contemplate. That being said, I felt in a way you weakened your argument a tad when you outlined you too had been the victim of social media gone wrong, yet you had never contemplated suicide. It reinforces that different people approach bullying in different ways, and therefore I felt this undermined your argument a bit as it reinforced that different people will react differently to cyber-bullying. It also didn't help that I felt your opponent offered a strong counter argument that cyber-bullying or rather misuse of social media reflects the mindset of the individual, rather than a failure on social media's part. Many things in life can sadly be open to misuse by individuals, but I didn't feel you were able to undermine your opponent's counter argument that those who criminally misuse social media doesn't necessarily make social media itself bad for society. I also felt your debate was too short and struggled to make close to the number of logical arguments your opponent made, which really impacted on your arguments being more convincing. I think you addressed the dangers of cyber-bullying well, but in addition to your opponent making a reasonable defence of how that doesn't equal social media being bad, your opponent also considered how social media is important in terms of knowledge and research, in addition to how the accessibility of sharing information and personal talents can lead to many individuals gaining newfound exposure on a worldwide level.
Essentially, your arguments were well countered by your opponent and you also struggled to make the same number of arguments as your opponent, which meant you didn't counter your opponent's arguments, in addition to your own arguments being weakened by strong counters from your opponent.
Winner - Rigby
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Rigby
TDL Sports Division #1 Contenders Eliminator: Stage 1
Perfect Poster vs JM vs Aid180 If Lebron James & Kevin Durant were the two best players during the NBA 2013/14 regular season, then who was the 3rd best player?
Spoiler for Debates:
If Lebron James & Kevin Durant were the two best players during the NBA 2013/14 regular season, then who was the 3rd best player?
There are many good players in the NBA, but the 2013-14 season had some newer faces step up. Some because of injury, some because of maturity, and some because of skill. After Durant and LeBron, the third best player in the NBA this season was Blake Griffin.
There are a few categories one must look at to determine who was the best player in the league. Did they play most of the season? Did they produce on the court? Did they help bring their team to the playoffs? Those are the key points I believe are most important. The best two players, Durant and James, accomplished all three. Why are these important factors? Missing a lot of games hurts the team. It’s great if the player is great when on the court, but missing nearly a fourth of the season or more is costly to the team and absence makes it hard to say they were the best player that year. Producing on the court is obviously key. Good players are game changers. They go above and beyond the normal stats and have good Player Efficiency Ratings. You can’t be the third best if you don’t produce and score. Finally, getting to the playoffs is key because the whole goal of the NBA is winning championships, and if you don’t get to the playoffs, then the season is a failure. It’s hard to say that a failure is the third best player.
There are four player who I think stood out the most as potential 3rd best player of the season: Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, Kevin Love, and Joakim Noah. However, it’s Griffin that shined brightest in the group. I’ll explain why.
Noah lead all big men with 5.4 assists per game. He was even the defensive player of the year. His biggest knock though is his lack of scoring. Noah may have had a 20.06 PER, but his 12.6 points per game is a downer. As obvious as it is, the team that scores the most wins, and unfortunately, there are too many players that produce similar stats as Noah and scores. Noah is just not a good enough scorer to be considered the third best this year.
Love had a great individual season. He had a 26.9 PER, 3rd behind LeBron and Durant for players who played 40+ games. Unlike those two, he didn’t make the playoffs. Even with the scrubbiest teams in Cleveland, LeBron made the playoffs. Love had some very solid teammates in Pekovic, Rubio, and Martin. Even then, they couldn’t put it together and win half of their games this season. Individual stats are cool, but basketball is a team game. Since the goal of the NBA is to win championships, being under .500 and missing the playoffs is not good enough to be the third best player.
Paul is arguably the best point guard in the league. Most years he can be considered the third best player in the league. Not this year though. Paul played well when he was healthy, but he only play in 62 games this year, or roughly 75% of them. That’s 20 games in which Paul was absent. In a close Western Conference, every game is important. Paul is great, but it’s hard to say he was the third best this season while only playing 75% of the games this year.
This is why Blake Griffin deserves the third place honors this year. He produced on the court with a 23.98 PER (top 10 for those who played at least 60 games) and 24.1 PPG (6th best), a career high. He helped his team get to the playoffs (3rd best record in the NBA). He also played in 80 of 82 games this year. He did everything that LeBron and Durant did, and he even lead the team when Chris Paul was out, like LeBron with Wade and Durant with Westbrook. Looking at the charts from earlier, you can see Griffin was the overall best in all 4 categories, leading in two of them. Don’t just take my word for it though. The official MVP voting had Durant in first this year, LeBron in second this year, and Griffin in third this year. The experts and media in charge of voting thought that Griffin was the third place MVP this season. Ahead of Noah in 4th, Paul in 7th, and Love in 11th.
2013-14 was not a normal year. Many star players were injured. This allowed guys like Griffin to step up and lead the team. Griffin played in almost every game, he was efficient, he made the playoffs, and he stepped up when his co-star was gone. That is why Blake Griffin is the third best player of the 2013-14 season.
If Lebron James & Kevin Durant were the two best players during the NBA 2013/14 regular season, then who was the 3rd best player?
To be one of the best players in the NBA, you have to have a variety of skills. You have to have the ability to make the team around you better, both offensively and defensively. You have to be able to carry the team when your teammates have an off night. You have to be able to come out and give 36-40 minutes per game every game for ~80 times. Lebron and Durant clearly are the best two at doing all of these things, but when it comes to #3, it takes a little more critical thinking.
After some research, the candidates I have come up with for the 3rd best player of the 2013-14 regular season are the following: Blake Griffin, Joakim Noah, James Harden, and Stephen Curry. After evaluating each player with the questions I listed above, I believe it's clear Stephen Curry was the third best player for the 2013-14 regular season.
All four of the guys above have some knock against them. Curry guards the worst offensive guard on the other side so the Warriors can 'hide' him somewhat. Noah is the 'centerpiece' of an offense that was tied for the 3rd worst in Points per 100 possessions. Griffin isn't the best player on his own team when Chris Paul is healthy, let alone in the entire league. Harden, well, has this Youtube gem:
Curry is #3 because unlike everyone else I listed, Steph pretty much has to put the team on his back. Griffin has Chris Paul (who would've likely been the choice had he not missed ¼ of the season) a strong supporting cast, and a top 5 coach. Noah has Tom Thibodeau, a defensive mastermind that no doubt helps create the Bulls' stifling defense, and Harden has Dwight Howard, another player who not long ago was a top 5 player in his own right. Yes the Warriors had Thompson, Bogut, Iguodala, etc., but that team came and went as Steph came and went.
In short, the Warriors were basically the Steph Curry show. From Grantland's Zach Lowe: “The Warriors have scored 109.7 points per 100 possessions when Curry plays and 93.2 when he sits, per NBA.com. The first number would lead the league. The second would fall 3.5 points behind Philadelphia’s pathetic offense. Opponents have outscored Golden State by 5.5 points per 100 possessions when Curry sits.” While the other players have significant splits as well, none are nearly as high as that. Basically, the Warriors offense ran through Curry, and if he was on the bench, their offense was worse than the worst in the league. If other individual stats are more your flavor, Curry was the highest of the 4 in Player Efficiency Rating, and the highest of the 4 in Total Win Shares.
Someone may try to argue that since the Warriors only were able to muster a 6th seed and 51 wins (compared to the slightly higher totals from both the Rockets and Clippers), Curry should be punished for his teams performance. That would be an exercise in futility, though, since it's well established that both teams have better rosters from top to bottom. Additionally, if we were going based off of team Win-Loss record, wouldn't someone from San Antonio or Indiana be apart of this? Determining who the #3 player based on that metric is a waste of both your time and mine, since we both know 1 player can only affect a team so much.
While all four of the guys I listed are good choices, Steph is the clear answer for the #3 best player. The Warriors lived and died with Curry on offense and were a significantly better team when he was on the court. If he didn't perform well, the Warriors really weren't going anywhere. He was durable and 'the guy' for them. Griffin wasn't that for the Clippers (CP3 was). Noah wasn't necessarily that for the Bulls (their offense was average at best with him in). Harden did have the ball as well, but Dwight Howards presence had to be accounted for. It's not easy to find a #3 best player since each one of them has some noticeable flaws when compared to LeBron and Durant, but if there was a draft of who I would want for the 2013-14 season, Curry would be my first choice.
Kevin Durant and Lebron James have shown all year why they are the best two players in the world and aptly so finished 1-2 in the NBA Most Valuable Player Voting. When you consider who the third best player was during the 2013/14 season things get a bit more interesting and there is certainly room for differing opinions. In the paragraphs to follow I will explain why Blake Griffin should be considered 3rd best player this past season.
When you think of Blake Griffin the first thing that comes to mind is all the high-light reel dunks. However, this past season no one can deny the fact that Blake has completed his four year transition from raw athletic specimen to all-around superstar. Blake had a phenomenal season and was a huge part of the Los Angeles Clippers finishing with 57 wins, which was the third most in the Association behind only the Spurs and Thunder. Blake’s improvement from the 2012/13 season was unprecedented. Every area of weakness Blake had in the past he improved upon in 2013/14. A lot of which can be attributed to the tutelage of new Clippers coach Doc Rivers. Most notably Blake was able to improve his free throw %, develop a much more serviceable midrange game as well as improve on his back to the basket work. Doc also used Blake a lot more as a playmaker than he had ever been before, allowing Blake to showcase his ability to both pass the ball and explode to the basket when defenders sag off expecting a pass. This allowed Blake to become even more dangerous and tough to defend. Lastly, Blake, who was once considered to be a considerable defensive liability, was now serviceable and active. He still was not able to produce large amounts of steals and blocks, largely due to his lack of length but he did a much better job in 1 on 1 defense both in the post and away from the basket.
To best explain why Blake should be considered to have had the third best season in the NBA for 2013/14, the best thing to do would be measure him up against his counterparts. The four names that would immediately come to mind for comparison would be Paul George, James Harden, Joakim Noah, Kevin Love and Clippers teammate Chris Paul. All four of these players, like Blake, had amazing seasons but each for different reasons should not be considered to have had quite as good of a season.
- Paul George had a great first half and was a deserving early MVP Candidate; however, George struggled in the second half and did little to improve his inability to be a distributer for his team mates despite handling the ball so much of the time.
- James Harden, who’s combination of scoring and distributing are elite, continues to be an immense defensive liability appearing asleep a lot of the time.
- Joakim Noah, the winner of defensive player of the year was largely responsible (understatement) for Chicago’s unexpected success this season; however, Noah does not have a jump shot of any kind which makes him extremely limited on offense.
- Kevin Love is a fantastic scorer and passer with ability to stretch the floor like no one else, is possibly more of a defensive liability than Harden who is unable to keep up away from the basket and offers little to no resistance under the basket.
- Chris Paul’s biggest weakness is his inability to stay on the court, which reoccurred in 2013/14 while missing 20 games with a shoulder injury. When healthy Chris is one of the greatest combinations of efficiency, scoring, passing and defense in the game but the missed games keep him away from the #3 spot.
Blake recently finished third in the MVP voting which is certainly well deserved after the season he had. Although Chris Paul is the leader and best player on the Clippers, Blake’s ability to keep the Clippers winning despite Paul being out of the lineup is what puts Blake over the top here. There was much competition for Blake this year, and each of those players were great in their own right, however for 2013/14 Blake Griffin was able to put together a season that edges out those other players.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Aid180 - On the whole this was very good. Structure wise it's set up near perfectly but some of the content could be a bit tighter imo. Nothing huge that discredits your argument but little critiques that need tightening up if you're gonna beat Andre. I think there's some slight room for arguing that your criteria isn't the best. I think it's fine but I think valid arguments against it could be raised. Obviously with only 800 words you can't deal with everything so this isn't a knock, more of a heads up. For example with the playoffs criteria if Durant had the season he had but he was stuck on a totally useless team like the 76ers or Bucks where he had to do everything himself does that make his personal achievements any less? If anything you could say that Love having stats as good as they were on a much lesser team than the likes of Griffin for example who help boost his stats and his performance level is even more impressive because it's more of his own individual performance rather than being contributed towards by playing on a team full of great players. So just be careful when choosing your criteria. I was a bit confused with the 4 options that you chose to focus on mostly because they felt like 4 random contenders you picked out. For example Perfect Poster even argues for Curry as his pick and you don't even mention him. This was also highlighted when you referenced the media picks and you chose to focus on Love who came 11th Harden or Curry who both finished higher than 2 of your picks you're countering. When you said "there are too many players that produce similar stats as Noah and scores" you could have done with referencing just one just so you can prove that statement. These are fairly minor issues with what was a really good debate. It didn't cost you anything in this debate but against a debater like Andre whose arguments are tighter than this in his selection criteria for example it could cost you more.
Perfect Poster - This is very good too. I like your criteria more than Aid180's but you could have referred back to it when arguing your case a little better. You had it there but it felt forgotten about later on in the debate when it could have been used again to good effect. Like I said to Aid180, your candidates also feel a little random. Obviously 800 words is a tough limit and not everything can be included but just bear it in mind for the future to argue why the alternatives you're countering are worthy alternatives. I really like the basis of your argument that Curry's individual contribution is the greatest and I think that's as strong a criteria for a pick for this as any and goes back to my criticism of Aid180's criteria. The 3rd to last paragraph is money. Hard facts and figures are always money arguments because there's no opinion to them. When you said "While the other players have significant splits as well, none are nearly as high as that." it could have done with a reference along with the efficiency rating figures. If someone else makes the same point but includes the source where they got the figures from then it helps them more. Be careful about raising counters for your own pick too. When you said "Curry guards the worst offensive guard on the other side so the Warriors can 'hide' him somewhat." I was expecting you to counter that later but you didn't. Your actual argument for Curry shot down the other picks well enough but just be wary of that too in the future.
