daulten780 vs WrestlingOracle vs shackles vs BigBossPunk Who should have been the person that ran Stone Cold Steve Austin over at Survivor Series 1999?
*BigBossPunk no showed*
Spoiler for Debates:
shackles Brian Pillman should've ran over Stone Cold at Survivor Series 1999.
He died before he could but it would've been a great way to catapult Pillman into the mainevent and turn him into one of the all-time greats.
It would of added another combustible element into what was a thriving McMahon-Helmsley era with the HHH-Rock rivalry at the centre and a variety of supporting cast members. Pillman would've fit into that group, he probably would've topped it. Pillman was a fine athlete and was hard-hitting on the mic which got him billed as the "Loose Cannon" but as the height of the Attitude Era had its mainevent spots filled, Pillman at that time probably would of stayed in the midcard. The time to shine for Pillman would be the McMahon-Helmsley era.
When he was alive, Pillman was feuding with Goldust, who was solid to feud with because they had history and because Goldust had proven his worth with past feuds with Razor Ramon who is now a HOFer and HHH who was a major player when angle at Survivor Series 1999 occurred and The Undertaker...undefeated for 21 years at Wrestlemania. While feuding with Goldust would not turn Pillman into a megastar, it's a great building block for superstars.
The storyline ideas for Pillman from his death to November 1999 are endless. Imagine a feud with Mankind, working with Mick would've add another layer to his credibility as seen with HHH. I shed a tear for the promos that could've been... So after having some solid upper-midcard feuds with a few IC title reigns, would this be THE story that would SHOOT him in the mainevent? It's pretty fitting because...
Brian Pillman also has history with Stone Cold. Feuding with Austin isn't as if Pillman's name was just drawn out of a hat.
I mentioned how Pillman had history with Goldust, Pillman and Goldust's feud was actually over Marlena who Pillman dated back in WCW. Afterwards Marlena married Goldust who was also in WCW. The feud was hot and it's part of the reason why Pillman is known as the "Loose Cannon". Now, imagine a program with Stone Cold... with the foundation already laid, no doubt they'd give us something special.
Pillman and Austin's relationship, dates back to WCW when they were in a tag-team called The Hollywood Blondes. Austin explains in an interview that after being thrown together with Pillman, the two of them had great chemistry together and developed solid relationship which translated well to the ring (1). Austin also credits Pillman with saying that he inspired his promos (trust me that's saying something) (2). The interviews are below.
Fast forward to when they're in the WWF. When they first interact, Pillman looks to align with Austin during his feud with Bret but Pillman would eventually favor Hart eventually join the stable known as The Hart Foundation. Austin would reach boiling point shown in the infamous "Pillman's Got a Gun" segment which is found below (3). With Pillman injured at home, Austin decided he was going to kick Pillman's ass...what unfolded were events that would be controversial and nearly got RAW thrown off the air.
It was an edgy segment for it's time. It could be used as fuel for the rivalry. The history these guys have is important because this is what these two would play off to build this angle to a fever pitch at a PPV like Wrestlemania. The intensity that these two best friends would've given us could've led to one of the all time great rivalries.
Plus, The Loose Cannon would've been perfect for running down Austin because he's the freakin' Loose Cannon.
Pillman's character was that he was a ticking time bomb. Think Dean Ambrose. Pillman probably inspired that character. Part of this persona included cutting shoot promos which includes his ECW debut promo in 1996 which is below (4), where he'd rip Eric Bischoff by calling him a "gofer" and a "piece of shit". Pillman would also blast the fans for being "smart marks". But oh, the icing on the cake is when he threatens to "yank out his Johnson" and piss in the ring, before being escorted out. The fans would end up chanting "psychopath" in admiration.
Aside from his promos Pillman's character would show through his actions, the most notable of these is the "Pillman's Got A Gun" segment as mentioned before. If Pillman pointing a gun at Austin is anything to go by, then running him over is definitely in his wheelhouse.
The story at Survivor Series 1999 was tailor made for Brian. It was his key to the main event where he would reunite with one of his best friends in Stone Cold and they would tear shit up together.
I tell ya, thinking of the what ifs can drive you crazy...
For your listening and viewing pleasure:
(1) Interview Stone Cold on being put in a tag team with Brian Pillman:
(2) Stone Cold on Brian Pillman inspiring his promos:
(3) "Pillman's Got a Gun" segment:
(4) Brian Pillman's ECW debut:
At Survivor Series 1999, Rikishi ran over Steve Austin. Was Rikishi the right man for the job? The answer is a definite no. Shawn Michaels absolutely should have ran over Austin.
Before discussing Michaels, analyzekey aspects of what makes a good storyline. Coherence is crucial. Casting is perhaps the most critical element, which takes understanding of talent’s attributes and lackthereof. Ideally, a payoff or major event spawning off the angle is desirable.
Having Michaels run over Austin fits these qualities perfectly. Unlike the confusing progression of the original storyline for Rikishi in which Rikishi was tired of samoans being held back, hence “did it for The Rock” yet later claimed to have been paid off by HHH, Michaels had very fitting and clear motivations. Austin took his title from him at Wrestlemania 14. Even though Michaels had sustained his back injury in a separate match, it would be easy to create an angle where Austin took Michaels title and ended Michaels career so Michaels tried to end Austin’s life! At the same time, Michaels inability to wrestle makes the perfect opportunity for a cowardly heel and when one considers Hunter’s top heel status and affiliation with Michaels, it gives a perfect target to hide behind. Rikishi’s promo delivery was a subject of mockery to the point where “I did it for The Rock” has become a comedic joke in wrestling for a bad explanation; one of Shawn’s greatest strengths was playing the agitator. Whereas Rikishi received lukewarm reactions, Michaels garnered big heat as heel and surely after in kayfabe taking out the beloved Austin would garner great results with the live crowd. Michaels would be perfectly casted in this role.
Perhaps the biggest argument against Michaels being the culprit is that since Michaels cannot wrestle, some would argue that a payoff would be absent. This is false considering that Michaels could receive a stunner and/or beatdown to the audience’s delight. From there, given HHH was at the top as a heel and has affiliation with Shawn, the acclaimed Austin/HHH feud occurring in the original story would still naturally occur. I add that while many argue that Michaels not being a wrestler at the time is a negative, this is positive since the organization of the card and feuds wouldn’t change at all whereas casting a ring performer creates a domino effect through whatever section of the card they are in.
Now that it is established why HBK was the perfect guy, consider why other prime suspects. wouldn’t suffice. Many would wonder why HHH couldn’t just run over Austin himself. This storyline was clearly intended to induce shock value. HHH was far and away the top heel of the company at the time; the selection would’ve been obvious. Rock would’ve provided the biggest turn of anyone.Consider though that a major purpose of this storyline was to eliminate Austin in grandiose fashion so that he could rehab injuries. Rock developed into a franchise wrestler with great popularity that through comedic wit provided a major alternative to those who didn’t develop a vicarious connection in the blue collar Austin. With Austin out, Rock would be needed more than ever to step up and fill in the crucial role of undisputed top babyface in the company to keep the merchandise flowing while providing the centerpiece for a still competing company to revolve around, Angle may not have been taken seriously. Jericho would be needed to fill both heel and face and had no motive for running Austin over.
Deterring some midcard options: Edge was needed to help anchor the resurging tag division as an alternative to the main event scene and besides had not yet become the ultimate opportunist. As for the Radicalz, Benoit and Malenko had carried serious world class pure wrestling reputations central to their character alongside both men lacking the promo ability to spearhead a segment dominated show. Eddie Guerrero was a premium talent, yet had troubles with his addictions until clean in 2002. Guerrero was released two years after the rundown angle started. The risk would be too high to invest the core of a main event angle in Eddie when there would be possibility for the demons hurting him and in turn the company. Billy Gunn was a guy WWF tried to push around this time, but clearly Gunn wasn’t main event caliber. In addition to what has been mentioned previously, Rikishi also didn’t work in part because nobody could take a plush heavyweight with an offense mostly revolving around his huge butt seriously.
Considering Michaels motivations for the job and premium ability to pull off the role while not creating imbalance and allowing for a natural bridge into HHH/Austin, bottom line is that Michaels would have been the best man for the job.
For the running over of Stone Cold Steve Austin at Survivor Series 1999, almost anyone would have been better than the person who was picked - Rikishi. Maybe if he was already a heel, it could've worked, but he was a popular face in Too Cool, a comedy one at that. It made no sense for it being Rikishi, he and Austin rarely crossed paths, and if they were going to have Triple H tell Rikishi to do it anyways, it should've been revealed as him to begin with.
From the beginning of 2000, Triple h had become a full blown heel, attacking top stars such as Mankind and the Rock. He cemented his main event spot in his series of matches with Mick Foley, beating him two times for the WWF title, even retiring the 15 year career of the Hardcore Legend. With all that momentum on his side, Triple H along with Stephanie headlined Wrestlemania 16 against 3 other men as the champion, and for the first time in Wrestlemania history, the heel walked out as champion. Beating the Rock at Wrestlemania, a true icon in the business, along with the heat of the McMahon Helmsley faction gave Triple H a lot of heat, and it could have been capitalized on more had he been the sole planner and attacker of the hottest star that the industry has ever seen. It even seemed like they were going in that direction at Backlash.
At Backlash, Triple H walked into the pay per view as the WWF Champion, and he did not walk out as it due to the interference of Steve Austin. This made everything line up perfectly for an Austin vs Triple H feud happen so Austin could get his revenge, with the blow out match occurring at Summerslam. If Triple H had been the only person who had attacked Steve Austin, he could've gotten every bit of the heat to himself, not having to share it to Rikishi, who was fine as an upper midcarder in Too Cool. Rikishi shouldn't have been the one revealed as the attacker, considering just months before he revealed it, he was a comedy character. It made no sense for him to suddenly go from a fun dancing baby face to a serious monster heel. On the other hand, you had a red hot Triple H, who had just lost the WWF Title after retiring a legend Mick Foley, beating huge stars stars such as the Rock, the big Show, also setting a Wrestlemania record as he became the first heel champion to retain the World Title in the main event of wrestlemania. He became the first man in fifteen years to accomplish this. With all of these feats on his side, and all the heat from siding with the corrupt authority figure Stephanie McMahon, he became the hottest heel in the company. They wasted a big angle with Steve Austin and Triple H, one that could've easily headlined Summerslam, with Austin going over to end his road to recovery, and then making it back to the top to set up Steve Austin vs the Rock at the next year's Wrestlemania 17. Even with a loss against Steve Austin, it would've further cemented Triple H to the top, one that he would still have today.
Because of all of these reasons, Rikishi was not the right choice to be the one to run over Steve Austin. Rikishi vs Steve Austin is not a money match. However, Triple H vs Steve Austin is a money match, and it could've sold so many tickets for Summerslam. Triple H was the hottest heel in the business, so he should've had the hottest angle, which was who ran over Steve Austin.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
The Lady Killer
shackles = While I appreciate the ballsiness of choosing Pillman, I must say that the impossibility of it deterred me from being convinced. Improbable I can work with depending on how convincing the debate is. Impossible is simply too large a hurdle. The guy was dead by the time the angle occurred. Had he been alive, for argument's sake, this would've been a pretty good debate, barring the ruling out of other possible answers (something only WrestlingOracle did). Again, like the thinking outside the box, but this may have been a bit too far outside for me.
WrestlingOracle = This was solid. You set it up well by defining what makes a good storyline, and avoided a similar pitfall as shackles by aligning HBK with HHH (who feuded with Austin anyway) since HBK couldn't wrestle. You tied everything together nicely. Although you discounted other possible choices, I think you may have missed a crucial counter along the lines of the payoff - making another heel. There's so much potential there that A touched upon nicely. HBK was already established and although he had a motive he wasn't active. HHH was already a main heel so he didn't need the rub by covering for HBK either. Good debate otherwise.
daulten780 = simple and efficient by choosing the man Austin feuded with. It makes sense, but you also disregarded the star creation potential (as I explained in WrestlingOracle's) and failed to touch upon why other options weren't as good (as I mentioned with shackles). Not much else to report here. Writing was fine it just felt a bit narrow.
Winner = WrestlingOracle. Simply did more than the others but kudos to shackles.
Brian Pillman. Very interesting choice. I didn’t think to have a person who had sadly passed away before the storyline as an option. I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I like interesting choices, so there’s that. Anyway, onto the debate itself.
I’m going to start with the style as it is the first thing I am noticing here. I like the way how you split things up. I think you split things up nicely as well. The videos at the end were a nice touch as well.
So as for the actual meat of the debate, let’s talk about the first argument that sticks out to me: The History. You mention history in the first section and again in the second section as the main point of said section. You talk about Pillman’s history and his feud with Goldust. A minor complaint here would be you focused too much on Goldust’s history in this section instead of Pillman’s. I don’t think that was necessary. Instead, I would have liked to see more with the final paragraph in section one. More about how this would have helped Pillman or how Pillman would have naturally been ready for this feud would have helped. Anyway, the intro for section one was good. I liked your mention of him fitting in with Triple H’s group.
Pillman’s relationship with Austin is important. Feuds are always just a little bit better between characters with history. I like how you go into the history between the two. You bring it together by pointing out that this rivalry from this angle and the past feuds they’ve had can culminate with a big payoff at Wrestlemania. Nice stuff here. There’s not much more to mention in this section as there’s nothing wrong. You point out that they had history and it would be able to work. That leads into the next section. This section is what I think should have been longer. Why Pillman’s character works. See, this argument here is the one that can drive your point home. Instead of talking about Goldust, talk about Pillman and why his insane character makes this feud different and better than the original with Rikishi. Spread out the coverage. What you wrote here in the third section isn’t bad. In fact, you cover a lot that you needed here. The only issue I have is that you missed the opportunity to really prove your point. The comparisons to the what-if feud and the real Rikishi feud would have helped. Other than that, you had a solid debate.
Style Was Nice
Pillman & Austin’s History
The Pillman character
Too much time spent on Goldust’s past feuds IMO
Needed to compare this what-if feud to the real one
Shawn Michaels is an interesting choice. Usually people have issues with authority feuds in which the wrestler cannot truly get comeuppance, like Bryan vs. Stephanie at the moment or before Brie was inserted. Just a thought though. Let’s see how the debate turns out.
I want to get the lols out of the way first. I find it funny that you mention coherence and had a typing error with the lack of space between analyze and key. No points off for that. Just funny. Anyway, I like that you point the aspects of what you think makes a good feud. Covering these in your argument will help. You go on to say adding Michaels as the culprit would fit perfectly. You first compare it to the Rikishi feud and say how Michaels makes more sense on a personal level. Good. I liked how you then mention that Michaels has previously been an agitator and can easily hide behind someone as a non-wrestler. Of course, this leads to the argument of payoff, which you bring up next.
You mention that while Michaels can’t wrestle, he can still take a stunner. I feel it’s kind of weak, but you do mention that it can be done to the crowd’s desire, so I guess it slides. I do like that you point out that it can naturally transition into the Triple H feud that happened as opposed to Triple H paying Rikishi to do it. It works better with established allies.
This next section has you eliminating other choices. The Rock wouldn’t work well with what the company needed at the time. Jericho had no motive and Angle was too new. You continue this in the next paragraph eliminating Edge and the Radicalz. You make solid points for each of them. So solid job eliminating others from reasoning. You end this with going back to Michaels and stating that he is perfect for the job. Good debate.
I don’t have much more to add. You seem to be on the right track. For future debates, see if you can tighten up the arguments a little bit. Use everything you can to prove your point. Also, see if you can maybe spice things up a little. Use some interesting imagery or other things that Seabs, Zombo, Woolcock and others do. You don’t have to bold everything, but something that makes you stick out would help you IMO.
Defining what’s needed for a good storyline
Counterarguments for the other wrestlers
A little weak on the Michaels payoff point
Triple H seems like the obvious choice. Let’s see how you debate your choice. I don’t think you were very convincing at all to be quite honest. You spent too many words going over the history before the angle and then repeated a few things, like Rikishi being a fun babyface and Triple H beating Mick Foley. You are already just pushing above 600 words and some of it is being repeated. It just doesn’t help you to do that. There was no reason to tell me about Triple H’s feud with Mick Foley and being the first heel to walk out of Mania with the title or Rikishi being a fun baby face and not making sense as the choice twice. It’s not adding anything by doing this. Let’s take out the filler. (Let me clarify real quick. It is ok to repeat some things to get your point across, but repeating the whole history verbatim is pointless. Instead, a passing mention would have been fine. Saying, “as mentioned, Triple H was red hot,” would have been just fine instead of covering the Foley feud and Mania triumph again.)
So here’s your debate with some filler and repeated words taken out: For the running over of Stone Cold Steve Austin at Survivor Series 1999, almost anyone would have been better than the person who was picked - Rikishi. Maybe if he was already a heel, it could've worked, but he was a popular face in Too Cool, a comedy one at that. It made no sense for it being Rikishi, he and Austin rarely crossed paths, and if they were going to have Triple H tell Rikishi to do it anyways, it should've been revealed as him to begin with. It could have been capitalized on more had he been the sole planner and attacker of the hottest star that the industry has ever seen. It even seemed like they were going in that direction at Backlash.
If Triple H had been the only person who had attacked Steve Austin, he could've gotten every bit of the heat to himself, not having to share it to Rikishi. On the other hand, you had a red hot Triple H, who had just lost the WWF Title after retiring a legend Mick Foley, beating huge stars stars such as the Rock, the big Show, also setting a Wrestlemania record as he became the first heel champion to retain the World Title in the main event of wrestlemania. He became the first man in fifteen years to accomplish this. With all of these feats on his side, and all the heat from siding with the corrupt authority figure Stephanie McMahon, he became the hottest heel in the company. They wasted a big angle with Steve Austin and Triple H, one that could've easily headlined Summerslam, with Austin going over to end his road to recovery, and then making it back to the top to set up Steve Austin vs the Rock at the next year's Wrestlemania 17. Even with a loss against Steve Austin, it would've further cemented Triple H to the top, one that he would still have today.
Because of all of these reasons, Rikishi was not the right choice to be the one to run over Steve Austin. Rikishi vs Steve Austin is not a money match. However, Triple H vs Steve Austin is a money match, and it could've sold so many tickets for Summerslam. Triple H was the hottest heel in the business, so he should've had the hottest angle, which was who ran over Steve Austin.
Without the filler, there’s not much there. The whole part about Triple H getting all the heat for himself, then countering yourself was really questionable. Like you really hurt yourself there. Even then, you argue that Triple H being in this feud would be a top heel and still would be today.”Even with a loss against Steve Austin, it would've further cemented Triple H to the top, one that he would still have today.” Um, he is still the top heel today. He was the top heel for Raw from 2002-2005 at least. So if he was given this angle, nothing would change? You go on about how Triple H was the top heel, and then say this angle would make him the top heel. It isn’t much of an argument. In fact, if you expanded on this instead: “Triple H was the hottest heel in the business, so he should've had the hottest angle, which was who ran over Steve Austin.” it would have been much better for you.
Only just above 600 words
So much unnecessary repeated history
Countering your own arguments
DECISION: The Winner is WrestlingOracle. WrestlingOracle did a good job comparing his choice to the real feud, provided reasons why his choice was right, and provided counter arguments for why other choices on the roster were wrong. shackles' was solid, but it really missed that connection to the real feud and counters.
BkB Hulk shackles:
First of all – really interesting answer. The question doesn’t say they had to be alive or anything, so it’s definitely thinking outside the box.
Your arguments essentially addressed the “should” part of the question in the way you wanted, and it worked because you can interpret it that way. The connection between Austin and Pillman was really well utilised for your argument, and I loved that you justified the idea that Pillman actually had running someone down within him. It’s a key point that really gives your argument strength.
You backed everything you said about Pillman up well, and the debate flowed throughout. I’d suggest proofreading to omit errors (especially “but Pillman would eventually favor Hart eventually join the stable known as The Hart Foundation”), but the debate in general worked really naturally, and came to a nice conclusion.
Unexpected answer, but in a good way. Well thought out, well written and well reasoned.
This was another good, solid debate. The arguments for Michaels to do it were all really positive and logical, and you explained all of your points thoroughly. The comparison with Rikishi as what really happened illustrated really well just how much better Michaels would have been.
I also liked the way you attacked the counter to the Michaels argument by using it as a positive. You dismissed Michaels’ inability to compete well, and also provided reason for it being someone who didn’t disrupt things thoroughly as a real positive.
I feel like you really needed to read back over the third last paragraph, as it was a bit of a mess. While the points were good, it was a bit rambling in the end. Still, all of the points against the alternatives were, again, strong.
The conclusion wasn’t much, but it summed your argument up. I think a bit more personality in this part in particular would bode well for you in the future, but it does the job here.
Like the others, your arguments have been presented well. The idea that someone shouldn’t have done it for Triple H because he was the hot heel and thus could have been the absolute villain is a really good one, and dismisses much of the argument against it being Triple H.
The emphasis on the Triple H/Austin feud and possible match also worked as a strong argument in your favour, and I liked the way you argued it would be a perfect segue to the eventual Austin/Rock match.
What you have working against you is you didn’t really address any other alternative options to blow them off, and the structure of the debate could have been better. The second last paragraph could be broken down a bit, and the writing needed a look back over. A lot of the sentences are carrying on too far, and there are a few silly errors that could be fixed quickly.
Despite that, this is actually a good undercard debate. You’ve got stiff competition here, but you’re on track.
This is really tough to compare because of how amazingly different the debates are. shackles wins for me, but it’s a really, really marginal decision. A good effort from all.
Winner via Split Decision - WrestlingOracle
Curry vs LFC_Styles vs Hoopy Frood Goal difference or head-to-head record - which is the fairest method to crown league champions in Football?
Spoiler for Debates:
In the event that two teams gain the same number of points over the course of a season, the fairest method to crown league champions in Football is goal difference.
Goal difference is the fairest method of crowning league champions because a league is decided over the course of a whole season. From the first kick of a ball until the final whistle a team should be competing to win not just the game but the entire league. Given that the objective of Football is to score more goals than your opponent, the best way for a team to prove their worth is to score as many as possible while conceding as few as possible. Once points are taken out of the equation, goal difference is the best representation of a team's quality over a whole season in terms of both attacking and defending.
Because head-to-head focuses on the results of just two games rather than a whole season, extraneous factors can play a far bigger role in deciding the title. Poor officiating, injuries or just sheer luck can have a huge impact on the result of a single match, in the case of head-to-head a single incident would mean that half of the matches being accounted for had been affected rather than one in thirty-eight where these factors should (theoretically) have the time to even themselves out. Is it fair that the champions could be crowned as a result of a single incident they had no control over? No, it's not.
Goal difference also has the advantage of being a known decider, as teams know from before the season begins that if they should finish the season level on points with another team, goal difference will decide the champions. Every team in the league will have this knowledge and can go into each game with that in mind. In the case of head-to-head, a team can't know until later in the season which matches head-to-head record could apply to and by that point it may be too late. Come May a team's championship hopes could be decided entirely by the results of two games, one in September and another in January. Is it fair that, after losing 3-1 in the September game and holding on to their 1-0 lead in the January game by defending brilliantly to win the three points, a team could later find themselves losing the title based on results they couldn't have known would be pivotal? No, it's not.
Strangely, a common argument made for head-to-head record being the fairer option seems to be that goal difference puts a lot of focus on a team's ability to rack up big scorelines against minnows. Quite how potential champions being rewarded for triumphantly showing that they are far superior to the competition isn't fair I don't know. The fact that goal difference's fairness is dependent on the teams in the league remaining competitive throughout the season is, if anything, an advantage of the system.
It's also important to consider what is fair to the fans. In a system where head-to-head performance is rewarded, teams often play not to lose, rather than to win. This can be seen in two-legged Champions League ties where teams often play dull, defensive Football. A system rewarding goal difference, however, promotes attacking Football. Teams know that the the best way to boost goal difference is to go forward and score goals, creating entertaining attacking Football.
On a personal level, the importance of goal difference gave me one of the most exciting days of Football I've ever experienced. On May 25th 2003, the final day of the Scottish Premier League season both Celtic and Rangers had 94 points heading into their last games of the campaign. Had the deciding factor in the event of a tie been head-to-head record, Celtic would simply have needed to beat Kilmarnock, almost a formality for a team in their form. Instead, the title would be decided by goal difference, which the teams were also equal on. Another title race amidst one of Football's most bitter rivalries settled entirely on who could win by more goals. Pure league Football as the two best teams fought to prove they were the best of the best. Celtic won 4-0. Rangers won 6-1, scoring an injury time penalty to clinch the title.
