Wrestling Forum banner

TDL XX: CHAMPION VS CHAMPION - THE RESULTS

6K views 48 replies 30 participants last post by  Stax Classic 
#1 ·
TDL XX: CHAMPION VS CHAMPION

CHAMPviaDQ

MoveMent vs BOOGIE COUSINS vs DCR
Who should have won the AL MVP in 2012: Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout?

MoveMent
Miguel Cabrera was named the 2012 AL MVP, and it was the wrong decision.

We know the drill with MVP’s. If you are (At least arguably) the best player in your respective league you will be in the MVP discussion. And how the MVP is determined varies from league to league and in Baseball the argument here takes a huge focus on stats. The argument for Cabrera is “B-b-b-b-ut stats” the counter for Trout is “B-u-u-u-t more stats” and for the sake of argument I will be visiting some of these stats because while overblown they do give a good view on their contributions to their respective teams.

One of the main stats in Miguel Cabrera’s case is that he was a Triple Crown by leading in batting average .330, home runs 44 and runs batted in 139. The first Triple Crown winner since 1967. This alone is an impressive enough feat to make a case for Cabrera but it is also one of the only cases statistically in favor for Cabrera against Trout. Trout excelled in some key statistics, for instance Trout 49 out of his 54 stolen base attempts. A feat that few has matched in Pro Baseball history. In addition Trout was also able to add 12 runs on the basepath for his team where as Cabrera was more of a liability here costing his team three runs. Again defensively Trout was an asset to his team saving 11 runs for his team compared to Cabrera who cost his team 10. You can find stats like these all over even ones that argue Cabrera’s numbers would be hurt had he have to play in Anaheim as often as Trout has to play there due to varying field dimensions between stadiums and while yes some stats like these are worth mentioning I’d like to bring up why I really believe Trout was passed on and finished second in MVP voting. His age.

Before I even continue yes I do know that there are plenty of young players that were awarded MVP but in those many of players only two have won it in their Rookie Season. The last time it happened was in 2001 by Ichiro Suzuki who by then was not in the young player category by MVP standards and played professionally for nearly a decade before coming to the MLB. Before him it was Fred Lynn which took place in 1975. That’s it. Young players, rookies especially are rarely if ever awarded trophies such as league MVP’s. I wouldn’t call it an unwritten rule but a lot of people who are in charge of such decisions appear to treat it as such. This translates to other professional sports as well. For example, you rarely ever see a NBA Rookie in the All-Star game regardless of skill. Some exceptions are of course Michael Jordan and Blake Griffin, but this is a league which history goes back decades and has a handful to show. So it is not just the MLB this is sports in general and Trout can outdo Cabrera in almost every statistical category you can find as he did that 2012 season but being a Rookie ended up being his biggest handicap above everything else.

This isn’t to say Cabrera wasn’t a deserving candidate. As I stated earlier his Triple Crown Achievement automatically puts him in the discussion regardless of this debate but Trout’s play that year embodied exactly what a League MVP is supposed to be and should always be and being that he didn’t win it is a robbery rookie season or no rookie season.

BOOGIE COUSINS
Miguel Cabrera should have won the 2012 al mvp. While Trout is probably the best overall player in the majors, but i don’t think he was more valuable to the Angels than Miggy was to the tigers. I think that Cabrera was probably the biggest reason the tigers went were they did. To me the mvp isn't always the best player in the league, but the person who is most valuable to their team. And i think that Miggy and the incredible season he had was slightly more valuable than Trout.

To put things in a bit of perspective, Cabrera was having a historically great season, hitting for the triple crown, which means he lead his league in rbi’s homers, and batting average. The triple crown is one of those mythical things in baseball that says you were the best rbi man,power hitter and hitter for average. So it pretty much means around best offensive player.

My main thing when deciding who is a mvp deserving player is “ how would the team be without him” as i think overall team success should play a factor in the decision. while in baseball each individual baseball player has the smallest amount of impact in the 4 major us sports, compared to a superstar in the nba like Lebron James who can single handedly turn a team into a playoff team by himself, or a Elite qb in the nfl like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady.But you still can impact the game in ways like hitting for a high average and getting on base, or when there are men in scoring position and you get a hit to send them home. So i do think you can have a impact between who wins and who loses, so how well your team does should impact the mvp race.