JM - This was easily the weakest of the 3 debates and if you read the other 2 feedback's then you'll see why what I praised about their debates were largely missing in yours. No criteria hurt you straight away. It gave their debates good structure and reasoning for their pick. You just listed a load of stuff that Blake did well this season but didn't really link it back to any criteria for 3rd place MVP. Also a lot of your argument read like most improved rather than 3rd best. It was really missing facts and figures and more importantly facts and figures relative to other picks. Like how Perfect Poster argued for Curry and then showed the figures he used for Curry also work against others. Then you have your FIVE alternatives. yes five not four. The first time you said four I assumed it was a typo but then you did it again straight after listing five names and it came off a tad lazy the second time around. Your counters for these feel a bit rushed in all honesty and again they're not really in context showing why they mean Blake is better than them.
You can probably guess from reading my feedback that I was typing this I was going with Aid180 as the winner. Now I'm really not sure and I'm leaning more towards Perfect Poster. The more I think about the more flawed I think Aid180's criteria is and the more I'm agreeing with Curry > Blake because of Perfect Poster's carried the team argument. Plus it really foes hurt that Perfect Poster made just as convincing an argument for Curry yet you didn't even mention Curry whereas Perfect Poster was able to offer a counter for Blake > Curry. So because of that I'm giving it to Perfect Poster based on the core of his argument. This was really tight between you two though and both were really good debates.
Eliminate - JM
Winner - Perfect Poster
The Lady Killer
Aid180 = This was impressive. It really, really was. The use of the charts of course is a loophole for the word count, but this was fairly brilliant. You defined what it took to be considered a top 3 player in the NBA, and used that logic consistently throughout to eliminate other top choices and solidify your choice in Blake Griffin. Piggybacking off the chart was the ranking/points system. This was great and provided some meaning to the wonderful visual that the chart provided. The MVP voting was also huge, as it firmly placed Griffin behind the other two. I really can't find any faults here. Great debate.
Perfect Poster = This started out eerily similar to Aid180. You have your own set of criteria - although not as clearly defined as that of Aid180 - and also list the potential choices for the third best player in the League. You come right out and discount the others. I legit LOL'd at the youtube clip of Harden's shitty D. So embarrassing. The rest of this is pretty great. You make a great case for Curry - probably as good as the case Aid180 made for Griffin. Hopefully JM's sucks so it's easy to decide who is eliminated . I felt some of the counters addressed felt a little unanswered, especially the bit about roster comparisons. Curry had a great supporting cast, and also a decent bench. You could've mentioned something about injury woes to Bogut and Lee so that the 6th place finish in a tough Western Conference despite injuries was a testament to Curry's greatness and ability to finally stay healthy. Great debate, though.
JM = Right away, I notice a lack of defined criteria for what constitutes a great player as seen in the first two debates. I also think it was a waste to dwell on how much Blake has improved from last season. Dragic has improved tons from last season as well, but that doesn't mean he's the third best player in the League. It's all relative. The analysis of the other options was solid, but still felt a bit shallow in comparison to the other debates, which both felt strictly superior.
Eliminated = JM
Winner - Aid180
Aid180-This was good. This debate had the best analysis of the three and was probably the most convincing because of it. Your breakdown of the graphs served a nice dual purpose of shutting down the other candidates while leaving no doubt as to who the 3rd best player is. I liked your explanation for Love. A lot of people tend to forget that basketball is a team sport.
Perfect Poster-Your debate was more challenging because you took a different side, but I felt like you did a good job making a convincing argument. You could have done a better job eliminating other candidates but I think your argument for Curry was strong enough that it didn't hurt your debate too much. A good combination of analysis and skill.
JM-You did a solid job using the elimination concept to back up your argument. Your focus was primarily on basketball skill which was fine, but you failed to get into more specific detail/analysis to back up your claim like the other two debates did. I felt like this left a weakness in your debate because you needed someone else to back up your claim besides just the mention of skills. Still a solid debate though.
Winner via Split Decision - Aid180
JM is Eliminated
TDL Sports Division #1 Contenders Match
BkB Hulk vs Rush Has Luis Suarez been an effective big game player for Liverpool?
Spoiler for Debates:
Luis Suarez, current PFA Player of the Year, is a polarising figure. A player who is more harshly judged on his exploits unrelated to football than his efforts on the pitch has been in immense in leading Liverpool to finishing 2nd in the Premier League this season. Frustrating and exciting in equal measure, Suarez has set the standard this season with his goal scoring exploits. With 31 goals and 12 assists he has dragged Liverpool up from 7th into 2nd. He has copped criticism from as to whether he is an effective big game player. Allow me to set the record straight, Luis Suarez is absolutely an effective big game player.
Now one could argue that every game is important in getting your team to winning the title or cup. In my opinion a big game is one where you are either playing a big name team or rival, OR a game that has direct consequences on a title race e.g. Liverpool vs Crystal Palace or an important cup match e.g. a WC knockout game. Looking at this season the games against City, United, Chelsea, Everton, Arsenal, Spurs and Crystal Palace were important games. Across these 12 games (missing one against United) Suarez scored 7 goals and 5 assists. Now this is a small sample size but it does start to display an interesting trend. Suarez’s goals on average has fallen, while his assists on average increases.
Better teams in general have better defences than smaller clubs. They’re better individual players and they work better in their respective defensive systems. Now every club has differences in the overall defensive tactics, some playing with a high line, some defending deeper but across the board they all have one thing in common. That is that Luis Suarez gets far less time on the ball. In general the marking is better, and they shut down far more of his opportunities and he in turn scores less goals. However does this mean that he is any less effective than he normally is? Absolutely not. Simply by being on the pitch he draws attention away from his teammates and allows them more freedom to operate. Not many teams can totally stifle an opponent’s attack and when combined with teams concentrating heavily on shutting down Suarez it allows Sturridge and Sterling more opportunities in attack.
His movement in attack is outstanding and he will continually give 100% in making runs, and trying to give Liverpool the best chance of scoring. This can occasionally manifest in ways that are detrimental, like trying to take a chunk out of Ivanovic, but it means you know he is always committed to getting Liverpool the win. If he isn’t scoring the goals then he has no problem in setting up others to do so. Getting marked closer in big games means Suarez turns into more of a facilitator than he normally is, hence the higher number of assists this season in ‘big’ games on average than in ‘smaller’ games. This trend of scoring and assisting in big games isn’t just limited to this season. He has scored fairly regularly against every big club in the Premier League in his time at Liverpool, and on the biggest stage of them all in the World Cup he made arguably the biggest contribution in a big game with his handball to deny Ghana a goal and ultimately allowing Uruguay to progress. He also scored in the Copa America final which Uruguay won. So why is there this fairly widespread condemnation about how Suarez isn’t a big game player?
The answer for mine is quite simple and it is twofold. Besides people not liking him, he hasn’t won a major trophy. To take this quote from Michael Jordan “I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.” People don’t remember the times he took the shot and missed. They remember the 6 titles he won, they remember the MVP trophies and scoring titles. Suarez has only tasted top level success in the Copa America. Secondly he really is that good in general that people assume that he is going to make every big club look like Norwich. Suarez is a quality dribbler, and is excellent on the ball. Top quality defenders simply do not allow you that much time on the ball. It is completely unreasonable to expect Suarez to maintain his scoring rate. However while Suarez is less effective than he is usually, he is still more than effective against the big clubs. He still scores goals, he still provides assists, and he’s still effective in big games.
In his first Premier League game as captain, Luis Suarez single-handedly destroyed Tottenham, who were right on Liverpool’s tail as both teams chased a top four spot, in London, and in the process buried AVB under a blanket of Russian snow. Does it get much bigger than starting in the armband for the first time in a crunch game away? Nope. Has Luis Suarez been an effective big game player? Of course he has.
In eleven ‘big games’ (games against fellow top seven teams this season), Suarez has scored six goals. That’s OVER a goal every two games – a mark generally considered to show a top quality striker – and would leave Suarez with just over twenty goals for a season if he played a big game every week. Considering the second top scorer this season behind Suarez was Daniel Sturridge (thanks in part to Suarez’s assists) on 21 goals, Suarez would STILL be equal top scorer across the entire Premier League if he played a whole season of big games.
That notion may be ridiculous because a) other players don’t play all 38 games and b) Suarez himself didn’t play all 38 games, but it goes to illustrate just how effective he has been in big games. The rate at which Suarez scores in these games truly is great.
It’s not just the rate either, but also the manner in which he scores. Both goals at White Hart Lane showed calm brilliance at a time when Liverpool needed someone to stand up. At Goodison Park, Liverpool were under an early barrage and looked incapable of creating anything at all. Up stepped Suarez, scoring a free kick from a distance where it seemed ludicrous to even try from. That game went on to end 3-3, but without that early Suarez goal to get Liverpool into the game, there’s no doubt that it could have been bad for Liverpool.
It’s not just goals Suarez scores. This season he was the dominant force in the Premier League both in goals AND chances created, and this was no different in the big games. In those 11 big games, Suarez laid on 26 chances, and again, the timing of those chances was key.
The Arsenal defeat at the Emirates is pointed to as a time when Suarez didn’t stand up, but had Sturridge scored when Suarez played him in, the result could have been different and Suarez would be highlighted as a hero again. Instead, he gets the brunt of the blame for what was a distinctly average team performance, in a game in which Gerrard was also playing.
What about the goal that Raheem Sterling scored against Manchester City in April, that looked like propelling Liverpool once more to the top? Who played the perfectly weighted pass that afforded Sterling that time in the box? Luis Suarez. Who was central to the destruction of Arsenal at Anfield with his manipulation of the defence, and again played Sterling in for the first Liverpool goal from open play? Luis Suarez. Who, despite Chelsea parking two buses at Anfield in April, still created six chances in that game? Luis Suarez.
Sure, he might revert to type and dive around. He might call you Alvaro and cop a ban for alleged racial abuse or even bite an unsuspecting Serb, but sink your teeth into this – that doesn’t mean he’s not an effective big time player.
A lot of the anti-Suarez brigade will still be unconvinced, but a lot of those are also Manchester United supporters. They’re not going to think rationally on this matter because of all of the emotion surrounding it. Firstly, he’s a Liverpool player. Secondly, there’s the Evra issue. Thirdly, Suarez owns them. Yes, that’s right – Suarez OWNS them.
Not only has Suarez has scored on two of the three occasions that he has played at Old Trafford in the league, but he also announced himself as a Liverpool number seven by bedazzling United and dancing around half the team en route to an assist for Dirk Kuyt. Suarez was so good in that game that, while Dirk scored a hat-trick, Suarez was undoubtedly the standout.
It doesn’t get much bigger than Liverpool/United, especially with the history involving Suarez. He just can’t get enough there. It doesn’t get much bigger than playing the top team of the league. He just can’t get enough there. It doesn’t get much bigger than leading your team away to a rival and being thrust into leadership. He more than just scored a goal and the travelling Kop went wild. They just can’t get enough because he is an effective big game player. Luis Suarez.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Let me preface this by saying that my feedback for this might seem harsher than you deserve but it's largely because I probably would have argued the other side so I'm also looking for how effectively you shut down what I would argue. Somehow I didn't realise this when I made the match but two Liverpool fans debating this topic was always gonna go one way
Rush - Your intro is a bit wordy imo without adding much to your argument. 800 words is nothing so don't waste them on wordy intros. "A player who is more harshly judged on his exploits unrelated to football than his efforts on the pitch has been in immense in leading Liverpool to finishing 2nd in the Premier League this season. Frustrating and exciting in equal measure, Suarez has set the standard this season with his goal scoring exploits." - most of this could have been cut imo to save you like 50 words. The argument that while his goals might decrease his assists actually increase is a really good core argument for your stance. I think your idea of a big games helps pad those stats out a bit though. Like Spurs and Utd for example. Pretty sure you'd be quick to rag both as average teams but now you're including them as a big name team to pad your stats out. I guess by your definition they fit your criteria but you could also say that big game refers to facing the best opponents or do or die matches rather than facing a supposed big club playing like a team of pansies like Utd and Spurs last season. "This can occasionally manifest in ways that are detrimental, like trying to take a chunk out of Ivanovic, but it means you know he is always committed to getting Liverpool the win." I would have just left this line out. If I read that paragraph minus this line then it still reads just fine. By bringing up idiotic moments like the bite you're just diverting my attention to a flaw of Suarez in big games without doing anything to really counter it. Say he got sent off for doing something that stupid in a big match then how is he helping the team then? Of course you could have pointed to him cleaning his act up this season to really benefit Liverpool but you didn't. Then again I probably would have just pointed to the City game where his stupid diving reared its ugly head again and probably should have got him sent off in Liverpool's biggest match of the season at that point. "and on the biggest stage of them all in the World Cup he made arguably the biggest contribution in a big game with his handball to deny Ghana a goal and ultimately allowing Uruguay to progress." I'm guessing this wasn't meant as a joke so I was pretty dumfounded by it. That doesn't make him a good big game player. Like at all. It just means he's a CHEAT. So I didn't think that was valid proof at all. Not sure I got the Jordan comparison because Suarez isn't really a big trophy winner as you evidenced yourself. I thought you could have done with a few more specific examples and figures to your argument. That would have helped with the stats padding criticism too. I liked the core of your argument but it felt lacking in anything else supporting it.