Rangers against Dunfermline is not an exciting match. It's not a special event but that day, every Football fan in Scotland turned their attention to Mikel Arteta and the penalty spot whether in the stadium, watching on TV, listening on radio or hushed on the phone as they waited and listened for the screams made it special. Goal difference made it special.
Goal difference, not head-to-head, offers the fairest tiebreaker to teams and creates the fairest product for fans.
Goal difference or head-to-head record, which is fairer to crown league champions in football? How is this even a question? As Rush put it in the World Cup thread, “The goal of any game is winning.” The goal of the game is to win. When two teams are tied atop the standings, is it more poignant to say that since team B beat team A in the regular season that Team B is the champion? Or is the fact that team A plays better defense than team B and held the rest of the league to far less goals while scoring less as well and thus having a slightly superior goal differential more important? That is the crux of this argument. Which is a fairer outcome? I say head-to-head.
CGS also says in the World Cup thread, “As mentioned the whole aim of the game is to score as much goals possible in the alloted time. The whole test should be over who performed better as a whole over the 3 games not who performed better over 1 game against a particular team.”  Here is my main problem with this thought. This is fine and dandy when the teams may be tied in the points tally and they drew in their only match up/s, but when a team has outright beaten a team head to head, and they are tied atop the standings in points come end of the season, why does goal differential matter more then?
Team B has already proven they were better than team A on that given day on the pitch. So team B is a slightly sloppier team on defense, their offense is top of the league. Team A can hold the league to fewer goals, but they also score a lot less. If they met again, who would win? Team A might steal one this time, but they didn’t last time. Team B did. So paraphrasing CGS, the fact that A allowed less goals, means they fared better overall versus the league, right? No. The fact that Team A and B have identical points tallies proves this notion false. Identical point tallies show that they each fared equally versus the rest of the league, so ideally another measure should be used. If you are equal versus everyone else, a logical leap one can then make is then how did you fare versus each other? Head to head is far more logical than goals differential when you have already determined the teams did equally well in the league point tally wise. Heck, even best record versus the next best team in the standings is a better determination metric in my opinion.
In league play, even with relegation, you have your basement dwellers and you have your perennial contenders. Really, this just encourages running up the score as much as you can on the teams that do not offer the same level of competition as others. As Xevoz said tongue in cheek, “And again I say they are professionals. Oh running up the score against a weaker team? Yeah so mean. FFS ” Curry added, “What are they supposed to do? Stop trying if they go 2 goals up?” To this I say, maybe not two goals, but three goals? Maybe .
It is encouraging bad sportsmanship on a professional level, and that trickles down to youth play. While the counter argument to my point as Rush put it is, “No, its true BECAUSE of the nature of goal difference. It makes that last bit of the game worth something. Additionally plenty of teams have come back from being 3 goals down. Outcomes of games are the primary tiebreaker. You know, you get points for winning/drawing, whoever's ahead on points goes through...”, the point stands that if you pull some players to give them rest towards the end of games and protect them from injuries, no one is saying you can’t put those players right back in to stop a momentum flow from the opposition. This is an EARNED privilege that teams that build a big lead earn specifically because they played really well. Garbage time is a reward for the better teams.
The point the counter arguments want to make is that if Team B beats a bottom dweller 4-3 in a match that was never in doubt due to some late goals from the opposition, and Team A beat that same team 2-0, that Team A had the better win. A win is a win When it comes down to it, Team B had just as many points as Team A, AND Team B beat Team A straight up, closed case right there. Team B is the better team and proved it on the pitch.
2011-12: Manchester City won the premier league on goal difference after coming from behind against QPR to win 3-2. Manchester City had already beaten United in both their head to head games in the season, 1-0 at the Etihad (City’s home ground) and 6-1 at United's ground, Old Trafford. This is an example where goal difference settled the championship in the end, but head to head record would of seen the same team crowned as who won it anyway.
1988-89: Arsenal defeated Liverpool 2-0 at Anfield to lift the Division One trophy, in the final game of the season. This head to head settled the league, as Arsenals two clear goals gave them the victory on goals scored. So ok, it was settled on goals scored but only because of this head to head. This ruined Liverpools chance of a second consecutive double, and gave Arsenal their 9th Division One title.
So, my stance on this is definitely that head to head record is the fairest way to settle League Champions in football. Why? Well, because the two top teams facing each other is clearly the way to settle it, this is a true test of which team has performed best throughout the season. Of course there are a few factors in this, including injuries players have sustained at the time, but this would also affect the goal difference so is irrelevant.
Of course, it can be argued that GD is fairer because it is a test of consistency throughout the season, but i dont see it that way personally. There could be controversial decisions and player injuries, but like i state below this can happen in head to heads and i STILL think its fairer.
Ok, so the fact that Man City won the league on goal difference relied on the fact that they beat Manchester United both times they played. Just one point dropped would of lost them the league, but because they won their head to heads with Man Utd, they had enough points to win the league with a substantial goal difference. You see, if two teams are so close that it has to go down to goal difference, its probably due to their results in their head to head games in that season. Sure, it might not be, they could have traded wins or draws, but their is a good chance, and this happened in both scenarios mentioned above.
In the 2013-14 premier league season, Man City won the league by two points AND with a substantial goal difference. In their first head to head with Liverpool (the runners up), City won 2-1 (after some potentially controversial refereeing), and Liverpool won the second head to head 3-2 (another referee blunder). In this case, it didnt change the league winners, as they traded wins and the Goal difference didnt change anything.
Back to head to heads. While i think both GD and head to heads are fair ways of settling league champions (they have the same opponents, not like one team is at an advantage/disadvantage), i think Head to Heads are a fairer way. As i explained above, it is a true test to decide the better overall team, because say if it came down to head to heads because GD was slightly in one teams favour (one team with massive advantage of Goals Scored, one team with slightly lesser, but still big advantage for Goals Conceded), then the head to heads will settle which team is really better as an overall team, and if the team with superior attack can break down the other teams much stronger defence, twice at that, then they are clearly the better team overall and deserve the titles.
Of course, referee mistakes can always ruin potential head to head deciders, as an offside goal can be ruled unfairly offside and vice versa, penalties can also be unfairly given. At the end of the day though, thats just how football is. This would be rare to happen in both head to heads in the season, but it could happen (did last season) and could drastically change who potentially ends up winning the league.
So, as stated throughout this debate, my stance on this is head to heads are a fairer way to settle league champions. If these head to heads both have the same result (same goal difference wins or draws in both), then ok, it can always go to Goal Difference for consistency. Or, even better, have a final head to head, with extra time periods and penalties if it stays a draw, to truly decide the true champions. One extra game in one season is not going to hurt anyone.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs Curry - This was a really good debate imo and the obvious winner for me. Intro is concise and to the point while stating your stance. Good stuff. No need to waste words where they're not needed. First paragraph does a nice job of setting the crux of your debate up. 2nd paragraph is a debate winner highlighting how the deciding factor being something which relies on just 2 games over a season rather than 38 (or equivalent) isn't the fairest method because of the reasons you highlighted. None of your opponents really managed to counter this for my liking so great stuff there. Next point is a tad weaker but the work was done in the previous paragraph. I think usually teams know who the title contenders will be bar rare instances and that Barca vs Real for example is gonna be a big game to win if the deciding factor is head to head. Plus as you said every team is aiming to win every game anyway. I didn't think that this built on the previous paragraph but that previous one was so good it didn't really need to be. Good stuff tackling the counters too. Try and get a paragraph like this into every debate and more importantly try and make the counters this good. I thought you could have advanced it a bit further by saying that every team has the same opportunity to get their goal difference up against whipping boys so to speak. Taking the wider picture into context was another great move and I really liked the entertainment argument. Great example with the Rangers/Celtic case too. Examples to illustrate your point are always great. Great structure to your debate, great arguments, great communication. Really really strong debate. Well done.
Hoopy Frood - I'm pretty eh on the reliance of forum quotes in your debate. I guess it's not a major thing but I think debates look better when you're using your own words and not someone else's, even if you're using their words to set up your own counter arguments. You could also probably save some word count up condensing them into your own words too. Definitely leave the smileys out though. They look pretty bad in a formal debate like these, especially the big Draper one. I thought Curry's argument against head to heads that they can be skewed if one team has an injury crisis, robbed by a dodgy decision, etc trumped anything you had for head to head to be honest. That's not a knock against your own arguments which were good, Curry's were just better and I didn't feel you were able to directly counter that argument. The bad sportsmanship point I don't agree with at all and you didn't really explain it all that well outside of it being your opinion. Maybe that's representative of American sporting culture but there's plenty of NBA games that are blowouts where teams just give up even if they do bench their starters. There's still plenty to play for for the players on the pitch. "no one is saying you can’t put those players right back in to stop a momentum flow from the opposition." - yeah the rules of football do. You can't be subbed back in once you're subbed out. This isn't Basketball. Plus if Team A is 3-0 up vs Team X and decides to just stop but Team B carry on playing hard and get up to 6-0 vs Team X then shouldn't that be rewarded because they're playing against the same opposition right? You say a win is a win but isn't 5-0 > 1-0? If one team is battering teams every week while the other is narrowly winning but got a dodgy win because of a bad ref call in the first head to head game and drew the other does that really make the other team better or does it just mean a dodgy ref call gave them the advantage? This was basically Curry's argument that he made really well and for me it trumped anything you had.
LFC_Styles - I would have put your stance stating paragraph first. State your stance as soon as you can. Without it the first two paragraphs didn't mean much to me. I'm not gonna lie I thought this was a bit of a mess. It felt like one big long unstructured ramble and it was pretty hard to really follow. Try and structure it better next time so that one point leads in to the next and you're not hopping back and forth between saying one thing, then another, then going back to the first thing and so on. Curry's debate was really easy to follow because it had a great structure. Compare both debates and hopefully you see the difference. You sorta try to counter Curry's argument about injuries affecting just one game by saying it affects one goal difference game too. But surely it has a bigger impact when the deciding factor is based on 2 games rather than 38? There's 37 other games to correct it with goal difference. With head to head you only have 2 games to decide it in, and if one of them produces a result that isn't a true representation of the quality of both teams over the season because of factors such as injuries and bad ref calls then that it has a much bigger impact because there's less games after it to correct it. Also try and make you language a bit more persuasive and present it as fact rather than just your opinion. A lot of the time you're stating this your opinion rather than it being actually the fairer method. After that it gets really hard to follow. You later cite two cases of bad ref calls in both the head to head games which really works in Curry's favour and against you. Don't counter your own stance. Also type words out in full please. It's a debate not a text message. The penultimate paragraph is pretty horrible because it goes against your entire argument. Stay more focused and make sure you aren't countering your own arguments. If you're struggling for structure then try to follow this:
Intro (state your stance here)
Point #2 (try to make Point 2 follow on from 1 and so on)
Counter Argument #1
Winner - Curry
BkB Hulk Curry:
This was really quite good. You’ve provided very good reasoning with all of your points, and explained them all thoroughly. On top of that, the structure of the debate is exactly how it should be. Points are separated but flow into each other well, and you’ve given yourself a chance to provide a lot of points.
The cliché that decisions “even themselves out” is a bit of an annoying one generally, but it works well in this debate and highlights how it’s fairer to take a whole season rather than a smaller sample space that is more easily effected. The basic argument about what football really is works well, even if it is, well, basic. It’s the actual reasoning behind it for just that reason, and is a good way to start explaining it.
The argument about a team holding onto their 1-0 lead isn’t as strong, because it and the argument involving the way Champions League ties are played kind of overlap with each other, but I do know what you’re going for. At the same time, the reasoning behind both points clashes a little.
Nonetheless, football being about entertainment for fans is also a good base argument, and the personal account from Scotland about it making things entertaining is a powerful way to end. That goes with the strong opening about it being “the whole season” to give really strong bookends to a good debate.
Honestly, on first reading, the debate just felt like a way to pick arguments with Rush and CGS.
The idea that teams fared evenly against others and thus are now in direct competition is your strongest one. It works well against the idea that winning a league is about performing best in the league, because you’re already saying they’re equal.
Other than that, it doesn’t really look like you’re arguing for something so much as you are against something else. The idea that teams shouldn’t try to score heavily is effectively countered by Debater A pointing out that it is ultimately about entertainment, and the Scottish league example really shows that.
Your Team A and Team B argument also struggled, because it worked into what A said about results not being indicative of a whole season.
I don’t really get the sportsmanship thing either. Scoring heavily is bad sportsmanship, but taking players off (that you can apparently bring back on, which doesn’t make sense either) isn’t? Yeah, not sure that makes sense.
Like I said, it feels more like you’re arguing with forum members then writing for something.
Your opening examples are really weird, because, as you acknowledge, they work either way. Honestly, I’m a little confused as to why you’d use those two specific examples.
The whole debate seems to follow that pattern. You constantly acknowledge flaws in your argument without actually countering them. You just say you don’t see things that way, but you’ve brought up the counter argument and been dismissive without convincing me they should be dismissed. We can’t just say “Oh, that’s a good argument against your point, but you said ignore it. Okay then.”
The City/United example is particularly confusing because you say it’s probably because of their head-to-head record anyway. I don’t know how that’s probable, because, mathematically, if teams are equal then you would also assume their head-to-head is equal.
This year’s example changed nothing. You said that. Why bring it up then? These two teams weren’t equal, so it doesn’t work with your previous point.
The third last paragraph is your best one by far, and gives a reasonably compelling argument. The second last, unfortunately, goes back to what you were doing before, as you seemingly accidentally present more arguments that actually work against your argument than for.
I don’t think this was really well thought out, and it seemed rushed. There were several spelling and grammatical errors throughout it, and you argued against yourself constantly. You are capable of making good points, as the third last paragraph showed, but I think you need to think more clearly about it and make sure you’re really in favour of one option, while dismissing the other with reason. On top of that, make sure examples aid your argument, and check over your debate for errors.
Curry wins, having written a really strong debate.
This is good. I never really thought at any point during this that you wasted words which is a big plus. From the off you set your stance and jump straight into fair reasons for why you chose it. Your points about extraneous factors and GD also forcing you to keep on your toes and be competitive are also valid. Same for not potentially knowing who your rival for the top spots will be going into the new season.
Considering the fans and promoting good flowing football are both points the other debates don't bring up either. Neither is the potential for exciting last day finishes (I doubt Hamilton would've won their last game of the season 10-2 either if they didn't know that they needed a win of that magnitude in order to even have a chance of promotion) or games that on paper sound boring becoming huge events. Really this has very little holes in your argument and its hard for me to really say what you could've taken out or what more you could've done with the words given.
Okay first off, I don't like it when people use posters from this forum as sources. Especially when you're quoting Rus to say something as obvious as the goal of any game is winning. You can say that yourself but you really shouldn't have to. Not to mention you literally repeat his point immediately after. Honestly your opening couple of sentences are pretty much useless and your opening would've been better and more straight to your stance without it. When you have so little words to put your point across stuff like this seems like you could have easily used it to get another point across.
You leave yourself to open to counter here and your debate so far is giving off a lazy vibe. Like you've went into the world cup thread and found posters you think are good and are then trying to get points from things they've said. Chances are if a side has "outright beaten" a team head to head they would've gained a good goal difference from that anyway as well as reducing the GD of their opponent. Stuff like this is what you should be looking to shut down with your argument.
Assuming that because they have equal points tallies they've done equally well strikes of ignorance too. Saying other teams dont offer the same level of competition again is weird. Upsets happen literally all the time in the prem. Then adding a "tongue in cheek" comment and countering by saying MAYBE just seems lazy and frankly bad. Which i could really accuse your entire debate of being, sadly.
You spend far too little time addressing the counter arguments and just assume your point is right without giving any examples. The fact all you mention here is a hypothetical Team A or Team B tells me that you either couldnt find any reasonable irl examples to support your point. That or you were too lazy to find them. I'm not sure which is worse.
Your first two examples made me think that you were going to side with goal difference. That or you were going to suggest that it didn't really matter. Either way I wasn't expecting you to say head to head record is the fairest way to settle a league. Especially when your following point is that it is a "test of which team has performed best throughout the season" 2 games in a 38 game season =/= throughout the season. Saying stuff like injuries affect goal difference too so it's irrelevant seems lacking almost. Why is it irrelevant? Surely it affects head to head games more because you have a much smaller sample size of truly important games which could be fucked up by these injuries? This is too easy to counter for how quickly you disregarded it.
Very minor thing but "their is a good chance" is a silly grammatical error that proof reading probably could've got rid of.
Your 2013-14 point is fine but then you're also admitting both games have ref blunders. Surely the fact that both of these potentially vital games could've been affected by factors unrelated to the teams playing the game would be more of a negative?
Admitting you think GD is fair is weird. I mean that's all well and good but I really didn't need to read it in the debate. Like I'm not expecting you to outright claim it's bad but when you're arguing for one side allowing any concessions to the other just strikes me as something which doesn't allow your argument to be as airtight as possible.
Suggesting a final head to head over Goal Difference strikes me as such an alien concept in fitba too. Especially when you just said that GD seems fair to you and you literally mention it slightly in passing in your last sentence. It just makes your debate end on a completely unrelated and pretty much unneeded note.
Curry wins this.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Curry
MoveMent vs BOOGIE COUSINS vs DCR Should MLB institute a salary cap?
Spoiler for Debates:
For those of you who don’t know a salary cap for Major League teams is when….wait y’all are judges you should already know that.
Well since salary caps are usually implemented to help force a balance of powers I assume the question is asking will a salary cap do just that? How effective are they? That varies between Major Sports but in the end a salary cap for the MLB will not cause any significant improvement to the league. The two biggest examples are the NBA and the NFL both popular American sports in their own respect, each with a salary cap.
The salary cap in the NBA is currently $58.79 million with a pretty hefty luxury tax if a team is to ever go over the cap with various other rules implemented around the salary cap. However looking at the current landscape of the NBA while it obviously has blocked certain scenarios from happening there is a huge imbalance in the NBA between conferences. The Western conference is stacked with Superstars and All-Stars everywhere while the Eastern Conference is largely the Miami Heat and the Indiana Pacers (Who ended up imploding mid-season.) Though there were solid Eastern Teams all around there was never a doubt that there were only two teams in the Championship picture while on the Western Conference there were a handful of teams that could make a case to be in the Finals from the Spurs to Thunder to Clippers etc.
And make no mistake manipulating the salary cap isn’t impossible either. The Miami “Big 3” each took pay cuts to play on the same team then they built the team with veteran and young inexpensive talent to create their team. A salary cap should prevent players such as Lebron, Wade, and Bosh playing on the same team (Speaking of 2011 when it first occurred. Bosh and Wade obviously aren’t the stars they used to be now). Even now with the player options each player has it isn’t impossible for one or two (Bosh and Wade) to take pay cuts so they could all stay and bring in even more talent if they wanted to.
Then there’s the NFL. Outside of the Patriots being relatively dominant in the AFC East over the years the NFL doesn’t have much of an imbalance. But we have to look at their situation.
The NFL’s salary cap is set at $120 million which seems very generous but these caps are based off of revenue and related expenses. But not only do they have a large cap but NFL Teams can manipulate contracts in ways that are unfair to players (Different debate though). Teams can recon-structure contracts, waive players etc. It isn’t hard for an NFL team to dump a contract they don’t need in order to free up money. Even now when they’re throwing out $100 million dollar contracts to QB’s most of the details of these contracts leave the team in good position and for the player to possibly make only half that amount.
Whereas original reports had Kaepernick collecting $61 million in guarantees, the truth is his $12.3 million signing bonus, $100,000 workout bonus and $645,000 base salary for 2014 are the only fully guaranteed portions of the contract.
Kaepernick has a $2 million roster bonus in each year of the contract. His base salaries after 2014 become fully guaranteed on April 1 (otherwise only guaranteed for injury). In which case, Kaepernick will miss out on free-spending early weeks of free agency if the 49ers end up releasing him at some point.
The 49ers are in a great position despite offering that much money to him. And while this contract isn’t necessarily bad for Colin because his team can afford to keep weapons around him that goes back to my point that the Salary Cap isn’t doing much justice to keep a balance of anything.
The MLB as is already has a luxury tax that the Yankee’s are in love with. The Yankee’s have also appeared in 40 total World Series so that cannot be ignored. Spending big will pay off but we also have to take this into account. There are 19 different World Series winners over the past 3 decades more than any other Major American Sport in that timeframe.
What the MLB has right now works for them. Players can get paid freely, teams can spend freely. I don’t believe any team is being shorted because they don’t have as much money as another team. Unless the salary caps begin to show any real use in other leagues the MLB doesn’t need one.
No the MLB should not have a Salary cap. While people think that capped leagues even the playing field when in fact it doesn’t All it seems to do is line the pockets of the owners. If salary caps did what they were thought too, then the MLB would not be as competitive as it is.
First i think its a good idea to defines what the salary cap actually is. In it’s most basic terms it’s a limit on how much a team can spend on its roster. The idea behind this is that it makes sure that the teams who play in bigger markets cannot dominate their sport by signing all the big time players.
The Salary cap help the owners save money on players, while making larger profits. But it doesn’t really affect the competitiveness of the league itself. The NBA for various reasons has the lowest cap of the major us sports, but is by far the least competitive. A salary cap is supposed to make it so that every team has a decent shot at making the playoffs and contend for a title. but we all know that in the NBA there are only four or five teams that have any shot at a title, and making the playoffs doesn’t mean you have a good shot at going anywhere.
Taking a look at the NFL, a sport where most people champion the salary cap as a reason for parity, it's a little misguided when comparing it to baseball because of the schedule differences. A season is more of a craps shoot in football based on them playing a much smaller number of games. the term “any given Sunday” is used because it’s thought that on any game day any team can beat any other team. while this is true, it’s also true in any sport. if the Tampa Bay Rays ( worst team in the majors) were to play the Oakland A’s( one of the best) in a single game, it’s very possible Rays would win. in a single game weird stuff can happen. if you were to shrink down the MLB season to the number of games that the NFL does, you would be more likely to get the results that the NFL does.
Also if having a salary cap is supposed to mean more parity and less teams being able to dominate, then why is it that the sport with no salary cap has had the most champions over the passed 30 years. the MLB has had 19 different champions only three less than the NFL(14) and NBA(8) combined. so it seems to me that it doesn’t really have much affect on parity.
Having a big payroll and being able to sign the big free agents doesn’t always mean you will come to prosper in the postseason, take for instance a team likes the Yankee’s while obviously they have a rich history. For the last decade or so they've been known to always be big spenders. but they’ve struggled to win the title,only winning one, which is still good, but not what you had expect when you are signing all the people they signed. Being able to pay the most doesn’t guarantee anything, just ask the Angels,who made two big free agent signing in back to back years, but did not even make the playoffs.
Salary caps really just help the owners make more of a profit. it keeps the cost down while moving the profit margin up. It evens works that way in the MLB when you have teams with small budgets being the most profitable. The Houston Astros were the most profitable MLB team ever last year. and since the NFL salary cap retooled a couple years ago, teams have been making more profit than ever.
So instead of making the leagues more competitive. all salary caps manage to do is make sure the profits of the teams are larger. The caps have not made the league more competitive as people would like you to think.
Alright, let’s set the scene, shall we. It’s December, the MLB Winter Meetings are over, and it’s not hard to guess what’s going to happen. We see it every year; the best free agents available always go to the wealthiest teams. It’s hard to think of a big ticket free agent who would rather sign a conservative deal with a small market team, than to sign a massive deal with a team like the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox. So, what does that create? We get a good deal of baseball fans crying ‘foul’ over this, claiming that the MLB needs to institute a salary cap. The question now is, are they right?
Proponents of a salary cap claim that the lack of a cap system inhibits parity in major league baseball. Sure, the theory is simple. If you’re spending more money to get better players, you have a better chance to win. Unfortunately, for teams like the New York Yankees, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Of the three major sports leagues in America (MLB, NFL, and NBA), two of them are capped while the MLB stands alone as the sole uncapped league. If the salary cap prohibited parity in the league, then there would be a greater variety of teams winning championships in the NBA and NFL. Since the MLB strike of 1994, 10 separate teams have won World Series championships. The resuming of the league after the strike did mark the start of wild spending in baseball. The NFL has had a similar amount of championship franchises, with 12 different teams winning the super bowl since the same year. Now, the clear difference comes when you compare the uncapped MLB with the capped NBA. In the same timeframe, only seven teams have won the NBA championship. And it doesn’t change if you look deeper. Only seven different teams have won the NBA championship since 1984. Considering these facts, it is clear that a salary cap has absolutely no effect on the parity of a particular league.