Trout’s team in that year did not make the playoffs, while the Tigers made the World Series. If you took trout off the Angels then they would have missed the playoffs still, just by moregames. while the tigers may not have made the playoffs or had a early round exit without Cabrera. So if your team would still have the same overall result without you as they did with you, then to me that makes you less valuable to a the team than someone who changes their teams season by being out of the lineup. How valuable can you be if your team still has the same overall results that it would without, you? not very in my opinion.


I also feel like winning the triple crown is a accomplishment that should be rewarded with a mvp. Being the triple crown winner is really hard, as evidenced by it only being done 14 times in history and hadn’t been done in nearly 50 years when Cabrera did it. I've read that some stats people don’t feel like rbi’s is meaningful stat, but i disagree, being a guy who drives in runs when given the opportunity is huge, especially for his job in the 3 or 4 spot in the line up. the fact that he did it more than anybody else in the league that year just proves how valuable he was.

While many would say that Trout is the all around best player in the game today, and i wouldn't have much of a argument, the guys a beast. But I don’t think being the best means you are the most valuable player in the whole league. it sometimes seems like those go hand and hand,but they don’t. while obviously Trout is valuable to the Angels, , just wasn't quite as valuable as Cabrera is and was to to the tigers that year.

DCR
When the dust settled on a turbulent 2012 MLB campaign, the powers that be were forced to make a decision that many fans considered more difficult than any diving catch or game changing at bat that occurred all season. The Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) was forced to choose their AL MVP, and it was obvious that they would decide between two men, Miguel Cabrera and Mike Trout.
Miguel Cabrera, the power hitting third baseman for the AL Champion Detroit Tigers had just put on a season for the history books. Among his accomplishments was the Triple Crown, the first since 1967 and his strongest case for MVP. While Cabrera was expectedly putting up big numbers, a young outfielder by the name of Mike Trout burst onto the scene in Los Angeles and established himself in just one season as one of the finest baseball players in the world.
So, when forced to decide who was more deserving of the AL MVP, the BBWAA chose Miguel Cabrera. Unfortunately, it turns out that this was the wrong decision, as the young Angel Mike Trout was clearly more deserving of the award.
The most important aspect of choosing an MVP is assessing the overall value of the player to his team, this means calculating how much not only their batting, but also fielding and base running helped the team win. Since both men truly shined at the plate, we will discuss their batting achievements first.
According to the stats, Miguel Cabrera was the most dominant batter, not only in the American League, but in the entire MLB in 2012. His Triple Crown was an achievement we haven’t seen in 45 years, and certainly makes a fantastic case for an MVP award. The gap between Cabrera and Trout in this category, though, is razor thin. Cabrera may have led the league in batting average, home runs, and RBIs; but what those stats don’t tell you is that Cabrera had some unseen help pulling away from Trout in those categories.
Let’s look at their ballparks. Cabrera spent half of his games at Detroit’s Comerica Park while Trout played at Angels Stadium. Comerica Park is actually very batter friendly while Angels Stadium is not. Because of the shallow left field in Comerica, the right handed Cabrera was aided in all aspects of batting in comparison to Trout. In fact, according to ESPN’s home run tracker, about 25 of the 159 home runs hit at Comerica Park this season were not hit deep enough to leave the field at Angel Stadium.
So, Cabrera has the slight edge in batting, depending on who you ask. I know I am trying to make a case for Trout here, but it turns out Trout was so much better than Cabrera in all other aspects of baseball that even Cabrera’s impressive season at the plate doesn’t make up for what he lacks in base running and fielding in comparison to Trout.
Now if you were to ask 100 people, who is the better fielder between Trout and Cabrera, the survey would have one answer and it would be Mike Trout for 100 points. There’s really no argument there, it is common knowledge that Trout is the far superior fielder between the two. This is the vision test telling you this. Before the days of complex stat analysis that was all we had to compare fielding performances.
These days, though, we have metrics like the Ultimate Zone Rating. This compares the event that actually happened (hit/out/error) to data on similarly hit balls in the past to determine how much better or worse the fielder did than the average player. And according to this rating, Trout saved his Angels 11 runs with his fielding, while Cabrera cost his Tigers 10 runs.
So, we’ve given the slight edge to Cabrera at the plate and a big edge to Trout in the field, but what about base running. What were these guys doing to help their team when all attention was on the ball and not them? Well, let’s look at the most exciting base running stat there is first, the stolen base. Trout, again, has a big advantage in this category, stealing 49 bases in his 54 attempts. Cabrera, on the other hand, only stole 3 bases in 4 attempts. In depth metrics also tell us that Trout contributed 12 additional runs on the base paths, while Cabrera cost Detroit 3.
All in all, while Cabrera may have been a slightly more dominant batter, Mike Trout was a much more dominant and valuable all around baseball player. This is why Mike Trout deserved the AL MVP over Miguel Cabrera.