BkB Hulk - "Does it get much bigger than starting in the armband for the first time in a crunch game away?" - virtual title decider vs Chelsea? Like I said with Rush, I'm iffy on citing the Spurs games so much as big games because it's essentially just padding out stats because the Spurs defence for them two matches was abysmal and not really what you associate with a big game like you'd get vs Chelsea or City. Your goals per "supposed" big game argument is well argue but again I think it's helped out by padded stats from including Spurs and Utd who are big name teams but weren't big playing teams last season. I'm not saying you're wrong to include them but them games really do pad the stats out compared to vs really strong defences and not the joke that especially Spurs' was vs him. The Everton specific example I liked a lot more though. The specific examples here to support your core argument is where I felt Rush was lacking. I liked the attempt at the Arsenal counter but you could also say that was one incident in isolation of a very poor big game performance. Like I said at the start I'm being super critical here but if you're gonna beat Andre then all your arguments need to be super tight. Sterling vs City example I thought was very good and one that Rush should have pounced upon. Again I probably would have gone back to the diving shit when the pressure was at its peak during that game but you didn't reference his insanity in the same way that Rush did at least so it's less of a direct knock on your debate. Not convinced on the Chelsea example though. He didn't create anything the likes of the Arsenal example you used earlier so it felt rather clutching at straws. "alleged racial abuse" - . The end then went off at a strange tangent. Did a Utd fan suddenly throw shit through your window as you were finishing this off? Also you know that 2 of the judges are Utd fans so probably not wise to really do your best to piss Utd fans off. Wasn't crazy about being told I can't think rationally about Suarez because I'm a Utd fan. Not holding any of this part against your debate other than it going off at a weird tangent. Also convenient neglection of the League Cup tie at OT where he played and didn't score. If you're counting the league match last season as a big game then surely that is too if you're basing a big game on the name value of the team rather than the performance quality. Not sure about "Suarez OWNS them". He's had good displays vs us like the ones you mentioned but then he was largely insignificant in the cup tie and the handshake match. Some iffy parts that I didn't agree on along with the stats padding but on the whole this was well argued.
Winner - BkB Hulk
I think you made a number of good points here, but as I'll allude to in the feedback for your opponent, I think you just didn't expand and provide the same detail in said points as your opponent did. I liked the way you looked at Suarez's assists, and considered what it takes to be 'effective'. He might not score as much as he does versus smaller teams, but that doesn't directly mean he has no impact on how Liverpool perform in the bigger games. A couple of examples in terms of assists would have really strengthened your point imo, because even though I could recall a number of said instances, it always reads better when you remind me of said assists/moments of genius, rather than me remembering them and then seeing you've not utilised them to add to your point. I don't really disagree with anything you said, and you did a good job at looking at how Suarez differs facing Chelsea compared to Stoke City, but reading both debates a few times I just felt your opponent provided more direct examples to strengthen their similar argument, which ultimately convinced me more than your valid and well argued points about the differing ways Suarez can be 'effective'.
As I covered in your opponent's feedback, you've gotten my vote becuase I felt you expertly supplied crucial examples of how Suarez has influenced big games for Liverpool, from both a goals and assists standpoint. The intro was smart and a nice way to begin, and from there you really set about selling Suarez as someone who has performed in big games. I liked that you also contextualised each example, rather than just merely documenting who he scored against. Highlighting how Everton were on top prior to Suarez's moment of magic really strengthens your argument when you consider the context of the goal, rather than just merely acknowledging he scored against them. So kudos there. I also felt you made good arguments for how he provided chances and opportunities to teammates, even in games where he was considered to be below par. The Arsenal example being key here, as Sturridge missing doesn't invalidate Suarez's key contribution had it lead to a goal. I also thought you made a shrewd argument in looking at prior seasons, namely against United. I was surprised initially that both of you focused primarily on this season alone, but you made a good argument to document Suarez's consistent prowess against United and his impact in the Anfield game where Kuyt nabbed a hat-trick. The conclusion was also really well written and you injected some cutting edge and savvy word-play throughout your debate that drew a smile out of me. Still, you supplied the necessary examples to give more depth and support to your arguments, which became stronger than your opponent's when you document key examples of Suarez influencing big games, whilst also making a couple of well argued defences for Suarez in games where he's been judged to have under-performed.
Winner - BkB Hulk
You probably could have saved words by making your intro a bit shorter. A better definition for a game like the Palace away match would be to state that it’s “a must win match” (even though they threw it away due to insane tactics, LOL) due to certain circumstances such as the team is quickly running out of games to catch up. Then you could have made a point about Suarez performing when the pressure was cranked up due to these circumstances, whereas the pressure wasn’t the same in the Palace game at Anfield. Maybe that’s what you were going for but your definition was really vague, so a superior comparison would have been appreciated. I’m not going to ignore your implementation of the Palace game because it’s valid, but you didn’t help yourself by using a lazy/weak definition. This is an area where debater B was far superior because he absolutely defined the factors that made a big pressure game.
Your use of stats was solid (although you should provide a link, especially for assists) while your explanation of why the stats changed in the big matches due to tactics was sound. By explaining how Suarez is actually a very good team player you supported your stance well.
You scored a bit of an own goal with “This can occasionally manifest in ways that are detrimental, like trying to take a chunk out of Ivanovic” because this is a perfect example of how he can lose his head in a big game, causing him to miss other big games via suspension. Really you could have just ignored this and it would have left you in a stronger state. The idea of commitment works a bit better if you’re defending him making robust tackles that can actually contribute towards a team’s performance on a consistent basis. The example of him cheating at the world cup is a better example from this perspective because he actively made a split second decision that was definitive in giving Uruguay a chance to progress.
The Jordan quote was a decent and creative way to show how people might not make these assumptions if Suarez had played for a more successful team. I also found the flat track bully Norwich comment to be inspired because it’s unfair to expect him to play against good teams in the way that he does against shit teams.
That was a decent debate with some creative ideas, but it could have been communicated a tad stronger in places.
Your intro was an effective way of setting a scene where Suarez did indeed perform like a big game player. I loved the comment “and would leave Suarez with just over twenty goals for a season if he played a big game every week” because it shows that his scoring rate is actually good in these games and that people give him a hard time because he doesn’t score as many in these games as he does against shit teams. Just goes to show that he’s his own worst enemy for being fantastic against dross. The stuff about Sturridge, assists and top goal scorers just confirmed what a brilliant argument this was.
I like that you pointed out that he can only do so much if he’s putting chances on a plate for others, but where was the reference to support your argument about chances created? Despite this, the Man City non-goal also added to your argument because it’s an example of the player having done everything right, but once again being let down by someone else (this time an assistant ref). The “Who, despite Chelsea parking two buses at Anfield in April, still created six chances in that game?” is a bit weaker for me because how many of those chances were clear cut and not just lay offs for pot shots?
I said the same thing to your opponent, but doesn’t the fact he has such a poor disciplinary record mean that he can be a liability for his team by missing big games via suspension, thus not being able to perform as a big game player? Meanwhile, when there’s proof that he so easily loses his head in big games (Chelsea and United), doesn’t that go against him as being able to perform on the big stage to some degree, especially professionally?
The stuff about Suarez at Old Trafford was much better, especially the point about ripping United apart so a mediocre player like Kuyt could benefit. The point about the history between United and Liverpool also added a lot of weight to your argument.
This was a good debate that generally lacked flaws and was communicated incredibly effectively.
BkB Hulk wins by virtue of providing more consistently strong arguments whilst also communicating them with greater clarity and effect.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - BkB Hulk
Special Attraction Match
DDMac vs Headliner Encouraging managers to hire more non-white employees is just as bad as encouraging them to hire more white employees? Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
Encouraging managers to hire more non-white employees is just as bad as encouraging them to hire more white employees? Agree or Disagree?
Does racism still exist?
Do minorities have the same economic & job opportunities as whites?
Is this why Affirmative Action was created?
Does the company image look more appealing to minorities when they see other minorities already working for that company? And is the company image enhanced when they hire more minorities?
Let’s answer these four questions. For the sake of this debate, let’s only focus on blacks and not the other races that make up the minority population.
Does racism still exists today?YES
Did you know that resumes with black names are more likely to get rejected than resumes with white names? A study from 11 years ago sent 5,000 resumes to various employers. The study showed that resumes with white names were 50% more likely to get a callback for an interview than candidates with African American names. It took 10 resumes with white names to get one call back, while it took 15 resumes with black names to get one callback. On top of that, higher qualified white candidates received 30% more callbacks over lower qualified white candidates while higher qualified black candidates only received 9% more callbacks than lower qualified black candidates. (1)
But, that study was 11 years ago. That means nothing in today’s world.
In 2012, 20/20 performed a similar study. They posted identical resumes with the only difference being a black name and white name. What happened? The white name resumes were downloaded 17% more than the black name resumes.(2)
On top of this, many educated black men and women are eliminating ‘black things’ from their resumes such as allegiances to black organizations and even middle names in fear that will not get an interview call because of the black appearance of their resume.
But yet hiring more blacks is just as bad as hiring more whites, right?
Do minorities have the same economic & job opportunities as whites? NO
Since the race era of the 1960's, there hasn't been much of a change in opportunity for African Americans.
(3)The unemployment rate for whites as of April 2014 was 5.3%. African American unemployment rate is double the white rate at 11.6%.
(4)This unemployment rate gap has been double for 50 years. The gap in household income between blacks and whites has not narrowed in 50 years. As a matter of fact, the wealth gap between blacks and whites has increased in the last three decades.
(5)For blacks aged 25 to 29 with a college degree, the unemployment rate is 7.6 percent which is higher than the entire white population's unemployment rate.
Hiring more non whites is just as bad as hiring more whites yet it’s documented that minorities do not have as many opportunities as whites? Unless you’re UNCLE TOM, JIM CROW or DONALD STERLING, THIS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE.
Is this why Affirmative Action was created? YES
Based on these staggering studies and statistics above, it’s highly accurate to suspect that opportunities for minorities would be much lower without Affirmative Action.
Does the company image look more appealing to minorities when they see other minorities already working for that company? And is the company image enhanced when they hire more minorities? YES AND YES
In the midst of several race scandals, many companies are pushing the idea of diversity by hiring more minority candidates. This serves a dual purpose. The company comes off as a real equal opportunist rather than a sheet of paper that every employer gives to the candidate when hiring. This gives them a positive public image which is something that every company hopes to achieve. The other purpose allows minorities to comfortably invest their interests in the company.
Allow me to let you in on a little black secret. Most minorities, mainly black people are more comfortable, and more likely to work for a company if they know there is a decent amount of black people already working there. Why? Because there is a cultural similarity, cultural comfort and to some degree a cultural trust that allows the black candidates to feel more secure in their work environment. This ultimately creates a more stable workplace which leads to a better reputation for the company. When it’s very little to no minorities in the workplace, the black candidate feels less comfortable because there’s a cultural difference, no cultural comfort, no cultural trust which leads to potential fear of not fitting in, potential backstabbing and potential racism.
So what have we learned today? We've learned that hiring more non-whites is NOT as bad as hiring more whites because African Americans already have a vast amount of obstacles and disadvantages in the workplace. We've also learned that hiring more African Americans is great for a company’s overall image while creating stable work environments for African Americans.
Encouraging managers to hire more non-white employees is just as bad as encouraging them to hire more white employees? Agree or Disagree?
Yes, it’s just as bad. Diversity is great. I love diversity. I’m Black. I have to. It’s in the rulebook. Chapter 2. Page 34. Chapter 5. Line 72. Right after “Always say ‘O.J. didn’t do it.’” But forcing acceptance and forcing diversity onto companies, I feel, is never the way to do it. In essence, a company is now exhibiting reverse racism* against white people whom are as qualified, if not more qualified, for the job.
*Reverse racism is a terrible, terrible phrase. Is reverse racism the opposite of the way racism is supposed to go?
Companies should hire whomever is best for the job. But they don't even do that really. The hiring process is already fucked up enough in and of itself. An interview process should be simple. “Are you crazy? If not, can you do this fucking job?” That’s it. Instead, the interviews are filled with fake niceties, ceremonial attire and questions that contribute to the infestation of bullshit and subpar EVERYTHING in this country.
“What do you like about our company? What drew you to our company? Where do you see yourself in five years in our company?”
Who gives a fuck?
I’m only going to give you a bullshit answer. I’m only going to tell you the answers that you want to hear. And you know I’m only going to tell you the answers that you want to hear. So really, the job goes to the best and most believable bullshitter. And that’s whom they want to get the job. Companies want the best bullshitters. They want the people more likely to sell their souls for a couple of bucks. They want the people more likely to eradicate whatever principles they may or may not have for the promise of middle management. Companies want the guy or girl ready to throw someone else down a river to save his or her own ass. That’s what the interview process is designed to find. Those people.
So now, we're going to fuck up the fucked up process even more by looking, not for the best bullshitter, but for the best Black bullshitter. Or the best Hispanic bullshitter. It's a nice concept, promoting diversity that is, but it only leads to more problems, a less qualified workforce and the illusion of progress and open-mindedness.
That’s right, the illusion of progress.