Clearly, there isn’t a parity problem in baseball. Unfortunately, though, there has been a ratings problem. Baseball has been a local sport for years. While the NBA and NFL have received massive national attention, baseball is known as a sport which generates much of its revenue from local fans and TV deals. Unfortunately, it’s getting hard for the MLB to compete with the national intrigue of the NBA and NFL. So, clearly, it is imperative that the MLB start aiming for the national spotlight normally reserved for football and basketball. Nothing can help the MLB with this effort more than big name players playing under big money contracts with big time teams. Sunday Night Baseball, the MLB’s foremost nationally televised program has actually been on the upswing in ratings this season, with a 7 percent increase. Regular season MLB games were actually earning similar ratings to NBA playoff games. That figure was spearheaded by a Yankees/Red Sox matchup which drew nearly 2 million viewers. These nationally televised games are not promoted with the local appeal that has fueled MLB fandom for years, but with the MLB’s highest earning big name players. If there were a salary cap preventing teams from stacking big name players, we may not be seeing this positive effect on the ratings. Clearly, it isn’t in the best interest of the MLB to institute a salary cap, as it would negatively affect the ratings in an uphill battle against the more popular NBA and NFL.
So, there you have it. Not only would instituting a salary cap not have an effect on the parity of the MLB, which isn’t a problem in the first place, but it would have a negative effect on the ratings. In a sport that is trying to capture a younger audience and continue with their slow crawl into the 21st century, a salary cap would all but kill the small bit of momentum the improvements that big money contracts and talent stacking have caused. All in all, the positives of a cap less MLB greatly outweigh any negatives.
Okay guys, I’m prefacing this with telling you that I am being a little hard on you guys. I feel the negatives of your debates really stood out. I am going to point these out and dissect them, so this may sound a little meaner than usual. Sorry in advance.
This debate was okay. A good portion of your debate was about how the rules of the cap can be bent slightly. You cited the Miami Heat and the Niners as two examples. They were rather long IMO, but you still made your point. You did mention parity in here, but I think you kind of forgot how injured the East was with Lopez, Rose, Horford, Rondo, Wade, and others being injured. The point still stands that the West is stronger, but there were more than two contenders before the East died of injury. I just wanted to point that out. I feel it hurt your point. Not much though. After this though, I would have liked to have seen more about the MLB. You only got to them at the very end.
The MLB portion is ok, but a little short for a debate about the MLB IMO. In fact, here is your first MLB part, “The MLB as is already has a luxury tax that the Yankee’s are in love with. The Yankee’s have also appeared in 40 total World Series so that cannot be ignored. Spending big will pay off but we also have to take this into account. There are 19 different World Series winners over the past 3 decades more than any other Major American Sport in that timeframe.” You make a point that the Yankees are very dominant, then point out that 18 other teams have won the World Series too. I will mention for your opponent about how that can be a little misleading as the NFL jumped in parity when the cap was added in the 1994 season, but I’ll let it slide as you don’t compare the two. Your stat is correct. Next is your final MLB point and conclusion: “What the MLB has right now works for them. Players can get paid freely, teams can spend freely. I don’t believe any team is being shorted because they don’t have as much money as another team. Unless the salary caps begin to show any real use in other leagues the MLB doesn’t need one.” That’s it? Like you mention parity and how the cap can be manipulated, but your argument for MLB is that what they have right now works because it does? Examples for teams being able to spend freely please. Moneyball kind of showed that teams like Oakland couldn’t do that at all. Eh. Sorry for being hard on you. I just wanted more from the MLB side of the debate.
Solid cap manipulation examples
Said cap manipulation examples take up a lot of space
Not a lot on MLB itself
Alright. I’m going to do things a little differently here. I read your entire debate, but one thing really bugged me. “Also if having a salary cap is supposed to mean more parity and less teams being able to dominate, then why is it that the sport with no salary cap has had the most champions over the passed 30 years. the MLB has had 19 different champions only three less than the NFL(14) and NBA(8) combined. so it seems to me that it doesn’t really have much affect on parity. ” What bugs me in this comparison is the fact that the NFL has only had a cap since 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_...ootball_League
That means that for your comparison to truly work, you can’t count 30 years. Instead, you’d have to count the 20 years since the cap was introduced. In that 20 years, the NFL had 13 different champions. Meanwhile in that same time span, the MLB had 10 different champions. Potentially 11 if this season’s winner is a different team. Either way, since the NFL introduced the salary cap, the NFL has had more parity than the MLB. So with that said, I cannot count this argument at all. Now there are ways you can re-write this with the amended information and still get your point across. You can mention that the difference between the additional parity isn’t enough to conclude that the addition of a salary cap creates more parity. I just can’t count the 10 years before the 94 season as part of the example because they didn’t have a salary cap then. Sorry.
Unfortunately, because I have to omit it for being wrong, you are left with a slightly lacking debate. Your other points are that big spending didn’t help the Yankees for much of the last decade and the owners benefit more from a cap than anything else. You are right in both of these, but I feel the Yankees example was a little light as they still made the playoffs every year except 2008 and 2013. I suppose that’ll slide for now. They didn’t win the title, and that is the goal after all. The Angels example was better IMO, but you didn’t flesh it out as much.
This next part is your best point though. “Salary caps really just help the owners make more of a profit. it keeps the cost down while moving the profit margin up. It evens works that way in the MLB when you have teams with small budgets being the most profitable. The Houston Astros were the most profitable MLB team ever last year. and since the NFL salary cap retooled a couple years ago, teams have been making more profit than ever. ” I would have loved to have seen you expand upon this. This is truly the biggest point you can make for your side. I’m glad you bring it up too. I especially liked your Astros example. I would have loved to see some specific figures here, but good enough.
Anyway, if you have read this far, you know the issues I’ve had here. Be careful with getting the information wrong, especially if it is on your biggest point. All other minor complaints are probably ones you’ve seen before. AKA spellcheck, format, etc. Just work on these things and you’re good. The owner point might have saved you in this contest though.
Owner’s Profits Points
Covered a couple points
NFL Salary Cap comparison
Minor Typos and such
First things first. Format please. Walls of text are hard to read.I know you separated the paragraphs, but an extra space would have helped.
Your parity paragraph was decent. You covered everything you needed I suppose. I don’t have much to add for it. Or take off for that matter. It’s solid. It isn’t spectacular, but it’s good enough. I guess we’ll go to your next point. I do like how you pointed out that there isn’t a problem with parity, one reason many think to add a salary cap. So you eliminated that counter.
So I liked that you covered more than just the parity issue. You added the ratings section too. I have a problem with part of it though. I have a problem with this sentence here: “Sunday Night Baseball, the MLB’s foremost nationally televised program has actually been on the upswing in ratings this season, with a 7 percent increase. Regular season MLB games were actually earning similar ratings to NBA playoff games.” My reason is that looking at the source you provided, it says “ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” is averaging 2.12 million viewers” and the chart on the article has the median viewers on the NBA Playoff games at 4 million viewers. That’s closer to twice as much as opposed to similar ratings. I you would have just said that the viewers and ratings are improving, that would have been fine. However, saying they are drawing similar numbers to the NBA games is false. Unless you want to count the peak Yankees vs. Redsox game with the blowout game 3 of Miami vs. Charlotte. That’s a 2.77 million vs. 3.425 million viewer comparison. Still a bit of a stretch IMO. Try to watch out for things like this that harm your argument in your future debates. I also need to point out that the Redsox vs. Yankees is the biggest rivalry in baseball. Of course it’s going to be the best draw, even if both teams suck. The article also mentions that the ratings increase was probably caused by this game happening then instead of in June like last year. Oh well. I think you got my point for this.
Because that previous point hurt you, I think it also hurt your next point. “If there were a salary cap preventing teams from stacking big name players, we may not be seeing this positive effect on the ratings. Clearly, it isn’t in the best interest of the MLB to institute a salary cap, as it would negatively affect the ratings in an uphill battle against the more popular NBA and NFL.“ Since it looks like it was the rivalry that drew, are we sure this is right? What would have helped you more would be citing the ratings for a matchup between the two highest payroll teams.
And your debate is done. Eh. You had two points total, but you kind of stumbled on one of them. Be careful of that in the future. Also see if you can branch out and cover more points as well. It hurts you if you have few points and one of them is killed by a mistake. Not a bad effort overall, but there can be some improvements made.
Solid Parity argument
Viewers and Ratings point countered by the source itself.
Formatting could help (minor)
DECISION: Each of these had their faults. Some greater than others. I am awarding my vote to BOOGIE COUSINS. He had the most points that he looked at (even when messing up one of them) and he brought up the owners and how they are getting more money while players aren’t.
WINNER: BOOGIE COUSINS
A good entry. You highlight what can happen in capped leagues. That said, I can't help but feel that your analysis really began until the last two tiny paragraphs. I think it would've been much more effective if you touched on the other league's setup first, and done so BRIEFLY, before applying your thoughts to the MLB.
There's not a whole lot else to critique here. I just felt that a majority of this debate wasn't really substantially focused with MLB. Tie some of your points together and apply them to baseball specifically, and it would've been much stronger.
Really liked your approach to this debate. Compared to Debate A, you reference other league's salary cap structures, BUT you also distinguish them from MLB (ie: the NFL schedule length vs MLBs).
The point about parity is spot on. The point about big payrolls not necessarily winning is spot on. The point about making the owners more profits is spot on. That's a lot of compliments, but it was very well done.
Similar to BOOGIE COUSINS, in the overall setup, but I feel that it is exposed to at least one counter in the area where you bring up ratings. For example, couldn't ratings increase if there was a must-see superstar spread out on a high number of teams? More much-watch games each week. You mention the NFL and NBA with big ratings and salary caps, so couldn't a reader hypothetically conclude that the salary structure works in moving superstars around to increase the average ratings for every team?
Otherwise, I feel that you make strong points. A good debate. I really liked the "crying foul" line too. Puns are fun.
For the reasons above, BOOGIE COUSINS is my pick.
All three debates focused a little more on the other sports to further their case for why the MLB should not have a salary cap. Probably a little too much.
The difference is that BOOGIE COUSINS had the best and most effective factual statements regarding how both spending big, and salary caps doesn't effect the competitiveness of the sport, showing baseball examples as well. This put BOOGIE COUSINS's debate on the winning platform.
MoveMent focused way too much on other sports without trying to analyze the MLB itself. It made me wonder if I was reading an NFL or NBA debate. Little focus on MLB meant little focus on the actual debate topic.
DCR's was hard to read because of the layout. (which made me not want to read it at all), and you did too much comparison to other sports while talking about a bunch of shit that didn't mean anything to the actual topic.
Advice. If you want to talk about the other sports, fine, but make sure you have a solid way of outlining potential positives and negatives of an MLB salary cap so that you have a solid foundation for comparison and analyzing.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - BOOGIE COUSINS
ShinsuKlee Nakamura vs Alim vs YES.YES. vs ROHFan19 Have WWE booked Paige well since she debuted on the main roster?
*ShinsuKlee Nakamura & Alim no showed*
Spoiler for Debates:
Paige the first thing that come in our mind after listening to this word is overrated . many people here find paige overrated and when people find someone overrated the expectations from him/her also increases paige since her debut didn't even gave a single 5 star match and all because of stupid wwe creative team and wwe making her lose from alica fox on raw and naomi on main event was more foolish the match were the title change took place was very short and disappointing wwe need to use her properly as she can wrestler well in ring whenever i see divas match in tna i am like "this is wrestling" wwe never ever took care of diva division So my answer is a big NO wwe didn't book page well the girl lost her match in her hometown and moreover no gud segment was ever done by her and no mic time was given to her during her reign now at mitb she will be facing naomi i think it will be a win for paige at mitb . wwe diva roster need another diva who will be as talented as paige so that they can put up some gud matches . paige has talent but wwe ruined it all so i guess her reign is pretty much boring and all because of wwe creative team
No, the WWE have not booked Paige well at all since she debuted on the main roster. There are a few different reasons for this, starting with the fact that she debuted by defeating AJ Lee, the longest reigning Divas Champion in WWE history, on the Monday Night Raw after Wrestlemania. Clearly this was a move for one specific audience. The WWE did not have a plan for Paige getting to the main roster at this point. They did however know that AJ was leaving, and they needed to put the belt on somebody else. Rather than have AJ lose at Wrestlemania, they went the way that they did for one reason: “Shock value”.
Now, when I say shock value, let me make it a bit more clear. In my mind, the WWE made this move because they wanted to make the post WM Raw crowd happy, and give them a “shocking” moment. This seems to be a standard for post WM Raws. Listen to the pop Paige got when her music hit, the crowd went pretty nuts, especially for a Diva who has never worked on the main roster before. There’s a couple problems with this though, and it all begins with the way that she was booked from the start. In her debut, Paige comes out, not confident, congratulating AJ, and then AJ challenges to her match, and we all know the result. Paige beat AJ with the Paige Turner out of nowhere and won the Divas title. This type of booking hurts Paige for a very important reason; she’ll never reach that moment again. Paige reached her peak the night that she debuted. Perfect crowd, perfect atmosphere, and perfect opponent. With AJ leaving, Paige was pretty much doomed from the start as well because let’s face it, the current WWE diva’s are nothing to write home about. Many people thought that Paige was going to be the “savior” of the Diva’s division, along with Emma and a few others. They all wanted the Paige/Emma feud to continue from NXT to the main roster. Obviously, this was not the case at all, as it didn’t happen and the Diva’s title still means absolutely nothing and hasn’t been elevated at all during her run as Champion.
After Paige debuted, she was constantly given barely any mic time, there were no vignettes shown, no backstage segments, nothing. So sure, for that post WM crowd the moment was awesome. But for the casual WWE audience, nobody knows who Paige is. How can they get emotionally invested in someone when they don’t know anything about them? Simple, they can’t. Paige worked a few matches with Aksana, and Alicia Fox after her big win, and the structure of the matches were all the same. Paige got barely any offense in the entire match, and then wins out of nowhere. It makes her look weak, it makes the crowd not care about her, and it makes all of her wins look like flukes. It’s just not believable for a Champion.
Surely, Paige is an outstanding wrestler and she knows how to give a crowd what they want and get them emotionally invested though right? Maybe she can get over even with the WWE booking her poorly? Well, Paige had PPV matches with Tamina and Alicia Fox and both were just throwaway matches, with barely any build, no heat, nothing really. Another instance where she really is just given nothing to work with. How is a fan supposed to care about matches that are just thrown together for the sake of throwing them together? Tamina won a battle royal, and Alicia’s entire match was built around her being crazy, rather than her hating Paige, or wanting the Diva’s title, etc. Again, there was no feud, there was no heat, no hatred, nothing. Just pick a random diva and have her face Paige. And sure, Tamina should want revenge for AJ in a kayfabe sense, but it was never mentioned once during their “feud/build”. Tamina was on her own now…just another random heel diva to face Paige.
Sure, Paige has the title and it’s supposed to mean something, but it’s just a piece of metal on her shoulder. Fans still haven’t emotionally connected with her. Fans still don’t care about Paige, and they still barely know anything about her. A majority of these reasons are all due to the WWE booking her extremely poorly from the moment that she debuted. She was doomed from the start.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs YES.YES - Ok. I'm gonna be brutally honest with you and say that TDL might not be for you. I don't think this is a lazy effort but rather a struggle. Go through the archive and read any other debate for what is expected from a debate. There's a minimum word count to avoid entries like this that are so short too. Read some other debates and ask yourself if you can feasibly produce similar because the brutal truth is there's little point for anyone to submit less than 300 words of unstructured words without sentence structure.
ROHFan19 - Obviously you win this debate. Duh. This was actually a nice little debate. Actually that sounds degrading like you're talking to a "special" kid who just painted you a shitty picture. This was a good debate. Very good arguments well explained. All your talking points are points I'd probably have covered myself and I didn't feel like you missed out anything super obvious. Structurally good too. I know this debate didn't lend itself to super obvious counter arguments to address but bear them in mind next time too if there's a clearer opposing stance that you can argue against as well as for your own stance. Honestly this would have won most undercard debates imo so it's a tad of shame that you ended up with a default match. Keep this up though and you'll be a good addition to the Wrestling Division.
Winner - ROHFan19.
Firstly, this is an automatic loss for yourself by virtue of failing to meet the minimum word count. If you check the Card Thread, you'll see the minimum word count for all debates is 600 words. This is to ensure a level of participation and effort, rather than the old word count of 300 which often saw rushed or lazy entries. It may have been an oversight on your part, but I can't stress enough that you MUST meet the word count requirement, otherwise you'll automatically lose.
Secondly, formatting and appropriate grammar is key in TDL. Try to look at your opponent's debate, and how their paragraphs were shorter and appropriately separated. It lends itself more favourably to the reader, rather than yours which was cluttered and hard to digest your arguments. I've been informed that English isn't your first language, and whilst I commend you for attempting this debate despite the language barrier, I have to stress for your sake that this could prove a problem, because the essence of a debate is to convince the judge your stance is the best one. That will be a struggle if judges can't decipher/interpret your arguments and get a sense of what it is you're arguing.
Thirdly, the arguments you do make are far too concise and poorly presented to really convince me as a judge. There's no real coherence or progression in your arguments, rather it reads like a list of comments that aren't expanded upon or properly written to be digested and understood. You need to make 3/4 arguments and give appropriate time to each argument, because you need to support your arguments to achieve success here. Consider your opponent's debate and how they presented logical arguments, arguing the same stance as you, but supported their basic argument with additional comments, rather than making the argument and rushing to another as you did.
I'd advise you primarily to re-read old cards in order to get an understanding of the formatting, structure and approach that is needed in TDL. It's not the same as making a post in the wrestling sections about your topic. You need to separate your arguments, try to link them together whilst ensuring they're directly relevant to the question, and most importanly you have to present your arguments in a way the judges can understand, because if they can't understand your arguments I'm afraid you won't find much success here. I appreciate the challenge you face with English not being your first language, but if you are determined to succeed then you're going to have to study a lot of old debates imo to understand the basics in constructing a debate.
Obviously as stated above, you've won by default since your opponent failed to meet the minimum word count, on top of the issues with their entry that I alluded to. Simply then, this will just be a basic critique of what I liked and a summary of your debate.
Good to see you present your stance immediately in the opening, that's always a plus. I like the basis of your first argument, they went for a moment they knew would be well received by the notorious Post Mania crowd, but didn't have much clue how to build on that moment. I thought for bonus points you could have alluded to Paige being presented far differently than her NXT character, i.e happy go lucky and fairly timid. Still, you make a decent argument that in terms of crowd response and an initial moment, she'll struggle to achieve much better on the main roster, which means she'll struggle to retain her momentum. Decent opening.
I thouht your next paragraph honestly could have been separated into two, giving appropriate consideration to the lack of mic time/vignettes, then focusing separately on the in-ring presentation and booking. I like how you distinguished the need for casuals to be informed/educated on Paige, and the lack of vignettes/mic time to introduce her as a character was a poor move since those previously aware of her only make up a small % of WWE's current fanbase. The in-ring aspect felt more like the beginning of a decent argument, though it was concise and ended before it really got going. Again, a comparison to her NXT presentation would have made for a stronger argument, as well as considering her strengths lie in her ringwork, so if you're going to deprive her of mic time to educate fans about her character, then having her work sub five minute matches where she gets minimal offence outside of her signature moves further undercuts her chances of getting over.
The final argument was ok, though I feel you need to respect just how uphill a job the company has of making fans care about Divas matches, after years of conditioning them to see them as little other than breaks from the mens matches. You outline well the lack of build and heat in her programs, though that's less specific Paige and more telling of 90% of Diva feuds over the years. Again, perhaps drawing on how she in particular shined on NXT, where the presentation and layout of the Women's Division is far more different would have made for a stronger argument.
Your conclusion however was a nice collective summary of your main points, and read quite well to outline how fans still know little about Paige as a character, and thus she's been booked very poorly since her debut. A separation of your second argument, allowing you to focus more on how they've criminally reduced her ring time and essentially deprived her of any chance to connect with a crowd in addition to expanding more on your other arguments, perhaps using NXT as a comparison for how the character has suffered, and this would have been stronger. Instead, it's a debate with logical and fairly well argued points, with the potential to be improved upon when faced with stronger competition.
Winner = ROHFan19
BkB Hulk YES.YES:
You haven’t met the word requirements, so I’ll just say that you should maybe look at how others have written to see what the general expectation is for this type of thing.
You’ve already won, but I’ll try to give some feedback.
Your general structure was solid, as was the writing. Your ideas were good too, especially the idea that Paige hasn’t had a character fleshed out at all, so no one can care about her. I think to take it to the next level, you can maybe expand upon that further and compare it to someone like AJ, a recurring character in the debate because of how Paige made her debut, and show how AJ is able to be over because she’s been allowed to develop a character.
Similarly, a comparison between Paige and other people who only won via roll up like Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly Kelly could add to the argument that she’s nobody. She’s just another diva winning in just another way. A Mickie James comparison could be made to show how, with proper feud booking, a diva can get really over – something that never happened for Paige.
All of this isn’t to say you haven’t done well, because it’s quite a decent debate. I’m treating this like a Dojo now though, because this topic is really only about your debate. Think about how you can expand and compare to really drive a point home, because it’ll just improve your debates that much more. Right now you’re looking pretty good though.
Winner - ROHFan19
Winner via Default - ROHFan19
RAB vs Tater In Utero was a better Nirvana album than Nevermind. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
"In Utero was a better Nirvana album than Nevermind. Agree or Disagree?"
I agree, In Utero is a better Nirvana album than Nevermind.
To prove why, first we have to look at the main components of an album, in other words: what makes an album good? There are two main things, to me, which make an album good. Musical content and cultural impact.
First, let's look at the musical content in both In Utero and Nevermind. The two main singles from each album, respectively are 'heart shaped box' and 'smells like teen spirit'. 'Heart shaped box', undoubtedly a classic, is a slow, slightly more 'musical' song than Nirvana usually produce, with a lot picking involved as opposed to grungey chords, which are still definitely there, but certainly in less capacity than a lot of other Nirvana songs. Whilst it could be argued that 'heart shaped box' has not had the commercial success or the cultural impact that 'smells like teen spirit' has enjoyed, from a musical standpoint I believe it is better, both technically and emotional. The vocals scream out to me, they enlighten me about a tormented soul trapped in a dark place. The guitar work is also more impressive on 'heart shaped box', with a number of different melodies throughout the song. 'Smells like teen spirit', on the other hand has less emotional lyrics which don't speak to me as much, and the same repeated guitar chords over and over again. Not to discredit 'smells like teen spirit', it's just that it cannot compare to 'heart shaped box'. This theme continues in both albums, with musical masterpieces like 'serve the servants', 'rape me', 'pennyroyal tea' and 'all apologies' winning out over cult classics such as 'lithium', 'polly', 'in bloom' and 'breed'. To summarise, nevermind is filled with more recognisable songs which have more 'starpower', per se, whereas the musical content of 'in utero' is better, with more technical and emotional pieces.
The cultural impact of both albums is debatable. Nevermind could be considered Nirvanas most influential album. It has the most sales and the most recognisable album cover... perhaps even of all time. But wait a minute, let's look at the name of 'in utero'. "In Utero" is a latin phrase which means "in the womb". This could equate to the members of Nirvana believing that 'in utero' was the birth of Nirvana, the real Nirvana. Nevermind may have come first, but when 'in utero' was released, Nirvana really staked their claim at the top of the grunge pile. The only experience I have of Nirvana's cultural impact is myself. I hadn't been conceived when either album came out, and I've never even been close to the the homeland of grunge music - Seattle. I've never even been to America. I have not been able to witness, firsthand, the impact of both of these albums. The impact they've had on me, however, has been profound. I find 'nevermind' has songs which don't speak to me - they're good for listening to or jamming to at a club, but they don't tug at my emotions in the way that 'in utero' does. 'In utero' has a perfect blend of 'nevermind' type songs, the ones that you listen to for happiness and other songs, the ones that you listen to when you're in a dark place. 'In utero' has helped me through many tough times in life, I can relate to the lyrics, and I can feel Kurt Cobains emotions through them. 'Nevermind', on the other hand, doesn't have as much of an impact. It's good to listen to, but that's just about it with that album, I'm sorry to say.
In short, 'in utero' is a better album than 'nevermind' because it has better musical content and has had a more profound impact in my life than the latter.
Tater In Utero was a better Nirvana album than Nevermind. Agree or Disagree?
Not only do I strongly disagree with this statement, I would go so far as to say that it isn't even close. To even suggest that In Utero is a better album than Nevermind is the equivalent of Grunge blasphemy.