Sources
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ng-results-why-mike-trout-got-totally-screwed
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/20996826/why-mike-trout-shouldve-been-the-al-mvp
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...p=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

JM
MoveMent
I’m not really a fan of these jump right into the decision openings as I feel they don’t do much to draw the reader’s intrigue. Second paragraph go better as you did a good job explaining how MLB writers typical decide on MVP, which is quite different than what M(ost) V(aluable) P(player) actually means by definition. More of a BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE award instead of who actually was most valuable to their team. Kudos here as it is important to note. I liked the third paragraph as well and thought you did a good job here explaining some advanced stats that would tip the scales towards Trout instead of just looking at “raw” stats that would tip the scales towards Miggy. Kudos there. Fourth paragraph to me came off as a big tangent that didn’t help at all. I don’t think it was really in the scope of the debate to explain reasons why Trout may not have won in reality. Basically explaining why Trout may not have won doesn’t really do much to explain why he SHOULD have won. All in all, some parts I liked and some parts I didn’t like. A decent effort overall.

BOOGIE COUSINS
I liked how you presented the criteria you are basing the decision off of instead of leaving that to be interpreted by the reader. It’s pretty well known that MLB writers don’t really base it off of who was the most valuable player for their team and instead just gives it to the guy with the best raw stats. Nothing wrong with picking the guy who you thought was the most valuable as the topic didn’t specify. You did a good job talking up the raw stats as that’s what you have to work with with Miggy. If you were arguing Trout you would obviously be talking about advanced stats so it’s good that you avoided those. I think your argument about the Tigers being in the playoffs and Miggy being a big part of getting them there and the Angels not being in the playoffs despite Trout’s best efforts is sound. I don’t necessarily agree but that’s not important here. Ultimately playoffs are important and it is valid to suggest that the MVP should be on a playoff team. I think something flawed here though is that although Miggy did have a lot of RBIs that is exactly what is expected of him hitting in that spot in the order. Trout probably did just as much as is expected of him hitting at the top of the order (getting on bace, making things happen on the base paths and scoring runs), he just happened to do a whole lot more as well.

DCR
Really really really liked the intro. You obviously pulled out some cheesy lingo but it worked, I was immediately intrigued and I wasn’t immediately sure of which side you were taking which made we WANT to read on. I think you did a great job using the stats that work for Trout, additional runs created and runs saved with their defence. Both of these stats are obviously huge strengths for Trout and it’s good that they were brought to the forefront in your argument. I think the ball park argument is somewhat valid but every player has to work with what they got and you can’t really speak in hypotheticals. There are more elements than just distance to Outfield walls. Also, your 3rd paragraph you started with “The most important aspect of choosing an MVP….etc”. According to who? This is important to the debate because if you are going by decisions the writers make this isn’t always the case. If you were using your own criteria, which is fine, that should be stated.

Decision
Honestly after first read I thought my choice was obvious. As I read again (and again) my decision became less obvious. For me this came down to BOOGIE COUSINS and DCR. Both chose different sides and both did a good job supporting them. For me, I think BOOGIE COUSINS did a bit bit bit better job convincing me so that is who I am going with. BOOGIE COUSINS dealt purely with facts, no hypotheticals which at the end of day stand up more for me.