What good is progress if it comes by force? What good is better opportunities if they’re not actually opportunities? What worth does a reward have when the person who gives it is being held at gunpoint? What good is being a token? What good does it do anybody to have someone on payroll who’s there because of the color of their skin? It doesn’t do any good.
Yeah, it’s absolutely as bad as it would be to encourage a manager to hire more white employees. While one is more to likely be considered out and out racism, the other makes a mockery of racial progress in favor of pandering to a look, to a slight glimpse through a window.
“I count… one, two, three… four minorities in here, Good enough. They should be satisfied with that. Keep the Reverend Al off my case.”
This kind of thinking is partially why the ‘Good Ol’ U.S. of A. is in the shape it’s in now. Everyone’s supposed to nod and smile and keep the status quo, and make the slightest of visual concessions in order to allow them to further facilitate their agenda.
This is not the way progress is made.
To use an extremely Black example, I’ll use the NBA for a reference point (since I can’t think of a chicken, rap or watermelon reference). Before the 1950s the NBA had no Black players, now there is a plethora of them. In fact, the NBA is now eighty percent Black. There didn’t have to be a mandate for owners, coaches and general managers to hire more Black players. The performance dictated that it be done.
That’s how progress is, and should, be made. Through results, through a need. Not through force.
Encouraging managers to hire more non-white employees is nice window dressing for much bigger issues. And yeah, it’s just as bad as encouraging the hire of white employees, if not worse.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I think in choosing the side you did, you really had a job to convince me on your stance. Especially as your opponent made a series of logical and well reasoned arguments in response. I think the more I read of this, the more I feel you devalued the importance of 'encouraging' in the title question. I didn't disagree with any of the arguments you raised particularly, and you do a good job of highlighting the ever constant advantage white candidates still enjoy over their black counterparts. Still, I never felt you focused your debate on the 'encouraging' aspect, i.e - basically hiring non-white employees on the basis of their skin colour, rather than their credentials. You point out how black applicants are still disadvantaged today, but at the same time in relation to the debate question I couldn't help but feel you were ignoring the unfairness white candidates would receive under this scenario whereby they don't get a job because they're white and the manager is being encouraged to recruit non-white employees, regardless of their capabilities. So the answer to solving inequality between black applicants and white applicants is merely to make the white applicants more disadvantaged??? That's what I took away from your first argument and like I said, with the emphasis on 'encouraging managers' in the question, I felt like your arguments suffered in comparison to your opponent, who made a strong argument that this would not truly solve inequality between different races, but would rather just be a hollow victory for diversity. I also felt the argument said companies would appear equal opportunists was a bit weak considering you're supporting an instance where there wouldn't exist equal opportunities, at least not for white applicants. I feel there was a real racial crux to this question with regard to both instances (hiring white applicants or hiring black applicants) practising discrimination against one particular race, albeit for different reasons, and I didn't feel you covered this area with enough credence in comparison to your opponent. The writing, structure and tone was impressive however, and it's not that I directly disagree with your arguments, I just feel in relation to the question your opponent posed more convincing and tighter arguments than you did.
I covered much of where I felt your debate succeeded in your opponent's feedback, so this will be condensed. You smartly focused on the 'encouraging' aspect, and made succinct and convincing arguments that this process would merely promote further inequality, and makes a mockery of racial progress because non-white applicants would be earning jobs for the wrong reasons. ". It's a nice concept, promoting diversity that is, but it only leads to more problems, a less qualified workforce and the illusion of progress and open-mindedness" - awesome line. You really covered to me the clear crux in the question of whether it's ok to discriminate against one race, who have likely benefitted from discrimination in the past, and of course the answer is no. Discrimination needs to become a thing of the past, but it will forever exist if managers are encouraged to hire non-white applicants because of their skin colour rather than their capabilities. Only when applicants can earn a job because they present themselves as the best candidate will progress be made. All you're doing, as you alluded to, is reversing those who benefit/suffer from said institutionalised discrimination.
The only thing I'd say is that your paragraph relating to interviews could have been condensed heavily imo. I felt it was the weakest of your paragraphs and came about at a bad time after a strong start. Fortunately, when you focus on the crux issues your arguments become stronger, so this is more of a word to the wise for future debates. It was written well and had some nice satirical humour, but it wasn't integral to your debate and I feel it's something you might be wise to consider for future reference to ensure you make your words count and don't waste time on paragraphs with little overall consequence.
Winner - DDMac
Strong effort here. Plenty of facts and statistics to set up your points, and some passion flows through the arguments as well. The lay-out is clean and easy to follow.
With your "4 main points" approach that you laid out in the beginning, I don't know if you needed to include the bit about affirmative action. It probably could've been integrated somewhere in 1 and 2, rather than having it's own little area that comes across as less substantial against the depth of the other sections.
That said, the other 3 sections were all strong, and make a compelling case as to why hiring more minorities is not as bad as hiring more white people.
Right off the bat, this debate presents a much more personal, personality-driven tone compared to Headliner. The passion and good mix of humour throughout really made this debate fun to read, even though it covers a serious topic.
The point about the best qualified individual should get the job is fair. Your points about the superfluous hiring process are valid, but it's not your strongest argument. I feel there's a counter here too - what if the "most qualified" for a job means it's beneficial to have an Ivy League (read: expensive as shit) education, but you're a minority who's just as bright as a Harvard kid, but didn't have the money and trust funds to afford education there? You can't match that PAPER degree, so you don't get a shot. Maybe that's a situation where this DOES work.
When you start getting into the notion of "progress", I think you really hit a high point. The NBA example was beautiful, showing how progress is possible without it being forced, and I think it really ends your debate on a high note.
This is weird for me. While I enjoyed the overall tone of DDMac more, and I personally agree with the opinion of the debater, I feel that Headliner produced a tighter, more factually sound debate that leaves little room to counter thanks to its effective setup. Headliner gets my vote, but a great job from both competitors.
I didn’t like the fact that focused JUST on black people, because that’s obviously not what the debate is about. Regardless of your debate being narrow in this sense, you did provide lots of excellent statistics that backed up your stance. This worked well because you effectively argued that ‘blacks’ are given less chance of reaching the interview stage that debater B claimed was a load of histrionics and bullshit, so essentially you countered him by showing that there’s far less chance for ‘blacks’ to even reach that stage, therefore the problem lies a lot deeper than any interviewing process that your opponent claims is actually irrelevant.
You followed this up with more overwhelming stats, the college unemployment one being particularly eye catching. The only issue I do have with these stats is that it doesn’t take youth motivation into account, while a comparison to unemployed white college graduates was really needed in order to display any severe contrast, but you didn’t include that.
I liked the company multiculturalism perspective that you took because you effectively argued that by implementing a more diverse hiring process that you could potentially make a company a more attractive proposition to those who want to use the company’s services. However, I wasn't entirely on board with the perspective from the minority employee because by the way you worded that argument it sounded like this could encourage cliques and separate factions based on the idea that certain races are only comfortable around others. That’s the last thing that you want in a working environment.
This was a decent debate that would have benefited with greater context and statistical clarity in certain areas. Regardless, you did more than enough to convince me that encouraging managers to hire more non-white employees isn’t as bad as encouraging them to hire more white employees, even if I don’t necessarily agree that either option is a good road to run down long term.
I thought you made a good point about the interviewing process being a game of bullshitters luck, but then Headliner made a convincing and statistically supported argument about certain minorities having far less chance of reaching the talking bollocks stage of the process due to their resumes being rejected far more frequently than those from candidates with white names. So while what you’re saying rings true, your opponent went one better by pointing out that the problem lies much deeper and begins long before the interviewing stage.
Because your debate was quite narrow and heavily relied on this one argument it really suffered because Headliner was just far more ruthless and used overwhelming statistical evidence to support his stance. It’s not that I necessarily disagree with your view point or that I’m not convinced by it, but in a debate where it’s "is one thing as bad as the other?" your opponent made a convincing argument to suggest that one definitely wasn’t as bad as the other, even if neither options are exactly a great way of thinking.
If you had used more examples such as the NBA one while making a compelling argument that these examples are completely relatable to the common working world (which I’m dubious about, any fucker can work in an office typing generic responses and answering phone calls from angry spastics, but we all know that white men can’t jump…). So by using more of these examples, especially ones that are more comparable to normal working environments, you would have made a stronger link between available evidence and your actual stance, but in reality it was a tiny bit disconnected, even if it was a decent idea.
So while I do agree with a lot of what you’re saying and was reasonably convinced by some of your arguments, your opponent just went one better and related his evidence and arguments to the topic question with greater effect. He left me feeling a large amount of doubt over whether one was really as bad as the other, whereas you made me doubt that either was a good idea, yet failed to convince me that they were as bad as each other because you lacked strong counters to the evidence that your opponent provided. So even if your opponent only convinced me that forcing managers to hire more whites is just 5% worse than forcing them to hire more minorities (after taking your arguments into consideration), it’s still worse, even if only by a little bit.
Ironically I don’t see the answer as being a very black and white thing, with the reality being far more complicated and a lot more nuanced than either debater was willing to argue (and rightfully so). Now while both debates hold a lot of credit, Headliner just went that little bit further to convince me. Headliner wins the vote.
Winner via Split Decision - Headliner
TDL Social Division Championship Match
Hollywood Hanoi vs Anark Homosexuality in Humans is natural. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
Not counting ‘the Devil made them do it’, there are three theories regarding this subject, so let’s get them all on the table and give them the once over before I prove to you that homosexuality is indeed natural in humans.
• Homosexuality in humans is 100% unnatural, caused by exterior/environmental influences occurring during childhood and/or adolescence.
• Homosexuality is 100% natural, caused by genetics/hormonal imbalances in the womb.
• Homosexuality is the result of a combination of the above.
That first theory is about as ham-fisted as it gets, if you’ll pardon the pun, because there is zero evidence supporting it. In agreement with other experts and authorities on the matter, the Royal College of Psychiatrists state there is “no substantive evidence” to suggest that parenting or early childhood experiences play any role whatsoever in the production of homosexual humans.
That statement would seem to put the ball well and truly in the court of the theory that homosexuality is purely genetic and a result of biological factors that result in people being born gay. However, no concrete evidence has been discovered to prove this theory beyond doubt either. No ‘gay gene’ has been identified, and theories claiming that homosexual men have fewer male hormones and lesbians have fewer female hormones than their heterosexual counterparts have been proven to be untrue.
This lack of evidence for either 100% theory is why each of them is receding in support among the scientific community. The American Psychological Association stated that "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
It is this validity of instinctive sexual orientation and of genetic/hormonal conditions that at the very least also contribute to homosexual tendencies that provides us with the answer to the debate question.
Considering what we actually know, reason absolutely demands that homosexuality be considered a natural occurrence in humanity, assuming the Devil didn’t do it.
SEX FOR PROCREATION?
Now, I make jokes about the Devil etc, but behind all their prejudiced rhetoric and denials of equal rights, the religious fanatics do actually have a point regarding homosexuality.
GAY SEX SERVES NO PURPOSE! IT’S NOT NATURAL BECAUSE YOU CAN’T IMPREGNATE A BUM!
Gay sex has no natural purpose while heterosexual sex is clearly designed/evolved for procreation. Right?
If the sole purpose of sex is procreation, then all or at least most acts of sex should result in pregnancy, but that’s not even nearly the case. Humans are actually a lot less fertile than most other species. Consider what Jared Diamond says in his book The Third Chimpanzee: “Even young newlyweds who omit contraception and make love at maximum frequency have only a 28 percent probability of conception per menstrual cycle.”
That percentage is for young newlyweds only, so remember how steeply human fertility declines with age. Female fertility peaks between the ages of 20 and 24 and begins to decline as early as her late 20s, declining faster and faster during her 30s until most women are unlikely to conceive at all after the age of 45. Even if a 40+ woman does become pregnant, her chances of miscarriage are massively multiplied.
If we take the Western expected lifespan of 70 to 80 years into account, and that sex exists purely for procreation, then it is a mystery why it is so difficult, often impossible, for it to serve that purpose for the vast majority of our lives. Even during the peak age of maximum fertility, the chances of pregnancy are much lower than most other animals.
This is before we consider the unfavourable variables of the human female’s fertility cycle, which does its hardest to minimise the possibility of fertilisation. Human females do not experience an estrous cycle – physical changes that advertise her fertility such as the large red arses of baboons – and they exhibit zero changes to make men aware of their potential impregnatability.
All these facts declare that most human sexual relations are going to occur when the chances of impregnation are at a minimum. This just doesn’t make sense if nature intended human sex to be purely about procreation.
BUT WHAT OTHER PURPOSE COULD SEX SERVE?
Pair bonding is of paramount importance to most warm-blooded species, and not just for the raising of children. In nature, pair bonding is a stress reliever, strengthens community cohesion and can be used as social currency. It can also be used - dud-da-da-daaah! - for pleasure.
Homosexuality doesn’t violate any of these other purposes for sex. The existence of these purposes of sex actually reinforces the notion that homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence, especially in humans.
Humans, humans, humans. I’ve talked a lot about humans. It’s almost as if they are the only measuring stick of nature.
But they ain’t.
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM
Bruce Bagemihl’s study in 1999 observed homosexual behaviour in nearly 1,500 species and scientifically documented it in over 450 species. Also note there have been zero studies able to discount Bagemihl’s findings; only more and more backing him up.
That’s that then.