In the interests of fairness to In Utero, I am willing to give it it's fair share of time for the sake of this debate. When In Utero came out in 1993, the Grunge Era was in full swing. It was the right album for the right time. Bands like Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam were dominating the music scene in no small part because of Nevermind. People were eagerly anticipating the follow up to Nevermind and Nirvana didn't exactly disappoint.
In Utero was a fine album in it's own right. It made the top 3 on the charts in 6 countries. In Utero sold over 15 million copies worldwide.  Those are the numbers of a highly succesful album.
However... In Utero pales in comparison to the almighty Nevermind. It made the top 3 on the charts in 12 countries and sold over 30 million copies worldwide.  That's double what In Utero did. Nevermind did it on pure musical genius alone. Nirvana was still unknown at the time that Nevermind came out, so all the album had going for it was the music. In Utero had the advantage of being the follow up album to a megahit album by a megahit band and it was still only to sell half of what Nevermind did.
Nevermind Changed the World.
At the time of it's release in 1991, the musical audience was sick of a decade of hair metal. The grunge movement was revolutionary. The 80s were full of excess and greed and glamor. The grunge movement was all about the working class bucking the system. It was about anarchy (and anarchist cheerleaders). 
We have not seen a revolutionary change in the musical scene as huge as this before or since and Nevermind was the album that led the way. Nirvana may not be the greatest band of all time and Nevermind may not be the greatest album of all time but it tops the list in regards to changing the musical landscape. Without Nevermind, other grunge era bands as I listed above would not have found the same level of mainstream success. In Utero would have just been another good album that only people who were fans of Grunge would know about but it wouldn't have been a worldwide hit. To put it in perspective, Nevermind is the album that knocked Michael Jackson off the top of the charts. This was in 1991 when Jackson was still a huge deal. That is no unimpressive feat.
Nevermind not only changed the musical landscape but it also changed clothing fashion. People went from looking like this...
...to looking like this.
The fame Kurt Cobain gained from Nevermind played a large role in the fashion revolution.
It's not the only time in history that people have changed the clothes they wear to emulate a popular musical act but there is no greater example of it. It will probably never happen again to this level due to how expanded all the different sub-genres are. There are hundreds of different niches for people to find what they like and the internet to provide availability. Nevermind came along at a time before the internet and the amount of choices that people have today. The Nevermind led Grunge Era will probably be the last great musical revolution because of this.
Is In Utero a better album than Nevermind?
When talking about which is the "better" album between the two, one must look at the bigger picture. A fan of Nevermind and a fan of In Utero could argue till the sun don't shine over which album has the better songs and it would accomplish nothing. There is no right answer because liking one song over another comes down to musical taste.
The only way to decide which is the better album of the two is to look at how each album affected the world around it. While In Utero was a fine album, it didn't really do much to further the genre. The stage had already been set and In Utero simply played to the crowd. Nevermind was the album that set the stage. Nevermind was the album that changed the world. In every sense of the word, Nevermind is the better album.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Your first big paragraph comparing the musicality of both albums was okay. It would have been better to properly dissect the comparable tunes from each album. Using the two main singles wasn’t a bad idea, it just needed more substance to back it up. You could take the worst song from a great album and compare it to the best song on a shit album, but it doesn’t bring the shit album any closer to the great album. I also kinda get the feeling you made the whole thing up on the spot, especially after including Rape Me in the list of In Utero tunes that were supposedly musically superior to Nevermind tunes, as that song was specifically written to mock the generic riff of Smells Like Teen Spirit.
The second big paragraph got off to about as shaky a start as possible. The whole ‘in the womb’ thing was a nice enough idea but not even remotely related to reality. You rescued this section with the part about the emotional impact the albums had on you personally. I liked the comparison of the variety of moods In Utero inspires or compliments with the less mood enhancing Nevermind.
Overall, a pretty weak debate that could have been a lot better if you had properly explored the ideas you had for it.
Regarding your first section, In Utero was the follow up studio album, but in between it and Nevermind was Incesticide, which was an album of b-sides and older tunes. There was also timing on Nevermind’s side. Grunge hadn’t exploded into the mainstream yet, but was well and truly in full swing by the time of In Utero, meaning there were a hundred other grunge bands being released on major labels which In Utero had to compete against but which Nevermind didn’t.
The second section had me saying eh a lot. Grunge the biggest musical revolution in history? Punk says hi. Original pop music of the 50s and 60s says hello. The electric guitar says go fuck yourself.
Grunge was also not about anarchy. That was punk again.
Ending the dominance of hair bands was important, yes, agreed. Nirvana played their part, but it was happening long before Nevermind was released.
I’m not sure I can get on board with chart success being an indicator of which album was better either. If a billion idiots who know nothing buy an album, is that album automatically the greatest of all time? No. I can’t deny the point has some worth and the superior sales of Nevermind are definitely worth a mention, but you seem to base the majority of your argument on its chart success being the indicator of superiority. We live in a world where Justin Beiber is one of the most successful ‘artists’ around. Fuck people and fuck their opinions.
Also, what if more people bought Nevermind but didn't buy In Utero because they didn't like Nevermind, hence the difference in sales figures?
You also dismissed the subject of musicality with one sentence by stating people can argue about song quality and it means nothing. In my opinion, the majority of both debates should have been focused on the musicality. The question wasn’t ‘which album had the most cultural impact’ or sold the most, but which is the better Nirvana album.
Mind you, considering the stance you took, I suppose it’s obvious why you avoided that element.
This is a toughy. It comes down to whether RAB’s slightly inept covering of the musicality side of things trumps Tater’s completely ignoring it in a much better written way. I can’t shake the feeling the whole of Tater's should have been one paragraph in a much more comprehensive debate.
After thinking hard about this for a good twenty minutes and only being distracted by other things for about 18 of those, I think I’m only umming and ahhing because I don’t want my previously held opinion that In Utero in fact PISSES ALL OVER Nevermind to influence my decision. But I can’t ignore the fact that Tater didn’t even try to deal with the musicality aspect of it. It’s a musical question, not a cultural impact question. Sure, cultural impact has its part to play. Chart success and record sales are a part of the big picture, but a big picture by themselves they are not.
So I’ll vote for RAB. However, there should be no bragging rights assigned for this debate because Tater was a technically superior piece of writing by quite a distance. But this isn’t a technical piece of writing contest. I think even one bullshit paragraph attempting to show Nevermind’s songs as superior in craft to In Utero’s might have been enough for Tater to win. But just tossing the music out of the window and basing your stance entirely on chart success and the fact that a relatively tiny number of people started wearing flannel shirts in 1991 is just not enough for this judge.
I know you like a little extra feedback and clarity so allow me to get in first. The reason why I think the music should have been dealt with is down to the wording of the question: In Utero was a better Nirvana album than Nevermind. It’s asking for a direct comparison between the two albums rather than albums in general and this must - in every possible parallel universe including ours - involve debate content concerned with the technical craft of the music contained on both albums. That’s the only reason you didn’t get my vote. It’s a shame too (unless you got the other judges' votes ) as you’re showing huge improvement style-wise. It’s just this repeating issue with interpreting the question that’s holding you back. I will of course answer any further questions you have as well as properly school you with regards which album was better. Peace, bro. Send my love to the chillis.
Ah, Nevermind vs In Utero, an age old rock snob debate, the big commercial breakthrough vs the raw artistic statement, the slick multi-tracked production vs the organic ‘in the room’ approach, Kurt’s appeal to connect with a mass audience vs his appeal to alienate a large portion of that same audience. There’s no ‘correct’ answer and it’s a question that reveals much about the rock tastes of those being asked so lets see who had the more compelling answer. (For the record I’m a level 10 hipster so when anyone asks me this question I tut and say Bleach or Unplugged).
Well before reading I had known that one of these debates was a rough rushed job and it’s clear this is the one, it happens to all of us that sometimes things get in the way and we can’t devote a debate our full attention, I have a feeling you already know some of the shortcomings I could point out, mainly that it’s short, a little disjointed and doesn’t quite flow as a piece.
The most frustrating thing about it is that its by no means a terrible debate and it hits on plenty of salient points that with just a bit more expansion and refining would have easily been a winning entry. The ideas were all good:
-Comparing the big key singles.
-A little musical dissection.
-“musical content and cultural impact” are fine ways to judge an album but you just said the latter was ‘debatable’ and Nevermind sold more.
-The ‘birth of Nirvana’ line seemed a bit forced but the ‘real Nirvana’ part was ripe for expansion, In Utero was clearly an attempt by the band to make an album that more accurately represented them as artists. The way the question was posed was perfect for this (ie ‘a better Nirvana album’) .
-Your personal feelings and reactions to the music, imo this is valid in any music debate (on here or in real life), an area where honest passion can shine through and swing a debate. It was something your opponent glossed over (disregarded in fact) and refined just slightly more it would have been the perfect way to wrap up your debate.
All in all it reads like a very rough first draft of something that could later turn in to decent debate, the ideas where there but the execution was just a little off and rushed. The makings are there though, hopefully next time you can expand on the potential shown.
Well for judging purposes it’s always good to see the opposite side taken and you certainly nailed your colours to the mast with that opening.
The problem I had with this debate is it focuses almost exclusively on cultural impact of the albums to prove which is ‘better’. While you argued that aspect strongly and from a few different angles with plenty of sources I can’t help but see it as a little one dimensional and sort of missing some implications in the question. If the topic had been ‘which album had more impact’ then you wrote a hell of an argument, and maybe it’s just the musical snob in me but if someone asked me this question I would think it would be common knowledge that Nevermind sold more and had a bigger influence on culture, its indisputable to anyone with even a small knowledge of the band, the real question being asked is “but which is the better album”.
That being said, looking at it from the perspective of ‘having more impact in the world = better’ you wrote a fine debate, Nevermind being such a strong statement that it sold millions, ushered in a new rock era (while killing off an old one), strong enough to go passed that and knock established mega stars off the top of the charts, strong enough to affect other areas of culture and fashion. All this was argued well and backed up with facts.
I really didn’t like the small section about musical taste, of course there is no “right answer” and it “accomplishes nothing”, you could say that about any number of debates here, to me it’s usually what makes for the most fun debates and with the right approach passionately arguing for personal preference is perfectly valid for a debate like this (or any ‘which work of art is better’ type debate).
One is like a very rough first draft of a decent debate, the other is a good debate if the question had been slightly different. With a little refining and cleaning up I think RAB would have taken this, however Tater argued its case clearer and did a better job backing up its points. Taer wins.
(In Utero is a much better album though).
The Lady Killer
Was a bit disappointed by this tbh. RAB seemed to focus on opinion, conjecture and assumption to support its stance. Not necessarily convincing. I like the set up of defining what makes an album great and you worked hard to juxtapose the "greatness" of each album, but it felt a bit sloppy at times with comments similar to "well nevermind was still great but in utero was better to me." Why was it better? Where is the substantiation?
Tater suffered from the same pitfalls. It didn't have as good of a structure as RAB, but it provided some facts about record sales and did a better job IMO with the cultural impact. I dislike how you bolded the question at the near-end of your debate and then addressed that question directly. Makes it seem like everything you did prior was off topic. Still, this had me more convinced than RAB.
Winner = Tater
Winner via Split Decision - Tater
Hoopy Frood vs pinkandblack vs Bearodactyl Adopted Children should have the right to meet their biological parents. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
The topic "adopted children should have the right to meet their biological parents" is certainly an intriguing one. While most debates come down to statistics and data, I think this topic relies on an emotive appeal. Personally, I absolutely think that every human being has a right to know where they came from. Adopted persons are the only demographic in the US that are not allowed to see their own birth records. From reading the opposition on this issue, it's easily noticeable that this topic becomes a "rights vs. rights discussion". With that said, I believe the only instance in which rights are violated is if an adoptee is prohibited from knowing his or her birth parents. After an adoption, the original birth certificate is sealed and an amended birth certificate is issued. The amended birth certificate lists the adoptive parents and even says that the adoptive parents gave birth. In no way, is privacy promised or implied to a person who places their child for adoption.
For me, this comes down to a civil rights issue. An adopted person in the United States is not given equal protection under the law. For instance, I am not adopted, and can easily receive a copy of my actual birth certificate. On the other hand, my friend who is adopted can only receive a copy of his amended birth certificate, not the actual document issued at birth. Is my friend inferior as a U.S. citizen? This is a simple case of one group having access to something that another group cannot have.
I would also argue that children who locate their birth parents are less psychologically tortured by the status or reasons which lead to the adoption. Adoption acts like a puzzle for many, in which the adoptee tries to obtain the essential information to explain their life. Various surveys and studies done in United States of America have shown that majority individuals who are deprived this crucial information get engaged in drug abuse like alcoholism and other antisocial behaviors. Many have also engaged in criminal activities such as robbery and violence activities. The grassroots of involving in such antisocial activities could be diagnosed as desperation and extreme anxiety to know their biological parents, a process which gets blocked.
In a recently published study conducted at the University of Minnesota, adopted adolescents were four times more likely to attempt suicide than their non-adopted peers, and in this study, being a racial minority did not predict suicide attempts (Keyes, Malone, Sharma, Iacono & McGue, 2013). Adoptees also had higher rates of externalizing behavior, disruptive behaviors, negative mood and lack of interest in school, and even after adjusting for these variables, the adopted adolescents still had an increased risk of suicide.
Similarly, in yet another study published in 2001 that compared adopted and non-adopted adolescents, adoptees were more likely to have attempted suicide (7.6% vs. 3.1%) and to have received psychological counseling in the past year (16.9% vs. 8.2%; Slap, Goodman & Bin Huang, 2001). Again, even after adjusting for rates of depression and aggression, adopted adolescents are still more likely to have attempted suicide.
So with the aforementioned studies mentioned, does that mean that adopted citizens committing suicide solely rest on their inability to know their original parents? Of course not. WIth that said, I believe that by putting two and two together, we can logically sum up it up in a deductive argument:
1. A person who is adopted does not have a right to meet their birth parents.
2. The inability to receive this information undoubtedly affects an adoptee in a negative way.
3. Studies show that those who are adopted are more likely to attempt suicide.
4. Therefore, we can conclude that withholding integral personal information from an adoptee could indirectly impact an adoptee's suicidal tendencies.
To conclude, I vehemently believe that everyone should have the right to know who their parents are. Adoptees should not have less rights than everyone else. Whether they wish to pursue that is up to each individual adoptee, but nobody else should be able to deny them that important human right for any reason. Whether it be for closure, personal reasons, or even medical reasons, I feel like adopted children should not be denied fundamental information about their own existence. Yes, the truth could be unpleasant, (parents are drug dealers for example) however, I feel the adopted children will ultimately fare better with the information then remaining in the dark against their will. Knowing one's biological parents should be a universal human right. It should be their decision whether or not they want to know.
So with the following information presented, I contend that adopted children have the right to meet their biological parents.
"Disagree. Because of one key word: “meet”.
Let me start off by saying that the only way I could ever hope to finish a complete argument on this topic in 600 - 800 words is if I consider it a blanket statement. It doesn’t say “all” adopted children in the debate title, but I consider it implied. Adopted children come in all different shapes and sizes. From teen moms giving their child away at birth because of family pressure or a desire to focus on their future, to women deemed not fit to be a parent, as well as every other situation imaginable: if you agree that the “right to meet” is something adopted children should have, this means in ALL cases as far as I’m concerned, or we’ll be knee deep in exceptions all week (let’s face it, “agreed/disagreed, except for...” really is kind of a cop out anyway).
I further interpret “the right to meet” to be a somewhat dominant right. Sometimes after all rights collide, and one “trumps” the other. I’ll explain what I mean by that by giving an example:
-I have the right to try and sleep with CJ Perry. She has the right to turn me down. I have the right to keep trying, but at some point she’ll invoke her right to get a restraining order and THAT will trump my right to get anywhere near here. Rights collide, and my right to want to be near the artist currently known as Lana will be trumped by her strong desire not to be.
If I don’t consider the “right to meet” a dominant right and therefore a right that trumps the rights of the adoptive parents, biological parents and anyone else that disagrees with the children in this matter, agreeing with this theorem would be next to meaningless. As the below “quote” should show.
“Sure they have the right to meet their biological parents, just like their adoptive parents have the right to ground them till they’re 18 so they never will” – Someone who is approaching this debate from a very strange and abstract angle
(At this point, I should probably not neglect to point out that I take the use of the word “Children” quite literally, as in 17 years and younger. They’re not children anymore beyond that point after all.)
So after clarifying, let’s answer our question.
I can understand wanting to know about where you’re from, even having to know:
-You might have friends and siblings that get certain behaviours from their parents, and you’re stuck with some kind of idiosyncrasie that came out of nowhere: a remnant of your biological background? Nothing wrong with a little curiosity.
-Needing to know if something runs in the family from a medical perspective. They don’t ask you if certain diseases run in the family for nothing after all.
-Selfesteem/selfimage. Roots can be very important to one’s selfimage, and especially for children that were adopted from abroad and have potentially felt like an outsider, the desire to understand where they come from and meet their biological parents is to be expected and hardly something you would want to stand in the way of.. right?
The right to meet really comes into play when someone involved does not want a meeting to take place. Reasons for this can again take many shapes, varying in subjective legitimacy. Consider the following extreme, yet still realistic example:
A woman that does not believe in abortion due to religious upbringing choses not to abort when she gets impregnated by her rapist, but puts the child up for adoption because she does not think she can deal with raising the fruit of her rapist’s loins.
After years of therapy getting over the incident, should her right of not wanting to meet her biological daughter really be trumped here?
Back to the key word: “meet”. If you look closely at the reasons for an adoptive child to meet their biological parents, the vast majority don’t actually require being in the same room. Medical information, familial tree, heritage, even favorite foods and such can be shared without having to actually meet. Ever. The only thing that requires actually meeting is getting a true feel for someone, but there is no way ethically speaking that such a relatively superficial desire could ever outweigh having to force other people to do something against their will (or in case of the adoptive parents disagreeing, to allow something to happen against their advice as legal guardian and responsible adult) to warrant such a blanket statement.
So to conclude: Adopted children should definitely have the right to get to know about their background, wether out of necessity or curiosity. Meeting however should not solely be up to them. Therefore, I have to disagree with this statement."
There are many reasons a child might be put up for adoption, for the most part, all have to do with poor planning on the behalf of the parents, could not afford a kid, want the kid to have a chance at a better life, it is not the right time in their life right now to be raising kids, etc. It comes down to should have used protection. Children get shuttled off to adoption because the mother maybe could not handle the thought of an abortion, mentally or morally. They slip through all the cracks of improbability, and all of a sudden, America is dealing with one-and-a-half million adoptions in 2001.  Submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society, I give to you, the Tale of Why Adopted Children Do Not Have the Right to Meet Their Biological Parents.
Colin Kaepernick is a successful NFL player who was adopted in to a loving situation and thrived. After success, his birth mother, his father being unknown, has reached out to him multiple times to come back in to his life, and he has rejected her every time.  That’s a right he has. That’s a right any parent should have if a child given up for adoption reached out to them. You cannot force someone into someone’s life when they do not want to be there. It’s an unhealthy relationship that breeds pain when the seeker just wanted comfort. In fact, that’s the textbook description for a dysfunctional relationship. 
Adoptive children who are looking to meet their real parents often are looking for support they aren’t finding at home or just want to learn more about their ethnic culture. Looking to someone who has not tried to get in to your life can lead to heart ache. There are many local resources a child could use instead within their own community. They could join a Big Brother/Big Sister program and get or give that support they desire. Cindy Wong wanting to know more about her Vietnamese ancestry and heritage, a quick Google search and that local college or university cultural center address is hers. Heck, maybe there’s even a local chapter of a Vietnamese style Christian church, and the staff there is more than happy to help her. Often what they may be looking for is much closer to home than they realize, and the support is actually being offered.
What about kids in failed adoption situations? Less than 5% of adoptions end in a failure where the child is moved to a foster home.  What about older children? Over 90% of children over the age of 5 are supportive of their adoptive situations. What about Children not getting adopted at all? Many states have programs set up to further assist children after they age out of the foster care system. The overwhelming number of children put up for adoption end up in supportive situations with every opportunity to succeed given to them. People like Kaepernick, Faith Hill, Maya Angelo, Bill Clinton, all led successful lives with what was given to them. Does a kid really need to know their father might be Andy Kaufmann or David Crosby, or their mother is Roseanne? Who your parents are is irrelevant. All that matters is what the child can do to make the best of the situation they are in now.
Parents’ reaching out to children is the only situation that matters because the full burden of the situation is on the parent/s. A child does not understand any of the reasons for why a parent may not have reached out to them by now, but reaching out when you do not understand any of this is rather inappropriate. There are plenty of means for a parent who gave a child up for adoption to reach out to them, when that parent feels that they are more able to handle the situation emotionally, financially, mentally, etc. Children reaching out later in life does not really change the situation.
While children should be allowed to meet with their biological parents, it should not be a right. It should be mutually agreed upon. Why should we force children to see parents who will just disappoint them, when they were reaching out because they needed that extra support? In reality, these kids who are dying to meet their biological parents because they have no one else should really be looking for that support closer to home, whether it is in already existing channels, or new ones. If parents really wanted to be in their child’s lives after putting them up for adoption, there are channels that they can reach through, and they would have. Children need to quit looking for love in all the wrong places.
The intro would have been better served starting from the third sentence in and dropping the word 'personally' from it. I don't like those kinds of words because you're not here to convince me what you think, you're here to convince me what you think is right.
The civil rights issue of the 2nd paragraph is very convincing. I’d also prefer to have had some links to the studies revealing behavioural problems and suicide rates for adopted adolescents. I am a busy judge. I don’t have time to go googling things by myself. I had my manservant google them though and he reports that they are legit.
I expected to see something revolving around the word “meet” that appears in the debate question. The question isn’t asking if adopted people have the right to know who their biological parents are, but if they have the right to physically meet them.
So now I’m thinking about an adopted person who knows who their real parents are and wants to meet them. The real parents do not want to meet with the child they gave up for adoption however long ago. And your stance could be interpreted to meaning that the adopted child has a right to force his biological parents to meet him. How would this go down? Would the police arrest the biological parents and hold them in a cell so the child could come and speak to them through the bars?
While very well written and easy to read, I finished the debate with more questions than I had answers.
Very wise to focus on the ‘meet’ element as I think the entire debate revolves around that word. You made some interesting points regarding the dominant rights issue, though the debate got a little wishy-washy immediately after that. You brought it home really well though. Your examples of extreme cases supported your stance perfectly and the second last paragraph explaining that physically meeting the parents wasn’t necessary to acquire important medical and familial information really nailed it.
It’s never a good idea to delay establishing your stance. I think you could have completely deleted the first paragraph and started with the second paragraph. Those extra words could have been used later in the debate to make another supporting point.
It was certainly an interesting angle you took, focusing on the emotional turmoil of the situation. I think there are a lot of other issues associated with this subject that you could have included though. The view seemed quite narrow, and though not without merit, your debate would have massively benefited from expanding on other reasons why your stance was correct. Very well written though and enjoyable to read.
I don’t think the main point that Hoopy Frood focused on was as relevant as the multiple points in Bearodactyl's, while pinkandblack missed a massive trick by debating the right to ‘know’ the biological parents rather than ‘meet’ them. It was a pretty easy decision in the end, but props to all three debaters for all submitting good efforts.
Not a bad debate, but I couldn't help but feel that it felt somewhat "off" throughout. Essentially, it comes down to whether or not your reader can accept the leap that you make between points 1 and 3 in your deductive reasoning towards the end.
I'm not sure if the inability to receive information about one's biological parents affecting an adoptee makes them more of a suicide risk, and even if it did, I'm not sure if "meeting" the parents - as the question asks - is the only means to satisfy an adoptee's desire for information (as Bearodactyl highlights).
Also, you didn't really bring up the reasons why a parent shouldn't be forced to meet a child they gave up (ie: the rape example brought up by Bearodactyl), and shut those down. If it's a rights vs rights issue, as you claim, you have to convince the reader that the right you're championing is greater than the other. Ultimately, I don't think this made a convincing case in answering the question, especially in light of the points raised by Bearodactyl.
I loved this debate. From the setup to the argument. The way you attacked that key word "meet".
There was solid arguments presented throughout, and I love how you made your points with an injection of humour (ie: the Lana example). Very well done, making constructive and critical arguments while still showing some personality. A great touch.
Of course, personality in a debate only gets you so far, but you thankfully back up your flair with a whole bunch of solid points and arguments. I enjoyed how you broke down various reasons that a person would like to meet his / her parents, and then showed that those issues could be satisfied outside of a physical meeting.
Just very effective throughout. A clear stance, solid writing, and a strong finish. Excellent stuff.
Not a bad debate. Stance is identified early and maintained throughout. However, I feel that a narrow approach was taken here.