Aid180
MoveMent

I’ll just start with the biggest thing I have an issue with. That’s all you have? It feels a little short. That’s the only big con I have so far from my first read through. If that’s it, you probably have a decent chance at picking up the win.

You make solid points about Trout being better in every statistic. Your argument for sports being prejudiced against youth is a very good point. I really didn’t think about that. You make pretty solid points all around and even mention that the Triple Crown award certainly is a good thing to mention. However, I wanted you to mention what the Most Valuable Player is to the team and how Trout is more valuable to the Angels compared to Cabrera and the Tigers. I didn’t see anything on that. I know you had the space to mention that too. Also, it helps to point out that the Angels didn’t make the playoffs that year but the Tigers did. Does that have an affect on the choice of MVP? Should it? This is something I would have liked to have seen more from. You did a very solid job with your two paragraphs, but with nearly 200 words available at your disposal and a few counters you can bring up, it’s hard to say that you nailed it here. 600 words is perfectly fine, but really, I only harp on it if you are missing something or could have added something that’s pretty big to your point. If you had 800 words, it’s not a big deal. Just try to expand on that a little if you can in the future. Try to answer the question from as many angles as possible.

Pros:
  • Sports are prejudice against Youth
  • Trout’s statistics

Cons:
  • Feels like you could have done more
  • Does making the playoffs affect who should be MVP?

BOOGIE COUSINS

Thank you for defining Triple Crown. You guys all talk about how great it is, but no one mentions what it is. For an uninformed reader, a triple crown could be like that triple cage match from WCW with the cages stacked on top of each other. :lol

Anyway, I enjoyed your point about the playoffs and how much a player is worth to their team. You really took the most valuable player route instead of the best player route. It is very smart to mention how the Angels would miss the playoffs with or without Trout. In fact, the Tigers made the World Series. You preface your point by saying how a baseball player doesn’t have as much impact compared to a basketball player or QB, but the guy was the Triple Crown winner. It’s hard to top that in importance, especially since no one has won it in quite a long time. This is your next paragraph. You even counter the arguments against RBI’s here: “being a guy who drives in runs when given the opportunity is huge, especially for his job in the 3 or 4 spot in the line up. the fact that he did it more than anybody else in the league that year just proves how valuable he was.”
Finally, your last paragraph brings up the counter and the whole point of your argument. “While many would say that Trout is the all around best player in the game today, and i wouldn't have much of a argument, the guys a beast. But I don’t think being the best means you are the most valuable player in the whole league. it sometimes seems like those go hand and hand,but they don’t. while obviously Trout is valuable to the Angels, , just wasn't quite as valuable as Cabrera is and was to to the tigers that year.” I mean, Trout is great, but you point out how Cabrera was a little more valuable that year. So good job.

Like your opponent’s debate, this one was a tad on the short side. I think you could have mentioned a little more in details about how Cabrera is more valuable and countered the stolen bases argument, but I didn’t have as many questions as I did your opponent. So solid job.

Pros:
  • Defining Triple Crown
  • Showing the argument of Value over Better

Cons:
  • I think it’s missing just a little something extra

DCR

This was kind of a pain to read with no real paragraph break. Kind of a wall of text. Just pointing it out. It will not take off point if your words are better, but in a close debate, format is important. Kind of like a 4th tiebreaker so to speak.

I like how you split this into value in batting and fielding and you go into detail about this. Very nice. The question I want to ask in regards to this fact that you brought up, “ In fact, according to ESPN’s home run tracker, about 25 of the 159 home runs hit at Comerica Park this season were not hit deep enough to leave the field at Angel Stadium.” were any of those Cabrera’s? It’s one thing if 10 of those are his, but if only one of those 25 were his, is it really a big deal? That’s something I would have liked to have seen explained more. That was also for this season, right? Wouldn’t a stat from the 2012 season be more appropriate? (It appears, after going back and reading the entire source document, this was a copy and paste from the article, so it is about the 2012 season. I guess good thing I checked all of that. You should probably be careful of that in the future though). Also, I’m not super knowledgeable about baseball, but does a hitter park really effect batting average a lot? I can understand in those 25 instances where a HR wouldn’t count in LA, but is it that drastic? Just another food for thought question here (just remember, I’m trying to pull apart any argument possible as a judge).