Homosexuality is so common in nature that it cannot possibly be considered anything other than natural. We don’t know exactly why. It could be a hormonal thing which is certainly natural, but it could also be circumstantial where two males encounter each other and find themselves satisfied in their search for a mate. Maybe it’s nature’s population control mechanism – which has support in the evidence that many animals stop reproducing when food and resources are scarce (see pandas).
Whatever the reason is, the evidence is overwhelming that homosexual behaviour manifests in a vast myriad of different species and thus is a perfectly natural thing. I know we humans are a bit special, but we’re not so special that we can call something UNNATURAL when nature herself has clearly deemed otherwise.
Yes I agree that Homosexuality is natural in humans, my gut feeling is to agree, a study of facts on offer compels me further to agree, my judgement at its most unclouded by bigotry, agendas and bias also compels me to agree. In fact when this debate comes up every instinct tells me if something has been happening since the dawn of humanity, occurs in multi-millions of the world’s population in every possible environment and has at least some genetic components then it seems pretty damn definitively natural to me.
But first let’s make one thing clear: I’m not a scientist, I’m not a homosexual, I’m not a bigot, I follow no religious code. The question you’re asking is whether I agree and I will merely state things as I see them, as impartial as I can be.
What is unnatural?-
Where do we see this topic most but in the debate for gay rights where natural must only be argued for in defence of claims of it being unnatural, but what exactly do they usually mean by unnatural:
-“no procreation = unnatural” – oh how I hate this viewpoint, how it ignores that in 2014 sexuality in human nature has evolved so far beyond keeping the planet over populated, it ignores a basic human need for companionship, it ignores sex for pleasure, it ignores straight people who wish to remain childless etc etc.
-“artificial, man-made, not occurring in nature = unnatural” – the first problem with this is disregarding that homosexuality exists in 100s of different animals, and even if we are to disregard that it ignores the infinite number of behaviours that are unique to humans.
-“immoral = unnatural” – the irony of this angle is that a person’s concept of ‘morality’ is indisputably shaped far more by cultural background than a person’s inherent attractions and besides, personal morality is completely subjective. Of course religious beliefs fall under this too but I don’t even want to bring them into this debate, I’d rather talk about definable logic.
Here’s a few things we know
1) Some studies suggest there is at least some genetic component to homosexuality (1)
2) Numerous studies have found multiple biological/physiological factors at play (2)(3)(4)
3) The ‘choice’ debate, taken literally, is a non-starter, it falls at the first hurdle, I’ve yet to find any evidence of a single person who thought to themselves “well I’ve weighed up both options and after some consideration I have decided to take the gay(or straight or bi) path”.
4) Homosexuality is found in every culture, race, religion, age group and in both male and females, that it is in the minority compared to heterosexuality can class it as an aberration but an aberration that happens naturally.
But I can’t get hung up on the science, I told you I’m not a scientist, those links above are all things I learned yesterday and I can guarantee that a few minutes googling could turn up just as many ‘studies’ proving otherwise (even if those ones I did see were laughably biased and twisting/morphing the word ‘natural’ to fit their viewpoint), while the gay-gene debate rages on there is no one easy simplified definitive answer and if you’re looking for genetic breakdowns then best ask someone else, but you didn’t ask that, you asked if I agree that homosexuality is natural to humans, lets shoot a little….
All humans, straight and gay, are profoundly shaped by both their biology and culture, this is the problem with most ‘nature vs nurture’ debates, people take the phrase to mean an either/or question when it’s really a matter of how one balances, feeds and interweaves into the other. Everyone exists on a sliding scale which becomes fixed when a person becomes self-aware and our identity forms (which is in itself hugely affected by the culture and environment we are brought up in). If the genetics lean a person in certain direction then the external influences shape how that person deals with those forces whether by exploring or repressing them. In my view this quest for balance, for self-actualization, to ‘find ourselves’, is completely natural to all humans whether straight, asexual or one of the many millions who find themselves instinctively attracted to the same sex. It’s as natural for us to be a product of our environment as of our genetics.
Predispositions may exist but only when these interact with the gamut of human emotion and experience does a person reach their own natural state, so I can’t look at this issue as “born this way” versus becoming gay when it seems most clear to me that in a healthy person it’s 6 of one and a half dozen of the other, i.e. it’s BOTH, finding the balance is what is natural.
To close let me say one more thing on the topic title itself –most of the time it’s a red herring, a trap to keep people in easily defined boxes, a distraction at best that neither advances nor detracts from the real issue that is usually in question and that is are homosexuals so different to heterosexuals that they should be treated differently (that answer should be obvious). It’s still full of traps and pitfalls for both ends sides of the topic – if it’s something learned then “they choose to be that way, those selfish gays”, if it’s genetic then “they can’t help it, they’re to be pitied like dumb animals who can’t help themselves”. I fail to see how it would even matter anyone beyond the scientific community or the prejudiced looking for validation. In my view homosexuality is natural in humans purely by virtue of it always existing, continuously evolving, and constantly advancing in understanding and acceptance. I can give no other answer other than to say I agree.
I'll quickly preface this by saying that this feedback will be brief seeing as I'm just filling in and Anark has already won the debate. Most of the thoughts I had were already mentioned by Andre and WOOLCOCK so no point in repeating them in great detail. Anark wins my vote because he had better supporting evidence for his stance and it felt more like the right stance rather than the stance he was taking right or wrong. Hanoi's debate felt a bit too "this is MY opinion". That's ok but to be really persuasive it then needed to reaffirm that your stance was actually the correct one. Just try and be a bit more persuasive in your language. Remember that you're trying to convince the reader so more convincing language is needed for a Title match. Only extra point that I'd add on for Anark is just be careful about tailing off at too much of a tangent. Your sex for procreation part steered a tad too far away for from the topic at one point.
Winner - Anark
This should make for some interesting reading seeing as this is something that I’ve studied extensively in sociology. Thankfully you both went with the “correct” answer, just in slightly different formats.
I loved your intro which was fantastic way to break down the question and arrive at your stance, although the line starting “theories claiming that homosexual men have fewer…” would have benefited from the use of the word ALL, because SOME homosexual humans do have less gender related hormones. That’s a minor criticism. I’m glad that you touched upon the nature/nurture debate because this is where the reality of the matter lies.
I didn’t think that the “28 percent probability of conception per menstrual cycle” argument was the best when trying to point out that sex isn’t just for procreation, because the lower probability doesn’t necessarily eradicate the conscious/subconscious desire to conceive. If you need three pumps of the gun to make one accurate shot, then it makes sense why a natural sex drive could be higher with these odds. A better example would have been to reference the success of worldwide condom sales, or even the growing use of birth control products. The point about human fertility declining with age was a bit better, although you would have strengthened it by pointing out (and referencing via study) that many Women reach their sexual peak around the age that their fertility levels begin to rapidly drop off, which is obviously a massive contradiction in the face of any argument that sex is only natural for procreation. All of your arguments here weren’t terrible by any means, but I think you could have easily strengthened them.
The ‘BUT WHAT OTHER PURPOSE COULD SEX SERVE?’ section was spot on, even if a bit brief. I liked the evidence that you presented about homosexuality in animals, although I felt that you could have strengthened this with a superior link to how their sexuality relates to humans (it obviously does, but it’s your job to argue/explain that) seeing as the debate relates strictly to humans. Just a sentence or two would have done the job. I get the “Homosexuality is so common in nature that it cannot possibly be considered anything other than natural” point, but someone could easily make a counter point by saying that human social constructionism blurs the lines of what is natural/unnatural to the point that it might not necessarily relate to the animal kingdom, or at least not directly.
This was a good debate with a very solid understanding of the topic, but to have been “great” it just needed more relevant and concrete examples at certain points.
I didn’t like how you focused on the word “I” so much in your intro (and later on in your debate), because that comes across as weak and as if you’re happy that you’ve convinced yourself, regardless of what others think. It’s not really what I would call persuasive language in a debate. I get that the debate topic includes the question ‘Agree or disagree?’, but you have to go BEYOND telling me your opinion and what you believe by supporting your arguments with greater evidence. This is an area where your opponent excelled by providing more evidence while conveying the message in a more forceful and impressing manner.
Your ‘What is unnatural?’ segment was strong, although like your opponent I think you could have made a stronger link between sexuality in animals and humans. Again, “and even if we are to disregard that it” seems like a very submissive sentence where the aforementioned link would have been of more benefit.
‘3) The ‘choice’ debate’ in your science section failed to take into account how some people, especially women, take the gay route because of bad life experiences or mistrust in men. Some of these women aren’t lacking in sexual attraction to men, but their experiences encourage them towards the companionship of other women. Whether you want to define that as natural or unnatural is up to you, but it was a bit of a miss.
Again, you admitted that this is not an area of expertise for you in the “But I can’t get hung up on the science…” paragraph before suggesting that there’s evidence out there that COULD counter your arguments. As a judge I don’t want to see these meek cop outs, I want to see arguments against the type of research that you acknowledged in passing.
The whole nurture/nature section was easily your strongest argument and was an excellent explanation for how genetic and social aspects influence humans. By following up with your own definition of what natural means in this context you sent it to the next level. That, coupled with your penultimate paragraph (dodgy formatting aside), was probably stronger than anything written in your opponent’s debate, but really you needed to be producing that level of quality throughout your debate for it to have been great. Your final paragraph just built on this by using emotive language to convey the idea that it’s wrong to define homosexuality as unnatural because it doesn’t fit in with bigoted societal views (you could have earned extra points by slaying religions part in this). I’m annoyed because I thought the final third of your debate was pretty much fantastic and completely on point, but it was let down by the rest which was a bit soft and ponderous in places.
This was a decent match in the end. Anark wins due to the use of far more persuasive language and the greater implementation of research, although Hanoi made it a close run thing with the end of his debate that eclipsed any emotional aspects and arguments that Anark attempted to muster up. If you had combined Anark’s research and logical arguments with the emotional panderings from the final third of Hanoi’s debate then you would have had a classic debate.
This was good, with a smart structure which lead to your debate having a good flow and your arguments building to the next, whilst smartly presented to be easy to read and digest as a reader. I liked how you initially brokedown the question with regard to leading theories to arrive at the core of the question, and from there you provided good support for your arguments whilst employing a broad depth of consideration, relating to the purpose of sex and how homosexuality cannot be considered un-natural in respect of this. Your conclusion was concise but effective, and really I don't have too much else to really say. Your arguments were effective and well built to with relevant supporting evidence attached to add weight to your arguments. The writing style was succinct and allowed you to make a number of points in good detail without wasting valuable words, and ensured you presented numerous instances to validate your overall argument.
This also was good. You take a different approach in regard to the 'natural' and scientific approach, focusing on succinct points without much expansion, compared to your opponent who provided more detail and explored both topics further in relation to the content of their debate. I would have condensed the paragraph in between Science and your penultimate paragraph, if only because I feel it didn't offer much beyond a recap of what you alluded to at the start in regard to it being your opinion. It read more as inconsequential and not really saying anything pertinent, so in that respect condensing it to segue into your followup paragraph, whilst retaining more words with which to add to your argument would have been wiser to me. The penultimate paragraph is very good however, with your focus on self-awareness and how we're a natural product of our genetics and environment. Your conclusion ended strongly but I felt what preceded it wasn't necessary and could have been considered elsewhere. I felt you'd laid the foundations for an effective summarisation of your main arguments, but instead you went on a separate tangent before arriving back at your official conclusion.
Both of these debates were good and the decision was hard to come by. Both of you focused on similar themes, although Anark expanded in far more detail in respect of theories, what is natural and how homosexuality can be viewed as natural in light of the purposes of sex, whereas Hanoi opted for a finer consideration of these topics, making succinct arguments with supporting data and then focusing on biological and cultural implications. Reading both back to back, I felt Anark just had a bit more depth and range to it, in addition to having more fully developed arguments that had more credence to them. Both debates made logical and well-reasoned arguments, but I felt Hanoi's succinct writing style meant they raised less overall arguments than Anark, whilst also being unable to cover said arguments in the sufficient detail as Anark.
Winner - Anark
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Anark
TDL Wrestling Division Championship Match
WOOLCOCK vs Seabs Has Triple H done more good than bad or bad than good to the careers of other wrestlers?
Spoiler for Debates:
Has Triple H done more good than bad or bad than good to the careers of other wrestlers?
IWC's "perception" of Triple H:
Spoiler for .:
Spoiler for .:
The REALITY is that Triple H has played a significant part in (re)establishing basically every superstar who has been a main-eventer in the past decade and hasn't hurt the chances of any wrestler being more than they were ever going to be.
For the purposes of this debate "Triple H" refers to the on-screen character so no backstage politics nonsense. Plus, good luck finding undeniable proof that Paul was responsible for burying guys backstage. Secondly, the time-period will be focused on 2002 onwards by time Hunter was an established main-event act with enough star power capable of actually influencing the career's of his opponents.
First off, let's get the supposed GEEKS that Hunter "buried" out of the way first. RVD and Booker T. All he did was beat them. Yes the guy at the top of the card actually beat another wrestler below him in the hierarchy. Heaven forbid right?
Say Triple H did drop the title to them. Then what? History has proven that RVD and Booker T weren't main-event draws so Triple H losing to them wouldn't have done any good. Hunter not putting them over didn't do any bad because it didn't stop them fulfilling their potential and becoming the main-eventers that they were never good enough to be.