Some of your paragraphs conveyed the tone of "hey, other people survived and thrived in adoption situations. If you want a sense of family, go out in the community and make your own". While this is good advice, I suppose, it's not necessarily applicable or easy for some individuals.
I don't know how necessary the tangent about parents reaching out to meet their kids was, in terms of the specific debate question asked.
That said, your writing is solid, no issues there. I just felt that your arguments were a little narrow and fell flat, particularly in comparison to how Bearodactyl set up his arguments from the same perspective.
A clear winner here for me. All of you wrote well, but Bearodactyl stood head and shoulders above the rest. That's my pick.
I didn’t realize adopted children couldn’t see their own original birth certificate. That makes sense I suppose, but interesting. Is this really true: “After an adoption, the original birth certificate is sealed and an amended birth certificate is issued. The amended birth certificate lists the adoptive parents and even says that the adoptive parents gave birth. In no way, is privacy promised or implied to a person who places their child for adoption.”? Wow. I’ll take your word for it, but I would have loved a source here. It seems to me you are going an interesting direction here. You seem to be on the direction of birth certificates over meeting the parents. I hope this changes.
The second paragraph is more about the birth certificates, so I’m going to skip it in the write-up here. The question about inferiority that you bring up is interesting, but I’m struggling to see how it connects to the question at this moment.
So this next part with the study is different. A statement about saying those that don’t know their parents over those that know their biological parents are more psychologically tortured could really use a source. You say multiple studies as your source, but that doesn’t really help. Ask Chris Broussard (NBA/ESPN joke if you don’t know the reference). I know I said the last quote didn’t need a source, but this one is a tad more crucial. You do go on to mention your source in the next paragraph though. So with the information provided, you come to the conclusion that, “withholding integral personal information from an adoptee could indirectly impact an adoptee's suicidal tendencies.” That is quite the statement. I don’t know if I can quite believe that four step assumption. Still, I feel we are off from the question of the debate, meeting the parents.
The final paragraph here is where you finally talk about meeting the parents. I feel it’s a too little too late situation. What about if the biological parents don’t want to meet the kids? Should the kids still be able to meet them? That’s something your opponents touched on. That would have been something good to mention.
Anyway, solid debate. Nice writing. Assuming all the information is correct, it is certainly mind-blowing. However, I feel you were missing a counter or two at the end that could have helped you sum up any questions.
Decent wrap-up connecting the idea of meeting the parents with the suicide facts
A little light on the actual meeting question resulting in some missed counters and raised questions
Interesting debate. I think you did a good job answering the question. My only fault is that I think you took too long to get there.
Let me explain. Your intro is unique and different, however you spent almost half of your debate clarifying the question. You did a good job clarifying it, but I feel it almost took away from your debate because of its length. I only mention this because it can leave you with an inadequate amount of space to actually prove your argument. I guess let’s check out the rest of the debate to see if this may cost you.
To go into detail of your intro itself, it was nice you defined your point of view. I do get you explaining the different types of circumstances and such. I think the examples, while longer than necessary, helped explain what you meant in your words. I didn’t quite get the point of the grounded quote, but I guess it was in there to try and counter arguments. Overall, the intro was an interesting and unique approach. I just feel it dragged on a bit.
You go over some brief reasons why one may want to know their family history. All solid reasons. You then turn this into the right of meeting and provide an example to talk about. Solid example choice. It is a very plausible example. This turns to the next paragraph where you key in on the word “meet”. This paragraph is solid. You point out that all of the previously mentioned points do not require actually meeting a person. You then go on to mention that just meeting the parent to meet the parent and know who they are is superficial and should not force the parent that does not want to meet into meeting. I do have one question though. What if the parent wants to meet the kid and the kid the parent, but the adoptive parent says no. You mention this in a side comment, but I think you are saying they shouldn’t be allowed to meet in that circumstance either. Why? I feel you set yourself up for that without giving an answer.
Anyway, we are at the conclusion now. You pretty much wrap it up and re-affirm your stance. Solid effort.
Solid Question Clarification
Pointing out a lot doesn’t require meeting
Took a while to clarify the question
Video and Star Wars picture aside, this was a good debate. I really enjoyed the intro, especially the hook at the end, “I give to you, the Tale of Why Adopted Children Do Not Have the Right to Meet Their Biological Parents.”. Clever and entertaining.
The Colin Kaepernick story is a good example to use. The Vietnamese example was good too. I thought those two example paragraphs were really well done. They weren’t bogged down by useless information and nothing was repeated. Everything in the examples help your point too.
These next two paragraphs really have you hitting your stride IMO. The counters are all pretty much blocked by the statistics thrown out. Then you add the celebrity examples to prove your point. The biggest question I had when I first read this was why are you looking at it from the side of the parents reaching out. You then answered in in this paragraph here:”Parents’ reaching out to children is the only situation that matters because the full burden of the situation is on the parent/s. A child does not understand any of the reasons for why a parent may not have reached out to them by now, but reaching out when you do not understand any of this is rather inappropriate. ” Nice work. I cannot fault that logic at all.
Finally, your last paragraph clears up any arguments I could have had. I was going to question if you were saying that adopted kids shouldn’t be able to reach out at all, but you clearly stated that they should be allowed, just that it is not a right. I don’t think I have much more to say. Generally I give longer feedback to those who need improvement. You don’t.
Great job answering any questions I had in the end
I have nothing major to bring up here.
DECISION: Solid effort from everyone. It was a tossup between Bearodactyl and Hoopy Frood, but I think Hoopy Frood was just a tiny bit better.
WINNER: Hoopy Frood
Winner via Split Decision - Bearodactyl
MichaelDD vs RugbyRat Who would have been the better opponent for Adrian Neville at NXT TakeOver, Tyson Kidd, Sami Zayn or Tyler Breeze?
Spoiler for Debates:
Tyler Breeze should have faced Adrian Neville at NXT TakeOver; to show why, I'll take it option by option.
Tyson Kidd DEFINITELY should not have faced Adrian Neville at TakeOver. This is only NXT's second special show, therefore it should have included NXT talents, Kidd's involvement wasn't dissimilar to the current WWE product with part-timers, that new NXT fans may want to get away from. It's not like Tyson Kidd is a draw, your average smark would have made up their mind about NXT and a typical casual probably wouldn't care/know about what a ring technician he was, they'd just see a jobber and watch something else.
Kidd is in fact no kid, he is 34 next month. Whilst this may not seem old, it has to be stated that smaller wrestlers have shorter careers than bigger ones; RVD, Chris Jericho and CM Punk were looking to call it a day at a similar age, needing long periods off. Even if Kidd won, there's a question of how far he could go with the victory, with the probability of him taking a training job at NXT appearing more and more likely.
It's common knowledge that most of his fans are smarks, so before we finish discussing him, let's see what the forum think.
Absolute waste of space.
He's great in the ring, but is an absolute black hole of charisma
All from the first page of the thread asking people their opinions of him.
OLÉ OR NO WAY
Sami Zayn was an option to Adrian Neville at Takeover, but not a good one. Mainly because Zayn didn't NEED to face Adrian Neville, he didn't need a star-making match, as he'd had his epic series with Cesaro which had hugely elevated him, particularly at Arrival.
NXT is in a similar position to ECW in the late 90's, where any talent could be taken up to the big leagues at barely a moment's notice. As a result, it's important for NXT to present it's main stars on a similar wavelength, so they can be replaced by newer ones. If Sami Zayn becomes the focal point of the show, it could lead to many fans ditching the show when he is called up to the main roster.
Zayn could very possibly outpop Neville, which could be a slight turn-off, as it may present some similarities with WWE, particularly with the challenger getting cheered over the babyface champion, similar to Cena.
For starters, Tyler Breeze is the only heel out of the options presented to face the babyface champion. Opposite character alignments should be used the majority of the time, except in very rare circumstances, neither of which Zayn or Kidd present.
Tyler Breeze's situation is similar to that of a very early Shawn Michaels. A smaller, big-bumping heel wrestler with enough charisma and ring skills for days, however one that is staring at the barrel of midcard hell on the main roster. He needs a breakout performance, some might say it has to be a winning one, but I'd argue it doesn't have to be; HBK had his breakout against Razor at Mania X, Bret had his breakout against Davey Boy at Summerslam 92 and more recently Zayn himself had his breakout against Cesaro. Winning and losing is growing less significant in American wrestling, it's more great in-ring performances that get recognised, as seen by Daniel Bryan's rise over the previous couple of years. He should have been in the top match and afforded more time to fully showcase his abilities.
As I stated that the main TakeOver should be Neville v Breeze, that leaves Kidd and Zayn to face each other. The two of them would certainly be capable of a good match, as they're both smaller wrestlers, from the same place, wrestling a similar style.
It would also make the Tyson Kidd's heel turn more effective, as it could booked to occur straight after a loss to Sami Zayn on a special event, resulting in them going after the tag titles at the next taping and then the swerve.
Breeze could then eventually feud with Neville, ultimately resulting in Neville putting Breeze over in a big way.
Tyson Kidd, Tyler Breeze, Sami Zayn. All three men share one common goal, they want to be the NXT champion. But to get to this goal they need to get through one man and that man is Adrian Neville. At NXT Takeover the title match we ended up getting was Adrian Neville vs Tyson Kidd, but was Kidd the best choice to face Neville at Takeover?
To properly decide who was the best opponent for Adrian Neville at NXT Takeover it's only fair we break down the good and bad points for Kidd, Breeze and Zayn, so starting off:
"Dedicated to all my fans, even the uggos. - Love Tyler."
#PrincePretty himself has massive potential to become NXT's next top heel now that Bo Dallas has moved up to the main roster, but for him to become a big time heel he needs to go through more babyfaces before challenging the top dog. This is why Breeze vs Zayn was the best choice for NXT Takeover and not Breeze vs Neville. By having Tyler go over babyfaces like Sami Zayn it builds him up as a bigger threat to the NXT championship.
It would also be stupid to waste a Breeze vs Neville feud so early on into Neville's title reign, by this i mean build up both wrestlers, have Neville keep picking up victories and going over wrestlers and at the same time build up Breeze by having him go over babyfaces such as Sami Zayn and when they finally meet it'll feel like a bigger feud. By building Breeze up over a longer period of time you also give him the opportunity to really get under the crowds skin, for him to keep up the whole "I'm prince pretty and i love all my uggos!" and by the time him and Neville meet people are really going to rally behind Neville.
"I want that NXT Championship, because for me it's symbolic. It kinda forces everyone to look at you, to get that respect, to take notice of you, and you know maybe in a sick way i need that."
Now if this question was all about who i personally wanted to compete for the NXT Championship then i'd be all for this man right here. Sami Zayn is everything i love in wrestling, he can be seen as an underdog, he puts on stellar performances night in night out and he never gives up. You could even say he's the NXT equivalent of Daniel Bryan but on a smaller scale. But unfortunately this isn't about who's my favourite, this is about who was the best choice to fight Adrian Neville at Takeover and unfortunately, it wasn't my man Sami.
Now personally i don't feel that Zayn should of been the one to challenge Neville because of one major reason, a lot of his feuds seem to be about wanting respect and Zayn himself has said he "Desires respect" Now don't get me wrong, the creative team could definitely do the story of how Zayn has decided that the way he can finally get the respect that he desires is by winning the NXT title, but it's way too soon for this sort of story. Not to mention Neville has only had the belt for a few months and shouldn't lose the belt just yet because it could potentially hurt him.
"If you lose this match, you'll forever just be known as Nattie's husband"
Now Tyson Kidd is a special case. Kidd used to be on the main WWE roster until he suffered an injury, fell further into obscurity, appeared on Total Divas and is now actually wrestling again. Considering he's the final graduate of the Hart Dungeon this isn't good at all. That's why i truly believe Kidd needed this match more than Breeze and Zayn. Spending some time in NXT is going to benefit him, it'll allow him to work on drawing an audience into his matches and it'll also help his mic work. Not only this but having him face the NXT Champion will help the champion legitimise himself by defeating somebody who used to be on the main roster. By using Kidd in these matches it'll also help make the other wrestlers look good because Tyson is exceptional in the ring.
All in all, as i've said previously Tyson Kidd was the best option for the title match at NXT Takeover. He's more of a legitimate threat than Zayn who's more of an underdog and Breeze who's still being built up. His main roster time allows him to present himself as better than the "rookies" down in NXT and anyone of these "rookies" that go over a wrestler with main roster experience will look that much more legit.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs RugbyRat - Word of advice on the formatting first, I personally think it looks better bolding your headings up rather than just underlining them. Obviously good formatting won't win you a debate but it can help in making your debate a more enjoyable read. Your Kidd argument I thought was your weakest. I think you neglected the point that WWE need to get people watching these NXT specials and using guys from the main roster that non NXT fans are aware of even if just by name value can help to attract more eyes on to the show and more importantly more people watching guys like Neville to give him a chance of getting over with more people before he even debuts on the main roster. As you mention he's great in the ring and even though he might not be a guy selling PPVs if someone who doesn't watch NXT every week sees him wrestling on the Live Special and are more confident Kidd vs Neville will be a good match because they know Kidd is reliable for good than they are two NXT guys they don't know of and aren't aware can create a great match also that makes a difference. Your argument overall against Kidd is pretty decent I think but for me you needle to tackle that aspect to really put it over the top. Your argument that people don't care about Kidd enough for him to be an effective draw anyway is fair enough though but like I said that familiarity with him even if it's just that he can produce a great match counts for something. The age argument is interesting. Not sure how valid it really is but you provide some nice examples to back it up, even if in reality other factors are involved in them cases (ring style, other interests, personality). Plus I think you're assuming Kidd would win in this argument when his age and future prospects shouldn't matter too much for just one match. Also be careful generalising a few people's opinions to the majority. Wasn't an issue here but just be wary of it in the future if you are quoting just one person's opinion. From here it gets better though and you make better points with the Zayn dismissal. The point that Zayn didn't need a big main event was good but what about Neville? Didn't he need one? The ECW comparison is interesting and valid. However again I don't think you were looking enough at the wider picture because couldn't this pairing elevate Neville as well? The final point is great though about not wanting to diminish Neville's popularity with the fans by making them choose between him and Zayn. That plays into your opening argument for Breeze really well too. The argument for Breeze having a breakout match despite losing was really well done with great examples. Again though you kinda neglected Neville from your arguments and focused primarily on the other half of the match. The closing argument was good but I fear it could be used to argue for Neville vs Kidd as well. It did its job of arguing that it intended to argue for but try to think about the wider picture at times too.
MichaelDD - Your Breeze argument was simple yet very effective. Logical arguments are always a plus. You could have also included that Neville recently had a mini feud with Breeze just this year on NXT in which Breeze wasn't really presented as being on his level as extra need to build Breeze up properly before pairing him with Neville again. Now for as good as the Breeze argument was the Zayn one wasn't. You wasted the first half of it on something which you self-admit the question wasn't about. If you know the question isn't about what you're talking about then why are you using more than one brief sentence on it? I thought poor use of your word count was an issue throughout your debate actually and it definitely hurt because your Zayn and Kidd arguments felt under developed. You have these quotes and I understand them but they add nothing to your debate other than using up valuable word count. 800 isn't many, especially when you have a topic which gives you 3 aspects to cover so you need to use them wisely and not waste them on anything which doesn't directly contribute to answering the question presented. Bare that in mind next time because it can be the difference between you being able to make one extra argument that wins you the debate. When you did get to your actual argument for Zayn I thought it was weak. You present a scenario where it could work but then don't really shut it down. You mention it's too early for Neville to lose the belt but can't he retain and then do something after with Sami doubting himself and build back up to a rematch for the title at a later live special? The first half of your Kidd argument is so so. It's really only an argument for him working NXT rather than specifically against Neville for the title. The last 2 sentences of it are good though but needed developing a bit more which is where all your wasteful lines hinder you.
Both debates are up and down but I felt RugbyRat was a bit more up than down and MichaelDD was a tad more down than up.
Winner - RugbyRat
RugbyRat) Fan of setting your stance out early, it's nice. So is eliminating the other two options before presenting your own choice. The Kidd being a WWE guy affecting the ability of people to get into it is kinda valid but then if you want to apply that logic then Cesaro wouldn't have faced Sami Zayn at the last big NXT show so it can go both ways. "Even if Kidd won" doesn't really apply either since he didn't win and by all accounts this match was to put over Neville. Padding your argument with posters on this forum really doesn't sit well with me either. You shouldn't have to rely on (nameless) posters to support your argument.
The argument against Sami is much better and covers all the important stuff without wasting words. Although the fact you mention that his series with Cesaro "hugely elevated" him kinda detracts from your point about how Kidd being a WWE superstar doesn't make it worthwhile either because wins over these main roster guys can help put them over. Tyson Kidd has been in the WWE long enough that chances are if you're watching this NXT show you've at least heard of him. Plus like Cesaro he can be trusted to be a workhorse who knows the style well and get a solid at least match from his opponent.
Whilst the fact that Breeze being a heel is again a good point I would've liked to see a sentence maybe explaning WHY Kidd or Zayn don't present one of these rare circumstances in order to shut down any potential counter arguments. Besides that the argument that he needs a big defining moment is fine, although a win over Sami Zayn could also be applied in the situation and again comparing what a loss in the title match could achieve vs him winning the no 1 contenders match would've made your argument a lot less open to counter points.
The conclusion is good though and brings up a good point in that Zayn vs Kidd would allow them to go into their feud a lot more naturally. Although Breeze eventually feuding with Neville (and being put over potentially) could still happen without him having to face him on this show (and lose)
MichaelDD) Your opening paragraph is a waste of words imo. Compared to debate A who uses a sentence to set his stance from the off and go straight into explanation you just explain the situation to me and say you're going to explore the options. Instead of the sentence saying that they need to go through Neville to achieve their goal you could've easily moved that to the end of your paragraph and used those words to answer your own question about whether Kidd was the best choice. At least then I'd have a clearer idea of where you stand wrt the question.
Your Breeze reasoning is really good and presents a good counter argument to the other debate in that Breeze needs to gain wins over some of the top babyfaces before challenging for the strap.
The paragraph about how you like Sami is nice but really doesn't add a whole lot your argument since you're ultimately arguing against him. The subsequent paragraph is solid enough but debate A probably argues against Sami in a better way and with a lot less wasted words. The Tyson argument picks up though and is quite good without wasting many words. Everything in it feels like it has a point.
Weighing these up both have strong and weak points. Ultimately though I think MichaelDD edges it. The sum of your arguments for the three choices available is better than that of RugbyRat and your argument against Breeze counters RugbyRat in a better way than RugbyRat counters your choice of Kidd.
I thought your first argument was a little presumptuous, in so far as if a casual is going to take the time to watch a product they have little knowledge of, then seeing a recognisable face from the main roster hardly screams 'change the channel' to me. I also felt the followup argument was a tad weak, as if you're going to criticise Kidd as a choice, I feel you need to do a much better job at arguing for the NXT talents to be given the opportunity. To me, a legitimate counter can be raised that since the theme is 'Takeover', that Neville besting a main roster talent reflects well on himself and NXT as a whole that the 'development' league can overcome their main roster counterparts. Now had you set about defending the full-time NXT talents and argued for why they deserve the showcase match, you might have successfully refuted this point. However I found the choice of argument in Kidd's age quite weak and felt it was a very odd way to set about your argument.
The selected quotes again felt too baseless, as I could make a thread about Bryan and I'm 99% positive at some point enough people would make negative posts about Bryan. With a forum this size, taking a couple of negative quotes to justify your stance that Kidd isn't popular felt rushed and not overly convincing. I'm sure for every negative comment there was a positive opinion, so it feels like you've just tried to hand pick a small sample to speak for a greater %
Again with the Zayn argument I felt your argument was quite iffy and unconvincing. Your point about him likely outpopping Neville had merit, and I feel that's where you should have focused your view. The whole 'fans might abandon NXT if Sami becomes the focal point of the show' again feels very baseless when you consider how passionate and consistent the audience is, in addition to there being a number of acts the crowd are into, in addition to Rollins, Big E, Emma, Paige and The Wyatts already departing and NXT thriving after their departure.
The Breeze argument was ok, though I felt your opponent countered it quite well by considering Breeze needs more wins to build credibility, given how his character has more of a comedic tone to it, which needs strong booking to show there's more to him than looks suggest. You talk about him needing a breakout performance, but again I felt your opponent argued Zayn/Breeze facilitated this superbly with Zayn being the strongest worker consistently in NXT, and Breeze subsequently having a match that outlined his potential, gave him a big win he wouldn't have gotten had he challenged for the title and more importantly builds him well to a future challenge down the line.
I also felt you hurt yourself a bit by then fantasy booking Zayn/Kidd, when you acknowledge it could lead to a good match. Zayn and Neville aren't overly dissimilar in terms of having a high risk offence, so seeing you acknowledge Kidd has some worth made your earlier argument that he absolutely shouldn't have challenged for the title a little hollow. If he has enough to wrestle NXT's hottest face, is it really unqustionable that he face their champion in the main event?
Overall, I just felt your arguments were a bit presumptuous and lacking in clear conviction. The Breeze focus was your best effort, but I feel your opponent successfully raised counter points that justfied why Breeze wasn't given the title shot, but was placed in a prominent role on the card. The little headings were a nice way to present your debate and a bit of spark to it, so that was nice to see from a structural standpoint.
"Tyson Kidd, Tyler Breeze, Sami Zayn. All three men share one common goal, they want to be the NXT champion. But to get to this goal they need to get through one man and that man is Adrian Neville. At NXT Takeover the title match we ended up getting was Adrian Neville vs Tyson Kidd, but was Kidd the best choice to face Neville at Takeover?"
^ ok, 66 words and you've only arrived at a question you've yet to answer. That was far too descriptive imo and really could have been condensed to arrive at your main arguments much sooner. It wasn't as problematic here, but in a debate where your competition might be fiercer, it could be little things like this that count against you. Don't concern yourself with overly descriptive writing that doesn't answer or tell me anything, focus on arriving at your analysis and arguments as quickly as you can.
You make a good argument for Breeze needing credible wins before challenging Neville, and potentially wasting a matchup that could be built better to down the line. I felt your second paragraph faded a little after a strong start, but your overall argument makes a logical counter to your opponent's argument that Breeze was the best choice. Your writing was a bit weak in the second paragraph, almost as if you were unsure of yourself a bit. Just remember purposeful and strong language is necessary in debates to reflect your confidence and make your arguments more authoritative.
"Now if this question was all about who i personally wanted to compete for the NXT Championship then i'd be all for this man right here. Sami Zayn is everything i love in wrestling, he can be seen as an underdog, he puts on stellar performances night in night out and he never gives up. You could even say he's the NXT equivalent of Daniel Bryan but on a smaller scale. But unfortunately this isn't about who's my favourite, this is about who was the best choice to fight Adrian Neville at Takeover and unfortunately, it wasn't my man Sami."
^ again, you need to be cutting this down. That doesn't answer the question in anyway and it's too long for something that can be basically described as 'just because I would ideally want Zayn from a personal opinion, doesn't make him the BEST choice'. Much briefer and allows you more words to play with to construct an actual argument. Your actual focus again though I felt was quite weak, as you say his feuds are built on respect (you actually neglect to say why this means he's a poor choice), but then pose a scenario where this could be the driving point of him challenging for the title. Again, you're undercutting your own argument there. If Zayn isn't the best choice, then you need to clarify that. Presenting a scenario whereby he could be given the match doesn't help your cause and neither does saying Neville shouldn't lose yet. If you'd expanded on this and said Zayn shouldn't lose yet another title match, and that that would have to occur since Neville wouldn't drop the title, then it could have been better. You don't say that though, and therefore your argument is a bit weak. None of the three men have to beat Neville, but saying 'he shouldn't drop the title yet' doesn't tell me why Zayn isn't the best choice.
The Kidd argument started a bit concerning but by the end you make a decent argument that Kidd has credibility by virtue of being a recognisable main roster face, and that Neville defeating him can only make Neville look better by overcoming someone with far more experience than him. The conclusion was an effective summary, although still not the strongest ending.
I didn't think either debate was overly strong and found both debates plagued by unconvincing arguments which weakened their stance. However, given both chose opposite picks, it comes down to who did the better job at advocating for their pick. I thought MichaelDD effectively countered RugbyRat's argument that Breeze needed the title match, and I didn't find RugbyRat's dismissal of Kidd of equal comparison, therefore by virtue of a more effective counter argument, MichaelDD wins.
Winner - MichaelDD
Winner via Split Decision - MichaelDD
Pez vs The Japanese Buzzsaw Who had the highest potential to suceed in WWE out of Drew McIntyre and Evan Bourne?