Now your baserunning and fielding paragraphs are solid. I would have liked to have seen the numbers for the runs saved and cost points. If they were in your sources, that’s cool, but try to link them so I know where to look. I did eventually find all this information in your last source though, so no really bad harm. Of course, the NY Times article links the information about these numbers to a wiki page about what Ultimate Zone Rating is and not the numbers itself, so that’s kind of annoying. Going by the numbers being true, that’s pretty shocking. I think you really missed the opportunity to show just how many more runs Trout is worth over Cabrera with these stats accounted for. That’s something your source mentions but you don’t. Darn. That likely would have been a winning statistic for you.

The only concern I have for your debate is over the idea that a player should make the playoffs to be considered the MVP. You brought up value nicely and connected in with ability, but I would have liked something about how the Tigers made it to the World Series that year and the Angels missed the playoff. Even if you disprove it by saying Cabrera’s supporting cast was much better, a mention would have helped.

Pros:
  • Showing the value in fielding and baserunning
  • Going into detail about hitting

Cons:
  • Lack of Playoff mention
  • A little confusing with the copy and paste of stats between years

DECISION: A tight one here. I feel DCR had all the info to pull out a win in his sources, but they didn’t translate well enough. Even one of the copy and pastes from the source made things confusing. MoveMent felt like it was missing a few counters as well. I liked the youth point, but mentioning playoffs or value would have helped. So I guess BOOGIE COUSINS pulls out with a solid debate that was just missing something but had no glaring or noticeable mistakes.

Winner: BOOGIE COUSINS

ZOMBO
MoveMent

Not a bad debate, but I felt that it was lacking that little something to tie it all together to make it a really good one.

I liked how you identified your stance immediately. Your writing style is engaging from a reader's perspective as well.

In terms of the stats that you cite, it's helpful to include references for them. The benefits are two-fold:
a) verifies the information that you're claiming, allowing the reader to grow more confident with your claims, and
b) HAMMERS the point home. Essentially, the reader is seeing the point you're making twice in a row, enhancing its strength.

I did not like the "you can find stats like these all over..." when you don't provide the reader with these links. GIVE those stats. HAMMER it home.

The age argument was cool. I would've liked to see you acknowledge and try to take down the argument about how good a team performs / how good a team would be without Player X.

Overall, your writing is fine. I think your arguments could be more decisive / conclusive (ie: KILL the other side). I think you spend words that still acknowledge and even admit Cabrera was still a good pick. I think a little more passion to support your choice (and tear up the opposition) would go a long way.

BOOGIE COUSINS

Good job identifying your stance immediately. I also liked how you set up your definition of what an MVP is right away, which sets the tone for your debate.

I think you counter yourself a bit when you say you assess how the team would be without Player X, and then state that individual players matter less in baseball than other sports, but you do acknowledge this disparity and justify your logic. Fair enough.

The issue with that is your predictions here are purely hypothetical. I think statistics could go a LONG way in proving your argument about how much worse (if at all) the Tigers would've been without Miggy. How did they play in games he wasn't in? What percentage of his team's offence did he contribute? I mean, his numbers alone suggest that his contributions would be WAY above an "average" player. A bit of research could've gone a LONG way in terms of hammering your point across.

Also, you didn't really bring up the counter-arguments about Trout's more well-rounded game. Defence. Base-running. You HAVE to do that, because that's what any side arguing for Trout would be doing, given that Miggy's offensive numbers were clearly greater (see: Triple Crown).

I felt a lot of this debate was filler, a one-sided conversation where it seemed that you didn't really try to PROVE your point beyond the surface opinion. Next time, dig deeper. Go after the counters. Give the reader back-up stats. CONVINCE me of your point.

DCR

The intro was a bit long-winded, especially the whole BBWAA bit and the fact that we know Miggy won the MVP, but you got to your stance quickly enough.

From there though, I found this to be all gravy. You point out the criteria that goes into assessing the award. After that, you diminish the biggest strengths in Cabrera's case - his bat - by bringing in factors such as the factors of the home ballparks on offence.