Instead, Triple H going over them actually had some benefits. Triple H was a top star because he won title matches and main events. You know how you establish a new guy as a top star? You have him beat another top star in title matches and main events. If Triple H was losing consistently to guys like Booker T & RVD then it wouldn't mean anything when Triple H did put over someone who could actually also be a successful top star. The same applies to any of them tag-team GEEKS that Hunter ever killed. The main-eventer simply beat another wrestler further down the hierarchy to get himself heat. It's not a burial, it's simply pro wrestling 101. Londrick didn't reach the top because Hunter pedigreed them a few times, it was because they weren't good enough to ever get there.
Then there's CM Punk and Brock Lesnar. Granted Triple H didn't do either a great deal of good but it wasn't through want of trying and more importantly Triple H didn't hurt the career of either. After feuding with Triple H, Punk went on to the longest World Title reign of the modern era, headlining PPVs with The Rock and challenging The Streak at Wrestlemania. The Triple H feud didn't really benefit him but it didn't hurt him either as evidenced by the success he went on to have immediately after.
As for Brock, people are quick to forget that Triple H put him over twice. Yeah Triple H won the big one but really, how often does the heel win a major match at Wrestlemania? Currently it's too early to see any potential damage that Hunter did to Brock but last time I checked, Brock just broke The Streak and is the hottest heel they've had in recent memory. Hard to argue that Triple H did severe damage to Brock when that's the case just a year later.
Now let's look at this crazy collection of wrestlers for who Triple H significantly benefited their careers.
Randy Orton & Batista - WWE want them to be top stars but need an established top star to get them there. Enter Triple H to put them in the main-event spotlight from the very start and then enhance their star power through feuding with them post Evolution.
John Cena - WWE need an established top star to put Cena over as the new #1 guy. Enter Triple H to submit to him at Wrestlemania 22.
Chris Benoit - WWE decide to give him the ball but need an established top star to put him on their level. Enter Triple H to submit to him at Wrestlemania 20.
Shawn Michaels - WWE need to present Shawn as a top star upon return to a large audience who never saw him wrestle before. Enter Triple H to re-establish him as a star at a main-event level.
Jeff Hardy - WWE want to give him a main-event run but need an established top star to establish him at that level. Enter Triple H to put him over clean.
Daniel Bryan - WWE give Bryan the World Title but need an established top star to put him over at their level. Enter Triple H to lose to him clean.
The Shield - WWE want to establish them as guys who can beat established top stars. Enter Triple H to put them over.
Now that's a huge list of stars while only showing the highlights. You can add Undertaker, Sheamus, Rated RKO, Ric Flair, Shelton Benjamin, Goldberg and Legacy to that list too. If you think about every top WWE main-eventer over the past decade then the majority of them are in that list. Most importantly though the 3 big stars of this generation are there. The 3 stars that this era has been built around became established top stars thanks to Hunter putting them over and that trend is now continuing into the next generation with Bryan and The Shield. The TRUTH of the matter is that when WWE have a new act they want to try and make a star, Triple H is the one that gets them there.
For all the criticism that Triple H gets for supposedly not putting others over, the reality is just the opposite. The list of careers that Triple H has enhanced is a who's who of past, present and future main-eventers. Compare that to the supposed "damage" he really hasn't done to the careers of others and the answer is a no-brainer. Triple H has been pivotal in getting nearly every top star of the last decade to that spot and he hasn't prevented and potential main-eventers from fulfilling their potential.
Has Triple H done more good than bad or bad than good to the careers of other wrestlers?
“It’s all about the game and how you play it”. What a shame then that only one gamer was able to master and overcome the otherwise debilitating ordeal that is a feud with HHH. Not only has a lucrative and genuine attraction been nullified and de-valued opposite the Cerebral Assassin, but countless others have failed to escape a program with HHH with more credibility and upside than they possessed previously. HHH has therefore done more bad than good to the careers of other wrestlers.
Brock Lesnar could break The Streak, but even he was unable to escape a program with HHH with much upside. After a promising beginning which saw Lesnar topple HHH and Summerslam 2012 proving a financial triumph , the program was bemusedly continued, with Lesnar pathetically portraying a stooge heel who repeatedly ran from HHH. Lesnar was noticeably restrained in all three HHH matches, whilst HHH crucially failed to portray the vulnerable and overwhelmed babyface that contrasts superbly against Lesnar’s destructive character.
The feud was an unmitigated disaster the longer it progressed, with Lesnar’s valuable and sparse appearance dates wasted with him often running from direct physical confrontation with HHH, and repeatedly coming off second best when they briefly confronted on another. The lack of heat for their Wrestlemania match was painful to watch for a near year long program, and by the time the program culminated at Extreme Rules 2013, Lesnar’s box office stardom was suitably diminished with their final encounter drawing a substantially lower buyrate than Lesnar’s return match a year prior .
A clear criticism of HHH continually resides in his reluctance to allow his peers to gain heat on him, in a manner that presents himself as the underdog. No-one felt the brunt of this worse than Chris Jericho. Their feud in 2002 wrote itself, especially in light of HHH’s torn quad in a match involving Jericho. Comically however, their prior history was never alluded to in this program, and Jericho was robbed of the opportunity to claim he injured HHH. A clear origin of the feud was overlooked, instead the crux of the feud rested between HHH and Stephanie.
It was INTEGRAL for Jericho to come out of the feud with some respectability, yet sadly the heat in the program (HHH’s legitimate injury) was described as something HHH caused himself, all whilst Jericho remained an afterthought to the central HHH-Stephanie dynamic. Jericho would never fully recover from a disastrous first reign as Champion, and it would take an eventual reinvention of his character six years later for him to ascend to the heights he once found himself at. Poorly presented, diminished to a mere supporting player in his Wrestlemania title program and treated as an eternal supporting player, Jericho’s once promising upside as an uppercard figure was curtailed in the blink of an eye.
As World Champion, HHH was often tasked with making his opponents look strong in defeat to protect their image. The most comical and disastrous failure in this regard lies in the infamous Scott Steiner program of early 2003.
Steiner was undoubtedly out of shape and not primed for the immediate main event program he was placed in so soon after debuting. However, as someone with tremendous tenure and clout at the time, HHH surely cannot shirk his responsibility and subsequent failure to work around Steiner’s limitations. His rigid adherence to working recurring twenty minute title matches horrifically exposed Steiner’s ring rust, resulting in appalling matches which devalued Steiner’s credibility and rapport in the eyes of the fans.
Steiner was confined to the midcard soon after and his initial starpower irrevocably damaged. It was no doubt misguided to propel Steiner so soon into a title program, but HHH had the experience and foresight to identify Steiner’s limitations and work around them, rather than accentuate them and expose Steiner to a worldwide audience. It was a clear failure to protect the image and credibility of an opponent he would defeat, a recurring fault throughout HHH’s career.
Where to even bloody begin with this farce?
Much like Steiner, this program exemplifies HHH’s inability to protect the credibility of his opponents in defeat. The racial undertones to the program were unsettling and tasteless, and Booker was placed in an unfavourable position whereby he absolutely needed to go over to avoid validating HHH’s claims that he was below his level. The most glaring fault however, rested in the execution of the finish where HHH won. On a night where Austin, McMahon and Angle all took multiple finishers in their matches, one Pedigree was enough to overcome Booker. As if this didn’t diminish his standing and credibility enough, HHH took an eternity in covering Booker, further reinforcing Booker’s standing in comparison to those now firmly positioned ‘above his level’.
The most befitting example of HHH’s adherence to ‘doing the job at the lesser show’. Goldberg is and forever will be a delicate character, but the absolute best time for him to win the title was at Summerslam. His cameo in the Chamber was his destructive best, and the fans were incredibly receptive to the idea of HHH finally being dethroned. By the time Goldberg won the title the next month, the heat and interest had clearly diminished from Summerslam and his victory meant little after failing at the bigger show. The best example of how an individual missed their window of opportunity to have an impact with the title, all for the sake of a month extra reign.
It is therefore clear, that HHH has had a far more damaging effect on the careers of other wrestlers. His historical inability to protect the image of those he defeated and his reluctance to portray a vulnerable and overwhelmed babyface when the situation required it ensure Batista remains the sole individual who unarguably benefitted from working with HHH. A far more impressive accomplishment when we consider the colossal and misguided failings which saw numerous others fall by the wayside.
I’m not a fan of non-statistical pictures in TDL, because your words should convey the message. Regardless of that, you made your point well in the intro. I like your definition of Triple H being the on screen character rather than the backstage guy. The wording of the topic question was there for you to manipulate and you did that well. Your explanation for how you make a top guy and how you need to feed that top guy guys who aren’t top guys in order to keep him credible for when he has to put over guys with potential to be a top guy was spot on. I think even Alex Humph would be satisfied with the number of guys in that sentence.
With the Booker T example you completely ignored the racist overtones of the angle, which was an own goal. An argument could be made that HHH has been bad for the business through things like this and the original DX run, even leading up to nonsensical garbage such as the Katie Vick shite that he agreed to work with, even though he didn’t have to. So wouldn't these things have a majorly negative impact on every wrestler in WWE if those angles and acts devalue the general perception of wrestling, especially when it isn't especially esteemed in the first place?
With the CM Punk point I think it could be quite easily argued that HHH bollocksed up Punk’s momentum at a time when that character was red hot, but instead we ended up with a diluted version due to the shenanigans of Autumn 2011, hence why Punk possibly became an unimportant champion during his lengthy reign when other more popular and interesting characters took centre stage. You didn’t argue against this well enough. You could have strengthened your point about HHH not damaging Brock by stating that Cena already dented Brock’s aura at Extreme Rules 2012.
However, the 'list of stars that HHH made’ helped you to end the debate on a high note. With this evidence it’s clear that HHH has done a lot of good for WWE by establishing and creating many of its draws and top performers.
First of all, why did you point out that SS 2012 was a big hit when trying to play down HHH? That made no sense at all when you consider the eventual negative comparison was made between Brock's huge return at ER 2012 and his THIRD ppv match against HHH a year later when his presence would have automatically been less noteworthy. So with all of these added factors, is a 32,000 drop in buys one year later really that significant or even attributable to one element?
In an artistic sense you made great arguments against the HHH/Brock programme, but from a business sense you nullified your argument by stating that Brock Lesnar has now broken the streak and has major aura again. So did HHH really damage Brock in the long term? Seabs covered this counter point which works against you.
The Jericho and Booker T arguments are solid. With Jericho you clearly outlined how HHH dented the potential of someone who WWE had invested a lot in during December 2001, whilst also explaining that Jericho did have great potential and only managed to recover years later after redefining himself as a wrestler. The Booker explanation in terms of racial undertones was excellent and I think this is where you should have focused more of your debate upon, aka how HHH has been a poor creative influence on the WWE via his many dross matches, as well as his regular involvement in cringe worthy garbage such as the original lewd DX run and the Katie Vick saga, all things that would have changed the perception of wrestling (and WWE) by making the mainstream think even less of it, therefore having a direct impact on every WWE wrestler from a respect stand point and long term financial stand point (after the AE/shock tactics era had imploded).
The Steiner argument was a bit crap because you even admitted that Big Poppa Pump was a bit done at that point. So while he might have damaged Steiner, what difference does it make when you’re just smashing up damaged goods? As Seabs alluded to, would this have not made HHH look stronger for when he DID put over future stars? I liked your explanation for the Goldberg mess, but again, did this really matter seeing as Goldberg lacked commitment and soon buggered off from WWE after this feud? Maybe if you had argued that the unsatisfactory feud might have been part of Goldberg’s motivation to leave then you would have had a great argument. I get the "window of opportunity" point, but did this actually effect WWE from a business pov in relation to this programme where they would have had a worse perception of Goldberg, and would it have even crippled Goldberg's on screen potential to the point that he was as classed damaged goods? It's difficult to see that without a clearer argument because he wasn't in WWE for very long.
With your conclusion you really undersold how many people HHH has made and this is another area where Seabs excelled. For me you needed to make the debate more about how HHH might have had a poor influence on the perception of wrestling as a concept from a mainstream perspective, whilst also tying that into the aforementioned artistic shortcomings that he has had. By doing this you would have made a strong argument for how HHH's on screen actions could have put off many people from wanting to watch wrestling, therefore having a generally negative impact on EVERY wrestler in WWE.
Neither of these debates pulled up many trees, but Seabs wins by displaying more convincing arguments and presenting ideas that actually had a major effect on wrestling and WWE, whereas WOOLCOCK didn’t make a consistently strong enough connection between HHH’s failings and how they might have had a majorly negative impact on WWE and wrestling in general, which therefore could have had a generally severe impact on lots of wrestlers all at once.
BkB Hulk Seabs:
The distinction between Triple H and Paul Levesque is an important point to make for a debate like this and answer the question how you want to, so I thought this was a great way to start. The 2002 onwards rule sets out a clear path for you too.
I like that you’ve tried to acknowledge the other side of the debate and belittle it, but your opponent has pretty much blown your Booker T being “all he did was beat them” right out of the water. Similarly, the numbers used by your opponent also proved that Triple H did in fact hurt Lesnar.
The way you highlighted how Triple H has been the kingmaker establishes that he has indeed done good things for others, but it also kind of leaves your RVD/Booker T logic in a dangerous position. How has history proven they were never going to be draws if the guy who positions a draw never did it for them?
That aside, the point that Triple H has made WWE’s current biggest stars and is on his way to making their next biggest stars follows on well from the logic that he needs to stay strong to put over the best.
It’s a pretty good debate, but it’s not without flaws that your opponent has exposed.