Spoiler for Debates:
The question “Who had the highest potential to succeed in WWE out of Drew McIntyre and Evan Bourne?” is one where people will point toward hypothetical scenarios to make that potential seem more believable and therefore higher. Instead, I'm going to look at real world evidence and established knowledge to determine which of the two men had the greatest potential to succeed.
When Drew McIntyre debuted on WWE television proper, he was afforded a golden push right out of the gate; endorsement from Vince McMahon himself that Drew would be a future world champion. Drew was “The Chosen One”. Bourne's debut was considerably more typical, given wins against low card heels. Looking at how WWE chose to book their debuts, it is clear to see that the WWE itself saw more potential in Drew McIntyre than Evan Bourne. While one could say that the potential the WWE saw is irrelevant to the potential that was actually there, it is important that the WWE saw potential. Because they saw something in him he was given a strong push, mic time and a chance – the potential – to succeed. Bourne, with his standard booking, was given no such potential to succeed. Drew's push alone created a ton of potential.
As a small (5'7”) cruiserweight competitor, Evan Bourne would have a difficult task ascending the card. Even in periods where WWE more frequently would use wrestlers with Bourne's build and moveset (anyone from high fliers to simply smaller, technical wrestlers) they were often constrained to the lower end of the card. There are of course exceptions (such as Rey Mysterio). Talents like Brian Kendrick, Low Ki and others have always had a higher degree of difficulty in breaching through glass ceilings. Drew McIntyre, with his height (6'5”) and slow, methodical wrestling style is more of an old school character. Such a style is more at home in the WWE product making booking and planning matches successfully with a variety of opponents easier. This also creates potential to succeed for Drew McIntyre.
The smaller Bourne does edge out McIntyre when it comes to gathering crowd support. However that does come at a price when it comes to potential because Bourne is a natural babyface. Seriously, just look at the guy – now look at Drew. Drew is a natural heel. Drew however has shown glimpses of face promise, particularly during his aborted angle with Kelly Kelly. It is more likely for Drew McIntyre to garner sympathy from the fans than it would be for Evan Bourne to draw heat from them. This means that Drew McIntyre has more potential, since he'd be able to work with more talent and use a variety of characters. Evan Bourne has been “small happy-go-lucky underdog” and there are not many other places he could go character wise.
There is an area that Bourne has Drew beat completely, and that is in getting the desired reaction from the crowd. All of the potential in the world – given to you or not – is not going to grant you success unless you can get the crowd to react the way you want. Evan Bourne could be a natural babyface for his entire career and still get more positive (as in desired) reactions from the crowd than Drew McIntyre. Despite his basic push and the limitations unfairly imposed upon him for his size, Bourne was over for a longer period of time than Drew McIntyre who was handed his push and had every door opened for him because of his build. Drew McIntyre fell flat with the crowd while Evan Bourne soared into a fan favorite with his Shooting Star Press. Bourne's effort to succeed in the company despite his perceived limitations (size and character) and the fact that he was better for some time (more so than McIntyre) at getting reactions gives him the greater chance to succeed.
At the end of the day, Evan Bourne was a crowd pleaser and Drew McIntyre had put-me-to-sleep feuds with the likes of Teddy Long, R-Truth and Matt Hardy. On paper Drew McIntyre may look to have had the post potential to succeed in the WWE but reality is very different than that. Evan Bourne was the man with the post potential for success in the WWE.
The Japanese Buzzsaw
Who had the highest potential to succeed in WWE out of Drew McIntyre and Evan Bourne?
On June 12th of this year, Drew McIntyre was released from his WWE contract after 7 years with the company. The man who was once dubbed “the chosen one” was resorted to being in a comedy stable and eventually released. Now, did he have the potential to be a star? YES. Drew McIntyre was (before his plunge down the card) booked on being a main event star and at one time was even supposed to wrestle The Undertaker at WrestleMania 26, but unfortunately it was not meant to be. But my point here is that even in 2009-2010 when he was being given a push, he accomplished moderate success such as being Intercontinental and tag team champion.
This man, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be a future World Heavyweight champion."
Those words came from the mouth of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon on the September 25, 2009 edition of SmackDown, and he was describing the recently signed superstar, Drew McIntyre. Given the nickname the "Chosen One," McIntyre's WWE career got off to a very promising start as he picked up victories over the likes of R-Truth, Matt Hardy and even Kane. Then on December 13, 2009, at the Tables, Ladders and Chairs event from San Antonio, McIntyre defeated John Morrison to win the Intercontinental title, just four months after debuting. From there, it seemed the words of McMahon were destined to become true, he made his first appearance at a WrestleMania, participating in the Money in the Bank match at WrestleMania 26, and although Swagger won, he was considered a favorite for the match. So for the first year or so of his career, McIntyre had more momentum than Evan Bourne ever had. Evan Bourne was never going to be more than a decent midcard wrestler, could you honestly see Vince booking him in the main event? No of course not. Could you see McIntyre hooking up with someone like Cena in the main event for the title? Yes you can. My point is that it is silly to argue that Bourne had more potential when you see that he was nothing more than a midcarder and McIntyre was supposed to have a streak match with The Undertaker.
McIntyre is also much better in the ring then Evan Bourne, the potential for him to be one of the best workers on the roster is clear once you see him work a match. For a glimpse into his full potential, one has to go back to his days wrestling for British Championship Wrestling and Irish Whip Wrestling, back when he was known as Drew Galloway. For example, take a look at this match against PAC, who now wrestles as Adrian Neville in NXT.
McIntyre's heel tactics are top-notch, from a sneak attack on Neville to spitting water in Sheamus’ face when he was sitting ringside. He delivers a hip toss more vicious than one would think that move could be. He hits a mid-air cutter on Neville after throwing him up in the air. He performs a gorgeous hangman variation that has Neville crashing onto the ropes. You can see the potential to be one of the best wrestlers in the world right there, and this is years before he made it to the WWE. This shows better potential than a guy who can do a few flips and brand himself as Rey Mysterio 2.0. Bourne may be a very good wrestler, but he is nowhere close to the untapped potential of McIntyre. Not to mention that Bourne is extremely injury prone and McIntyre has rarely had a serious injury in his 7 year career with WWE.
My last point is that even though McIntyre was a jobber for the last years of his career, he still had more potential than Even Bourne. Bourne was last seen in the WWE in 2012 and did not return to the WWE ever again though he was still under contract with them for another 2 years up until 6/12/14, only like 2 weeks ago. McIntyre, although not wrestling nearly as much as he should have, still was at least an active member of the WWE roster and that alone shows more potential than Evan Bourne who did not wrestle at all for two years. Not to mention that if someone has 2 strikes such as Bourne did than they are much less likely to gain success in WWE, and Bourne’s potential was majorly hindered by the fact that he not only didn’t wrestle for two years, WWE would likely not risk taking him to the main event out of fear that he would fail another wellness test, a problem they would not have with McIntyre.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs Pez - This was very odd. The first half is really good and then you go full retard with the second half. It was like you wrote the first half and then someone finished it off for you without taking any notice of what had already been written. I don't get it. You were doing a great job convincing me that Drew had more potential and then the debate just falls of a cliff when you basically change your mind halfway through. You never really state your actual stance at the beginning which is an issue. Always make the reader fully aware beyond any doubt of what your stance is from the start. You then get into your arguments and I assume that you're arguing for Drew based on the arguments made. The 3rd and 4th paragraphs I thought were really good arguments in favour of Drew having more potential, especially the heel/face flexibility. Be careful about generalising the shortcomings of smaller wrestlers to every smaller wrestler though. If you're doing that then make sure you link it back to how Bourne is in a similar position to them and how their shortcomings/limitations would also apply to Bourne. Like I said the character flexibility argument was really good. Only minor critique would be that guys like Rey and Steamboat had super successful careers without ever turning but that's nitpicking. Then you do a total 180 and I don't get why after you started out so well arguing for McIntyre. The Bourne argument is decent I guess although very basic and under developed but that's probably due to wasting most of your debate doing a great job arguing for the stance you apparently weren't arguing for. The only time I'm actually sure what you were arguing for is in your conclusion. That's obviously a problem. You pretty much defaulted yourself imo with them last 2 paragraphs.
The Japanese Buzzsaw - 2 words in and I already know your stance right away which I guess gives you an immediate advantage over Pez. Is the Undertaker thing true? Because I've never heard of it which means a link to a trusty source was really needed here because with it it just sounds like you something you could have made up for the purpose of your argument. I guess with the link this would be a decent point to make. The Vince promo is a pretty obvious route then even an idiot like GoldenSilver could go down but you didn't really link it to anything besides telling me what happened. "and although Swagger won, he was considered a favorite for the match." - yeah but he lost so so what? Also in this paragraph you seem to be seriously neglecting the momentum that Bourne had in 2010. He was working Jericho on PPVs at a time when he still meant a lot and was tagging with Cena in Raw main events. He was pretty high up the card at that point and arguably actually higher than Drew ever got. You say you could see Drew working with Cena in main events but not Bourne but when did Drew actually ever get close to this level? All be it as his partner but Bourne actually did get there so couldn't you argue that this showed WWE had more belief in Bourne than Drew and that bar Bourne screwing his opportunity up he would have gone higher than Drew could have? I'm not arguing that myself but it's a valid argument that comes out of this paragraph. So phrases like saying Bourne was nothing more than a midcarder come off pretty lazy on your part when there's clear evidence that he was above that level at least in 2010 and arguably at a level that Drew never actually got to. Of course this is about potential so the debate doesn't rest on who got higher but when you're stating things that aren't really accurate it still works against your own debate. Then you get on to in ring ability which is a fine direction to go but I didn't think you used it well enough to link in to potential. For starters is in ring ability really the best sign of potential to be a WWE main eventer? You do a good job talking up Drew's in ring ability but for me it needed linking better back to the question and why this (supposedly) superior in ring ability results in greater potential for Drew. I also think that selling any of Bourne's ability as alarmingly short as you did kind of hurts your appraisal of Drew. If you're up against useless competition then it doesn't look as impressive when you come out on top. Obviously it doesn't mean you start calling David Otunga a great worker to make Daniel Bryan look better in comparison but I thought you should have given Bourne more credit where it was deserved. But all of this was against the point because you didn't link it back to the topic so this was really just talking about Drew being a better in ring worker. Don't agree on Bourne being injury prone either. Really he's only had the one major injury which was a really bad ankle injury which kept him out for a year. One bad injury isn't injury prone. Although you could say they lost faith in his ability to be a high flyer after it. But then again really this is about potential and you would have had to have done a great job changing the time frame to potential after the injury rather than before in the earlier stages of their runs before their drop offs. Same point for your last paragraph. Be careful of the time context of a question or at least state why you're changing it. Could do with a better wrap up rather than ending on a fresh argument too. Made your debate feel like it just ended abruptly.
I don't think The Japanese Buzzsaw's debate is all that good to be brutally honest but he didn't argue against himself. If Pez had carried on going with the first half arguing for Drew then they would have had an easy win here. I'm still baffled by them last two paragraphs after such a great start.
Winner - The Japanese Buzzsaw
This debate was an odd one, in that it kind of collapsed upon itself as you were making arguments for BOTH choices. Ultimately, you seem to side with Bourne, but you use a huge chunk of your debate showing how McIntyre's potential is greater while highlighting the obstacles Bourne faced. Here's a quick recommended breakdown of things that would've greatly improved this.
Opening - Identify your stance immediately. Look at The Japanese Buzzsaw's debate. It's CLEAR who the choice is right from the get-go, showing the reader what stance is being taken.
Body - Don't spend time praising the other choice. You can bring up some of the counter-arguments against your pick - briefly - and only to shut them down. ie: when bringing up Bourne's small size as a detriment against him, or his mic skills, name-drop Bryan as evidence that WWE is allowing smaller guys known for their ring-work instead of mic skills to have an opportunity nowadays. The whole making McIntyre look better "on paper" doesn't really set your argument up with much strength.
Closing - Reinforce your strong points, and keep the focus on why Bourne is your pick, minimizing the reader's chance to think "well, McIntyre still isn't a bad choice..."
Ultimately, I think your writing style is fine. Sentences are good, paragraphs are nice and readable. It's just a matter of clearly picking a side and crushing the other.
The Japanese Buzzsaw
Did a lot of things right here. Identified your stance immediately, made consistent arguments for your pick, wrote clean and effectively.
The video link is good too, showing McIntyre's POTENTIAL (the key word for this debate) before entering WWE. Let this be a lesson to other debaters out there who happen to be reading this feedback: If you're going to bring up a particular match that you reference throughout, it's a good idea to have a video or something as a reference to your reader who didn't watch British Championship Wrestling or Irish Whip Wrestling. It just makes your point that much more emphatic to give the reader a visual of what you're saying.
Alas, you bring up good points referencing Drew's hot start. The comments about Bourne's injury and wellness concerns are good in knocking him down a peg. A solid all-around debate.
The Japanese Buzzsaw is my pick, as it stayed consistent in supporting its pick and showing the weaknesses of the other.
Ok, I'm not really sure why you spent so long drawing attention to what turned out to be legitimate counter points, without really countering them. When you allude to how Mcintyre could portray both a face and a heel, giving him more diversity and freedom with which to be booked, then you really need to do a better job when you eventually flip the stance I thought you were arguing. You draw attention to how WWE themselves saw more potential in Drew, which is a massive feather for Drew when we're discussing who had the most potential. It's not merely about individual ability given the vagueness of the question, backstage factors such as 'the look' and Mcintyre's build give him a great potential to succeed based on management's view, and I don't see why you felt to list every area Mcintyre succeeded with on paper, when your eventual Bourne argument was rushed and barely able to refute most of the counters you yourself presented.
I get the 'surprise, potential on paper vs potential in reality' theme you went for, but in doing so you gave so many areas where Drew trumped Bourne and therefore had more potential to succeed, and your main counter to that is that Bourne could always capture the crowd better than Drew. Tbh it only takes one look at Drew's performance in the Elimination Chamber 2011 match to see a counter to that, as he was tremendously over during that match thanks to the way he was booked and presented as a pure violent animal. I just felt you listed too many areas in which Bourne couldn't compete with Drew, that your eventual 'potential on paper doesn't matter' line just sunk your debate. Bourne was over, and again his ring-style is a big factor in that. But you gave legitimate reasons for how Drew had more durability and diversity as a character, in addition to how his build, style and overall presence could reflect management's ideals which gave him an extraordinary amount of potential. I also felt your opponent gave some credible arguments for how Bourne's injuries and eventual temperament backstage really sullied his chances w/ management, and ultimately weakened your stance.
Personally, if you were going to set about this way, I really think you shouldn't have aimed to continually argue how Bourne stood no chance, if your eventual counter arguments for Bourne were going to be so brief. It felt like a creative idea, but poorly executed and instead your debate for me gave more arguments for Drew that convinced me than it did for Bourne, which is a massive problem.
The Japanese Buzzsaw:
Well personally, this simply wasn't very good either. There wasn't a structural problem here, it's that simply I felt the brunt of your debate was horribly descriptive and barely tackled the surface of the question.
Your paragraphs before the video are 368 words, nearly HALF of your word count. And you say nothing of Mcintyre's attributes. Nothing of Bourne's size being a detiment. Nothing about Mcintyre having a classic build that reflected management's ideals. You say Bourne was a midcarder purely through his look, but you don't tell me why Mcintyre had more potential. Because Vince said so? But WHY did Vince say so? What about Drew did Vince get excited by? You're just telling me who he beat and how his first few months in the company went. Bourne is a complete afterthought so far and we're nearly halfway through your debate.
The mini review of Mcintyre's performance I didn't really get either. Ok, so Mcintyre can work as a brutal heel. But you need to clarify why this would appeal to WWE? Even your opponent described Mcintyre's style as methodical and what WWE likes to see. That's where you should have gone with this. Plenty of talented workers haven't amounted to much in WWE so you really needed to be telling me about why Mcintyre would have more potential. Just because he can a nasty heel doesn't convince me he has far more potential. You do a better job though when you say Bourne's injuries would weaken management's faith in him, whereas Mcintyre's lack of serious injury (his broken hand still didn't rob him of TV time) would be favourable and instill more faith in him by virtue of dependency and trust.
Your final argument started off a bit weak, as I felt you focused too much on 'main event' whereas potential can be anything. Potential could be a consistent uppercard fixture, even someone like Santino has potential to succeed in terms of a multi-year career because he carved out a niche for himself that WWE loves in their shows - the comedy character. That was a dangerous path as it felt like you were basing Bourne not being a main event star as equalling no potential to succeed, whereas it's not necessarily that cut and dry. However, you make a good point that Bourne's wellness violations would weaken management's trust in him, and had you mentioned Masters as a comparison, given how Masters was basically denied a push upon his return because his past violations left management seeing him as a liability, then this would have been a true feather in your cap. As it is, you still do make a decent argument that Mcintyre was more dependable as a talent, thus would likely always on some level have the chance to be given a renewed push, whereas Bourne's backstage issues would limit the amount of success he could hope to achieve.
Neither debate simply was that good in my opinion, and I don't really feel all that comfortable awarding a winner because neither debate really did enough to win under normal circumstances. By virtue of Pez addressing too mnay counter arguments against their own stance and not doing a good enough job of refuting them, coupled by The Japanese Buzzsaw having a couple of decent arguments against Bourne, I'm giving it to Debate B. But there's improvements to be made by both here.
Winner - The Japanese Buzzsaw
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Japanese Buzzsaw
Rigby vs AwSmash Which is the best way to watch a season of a TV Show, one episode a week as they air or in shorter bursts after the season has ended?
Spoiler for Debates:
AwSmash LIVE TV; THE WEEKLY, WORTHWHILE STRUGGLE Stop reading this debate now if you’re not a fan of the early Simpsons. Pls & Thx.
It’s another glorious __ evening*, you gleefully hop up the stairs of your beautiful house**. The only thing that can make this day grander*** is yet another fantastic episode of __, so ya flick on channel __ and enjoy a swell night of quality television.
***Stop being sarcastic here.
In simpler terms, ahh television, the perfect way to turn a day from shit to super. If that intro didn’t make it crystal clear, watching a show live > watching it later in short bursts.
SPOILERS, WHO NEEDS ‘EM?
Spoilers, the one enemy all men, women and children with a television share. Ever since the inception of television, people around the world have had to leave their houses and enter the outside world in fear of having their beloved television show spoiled by some merciless lunatic. This is exactly why you must give this programme a viewing live or ASAP and not further down the track like a bloody goose. Why subject yourself to distressing days that you find yourself simply trying to get through without the episode or heck, even series of your most cherished show being forever tarnished?
I’d prefer to go into an extraordinary episode where something greater than the eight wonders of the world combined would be revealed (well, minus King Homer), without knowing the ending. Chances are if you watch it months later, whether it be through your television, a paid outlet or some shitty streaming website, you’ll know the ending.
More enemies than Hitler, heck more enemies than the Westboro Church*, spoilers are quite dreadful rapscallions. It’s incredibly simple though, you can either be completely horrified by the idea of a spoiler, or you can be the spoiler… or not be a complete **** and be neither. Nonetheless, I’d rather live my life in a normal manner, not terrified that some asshole is going to ruin the experience of watching a new episode of Housos*.
(MOST) WRITERS AREN’T (PROFOUNDLY) STUPID
Writers. You rarely love them, you constantly hate them (KOFF SMARKS). Well, no matter what these so-called smark flogs think, writers generally aren't sufferers of severe mental deficiencies that render them incapable of coming up with quality ideas. And as absurd as it may seem, they usually do things for a reason. There was a reason that Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein wrote [i]Who Shot Mr. Burns?[i], so it would be made into two episodes. There was also a reason that it first aired when it did - May 21, 1995 and September 17, 1995. That reason was quite simply suspense, TENSION, BUY$.
They gave the audience that 4 month period, the summer and a little of the Fall, which made them more and more desperate to know who shot Mr. Burns as every second past. That’s why when the second part of the episode aired, an average of 12.3 million households tuned in. If you were an absolute flog and made a ludicrous decision to watch part 1 for the first time on September 10, 1995, heck even August 17, 1995, that would have been a deadest waste and you are a pill.
Simply put, you watch TV in shorter bursts at the end of a season, you miss out on the TENSION that follows. Oh, and you’re a flog too.
A) Why would you rather watch something with excitement built-up over a couple of hours, heck, as few as 5 minutes over the excitement of a week or months.
B) By the time you watch a great episode, chances are no one will care about it anyway.
At this point, I’ll chuck in a list of x > x’s. Live TV > Later in short bursts
Being the spoiler > Being afraid of spoilers
Tension built-up over a week/months > Tension built-up over a substantially smaller period of time.
Now let’s put everything I’ve touched on there into one little neat, realistic example.
WHITE GUY 1: Hey guys, you hear what Lenny said on The Simpsons when queried by Homer last night?
WHITE GUY 2: “It’s a secret.”
BLACK GUY: "Shut up…"
Now obviously the black guy hasn’t seen this episode of The Simpsons* that’s being spoken about. He’s decided he’s going to watch it later on.
BLACK GUY: So I heard what Lenny said on The Simpsons.
WHITE GUY 1: Shut up…
And notice this time he wasn’t quoting him? He was genuinely telling the other guy to shut up, because that episode is old now.
It’s simple, watch TV live, don’t be a stooge.
Then I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package!... Really, I mean that. Sorry if it sounded sarcastic.
Warning: Contains Spoilers For M*A*S*H, Seinfeld, Sopranos.
30 minutes a night.
1 night a week.
13 weeks a year.
This is the space occupied by the television show.
Alright, not all television shows are 30 minutes, nor are all seasons 13 weeks long, but there's one constant that remains ubiquitous with the television show. One night a week, a station sends out a signal, and on cue, millions of people tune in to share a human experience with one another.
They were all together, not always from the beginning, but more often than not, all the way until the bitter end. They were there when Hawkeye's helicopter ascended and he saw "GOODBYE" written in stone, when Jerry Seinfeld asked George about his shirt button one last time, when Tony Soprano played "Don't Stop Believing" on a jukebox in a diner.
Even the most bitter of ends evokes a reaction in the collective audience. That emotional response is born from the time invested in the characters and their stories. In the space of a week, an episode will only occupy ½-1 hours, leaving 167 hours to pine over the latest episode with others, and once that's done, to anticipate and predict what will happen next. That mutual expectancy when the sun rises that morning, as millions of people simultaneously realize what day it is, is mystifying.
It constantly builds over the course of years, making each season premiere more relished and every finale more poignant than the last, concluding in an emotional resolution.
When that episode, as coveted as it is, finally arrives, it leaves an impression. No matter what it may be, that impression will be guaranteed to have a gestation period, where the thoughts it has provoked can be thoroughly considered. Every episode, as insignificant as it might seem on first viewing, can be given the proper time to develop in the conscious. Details overlooked before can be further examined, and the time leading to the next episode allows for repeated viewings to further analyze the latest impression.
The mind is a sponge, and it needs time to absorb a single episode. Taking this sponge that is the mind and dumping several episodes upon it would be like dropping a sponge into a bucket of water, expecting it to absorb everything. The image of a sponge dripping water after being pulled out of the bucket depicts the details of every episode slipping away, the mind unable to devote attention to all of it, whether they're important or not
Sure, you can still watch these episodes on your own after they've already aired; as shows become cancelled and pass away from the public consciousness, this becomes the only option, which is understandable. You can still experience the television show, but you cannot replicate the sense of fraternity, the biding anticipation of the upcoming episode, the lasting impression left in the space devoted every week for the television show.
Watching a full season after the original broadcast not only fails to recapture the magic, it can prove to be a harmful experience. A single season, 13 episodes, at 22 minutes an episode, is 286 minutes, or nearly 5 hours. Realistically, what would it look like to watch that season several episodes at a time?
(you only have to watch the first three minutes)
It's not a pretty sight. In moderation, it wouldn't be as bad; losing your job because you watched an entire series at once is a bit extreme. Even in short bursts though, it's easy to lose track of time. Impatience leads to watching the next episode, and then the next, all the while neglecting responsibilities. This is simply never an issue when a week separates the episodes equally, from premiere to finale.
There's another issue with this method of watching television. A television show is designed specifically for being watch once a week. Every episode is laid out as though a week has passed since the last episode, occasionally starting with a recap of prior episodes, or concluding with a cliffhanger intended to build anticipation for the next episode, as well as a full opening sequence and credits. Watched in quick succession, the viewer will see a recap of something they just saw, they'll sit through the opening sequence and credits for the second, or even third time, in an hour. The entire narrative purpose of a cliffhanger is undermined instantly when the next episode is watched immediately afterwards.