You do a great job hyping Trout's abilities in the field and on the bases. Debates A and B, note the use of STATS here to back his point up.

A solid conclusion after a well-flowing debate. Good writing, good stats. You made this matchup a no-brainer.

THE DECISION

DCR is the pick.

Winner via Split Decision - BOOGIE COUSINS

The Japanese Buzzsaw vs ROHFan19 vs daulten780 vs YES.YES
Which PPV was better, No Way Out 2001 or Summerslam 2002?

*daulten780 & YES.YES no showed*

ROHFan19

Which PPV was better, No Way Out 2001 or Summerslam 2002?



Summerslam 2002 was a much better PPV than No Way Out 2001. There are a couple different reasons for this, including Summerslam having a better flow, better matches, and better “moments.” The build behind these PPVs was very simple and effective. Summerslam was built behind Shawn Michaels return and Brock Lesnar vs the Rock in the Main Event for the WWE Title. No way Out was built behind Austin/HHH in 3 Stages of Hell, and The Rock/Kurt Angle for the WWE title. On paper, these main events look pretty even. But, as you’ll see, they weren’t.

It’s very important for a PPV to get off to a good start, get the crowd involved, and begin the overall pace to the show. The opener to Summerslam was pretty much perfect. Rey Mysterio vs Kurt Angle, a back and forth match that ultimately ends with Mysterio tapping out to the Ankle Lock. No Way Out opens with a Hardcore Title match, Raven vs Big Show. So the show opens and in about 2 minutes, Crash Holly, Hardcore Holly, Billy Gunn, etc, interfere in the match. The title changes hands about 4 times. It was very much a cluster-fuck and would have been better if they spaced out the title changes in backstage segments to really show the 24/7 rule at its best rather than changing it 4 times in 5 minutes in ring.

It’s also very important for a PPV to be paced well. Summerslam just flowed so much better and felt like a show where nothing really dragged. The big matches also felt more important because they were put in the semi-main and the main event spots. At No Way Out, not only is there the hardcore cluster-fuck, but we’re also given Stevie Richards vs Jerry Lawler. A piss break. The “semi-main” on this show was the 4th match of the night. Austin and Triple H put on an absolute clinic. A MOTY contender. So you have a MOTY, and you have filler to follow it. That’s fine. The show ends with a solid Rock/Angle match, but nothing spectacular. Nothing memorable. The flow was just inconsistent and we went through many peaks and valleys.

Summerslam on the other hand was like a constant peak. Every match was better than the next, and the anticipation kept building towards the big matches. There was no filler on this show. It was very enjoyable from top to bottom, and you can easily watch it in one sitting without getting bored. I couldn’t do that with my re-watch of No Way Out. It felt like No Way Out had 2 really great hours booked, with just a 3rd of filler matches and many pointless backstage segments. Summerslam on the other hand was 3 hours of fun and important wrestling/segments.

The undercard for Summerslam was great. Angle/Mysterio was a perfect opener, Edge and Eddie Guerrero had a great match, UnAmericans vs Booker T and Goldust for the tag titles was a ton of fun, and RVD/Benoit was a technical clinic. No Way Out had 2 solid undercard matches in Steph/Trish and the IC Title 4 way. 4 is greater than 2.

Now, you have the main events for Summerslam. HBK vs Triple H in a street fight. HBKs first match in 4 years. They both beat the hell out of each other, used weapons, and it felt like a real fight. They made this feel legit. You could feel the animosity and tension. When all was said and done, HBK beat HHH in a MOTY contender. Surely, you can’t top this match. The main event that night was Brock Lesnar vs the Rock. And while the match was very good, it didn’t top HBK/HHH. So what made this still feel special and the perfect way to the end the PPV over HBK/HHH? Brock Lesnar winning the WWE Championship for the very first time. A star was born. Youngest WWE Champion ever. The moment is there. The torch was passed. The ending to Summerslam was much more memorable than No Way Out.