Strong opening. That your opponent took the opposing side of the coin works against you with “only one” surviving Triple H’s wrath, as several have been pointed out. The one is Batista, I’m guessing, as that’s who you name-drop later in the debate, but it would have been nice to have that clarity early.
All the names you’ve reeled off here and the explanations worked perfectly well. While your opponent didn’t delve into the backstage world, obviously it’s key to do so for you, and the Booker T one especially, which counters your opponent’s claims, is really good.
You may have missed the boat by trying to refute the positives that Triple H brings, as it’s something your opponent holds over you, and you never truly address those who have benefited from Triple H’s work. You said there was only one, but there is evidence to the contrary elsewhere.
With that said, you’ve written a solid debate that presents the negative side very strongly.
There were a few holes in both sides that meant neither side was truly convincing. I feel like WOOLCOCK had the greater volume of information that hard to refute though, so he gets my nod.
The Lady Killer
Seabs = The usage of the images to define how Triple H is often perceived (a well known description of HHH is that of a burial artist) contrasted with the reality (him tapping out @ Mania to solidify main event pushes) was a great intro. Definitely not your standard intro, but just as effective as any words could produce (and also conserves words for your total count ). Great idea to base your debate around the Triple H character and not the backstage guy, though one can surmise that Paul's alleged backstage antics were an extension of his character so as to preserve the status of said character. Like you said, though, good luck on finding evidence on the backstage stuff. Kinda nullifies that entire argument. Good job. I also like that you focus on a specific time period of which HHH's status was established to the point where he would be able to influence the status of others. I like how you address the potential counters first - RVD and Booker being the most common arguments in favor of Hunter burying people. I would've liked for you to have quantified the drawing power bit about RVD and Booker, though I do like that you addressed that they later became main eventers. I do, however, believe a possible counter would be that HHH derailed their push at a time when they were at their hottest. RVD was just as hot later on when he won the titles in 06, but of course he's a moron who got high on the job. I like how you go back to the fact that HHH beat guys further down the chain, and that you establish yourself as a top star by beating people "worse" than you. However, HHH was definitely established by WM19, and I think losing to Booker wouldn't have done anything negative to Hunter's status as he was already established at that point at up to then, faces typically won the major title matches @ WM.
The next bit about Punk and Lesnar felt a bit weak. You basically concede the point I just made about big matches @ WM. Triple H, as a heel, won a BIG match over Booker @ WM, and at that time he was already established. He lost the title later to Goldberg, so it's not like a few months really would've made a big difference. It's not like Triple H established his career during the months between WM19 and losing to Goldberg. He was already set. You also backtrack with the Shawn Michaels SummerSlam 2002 match against Hunter. If you claim that Hunter NEEDED to beat Booker in 2003 to avoid hurting his status, then why is it OK that he lost to Shawn to make Shawn relevant again a year prior? There's a lack of consistency here imo. I felt you spent a lot more time on the counterarguments than on actually establishing Hunter as doing good for others careers (I fell to a similar pitfall when I lost the rematch to ZOMBO). You kinda just glossed over some of the people he put over. I actually thought the images you opened with did a better job than this part of the debate. Solid start to your debate, but I felt the quality dropped off halfway through.
WOOLCOCK = Solid intro, with aggressive language to really help solidify your stance. From here on, though, I'm a bit baffled. You clearly identify a few people who Triple H "buried," and spend quite a bit of time discussing each one. Then, however, the unthinkable happened - you completely ignored all potential counters raised by your opponent - putting over Benoit, Batista, Cena at consecutive Manias just to name a few. I'm quite shocked that an error of this nature is found in a title match between two extremely debaters, but alas, here we are. The ending was abrupt, and I guess I just expected more. The writing and support for your stance was fine, but there's a whole other side to the argument that is missing entirely.
A bit of a letdown of a match, but I think I have to give this to Seabs by default, as it was actually a complete debate, and was thus more convincing.
Winner via Split Decision - Seabs
TDL LEGENDS COLLIDE
Andre vs The Lady Killer Who should be more to blame for the lack of heel heat for WWE heels, the heels or the fans?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Lady Killer
Who should be more to blame for the lack of heel heat for WWE heels, the heels or the fans?
Originally Posted by ”Ravishing Rick Rude aka GIANT douchebag
What I’d like to have right now is for all you fat, out of shape, San Francisco sweathogs to keep the noise down while I take my robe off and show all the ladies what a real man is supposed to look like.
*chorus of boos*
I remember one Saturday morning I was sitting on my parents’ couch with my dad watching WWF Superstars of Wrestling. The aforementioned douchebag sauntered down to the ring in an annoyingly flamboyant robe and you could almost see the blood boiling in the veins of every fan in attendance (especially the males). Once he spoke, I couldn’t help but think to myself, “Man, fuck this guy.” Ironically, this is the reason we love wrestling; we love being fucked with.
Pop quiz: Does anyone (aside from vets like Hunter and Heyman who actually understand what being a “bad guy” is all about) on the current roster give you this same emotional reaction? And, no, I’m not referring to, “Wow, this guy sucks. Get off my TV screen, pls.” I’m talking about, “You’re so convincing at being a fucking asshole that for a moment I forgot all this shit is scripted and I truly hate your guts.”
Answer key: NOPE.
Why? Your current average heel is garbage, that’s why.
THE FUCK IS A HEEL?!?
Originally Posted by dictionary.com
a contemptibly dishonorable or irresponsible person
Or, in pro graps terms, a fuckin’ bad guy. Remind you of anyone? Didn’t think so. With the dawning of the “Reality Era,” it appears as though the days of an established heel/face dichotomy are long gone. As fans, we no longer have characters to hate. No more annoying gimmicks. No more dastardly heel tactics. Where’s Ted DiBiase kicking the basketball away from a kid about to win a hundred bucks or Jerry Lawler embarrassing numerous patrons on his way to the ring? That’s a thing of the past. WE HAVE NOBODY LEFT TO BOO.
HOW THE FUCK IS THIS OUR FAULT?!?
It isn’t. Not in the slightest.
Although the line separating face and heel might appear a bit blurred at times, pro wrestling still follows a centuries-old formula pitting good against evil. Feuds are structured so that a clear-cut “good guy” faces – for the sake of this argument – a “not-so-good guy.” No amount of “reality” will change this. We want to see good overcome evil. The problem is that there isn’t enough evil. The formula has become exposed.
BLAME THE SHITTY HEELS
The onus doesn’t fall on us – the fans – to create heels and faces. Sometimes our undying support for an undeniable talent can turn a heel into a babyface (i.e. Daniel Bryan), but for the most part the wrestlers’ actions dictate their alignment. Faces are heroes and heels are assholes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of current WWE heels can’t get a reaction to save their lives. Why? BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT BEING HEELS.
Good ol’ Jim Ross perfectly summated the current heel situation in a recent Twitter outpour:
Originally Posted by JR
If pro wrestling villains rarely cheat, have abundant, redeeming social qualities, they’re not villains. Stop BS’ing yourself.
TV wrestling villains must lie, selectively be a coward, be a bully when they can, gain unfair advantages bitch & moan, & disrespect fans. That fine line between good/evil is a joke.
I'd estimate that half of today's TV wrestling heels aren't equipped ie guts & toughness to be great villains. Most had rather be cool.
Some may be hesitant to pin the blame solely on the heels themselves due to the family-friendly nature of the PG Era. Well, this is complete bullshit because the PG Era is about five years old now, and there have been PLENTY of moments when GOOD heels have been booed out of the building. Triple H being a smug asshole on a weekly basis, garnering “Asshole!” chants. Paul Heyman mocking the end of The Undertaker’s streak. Brock Lesnar aka THE SCARIEST MOTHERFUCKER ON THE PLANET – the same guy who beat the shit out of a 140-pound, one-legged kid in front of his own mother – passed “The Cena Test” (you can tell if you’re a truly great heel if you can incite a babyface reaction for Cena) with flying colors. He beat the shit out of John so badly that a notoriously hardcore wrestling city, Chicago, ended up cheering for Cena. Notice that the superstars from previous eras when the term “heel” actually meant something know how to garner proper heat. It is still achievable, and it has NOTHING to do with us as fans.
Quick example: Bray Wyatt. Postured as a heel, yet he chooses to stage sing-alongs and play to the crowd instead. He doesn’t pass “The Cena Test.” In fact, he fails miserably. Don’t blame us for not booing someone who sings to us and smiles when we cheer him.
BUT WAIT I’M NOT DONE BLAMING THE DAMN FANS
Originally Posted by Andre
The stupid fans are the ones trying to be cool by hijacking the live shows!
Unfortunately for my detractors, this is yet another bogus argument. There will always be smark towns who cheer the heels instead of giving them the desired heel reaction (booing) – this is of course the exception to the rule, as these towns typically harbor die-hard wrestling fanatics who cheer the heels not because they find them “cool,” but because they appreciate the heel’s ability to be a total prick. It’s the ultimate show of respect.
SO STOP BLAMING US
Modern day heels don’t really do anything worthy of being booed. Even veterans who are more than capable of garnering a great heel reaction (Randy Orton) choose to constantly mail it in and pander to the crowd rather than act like the assholes their characters are meant to be. It’s not our fault that we have nobody to truly despise – we’re only reacting to what we are given.
Thanks to the launching of the WWE Network, however, at least we are now able to view some old DiBiase, Rude and Lawler material.
Imagine viewing the pantomime ‘Aladdin’ with just modern wrestling fans in attendance... Major heel Jafar is given the silent treatment for the dastardly act of trapping Aladdin in a treasure cave. Meanwhile, the actor in drag playing the Evil Queen is cheered for as a hero by those who saw him perform the lead role in The Lion King at a village play. Why am I comparing WWE to a panto? Because they’re essentially the same damn thing! Wrestling is just working class theatre, yet unlike theatre goers, modern WWE fans generally do what they want and are often apathetic towards the concept of booing and chanting against heels, hence why fans are more to blame when it comes to the lack of heel heat.
This problem has partially been caused by growing numbers of wrestling fans on the internet. EXPOSED evidence concerning how the face/heel elements work has led to portions of the WWE audience cheering for heels because they’re bored of wrestling dynamics and want to cheer for the heel… or even latch onto the latest fad. Look at Fandango, formerly booked as a heel, performing with enough conviction to be considered arrogant, but not with enough fervour or charisma to be very likeable. His insistence on having his name pronounced correctly before he debuted was a tedious irritant and something that drew mild heat leading up to Mania 29, but NOT the level of heat that it would have garnered in past decades when fans were less cynical. However, fans started to mimic his entrance theme around the WrestleMania 29 weekend and this caught on as a fad, extinguishing his heel heat.
Daniel Bryan’s ‘Yes movement’ is another example of this. Originally this was an obnoxious taunt that drew the fans’ ire, a perfect heel tactic which attracted mild heat in late 2011 and early 2012. However, the vocal minorities latched onto this because they couldn’t accept the ‘Indy hero’ being anything other than “their guy”. That wasn’t Bryan’s fault for being a great performer in the past; it was on those fans who insisted that Bryan had to be the hero. The yes chant later caught on like wild fire because WWE fans are sheep, as proven with the Fandango theme. As a heel, Bryan lacked strong heel heat in the long term because of the fans, eventually forcing him to turn face in spite of his good work as a chicken shit heel.
When Bryan became the most over face in 2014 you would have expected him to become a perfect foil for any heel, but his enemies often garner very little heat despite working at high standards. When indoctrinated by the Wyatt family, Bryan gained fan sympathy, then a massive ovation when he swerved Bray in a post cage match angle, yet Wyatt gained no heat as he prepared to nail DB with Sister Abigail. Even during promos following this, where Bray brilliantly threatened Bryan, the fans struggled to react. The same occurred in the excellent Bryan/Bray Rumble match when Bray worked aggressive control segments with VICIOUS cut offs, clearly presenting Bryan as a face in major peril... long periods of SILENCE for Bray. Due to this lack of heat combined with growing entrance pops and clapping, WWE were forced to make Wyatt more of a tweener who pandered towards manipulated the crowd with City shout outs in a feud with John Cena.
This lack of heel heat even extends to HHH who BURIED Bryan in 2013, calling him a B+ player. However, this didn’t draw any crowd reactions, let alone intense heat. Similar can be said for the phenomenal HHH burial video, presented by Stephanie on the 31/3/14 Raw. HHH went on to suggest that he would beat Bryan and go on to win the unified title at Mania XXX. Those were all perfect heel tactics that should have played on the fans’ emotions, but they only drew mild at best reactions when they should have created nuclear heat.
Sometimes these scenarios cause WWE to implement horrendously distasteful angles when booking heels in order to actually get them over as heels, such as when Punk exploited Paul Bearer’s death in 2013. Despite these tactics, Punk still failed to attract heat and was often given louder face chants than THE FUCKERN UNDERTAKER, one of WWE’s all-time great heroes, in their match at Mania 29. It would have been understandable if fans were silent for Punk due to his part in the grim Bearer angle, but then why did they cheer so fervently for him? After this failed heel run Punk took a hiatus before returning as a face because the fans forced it. Is the message sinking in yet?
…but Cena, Rey and Batista have been booed to fuck, so the fans must be doing their bit, right? The former two are both booked as faces, while Batista was initially booked as a face who gained go away heat, before he was turned and the reactions started to die down. Add Randy “fuck all reactions even though I gained huge pops as a face” Orton and HHH to the mix and you have Evolution, one of the biggest heel factions of all time reuniting to the sound of…SILENCE… despite the fact that they’ve been booked against super over panty dampening hounds of justice The Shield. Fans either don’t want to boo, or they only want to boo under certain circumstances.