Not all television shows are created equal, and not all experiences with them will be the same, but there is one certainty in the uncertain television format: Even though you can experience a replication of the show, you could never replicate the experience of properly watching the television show.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs AwSmash - I liked this a lot. Really easy to read style of writing, visually pleasing which makes it an even easier read and most importantly raises a lot of good arguments. Intro sets the tone for your debate really well. The spoilers argument is a great argument made even better by how you communicated that argument. Anytime someone uses the terms "merciless lunatic" and "bloody goose" they have my appraisal. The argument that TV is made to be watched as and when episodes air was another good argument expertly communicated. The Who Shot Mr. Burns example really helped too. Remember to include sources when you're quoting figures though. I felt your debate ended on a lesser note than where you got to with your first two arguments but that's nitpicking because it didn't end on a low note by any means. Overall this was really good with strong arguments helped by your communication style.
Rigby - I got really nervous when I started to read this and you warned me about Sopranos spoilers but thankfully it wasn't really an obvious spoiler. I don't think you ruined anything big here but just a word of caution for the future in TV debates, don't post massive spoilers assuming the reader is aware of them unless it's a debate about a specific show in which case duh. This debate again I thought raised strong arguments and communicated them in a really compelling writing style, all be it a different style to AwSmash relying on more power than flare. The way you talk through how TV shows are designed to be watched a certain way was really compelling I thought. I think you maybe had the slight edge in making this point than AwSmash did but AwSmash also did it more concisely which importantly allowed him more room left in his debate for other points. The unmoderated binge watching point I felt was weaker because I don't think you can generalise it enough to be more than just an extreme case of that situation. It's not bad but it's not at the high level you got to in this debate prior to that part.
Both debates are really good and great reads. However, I think Awsmash's was slightly better. For me the more concise nature of their arguments gave him the edge as it allowed him to include the spoilers argument along with the "how it's meant to be watched" argument which you both covered. Really it was just that one extra argument that made the difference for me. Also it was a shame that neither of you considered the Netflix angle which is changing how TV shows air.
Winner - AwSmash
I LOVE this topic! It’s a conversation I often find myself having with friends (most recently in the case of True Detective), there’s a few ways to look at it and no real ‘right’ answer or facts/stats and as a debate its open enough to allow a creative approach which I was happy to see both debaters take, you took the same stance but went about it in different ways that it was hard to compare them to pick a winner. Anyway I enjoyed the hell out of this debate, lets break it down…
This one took a more conversational approach, the tone works for me for a debate like this. It focuses on 2 key points being spoilers and tension building.
The spoiler part was good, I do LOL at hyberbolic way people treat spoilers nowadays, unless you live under a rock nowadays its impossible to avoid them or avoid accidentally revealing them to someone else, you argued watching live weekly removes this problem. Only slight problem I had was this maybe took up a little too much of the debate, 3 paragraphs could have been said in 1 or 2.
The tension build section again was good, I was worried at first when you mentioned using The Simpsons at the start as this debate is tailor made for shows with running weekly/season long storylines but when I saw it was ‘Who Shot Mr Burns’ it all made sense as I recall that being a big TV ‘event’ with everyone waiting for and guessing the outcome, the build made it must see TV, rewatching both episodes years later doesn’t come close. It was a good example and it might have been a good idea to throw in a reference to a more recent show here(something from the boxset/internet binge age) to really slam this point home.
Eh I didn’t really get the joke at the end, good debate though.
Woah, this was nicely written, it flowed real well as a piece and had an authoritative tone. It took a more big picture approach of episodes as stand alone pieces while hitting on a few nice points. Right from the start the references were on point as the 3 shows mentioned are completely different but all built to big defining, memorable payoffs that had audiences hooked.
I loved the ‘sponge’ parts and how taking time to absorb all the details of one episode while waiting for the next is important and beneficial, imo this is how a show builds a dedicated audience. The use of the video was good and I legit LOL’d at the following paragraph, you argued that marathoning boxsets is not just an inferior way to experience a show, its downright detrimental to your health! (or your social life at very least, we’ve all been there).
The ending was well done and hit on the same tension point as AwSmash, I like the finish about ‘replication’, the way I see it live is always the best way to watch a show and boxsets/binging are the best way to RE-watch a show. Very good debate overall.
Good show chaps, AwSmash hit a couple of key points well while Rigby looked at the big picture of the medium itself while hitting salient points, both had nice points about the communal experience of a mass audience waiting for, reacting to and experiencing a show at the same time (as it airs), I liked how this same point was made in different ways. Ive reread both debates a few times and I think I have to award the win to Rigby based on a better flow and a few more ideas, a quality match though, more like this PLZ.
Winner – Rigby
Lovely point about spoilers. I appreciate the over the top-ness of it and the entertaining aspect you had throughout the whole debate. The intention of the writers to create tension is another good angle you had. I would have liked you to come up with a counter for the people who don’t give a toss about tension and want to know everything as soon as possible. The white guy/black guy skit was intended to be an extension of the third point made (that watching shows as they air means you can join in on the chit-chat about it the next day etc) but it was very clumsy and the point might have been best served just being expanded upon normally without the skit. Your debate was already written in an entertaining fashion and the skit was a little too far in that direction imo. Still, I enjoyed reading it all four times it took me to make a decision.
I liked the collective experience angle and the sponge/absorption analogy was fucking awesome. The harmful experience part originally struck me as utter nonsense, though on reflection there probably are people who fuck their shit up by marathoning TV shows. The debate question only asks about shorter bursts though, not massive multiple episode benders. I do appreciate the attempt to squeeze every possible angle out of the subject though. The second last paragraph is a big stumble imo, especially considering how well you started. Firstly, it’s not even nearly true that every show’s episodes are spaced a week apart in ‘show time’, plus modern technology negates the need to sit through the recaps and credits for every episode. It’s still an excellent piece of writing despite the late wobble.
This was tough to decide. Rigby was a technically superior piece of writing, while AwSmash covers more points. If this was an eloquent writing competition then Rigby would have got my vote hands down, but it’s not. It’s a debate, and thus this was a hard call to make.
I nearly voted for AwSmash as I thought that it had more arguments and was very entertaining (all big points scorers in my book). However, on further reflection Rigby made the best and second best arguments out of the whole lot and articulated them brilliantly, which is something I just can’t bring myself to vote against.
Winner via Split Decision - Rigby
TDL Wrestling Division Championship Match
Seabs vs CGS Do WWE wrestlers kick out of finishers too much in major singles matches?
Spoiler for Debates:
Do WWE wrestlers kick out of finishers too much in major singles matches?
Does Wagg have some serious issues? Is molesting sheep wrong? Is ZOMBO's new username a pain in the arse when you're trying to send him a PM? Does Andre spend all day refreshing TDL threads so he can claim he's a draw (hughton.jpg)? Do WWE wrestlers kick out of finishers too much in major singles matches? All questions that require an equally obvious "duh" response.
Let's go through all the major WWE singles matches since 2013 to illustrate the rarity of a finisher not being kicked out of (gimmick matches like TLC not included for obvious reasons).
CM Punk vs The Rock @ Royal Rumble 2013. Amazingly no finishers kicked out. This is more than remedied in Rock's next 2 matches mind.
CM Punk vs The Rock @ Elimination Chamber 2013. Punk kicks out of a Rock Bottom and a People's Elbow/Rock Bottom combo.
Undertaker vs CM Punk @ Wrestlemania 29. Punk hit GTS and not only didn't win (duh) but Undertaker bounced off the ropes and transitioned into a Tombstone on Punk. Off Punk's own finisher which connected. Naturally the first Tombstone was kicked out of too.
Triple H vs Brock Lesnar @ Wrestlemania 29. F5 and Pedigree are both kicked out of 13 minutes into a 23 minute match.
John Cena vs The Rock @ Wrestlemania 29. 15 minutes into a 24 minute match and the AA and Rock Bottom have already been kicked out of. Man you know it's bad when as you're reading a match report you resort to notes on just how many times each finisher has been kicked out of. 6 finishers kicked out of in total.
Triple H vs Brock Lesnar @ Extreme Rules 2013. F5 kicked out of 8 minutes into a 20 minute match. Pedigree also kicked out of just because. Yes Hunter wrestled for another 12 minutes including full comeback after taking an F5 from Brock Lesnar in a Cage match.
CM Punk vs Chris Jericho @ Payback 2013. Codebreaker kicked out of 2/3rds of the way into the match. GTS kicked out of with 5 minutes left in the match. Another codebreaker is kicked out of for good measure.
John Cena vs Mark Henry @ Money In The Bank 2013. AA and Worlds Strongest Slam are kicked out of 2/3rds into the match.
CM Punk vs Brock Lesnar @ Summerslam 2013. GTS kicked out of.
John Cena vs Daniel Bryan @ Summerslam 2013. AA is used a transitional near fall with 6-7 minutes still left in the match.
Daniel Bryan vs Randy Orton @ Night of Champions 2013. Flying Knee kicke.... Holy shit. Clean finish and no finishers kicked out of. I guess every underdog does have his day once a year.
Daniel Bryan vs Randy Orton @ Hell In A Cell & Battleground 2013. No finishers kicked out of due to run in finishes.
John Cena vs Randy Orton @ Royal Rumble 2014. Both the AA & RKO kicked out of.
Daniel Bryan vs Triple H @ Wrestlemania 30. Bryan kicks out of a Pedigree to an ok reaction given the context.
John Cena vs Bray Wyatt @ Wrestlemania 30. Both finishers kicked out of. The first AA comes 5 minutes before the finish of a 22 minute match to little reaction.
Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar @ Wrestlemania 30. 2 F5's and a Tombstone are kicked out of. The 1st F5 is kicked out of to zero reaction as fans have now become trained to believe that the first finisher in a big singles match is never the finish.
And they're not even including all the submission finishers (can't kick out of a submission so not totally relevant to the question) which are worn down from people sitting in them for minutes and not tapping.
2 out of 15 matches were a finisher HASN'T been kicked out of. 2 OUT OF 15.
It's not just on the A-PPVs either, it's now pretty much every single PPV with even upper-midcard acts like Jericho, Henry and Wyatt constantly kicking out of finishers. Heck, they don't even have that long struggle between hitting a finisher and it being kicked out of to protect the move anymore.
But when is too much?
This nonsensical culture of training fans into believing that the first finisher in a major singles match is never the finish has been building for years and the damaging effects of this are really being felt now with the valuable crowd popping asset of a finisher kick out being rendered useless. "Too much" is the moment you don't draw a big pop from someone kicking out of a top guy's finisher. It's the moment a valuable spot no longer has value.
Look at New Japan for how kicking out of a protected finisher that goes years without being kicked out of is so valuable. Tanahashi's Frog Splash was never kicked out of for years until @ Wrestle Kingdom 7 vs Okada and listen to the reaction when it did happen. Fast forward a year and it hasn't been kicked out of since. Listen to the reaction when Nakamura kicks out of it. Now compare it to the reaction when Triple H kicks out of Brock's F5 halfway into a match or when Wyatt kicks out of Cena's AA @ Wrestlemania.
Fans not buying finishers as the actual finish isn't something that has been present in WWE for years and years either. Compare the reaction to both finishers being kicked out of in Cena vs Batista @ Wrestlemania 26 compared to Cena vs Wyatt @ Wrestlemania 30. It becomes "too much" when you go from that reaction @ 26 to the reaction 4 years later for the same move being kicked out of.
This question is very simply answered by a rewatch of any WWE PPV over the last 18 months and inspection of the reaction to kicking out of a finisher. The moment a finisher kick out stops drawing a big pop they're being kicked out of too much.
Do WWE wrestlers kick out of finishers too much in major single matches?
We’ve all seen it before, the crowd is hyped, the finisher is coming, it looks all but over and BOOM there it is. The crowd going absolutely crazy as the ref begins the count 1…2….NO. KICK OUT. Time and time again we’ve seen this happen. But do we see this happen too much in major matches? Not in the slightest.
First off I do believe we need to establish what exactly “too much” is since many people seem to have the idea that kicking out of even 1 finisher is too much. However, it has to be considered that no one match is the same. The level of “too many” finishers will change from match to match. Some matches may only need 1 finisher to finish it off while others may need 2 or even 3 to really sell the story the superstars are trying to tell and really elevate the match to the next level.
"But a finisher is supposed to you know…FINISH the opponent off. What’s the point in calling it a finisher if a superstar can kick out of it?"
Which is true, after all it is called a finisher for a reason. But again I do believe you need to look at the surrounding situations and take into consideration the build up to some of these major matches.
Just imagine two guys going at it for the richest prize in the industry and only one man can stand tall when the dust has settled. With so much on the line would 1 finisher realistically seem legit enough to end it all? What about someone chasing the title for months and months (ala Daniel Bryan Summerslam to Wrestlemania). When they finally get that huge chance would you truly expect their opponent to just hit one finisher and that’s it? Or when you know they want it so bad would one finisher from them really sell the story as well as a kick out followed by a look of extreme annoyance and desperation would?
What about huge grudge matches like Rock/Austin III? Or huge main event level rematches like Taker/HBK Mania 26? Remember that HBK’s damn career on the line that night. Or what about huge no 1 contenderships matches like Cena/Punk back on Raw Feb 2013 for a title shot in the main event at Wrestlemania? When so much is on the line you would expect a superstar to show a brilliant amount of heart and have some serious adrenaline running through them allowing them to kick out of a finisher or two.
"But surely you can go overboard with it. Look at all the Taker matches recently. Or the Rock/Austin Match at Mania XIX. Surely you can’t justify them. It just makes their finishers look like shit"
Of course they can’t be justified…..under basic circumstances. But most main event level matches are not basic circumstances. You have to remember, wrestling is all about the stories being told within the ring and how the wrestlers themselves express these stories. Remember the Austin/Rock match from Mania XIX? The match that had Austin kick out of 2 Rock Bottoms and a People’s elbow while Rocky also kicked out of a stunner? On the base of it all sure it sounds crazy to have that…but remember the exact reason Rock and Austin faced off? In the Rock’s own words.
Originally Posted by Rocky
“The Rock has done it all in this business, the one thing that the Rock has never done is whoop that bald candy ass at Wrestlemania”
Austin was the big game player that had already done the deed against the Rock twice at Wrestlemania, while Rocky was going all out to achieve the only thing he had left to achieve. With so much PRIDE on the line would one finisher to end it all really have done this match justice?
It’s the exact same story with the Taker matches over recent years. The whole “streak” had been built up as unbeatable to the point where even the best of the best, the guys who have done it all in the industry even struggled to overcome it. The Undertaker being the master of winning on the biggest stage wouldn’t’ let anything defeat him. Many fans and critics loved this storytelling aspect of the last 5/6 Mania matches…despite its heavy use of finishers. Must mean the E’ is doing something right. Doesn’t it?
"Fine, but with the Taker matches in particular gaining such praise while using this method it’s only a matter of time before the E really start to abuse it. They obviously see money in it so will probably keep doing it"
Because Taker and Wrestlemania is where this whole thing began right?
People seem to forget that this is nothing new. Go back and watch guys like Hogan & Warrior back in the late 80’s. They kicked out of finishers like it was nothing. Hell in one match Randy Savage hit 5. Yes FIVE elbow drops in a row on the Warrior only for Warrior to kick out and no sell it. Did it really hurt Savage’s finisher in the long run? No.
Not to mention in the years since Taker/HBK we’ve seen the likes of Bryan/Cena Summerslam 13’, Punk/Bryan Over the limit 12, Punk/Cena MITB 11’, and Bryan/HHH Mania XXX amongst many matches receiving a lot of praise while not overusing the finisher fest angle. Again showing that WWE still have a great idea of when not utilise the finisher angle when it’s not required.
Fact is as much as people want to complain about how much it seems to happen it’s very rare that the amount of finishers cross over the barrier of “too much”. Therefore the whole idea that the WWE are overusing finishers in major matches is indeed false. Yes there have been numerous matches featuring heavy use of finisher near falls but most of the time it can be justified depending on the match background and the superstars involved.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Very effective approach in listing all of the big matches over the last year and a bit and highlighting just how commonplace kick-outs from finishers have become. The tone of your quick descriptions for each match are also effective in terms of injecting your personality / opinion on the topic throughout, instead of just presenting things factually.
The analysis portion is excellent as well. Showing how the finisher has been degraded from a big, crowd-popping moment to an expected transition move in a match is excellent, as is the comparison with how finishers are protected in New Japan. The videos contrasting Cena / Batista and the Cena / Wyatt reactions were also VERY effective in highlighting your point.
Your stance is a simple one, but your build to prove it is multi-layered and really drives the point home. From intro to conclusion, this debate makes it tough for ANY reader to pick a hole in it.
Another awesome, awesome debate, in the sense that you make it very difficult to counter your arguments. This is due in large part to your approach, conceding that kick-outs are not justified, but that big-time matches are not "basic" circumstances that should adhere to the common rules. This stems from your variable definition of "too much" as it relates to a match.
The only nitpick I have is with language that is sometimes passive. For example, in your concluding line you state that "most of the time" finisher kick-outs can be justified. Earlier on you state that "most" main event matches are not basic circumstances. You did such a great job convincing me of your side throughout, stay firm and 100% committed behind your stance at all times. Don't let ANY doubt slip into the readers mind.
It's amazing that both debates took opposite stances, yet leaves me as a reader having a tough time arguing with either of them. That's the sign of a quality matchup. Ultimately, it just comes down to the slimmest of margins, but I felt that Seabs convinced me a tad more. Hats off to each of you.
First of all, I need to point out that both of you failed to specifically define exactly what a “major singles match” is, which is a massive faux pas in a contest where that terminology is very open to interpretation. Seabs made some very dubious (imo) inclusions such as Mark Henry vs John Cena and Jericho vs Punk (was the match actually a big deal, or just Punk’s return?) where clear and strong arguments were needed to show how these matches could be put in the same category as an Undertaker streak match, a rare Brock appearance in a well hyped match or even a battle during a huge Rock return run. Seabs even made the point about “It's not just on the A-PPVs either, it's now pretty much every single PPV with even upper-midcard acts like…” This clumsy writing didn’t mesh well with the topic question in any way, especially without a persuasive argument as to why those types of contests should be viewed as “major”. On the other hand CGS used a bunch of great examples that would be difficult to argue against as being “major singles matches”, yet by failing to define what a major singles match is (for his own argument) he failed to take advantage of his opponent who was there for the taking. That’s really day one shit and I’m surprised that neither of you took advantage of the tantalising question in that regard.
The most obvious criticism to make is that you wasted a shit load of words on basically nothing. Your intro is funny but could be condensed. Your list of examples (nearly 500 words!!!) is long but most of it reads like an answer to “a lot” rather than “too much” without greater detail in certain places. If anything you could have used the “2 out of 15 matches” stat and kept the bulk of the “who kicked out of what” info in your footnotes next to some video links or match reports. Greater detail and cross comparisons for a select few choices that should have undoubtedly been defined as “major” would have made for a stronger debate, with the blurred lines between “a lot” and “too much” needing to be erased in order to provide greater clarity. Too often you gave overly brief details of “this happened then this happened” from a traditional wrestling mind set, but without providing greater context as to why each of these incidents had a DIRECT negative knock on effect (provide greater examples of crowds failing to react with evidence, how this might have affected ppv buys or the potential of the WWE network long term, etc) in the short and long term. Your argument was far too focused on pure crowd reactions, while in some cases you even failed to convince in that regard.
You have to bear in mind that a lot of your examples seem irrelevant because you either gave a weak argument (the aforementioned debatable “major matches” and HHH/Bryan), a non-argument (Punk/Rock I, Bryan/Orton NOC, BG and HIAC) or an argument that your opponent countered with more detail, the Streak matches being prime examples. As an aside I wasn’t particularly convinced by your “The 1st F5 is kicked out of to zero reaction as fans have now become trained to believe that the first finisher in a big singles match is never the finish” line, seeing as this was a match few fans believed the part time Brock would win due to its poor build combined with the streak appearing unbeatable (beautifully summed up by the complete expectation that Taker would kick out of the third F5 before the subsequent shock when he didn’t). You needed to go into more detail to convince me that your argument for the lack of crowd noise in that particular match rang truer. This is something that would have aided your “But when is too much?” section that was actually on point for the most part.
This read like a very lazy debate and this was never summed up with greater effect than when you wrote “This question is very simply answered by a rewatch of any WWE PPV over the last 18 months and inspection of the reaction to kicking out of a finisher”. It’s your job to provide evidence in terms of said (non) reactions, but you didn’t for the most part, thus creating the “a lot/too much” issue which was only partially fixed in the final third of your debate. Combined with some weak arguments and the lack of definition for what exactly a “major singles match” is this made for a very ordinary debate.
If you had defined exactly what “a major singles match” is (arguing that “major” matches are rare events would have taken you a long way against an opponent who lumped monthly b-ppv matches into the equation) then I think you would have easily won this match when considering some of the good explanations/examples that you gave, seeing as your opponent’s debate was a bit of a mess. However, you didn’t… and this was a problem, especially as your opponent provided a greater wealth of MODERN examples whereas many of your examples seemed a bit dated and not totally relevant in a debate where absolutely no definition was provided for “major singles match”. On a positive note, you did counter some of Seabs' arguments by suggesting that some of these matches (streak matches in particular) called for finisher fests and that this was part of the appeal.
Despite this, your lack of modern relevant examples left you looking weak in comparison to debater A who put greater focus into highlighting matches from the past 18 months (with varying degrees of success). Even when giving brief explanations/examples as to why crowds fail to react to finisher fests NOW he trumped you due to your lack of relevant rebuttals (in comparison). Again, this is something that defining “major singles matches” could have prevented, because it could easily be argued that you made good arguments that were centred around matches such as Bryan/Cena Summerslam 13’, Bryan/HHH Mania XXX and Taker’s streak matches which were all undoubtedly “major” matches from the past couple of years. This definition would have rendered the need for a long list of examples (which your opponent reeled off) as irrelevant due to the idea that a “major singles match” isn’t something that necessarily happens every bloody month.
I wasn’t sold on your Warrior/Savage example as this is just highlighting a one off match rather than a succession of matches where Savage’s finisher would have been continually reinforced as weak within the viewing public’s minds. This is something that your opponent went to Town on by pointing out how the routine use of failed finishers in so called “major” matches could theoretically damage the perception of these finishers. He also used modern relevant examples whereas you didn’t with your early 90’s Mania example.
I wouldn’t exactly call this a bad debate because you included enough good arguments within it to make it a worthwhile read, but it really lacked that one strong ingredient (the routinely aforementioned definition) that would have blended it all together. You had debater A on the ropes, but you weren’t ruthless or savvy enough to deliver the knockout blow.
This was close, but certainly not in a good way. It was kind of a chore to judge this because rather than comparing your efforts via strong points I had to focus on a greater deal of negatives. CGS' was particularly frustrating because it really lacked one consistent linking theme to make it a very good debate. A case of “so near, yet so far”. Neither debate really answered the question directly enough, but Seabs did at least eventually manage to expertly argue that 'WWE wrestlers kick out of finishers too much in matches that might or might not be "major"', whereas CGS gave just a few great cherry picked examples to the contrary, some seemingly relevant and some not. In the end the greater mass of relevant evidence won out, although it I wouldn't recommend using that sole approach against stronger opponents in what is supposed to be a strong division.
My vote goes to Seabs
The main issue I had with this is that I feel you spend so long recapping and outlining the recent trend of big matches, that your eventual evaluation and additional argument feels so brief and rushed because you've got less words to play with. I get the general idea of really stating how it's apparent in big matches, but to me this is where references should be used: there's no reason you can't identify two or three key instances and then link to other matches to leave yourself more words to play with. Same with your intro, some funny lines and all in there (bar the factual error in citing sheep buggery as wrong), but was it all needed? I don't know if this was just a way to get closer to the word count, but I felt the intro dragged before you reached your inevitable point, and I don't feel much would have altered if you'd just had the WAGG line as your sole comedic quote.
A key issue I also found was when you summarised the matches with the line "2 out of 15 matches where a finisher HASN'T been kicked out of. 2 OUT OF 15". Remember, the question focuses on 'too much', so in that respect I'd have preferred for you to draw attention to the matches where multiple finishers were kicked out of. 5 of those matches had either one kickout or none at all, and again when the question asks for when do the kickouts become 'too much' I thought this overlooked the nature of the question. Really, given your closing arguments, I really think you ought to have condensed the overview of 2013-now and expanded on those, because we're so far into the debate now and you're not really telling me much by way of clear cut analysis. The best you've offered so far is that in certain instances, a finisher has been hit and kicked out of with many minutes in a match left, or in some cases just after halfway, that's telling of how poorly protected they are, but again you're leaving me to my own devices to interpret that, rather than explicitly using your own words to argue how this is 'too much'.
Supporting evidence for the 'Jericho/Henry/Wyatt on every PPV' would have been nice imo, if only because offhand I'm struggling to recall many instances. I want to say Jericho/Ziggler had a kickout of a Zig Zag or the Codebreaker, but again if you're going to use this as further proof that they've gone too far, then an additional link for my memory's sake would be ideal.
"It's the moment a valuable spot no longer has value" - really liked this line and I feel this is where you should have taken this debate. Even taking a couple of matches, such as Taker/Brock or Rock/Cena and identifying how and why these matches exemplified 'too much' with analytical detail would have been better. I can view 6 finishers being kicked out of as excessive, but you need to be telling me how and why this is 'too much'. The debate needed more analysis of this nature, rather than giving a historical overview. The New Japan comparison is a good segue building off the 'lack of value', since you acknowledge the drama and tension that exists in big NJPW main events because finishers are protected. Again, affording yourself more words to expand on this and critise WWE for essentially killing crowd heat by conditioning fans not to react to the first finisher hit to really drive the point home would have strengthened your argument so much more.
The Cena/Batista vs Cena/Wyatt comparison to outline how the AA is perceived 4 years on was a nice detail, but again I feel this is where you should have been looking to expand upon and make a key argument. It just felt like you left yourself virtually no room to make a sustained argument after your extended recap, and this is a key problem. Your definition of too much has merit, but you ignore context and I feel that leaves a counter your opponent picked up on - certain feuds/matches evoke a different response from crowds and WWE have continually had finisher kickouts in the big matches to milk the drama and build suspense. Had you left yourself more room to expand on your defintion and potentially argue that WWE stifles this drama through an overindulgence of finisher kickouts, then perhaps this could have been stronger. Instead, whilst I have an idea of what you're trying to say, a lot of this is my interpretation, rather than you outright saying it. It's more like I'm reading your brief argument and thinking to myself just how far you're trying to go with the argument, rather than you telling me yourself, and this again stems from how little words you had left to play with after your extensive recap.
The points you do make sadly feel more like the beginning of a strong argument, and really needed more depth and support which you could never do once you sacrificed so much of your word count for what was essentially a descriptive overview. I also felt you needed to define 'too much' earlier in the debate, because without doing so I felt you ignored certain contextual issues that mean WWE main events will typically have at least one kickout.
I think the main issue I have with this is that you seem to dwell on what 'too much' is, and despite attempting to define it, I felt you lost track too often of what 'too much' actually was. Basically, you were trying to argue certain matches with built in storylines require extensive kickouts to advance that story. So basically, the match ending on the first finisher hit weakens that story. That's fine. The problem is, based on your definition, I don't think you spend enough time considering whether this constitutes 'too much'. Here's an example:
" The level of “too many” finishers will change from match to match. Some matches may only need 1 finisher to finish it off while others may need 2 or even 3 to really sell the story the superstars are trying to tell and really elevate the match to the next level." - seems easy enough to digest. Certain matches require finishers to be kicked out of based on the story of the match, obviously this isn't a universal principle but rather used for the big occasions. Here's the issue though:
"When they finally get that huge chance would you truly expect their opponent to just hit one finisher and that’s it?"
"When so much is on the line you would expect a superstar to show a brilliant amount of heart and have some serious adrenaline running through them allowing them to kick out of a finisher or two. "
You talk about kicking out of a finisher or two, but again this is about when does this become too much. I think you just had too many instances at times where you were talking as if more than one finisher being kicked out of was the nature of the question, when it isn't. Hypothetically, based on your definition, multiple finisher kickouts could be necessary to the story, thus more than kickout isn't too much. The problem I'm having is it seems you're dwelling on 'it takes more than one finisher to win the match', but you're not telling me when this becomes too much. It's quite understandable for a finisher to be kicked out of, but when does a match go beyond the threshold of 'telling the story' and enter the realm of egregious kickouts which do more harm than good?
It's all well and good outlining scenarios in which finishers being kicked out of can be necessary, but you still need to be giving me reason to believe the kickouts still aren't too much? So far, that's not the case. It seems more like you're defending the right to have multiple finishers in a match, but this doesn't answer the question necessarily of whether there comes a point where the kickouts become excessive. Based on what I can digest, it seems like you're saying in the right story there's no amount of finishers kicked out of that could be considered excessive, is that what you're saying? You see the fact I'm unsure of this is where my problem lies, I feel you've gotten caught up in how multiple finishers can be necessary that you're ignoring the issue of if and when they become excessive.
"Austin was the big game player that had already done the deed against the Rock twice at Wrestlemania, while Rocky was going all out to achieve the only thing he had left to achieve. With so much PRIDE on the line would one finisher to end it all really have done this match justice?"
^ even there. It feels like you're focusing as if one finisher kickout is deemed excessive, but again that's not true. The key here would be convincing me that Austin kicking out of 2 Rock Bottom's and a People's Elbow was integral to the story (something I didn't feel you did personally). What makes Austin kicking out of 3 finishers acceptable here? Does the key lie in the move typically being protected so that it's credibility can easily be restored? Or that it has longevity by being a recognised finisher that has won Rock umpteen matches? It's here where you'd be arriving at the issue of whether the kickouts were too much. Whether there came a point where the credibility of the finisher was sacrificed unjustly for the story. Kicking out of more than one finisher doesn't necessarily mean they went too far, but again you're not clarifying this to me through your words. It feels like you're coming at this from the view that you need to defend more than one finisher kickout, but that's not what the question asks. The question concerns whether a) you can do multiple finisher kickouts and make them work, and b) if there exists a point by which the kickouts become excessive regardless of the story. Are 2 stunners the same as 6 stunners if the idea is to showcase Rock's hunger to not lose to Austin for the third time? Is 6 too much? Or acceptable because Rock refuses to lose again? Is 3 enough to make him look strong in defeat? Do you see? You're not really doing enough of this, and instead it feels like you're focusing on a similar but still different question to the one being posed.
I even felt you scored a bit of an own goal when you brought up the Savage/Warrior instance where Savage hit 5 elbows to no avail. You allude to this as being ridiculous, but then if I apply your definition at the start can an argument not be made that it fit the story, that it encapsulated Warrior's dominance and Savage's plight? You see by not really telling me if there comes a point where too many kickouts overstay their welcome, you've confused me and sort of argued against yourself. Is 5 finisher kickouts too much when 3 in Rock/Austin was essential to the story? Why is 5 wrong, but 3 acceptable? Can you see the confusion. If you'd kept referring to an instance where you felt a threshold was crossed, then your argument would be consistent. Without it, it feels like you've dwelled on 'one finisher not always being enough', and overlooked the key issue of when it becomes too much.
Even further applying your Savage argument, you say in the long-run it didn't hurt his finisher, but surely that rests on the fact that overtime it regularly finished matches again, thus it regained familiarity. As your opponent argued, WWE's recent big matches have seen the AA, Pedigree and F5 be regularly kicked out of. By your logic here, does this not weaken their finisher by virtue of not being protected to the degree Savage's was? Even if his was kicked out of more times in one match? Again, I just feel there's holes in your argument which stem from me being uncertain of your exact stance, and you failing to address the actual issue of when it becomes 'too much'.
Both debates had flaws, however Seabs had a clear argument, with it's main flaw being a failure to build and develop the arguments due to an excessive descriptive overview which ate up so much of the word count. CGS in comparison, strayed too far from the question at hand and seemed to dwell on an issue which wasn't directly relevant, which saw them argue against themselves. I also felt for as brief as the actual arguments were in Seabs', that they did a better job at convincing me than CGS', in terms of pure writing and the actual argument at hand. Neither debate was of a terrific standard, but Seabs had structural and depth issues, but still had a coherent argument relevant to the question. By that metric, Seabs wins.
Winner - Seabs
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Seabs
TDL Sports Division Championship Match
Aid180 vs BkB Hulk Which sport is more physically challenging, Football (Soccer) or Basketball?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Challenge of the Debate
Pace, endurance, power and agility are the attributes that will come up in any discussion about physicality in sport. And it’s with reason too – they’re important, and they’re the obvious. There’s a lot more to it though. The very essence of the sport determines which is more impressive. The hint is in the name. Use your head to think about it – or maybe don’t. Maybe try using your hands, then try using your feet. That, along with the common physical determinants, will tell you that football is the most physically challenging.
Keep Pace With Ronald-Bolt
Cristiano Ronaldo was clocked as taking just ten seconds to cover 96 metres in a game against Atletico Madrid in 2012(1). To put that in context, that’s only just slower than Usain Bolt’s speed. Bolt’s job is to run faster than anyone else in the world.
Compare that to the best available current speed testing by a basketballer by using the NBA draft combine stats. KJ McDaniels three-quarter court run took 3.10 seconds – which is a much slower pace than Ronaldo’s pace(2). Never mind the fact that Ronaldo was running in football boots on grass.
While both games heavily rely on speed, the ability to cover ground quickly is amplified on the larger surface of a football pitch. When are you going to have to show your speed in a 96-metre sprint on a basketball court? You’re not, so while pace is important in basketball, a slight difference isn’t going to be magnified so much in a short distance like it will in a long sprint on a football pitch.
Can You Endure Another Bloody West Ham Game?
Not every footballer is Ronaldo. Perhaps good old Mark Noble is a better example – a man who is seen as an honest footballer, but certainly not a supreme athlete.
Imagine two scenarios. In the first, you cover 11.9 kilometres over 90 minutes(3). In the second, you cover 5.9 kilometres over 48 minutes(4). Which is more physically challenging – the first in which you cover twice the ground of the second, or the second where you only run for just over half the first? Of course it’s the bloody first.
Mark Noble covered 11.9 kilometres over 90 minutes. On top of that, Noble travelled at an average pace of 7.57 kilometres an hour over his first 33 games of last season as the footballer who covers the most ground a game(5). Compare that to Troy Parker, the fastest and most active player spending at least a third of the game on court, and thus showing endurance. He only moved at an average speed of 7.40 kilometres an hour throughout his games(6). He’s no Mark Noble.
Noble not only runs faster than Parker and covers more ground on average, but he runs for almost triple the time, as Parker only spends 31 minutes on court per game. That’s surely a showing of greater endurance. This is where the endurance is all the more impressive in football, and thus makes it far more physically challenging. Ask a basketballer to run for ninety minutes and see how they go. Heck, LeBron was looking like he was on death’s door without even lasting fourty minutes. Step it up, loser.
Again, the big pitch is key. With so much ground to cover, you need more endurance in football than basketball. Unlike in high scoring basketball, one tired mistake is fatal.
Draws Exist In More Than Just Football
It’s near impossible to split the power and agility aspects of football and basketball. While basketball may have a more visually impressive way of showcasing power with the burst that’s involved in jumping, explosive strength is also possessed in football with the ability to shoot. That’s not power that you see in basketball, much like the jumping power being a basketball exclusive.
Similarly, both sports require fantastic agility. Basketball is in a compact space, and requires quick turns. Football, meanwhile, also involves working in tight spaces, and the ability to go beyond a defender heavily relies on agility. Defensively, you have to be ready to turn in both sports. Basketball may be more visual, but football holds its own.
It’s Real Football, Not American
The thing that makes football more physically challenging than basketball is that it’s actually football though. While both sports have impressive athletes, the use of the feet is crucial. It’s not like the football of America, where using your foot is an afterthought. Football is all about the feet.
This is impressive because we have less control of our feet. You have a far greater range of motion in your hands and far greater control. How am I typing this? I’m not using my feet. I’m using my fingers, because of all of the tendons, bones and muscles that allow for such a great range of hand motion.
You rely on the dexterity, flexibility and control of hands in basketball that feet don’t have. Throwing and catching are relatively simple skills than you can teach any toddler to do. You’re actually using your hands for a lot of similar tasks at such an age, and thus know how. The true skill lies in the ability to use your feet to manipulate a ball in magical ways.
It is therefore a greater physical challenge to ever learn to play football in the first place than to play basketball. Sure, LeBron, Kobe and Melo are all supremely good athletes, but at the basis of the sport, they have it much easier than the likes of Messi, Ronaldo and Suarez.
To control a football in the first place is the biggest physical challenge. So while footballers are slightly more impressive in terms of their speed and endurance, ultimately, the use of the inflexible feet to handle a ball with such control is the greatest skill, the greatest challenge. The key is in the name. Football is much more physically challenging than basketball because of the feet.
Which sport is more physically challenging, Football (Soccer) or Basketball?
Clearly one sport is more physically challenging than the other. Obviously it isn’t the sport that have players that are stars simply because they are big and tall. Football is the more physically challenging sport.
The Long Run
There are many aspects of sports, but in the end, most of them come down to the act of moving, and you move around a whole hell of a lot in football. Simply look at the distance traveled per match. As Tracy Miller points out, football players run an average of 11.25 kilometers a match while citing NBA players average less than 3 miles per game, or 4.8 kilometers. Not only that, but football players also play much longer than basketball players in a single match. A single NBA game is four 12 minute quarters totaling 48 minutes while EPL matches are two 45 minute halves totaling 90 minutes (plus extra time for game stoppage). Football players clearly require much more endurance compared to basketball players at the highest level.
If that isn’t enough, just watch the matches. football players are almost constantly moving. Basketball players sometimes stop moving on offense or defense. With all the breaks basketball players get, football players look like marathon runners in comparison. NBA games have a commercial break every 4 minutes or so. EPL games have a halftime break and that is it. Both games have ref stoppage, but the ref stoppage in basketball is clearly higher, sometimes even multiple times a minute. With all of the breaks and the fewer minutes played, basketball players have it easy compared to football players.
The Level Playing Field
Let’s limit this to the basic form. Just one hour of football versus one hour of basketball. Which one burns the most calories? That would be football as the good lads at calorielab.com pointed out:
Both competitive and casual football trump competitive and casual basketball respectively. When brought down to even levels and time, football burns more calories. In fact, at the competitive example, football burns 6.12 calories a minute compared to basketball’s 4.76 calories per minute. Without getting too scientific, the burning of calories requires the expending of energy. This concludes that football expends more energy per minute than basketball, meaning the energy required to play football is greater. The more energy required means the more physically challenging football is compared to basketball. Also note, this includes the strength needed to play basketball too. Even with the contact and jumping that comes with basketball, football still requires more energy.
They say anyone can kick a ball, but everyone can also hold a ball too. Sure both sports have its own techniques on dribbling and shooting and require skill, but it’s much harder to control a ball with your feet than it is with your hands. Besides the obvious, let’s go back to the size remark from earlier. Many basketball athletes can coast by on their size alone. Look at NBA Centers, specifically Dwight Howard. The guy is a physical freak and nearly 7 feet tall. Now look at his free throw numbers.
Howard has trouble hitting the most basic shot in basketball. That is apparent with his career .574 FT percentage. His best year was his rookie year. He never got better at it. Without size, Howard wouldn’t have much a career in basketball. Meanwhile, in football, size doesn’t nearly matter as much. Sure being bigger can help win some possessions, but skill trumps size in football.
Don’t take my word for it. Look at the vote of the people. Most polls have people voting football as the sport requiring more skill. Even on a basketball forum:
Football trumps basketball in skill required.
The Mental Aspect
Football and basketball both have many mental aspects to them. Who to pass to? What play to run? Where is the weak point on the defense? Etc. However, one position stands out the most, the goal keeper. The keep has to have many skills, but one of the toughest is clairvoyance. Clearly goalies can’t tell the future, but they are expected to. Keepers must predict the trajectory of the incoming ball, the speed, and determine how quickly they need to get to it. Their duties don’t stop there either. Keeps must also determine which method of passing is the best for getting the balls to teammates without opposition interference. Basketball fans may cite the mental stress of clutch free throws as an example of how mentally hard basketball is, but really, basketball games have scores in the mid 90s. A football match can come down to one single goal. The mental stress placed on the keeper in these situations are huge. The entire game rides on the defense of the goalie. One mistake and the team is done. Generally a missed free throw won’t change the outcome of a game as much or at all.
But wait, what’s the point of bringing up the mental aspects in a question about which sport is more physically challenging? Simple. Just look at the physical toll mental stress plays on the body. The body, when under stress, can be put in physical pain, like WebMD points out. The common saying is that sports are 80-90% mental. You can’t take the mental aspect out of the sport. So when you look at the mental aspect, clearly football is more difficult.
The Final Thoughts
Football is the more physically challenging sport. Football requires greater endurance, it requires more energy, it requires more skill, and it requires more mental toughness, especially at the keeper position. When put together, it's obvious. Even with the strength needed to play the post in basketball, football’s need of endurance still trumps it in calories expended. Even when the amount of minutes played are tied, football players expend more calories. At the highest level, football players travel over twice the distance of basketball players per match. The stats add up. Football is more physically challenging than basketball.
Seabs BkB Hulk - Good stuff with the criteria for what makes up physicality. No complaints with them. The Ronaldo/Bolt comparison is great and more importantly you then also generalise this point across the whole sport rather than just using an elite star to generalise your point. The Noble comparison is really great because it's not just comparing elite with elite which I think is important in really strengthening your case. Stats are great too. I even checked the calculations too and can confirm your maths is spot on. That or we're both numpties in which case we'll comfort each other into depression after this gets out. I thought you could have also focused on the point that Basketball has rolling subs and when a player gets tired he can just sit down for a few minutes whereas football is nonstop for 45 minutes apart from for 3 players who can go off. Plus Basketball has a break like every 5 minutes for time outs and stuff too so even the 30 odd minutes they do play isn't a true 30 minutes because it's spread out over like 2 and a half hours. I kinda like who you didn't waste any more time on power and agility than you had to because it wasn't the strength of your argument and quickly conceding the point that they're probably about even and focusing on the other areas where you can argue much harder for your stance was an effective use of a difficult word count for this topic imo. You could have maybe focused more on the increasing physicality of football in the modern era and how it's more of a requirement than in previous years. Winning this stage of the argument wasn't your intention but you did a good job of holding your own and not conceding easy ground on these areas and giving Basketball too much praise that it gets the reader thinking about just how physical Basketball is but gives it enough praise to maintain your legitimacy. Great use of wording here to do that. The feet vs hands argument was really well done too. Initially I was confused at this part in your intro but I got it reading back again after seeing all of your debate. Maybe you could have hit a good source up here; "This is impressive because we have less control of our feet." but your visual explanation in your own words was spot on. Obviously Basketball requires good footwork too for leaping up for blocks and such but this doesn't hurt your argument for me because you're focusing on the core of the sport which is using your hands. Smart stuff ending on your strongest and most influential argument too. This was great.
Aid180 - Awww I was hoping you'd pick the American sport and argue against Bulk. Not a shame though because this is brilliant competition all the same. Plus there's no point picking a stance which makes for a more entertaining debate. I actually had to detective work to check your 11.25km figure because I couldn't find it on the link until I realised that you converted it from miles and then had more maths to do. Swear I've put more work in judging this debate than I did producing my own for this card. Not really sure why you gave one in both miles and km but not the other but the point is the same regardless. I like how you managed to find an average figure whereas Bulk's figure was probably one from the upper quartile compared to his team mates who were some way below Noble. So I think I like your figures here more because they're an average and more generalised rather than focusing on two individual figures. Your next point about the stop start nature I mentioned in Bulk's feedback and was present here so you have this point over Bulk. Both endurance arguments were fantastic but I think I'm leaning with yours for the average figure and the extra point made. The calories argument is brilliant and evidence of what great supporting evidence for your stance can provide to a debate. Hard to argue with facts and figures. I think I'd Bulk the advantage on the skillset front. I think he argued better why foot control is far more challenging than hand control and he linked it back to being physically challenging better. I get what you were going for Howard's free throws but how physically challenging is throwing a ball from a standing position? I get the point you were making and it is good but maybe you could have linked to a more physically challenging skillset. Nitpicking a tad but I have to find a winner in this one sadly. Also I don't think the quality of your sources for which sport requires more skill is the best. At the end of the day it's just the opinion of forum users. A more legit source would be better. Again it's nitpicking but facts and figures sources > opinion sources, especially when they're not from like a master of the field the opinion is for. I'm glad somebody chose to focus on the mental aspect because I think it's a valid direction to take the debate. Most importantly though you state why the mental aspect actually is part of the physical challenge of sports and this explanation was great with great sources too. Your scenario explanation was pretty good too. Not super great like other parts of your debate but it illustrated your point well all the same. I think you maybe undersold the stress of certain Basketball scenarios such as being a point down coming out of a time out with 5 seconds on the board but at the same time you didn't alter the reader to it to shit on your own stance at least. Maybe covering the mental aspect to outfield football players as well could have helped. Focusing on keepers was fine but maybe adding an extra sentence or two to say it covers to outfield players in a certain scenario too. Nice wrap up too. Again, another great debate with only minor flaws and annoyingly barely anything to separate the two debates. Ugh.
I'll separate these debates into 3 sections. 2 of them you both cover which are skillset and endurance. I thought Aid180 had the edge in the endurance argument and vice versa for the skillset argument. So my decision comes down to who makes the better arguments that were unique to their own debate. For me I have to give the thinnest of edges to Aid180. I don't think Bulk lost any ground in his pace, power and agility arguments but I thought Aid180 gained more ground with his points about calories burned with great supporting evidence and considering the mental aspect too. This was an awesome effort from both guys and two of the best Sports debates period. Probably the best sports debate for me factoring in the quality of both debates.
Winner - Aid180
I’m going to judge these together because both debates are very similar and of a high standard.
You both used stats to compare the running involved in both sports, although Aid180 used a slightly better example by comparing overall averages, instead of isolated stats like BkB Hulk. However, BkB Hulk did cover the aspect of sprint speed/distance which wasn’t covered by Aid180. BkB Hulk made good points about the power and energy needed in both sports (bit of a slip up on the point about jumping though, particularly when keepers and centre halves in fitba have to be able to jump high and with great power, so it’s not exactly “exclusive” to basketball), although Aid180 went one step further by providing scientific evidence that football consumes more energy. Both made great arguments as to how using feet is a harder physical skill to master than using hands, BkB Hulk explained this with greater detail while Aid180 provided statistical information to back up his claims, so that part was close although I felt BkB Hulk gave a stronger explanation. However, Aid180 sealed the deal with his ‘The Mental Aspect’ argument which BkB Hulk failed to cover. Key sentences included:
“One mistake and the team is done. Generally a missed free throw won’t change the outcome of a game as much or at all”
“Just look at the physical toll mental stress plays on the body. The body, when under stress, can be put in physical pain, like WebMD points out. The common saying is that sports are 80-90% mental. You can’t take the mental aspect out of the sport. So when you look at the mental aspect, clearly football is more difficult.”
Both of these debates were very good and I’m pleased to say that you’ve managed to maintain the standards that I personally set for a long time. The sports division is clearly alive and well. However, while both debaters made several excellent arguments, Aid180 provided a greater variety at that particular level.
My vote goes to Aid180
Well, I'm going to put these together simply because I thought this was an excellent little matchup.
You guys advanced mostly similar points in favour of football, in terms of the endurance factor, the speed COMBINED with the distance run, having to use your feet as your primary body part. And you both did this well, with plenty of factual evidence to back it up, nice short paragraphs that are easy on the reader. Rhetorical questions (BkB Hulk asking how he's typing the debate stuck out as a nice touch). Just excellent stuff, and truly worthy of a title match.
In my eyes, there was one main difference which tipped the scale in this match. In BkB Hulk's debate, you use a section to address some of the counter arguments by stating that football is at least on par in the areas that could traditionally be argued in basketball's favour. This is good, acknowledging the counter, but it admittedly doesn't come across as overly convincing as what Aid180 did below.
Aid180, meanwhile, uses space to promote an area untouched by BkB Hulk - the goalkeeper. By highlighting the additional physical characteristics possessed by a keeper, as well as illustrating how the mental aspect can impact the physical one, you really made your debate go one step further in promoting the physical attributes required on the football pitch.
It was a great match with two great debates, but for the reason I listed above, Aid180 is my pick.
Wow. I won. I don't really have much to say at the moment. I guess I'm a little shocked right now. I didn't think I won when hearing that the match was a unanimous decision in the chat box. Great match Bulk. I'm glad we were able to deliver a top match.
Bummer... Fair enough though. I didn't have the best debate.
This was my first, though, and now I've seen what kind of products everyone is putting out. I guess I'll have to try harder next time, I'm not that far off. I feel like I'd do much better with NFL or MMA as well since those are the two sports I'm very passionate about.
Either way, congrats to BOOGIE COUSINS and good job MoveMent.