Whether it’s due to ROH Indy darling fanboyism, self-serving ego stroking agendas which lead to GEEKS unintentionally turning Cody Rhodes into a face because they think it’s cool to chant about his moustache, or even pure and utter apathy from over exposed fans who just want to watch the shows without allowing their negative emotions to be manipulated, WWE’s audiences generally struggle to give the desired heel reactions, even when they’re presented with quality face and heel dynamics that are expertly portrayed within dream feuds.
The Lady Killer - On the whole I thought this was a great minus a few hiccups. Opening is great and was illustrated a treat in terms of painting that picture in the mind of the reader of how things used to be in the "good old days" of pro wrestling. More importantly though it sets up the core of your argument brilliantly. Don't think a dictionary definition of a heel was needed as it's a super pro graps term but I guess it didn't hurt. The point was made with "Where’s Ted DiBiase kicking the basketball away from a kid about to win a hundred bucks" though that none of the heels actually act like bad guys anymore. I think the way you laid out your debate called for some better formatting. Make them caps phrases bigger and bold them up so they stand out better as breaking your arguments up. It kinda looked as though you just forgot to do that at the end when you sent it.
Now you get to brining the argument full circle to address the second half of the question which I feel is what let Andre's debate down. You did a better job of linking the two aspects together and showing how it's not the fault of the fans BECAUSE it's the fault of the heels rather than just saying it's simply just the fault of one. The Bryan example flopped though for me because Bryan was technically a good heel when he turned at the start of 2012 but the fans turned him back because they wouldn't react to him as a heel wants the fans to react to him DESPITE him actually being a heel that was easy to hate in a way that kept you watching. There's plenty of other examples of this too with Punk, Ziggler and even now with Cesaro that I think you neglected at your peril. When you go back to here to write hijacking crowds off as rare exceptions I thought it fell flat too because it's becoming more and more common and WWE are even promoting it despite it actually hurting their own product. So I think you could have addressed the fans' reluctance to boo heels that they like better.
The JR quote is good. I'm not crazy on using someone else's words but if you're gonna use any then use his. Showing that good heels can actually still get strong heel heat was much better though. I still think the argument is left to open when it comes to guys Punk and Bryan but you batted part of it off nicely here by showing that fans are 100% reluctant. Bray comparison was great and I thought "Don’t blame us for not booing someone who sings to us and smiles when we cheer him." was bang on the money and Andre has said the same before too. Not sure on the Orton part btw because I feel he does a pretty good job of getting the fans to hate him in the right way rather than the way they hate Batista. He antagonises crowds a fair but during his matches to get heel heat from what I remember. Final line felt super random though and I just didn't get why it was there at all. It was like the end to an Oxi debate in all honesty.
Andre - Most of this was great too but I had flaws with it too, one being pretty significant. To me it felt like you overlooked the aspect of the questioning on what the heels do too much. Like I was looking for somewhere where you dissected what the heels do to get heat and how despite the heels showing good heel traits the fans still refuse to react. I mean you did do it partly with the Punk and Bryan examples but it felt like it needed more focus whereas TLK managed to link the two aspects together continually throughout his debate.
I love the intro just as I did with TLK's. You know I love the panto analogy anyway. Thought you could have kept going back to that throughout every argument in your debate as a comparison but that's not a knock. The Fandango example I didn't think was the greatest. I think an example of a stronger heel act would have made your stance more effective. Fandango was never really a serious heel act for as much as he may or may not have tried to be. He was always a goofy light relief midcard act. He wasn't really the one going out there to draw the big money making heel heat like Brock and Hunter go out there to do. That's why I thought this example felt a tad weak. You maybe could have saved it by comparing Fandango to a similar act in front of an older wrestling audience where it did actually get heel heat. Or a heel with goofy but catchy music that didn't get hijacked by fans. I don't know what example to use but I'm not thinking of one right now. I'm sure out of all the wrestlers there's been from before this era there was an example you could have found to enhance this argument. I also thought "extinguishing his heel heat" didn't work as well when you only referred to it as mild heel heat beforehand.
The Bryan example is much more on the money though as I talked about in TLK's feedback. I thought you could have gone into greater depth analysing what Bryan did that would typically gain heel heat though. The Wyatt example I thought Greg combated well enough to weaken here. You could have done with examples of what Bray does that typically gets great heel heat and would have in front of a different audience. You mention the promos to build to the match but I think the problem lies deeper than that with Wyatt. Whenever I hear a Wyatt promo I always think it's well delivered and he sounds like a nutjob but why do I hate him again? You look back at the examples TLK gave with Rude and DiBiase in his debate and it makes the difference clear. I think you gave Wyatt to much credit as a great heel who should have gained strong heel heat from a better responding audience. He does some heel shtick but not enough imo to make this as strong as the Bryan example you had earlier and even the later Punk example. I'd also say that working aggressively and cutting a babyface isn't a guaranteed recipe for heel heat. There's plenty of face vs face matches where that happens too. I'd also counter it by saying why doesn't Bray CHEAT more or taunt the fans more when he's viciously beating on Bryan to actually try to evoke a reaction. This went unaddressed for me.
Hunter paragraph is shaky for me because I don't agree that he couldn't draw heel heat and I thought TLK countered this. Granted he would have countered it better by citing a bunch of clips off the fans giving him all this heel heat he talked about but it did happen all the same. Yes maybe that one video package you referenced didn't a great reaction but on the whole I don't think it's accurate to say that Hunter's heel shtick didn't garner the desired reaction. Overall I wasn't convinced on this part. Plus it doesn't help when Hunter comes out and tried to be a corporate babyface putting shows over at the start of them.
Punk example is more on par with the Bryan example. I would have looked more at how Punk would CHEAT during matches and even steal and mock Taker's signature moves during that match. There was more material for you to work with here than you managed to use for me.
Evolution example I thought was weaker mainly because the fans just don't want to see Orton or Batista at the top of the card period anymore as you even alluded to saying Batista had go away heat. This could have been done better by going through the heel shtick Evolution have pulled off such as sneak attacks and 3 on 1 beatdowns that is good heel shtick that would work but hasn't in front of today's audience. Again though they're not the best example because fans just don't really want to see them at the top of the card in 2014.
Structure wise I thought this wasn't perfect. Your conclusion seemed to come out of nowhere in a way. Like I wasn't ready for it. Maybe because your debate was example after example without much tying them together like TLK's debate did. Another thing that struck is how much more mileage TLK seemed to get out of his 1000 words than you managed to do.
Vote goes to TLK. Both debates had flaws but I thought TLK's were less significant and that he linked his debate up to both aspects of the topic better.
Winner - The Lady Killer
BkB Hulk The Lady Killer:
Rick Rude is a pretty great example to use to immediately show the difference between what you see today and that, and the way you transitioned it into today’s workers was seamless.
The JR quote is a good source to back up what you started out with too. That you worked it around to show that heels can be booed if they actually do bad things was great too. Wyatt is a good example, but he also kind of goes against your “ultimate mark of respect” point that followed, as he is one of those that is cheered by the smark towns.
The general argument worked really well though, and you presented several examples to show that heels CAN be booed, but that most don’t act like a Lawler, a DiBiase or a Rude means they don’t. Acknowledgement of Bryan and presenting him as an exception due to talent works well too, although you could argue he’s proof fans do what they want, as your opponent did. The final line of the second last paragraph – “only reacting to what we are given” – is a great way to sum up your argument.
Excellent opening. It set the stage (ha, get it? It’s a theatre joke ) and provides an interesting perspective on what we actually see in WWE to instantly set up the debate.
Fandango was a good example to show that WWE fans are tools, sheep, and, well, socially inept, and it transitions very nicely into the Bryan point. The best stuff followed that though, especially withy regards to Bryan’s opponents in Wyatt and even Triple H STILL not being booed. It counters points of your opponent’s argument too, as it shows not even Trips gets booed all of the time, while you correctly identified the shift that came from Wyatt after the Bryan feud. It showed that Wyatt did in fact give fans reasons to boo – they just chose not to.
The Punk one is perhaps the crowning moment, as it shows the ultimate dickhead move that still didn’t result in heat. That, contrary to your opponent’s argument, shows that there is definitely a reason to boo, but it’s still not taken.
Acknowledgement of what the fans boo (not Evolution, again despite Triple H) shows the fans are picking and choosing too without it depending on heel tactics, which is another great point against it being down to the heels.
The conclusion does an okay job summing that up, but it’s a bloody marathon of a sentence. It also doesn’t quite capture your whole debate as it instead introduces a new example when you should be probably making those earlier, but it still shows your side.
Andre wins for me, having refuted his opponent’s claims and also presented extra evidence to the contrary. A damn entertaining debate from the other side too though.
A quick prefix. I was overjoyed you both chose opposite stances because I feel the answer does lie roughly in the middle. It's a fair point that very few heels actually utilise common heel traits anymore (someone like Ziggler for example bar a cocky persona is hardly a villain in terms of how he wrestles), however it can't be overlooked that many fans either through past association with a wrestler or to rebel constantly cheer the heels and refuse to boo them. It's an example which has seen promotions like ROH only produce 'genuine' heels with people like Bennett who are positioned as anti-ROH in terms of ring style. Let's see who made the more convincing argument since I feel the answer lies in the middle.
The Lady Killer:
I thought the bulk of this was very good, though I felt maybe an example of say a heel character who continually failed to demonstrate heel qualities would have aided your point. The Wyatt argument in this respect had merit, but I felt your opponent countered that well by citing an example of Wyatt before his fan-friendly persona, to indicate how Bryan's overness didn't translate to immediate heat for Wyatt. The rest of your arguments honestly had a lot of merit and posed pertinent questions in respect of how few heels today actually demonstrate historical heel qualities. I did however feel the 'smark town' argument to be a tad weaker, if only because the Rumble crowd eminanted from Pittsburgh which hardly qualifies as a historical hotbed for wrestling to the extent New York & Chicago do. As I mentioned before, perhaps just a brief example of how say someone like Ziggler fails to attract heat would have enhanced your arguments, because the arguments you present are well written but I feel your opponent is supplying solid counter arguments with crucial supporting evidence to validate their argument. The one key case study you cite I feel was effectively countered by your opponent who demonstrates Wyatt's failure to gain heat, even when threatening the most beloved face on the roster, and not pandering to the extent he has in the Cena feud as you eloquently alluded to. The structure and writing here is of a fine standard, but I just feel your opponent has presented more tighter arguments with the benefit of case examples to support their argument and claim victory by a narrow margin.
Not much needs to be said here, as like your counterpart the writing, structure and flow here is of a high standard. I felt you shaded victory here by virtue of presenting arguments your opponent had no immediate counter for, such as the Fandango and Wyatt examples which failed to attract geniune sustained heat, which you traced back to the fans chasing fads and the failure to respond negatively to heel performers respectively. The Bryan argument was also a shrewd counter to your opponent's respective stance that turning Bryan was a plus for the fans. You got across well that Bryan was placed in a position whereby the fans would not react in a heel manner to his character, which in conjuncture with Punk laid the foundation for a solid argument that effective heel work would be ignored because the fans refused to accept the respective characters as heels, and would instead cheer for them regardless of how said characters acted on screen. I just feel you were able to make a more compelling argument that fans will respond positively to performers they enjoy, regardless of whether said reaction is what the performer is seeking, as opposed to your opponent who took the stance that heels don't do enough to instigate a heel reaction. I felt the arguments you presented effectively supplied evidence of performers attempting to gain heat via traditional measures, but failing primarily because the fans themselves refused to respond in the desired manner.
Re: TDL XVII: ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY SHOW - THE RESULTS
good job peter. not ashamed to have lost to you since i know you're a good poster and know your shit.
and i did have sources that I forgot to put in I suppose. The spacing was also garbage. This is what happens when you said in your debate at 4 am. My bad guys.
The next section you bring up the already talented Houston D-Line. I am confused with this sentence though: “At the moment there is no room for Clowney on the defensive line, where he played in college, but only because of all the talent that’s already there. That includes two of the best defensive players in the league in JJ Watt and Cushing, who is a former rookie of the year player.” If I am reading it correctly, you are saying there is no room for Clowney on the defensive line because there is talent there, including Watt and Cushing. Cushing is an ILB. He doesn’t play on the line in the 3-4 defense. Just a minor complaint. Your next sentence though: “That amount of talent will not only leave up PLENTY of room for the rookie defender to make plays, but also provide him all sorts of mentors to help him progress into a great player. “ So is there room or is there no room for Clowney? I guess I would have liked some more explanation here. If anything, the second point is all you need as Clowney will be playing OLB in the 3-4, so he’ll be a situational pass rushing LB (like DeMarcus Ware when he was in Dallas) who will benefit from Cushing being a former OLB and Watt being a big force on the other side. Anyways, I think this paragraph could have been better. You have all the points needed to make a great argument, but it didn’t come out as well as it could have.
I wasn't including Watt on the line; just stating he's a great defensive player. It's confusing because I wrote that sentence without him first and then edited in his name which made it not flow as well I guess.
Also, I was saying he would have lots of free room when given playing time as a packages guy. That sort of stuff kind of has to be inferred, imo, as I can't waste 50 words explaining how he'll sub into plays and such. Oh well. That line really wasn't as clear as I would have liked tbf, so I'll work on that next time.