Summerslam 2002 tops No Way Out 2001 due to having overall better pace, no filler and better matches. Also, we had the unforgettable moments of HBK’s return match and the Rock passing the torch to Brock Lesnar to close Summerslam as well. While you could argue that No Way Out had the best match on both shows in HHH/Austin, one match doesn’t make a show. That match overshadowed everything else on the show, and since it was put in the middle, the final 3 matches suffered from it, and the crowd was burnt out. While it still was a great PPV, the pacing, structure, filler and lack of a special moment makes it feel less special and not of the same caliber of Summerslam 2002.

The Japanese Buzzsaw

Which PPV was better, No Way Out 2001 or Summerslam 2002?

Summerslam 2002

I consider Summerslam 2002 to be the greatest PPV of all time. Every single match from SS 2002 is at least a fun match with 3 of the matches I consider to be amazing. In this debate I will be comparing the matches from the two events and this will show you why SS 2002 is the greatest PPV of all time while NWO 2001 is average at best.

Opening match

The opening match for NWO 2001 was Big Show vs Raven, the match was pretty fun, but when a match includes a popcorn vendor coming out of the stands to wrestle, you need to realize that it isn’t a match to be taken too seriously. The opening match for SS 2002 was Rey Mysterio vs Kurt Angle, a match that I consider to be the greatest sub-10 minute match of all time, and it’s a historic match because it was Mysterio’s first PPV match in the WWE. Mysterio hit Angle with everything, but he couldn't put him away. Kurt would counter a top-rope frankensteiner attempt and then lock in his vaunted ankle lock, forcing Mysterio to submit. This was the perfect opening match for the best PPV of all time and it surely blows away a fun but very silly hardcore title match that opened up NWO 2001.

IC title match

The IC title match for NWO 2001 was Chris Jericho vs Chris Benoit vs X Pac vs Eddie Guerrero. I like this match a lot, in fact, it’s probably my favorite match from this show. However, the IC title match for SS 2002 was RVD vs Chris Benoit, which is an absolutely phenomenal match. I’m admittedly not a huge fan of RVD, but I would easily say this is hands down one of his best matches ever. The fatal 4 way is a really fun hard hitting match, but RVD vs Benoit was a war that felt huge as it was not only Raw vs Smackdown, it was for the IC championship. In the end RVD got the best of Benoit but it was one helluva fight and one that goes down as one of the best IC title matches in Summerslam history.

Co main event

The co main event for NWO 2001 was Steve Austin vs HHH in a 3 stages of hell match. This match is routinely called one of the best matches from both men, but I can’t stand the match at all. Its ok in some parts, but its almost 40 minutes long and it really didn’t need to be at all. The intensity feels really forced and for a good portion of the match it’s just dull brawling. Now the co main event for SS 2002 was HHH vs HBK in HBK’s first match in the WWE since 1998 when he retired due to a back injury. I wasn’t watching wrestling at the time of this match, but based off of what I’ve seen this looks like one of the biggest hyped matches of all time, and damn did it deliver. This was 30 minutes of two guys putting their all into one of the most brutal brawls of all time, an instant classic and one of the most famous matches ever simply due to its place in history. I know this is all subjective but the return of one of the greats in a classic bloody brawl with his protégé beats out the 3SOH match any day for me.

Main event

The main event for NWO 2001 was Kurt Angle vs The Rock. I loathe this match so much. I know it’s liked by a good amount of people, but for the love of god I can’t imagine why. It is 16 minutes of slow, boring work by both men and Rock wins the title in the end to set up Rock/Austin II, which everyone knew was happening so the match was painfully predictable. The main event for SS 2002 is Brock Lesnar vs The Rock which is one of the best sprints ever and one of my favorite Rock matches ever, the crowd is so into it and it really is one of the most FUN matches to watch.

These are other matches I have not covered from both shows and I will be comparing them

Summerslam 2002

The Unamericans vs Bookdust
Test vs The Undertaker
Chris Jericho vs Ric Flair
Edge vs Eddie Guerrero

No way out 2001

Stephanie McMahon vs Trish Stratus
Steven Richards vs Jerry Lawler
The Dudley Boys vs Edge and Christian vs the Brothers of destruction

The matches from SS 2002 completely outshine the matches from NWO 2001 and the above reasons are why I feel that Summerslam 2002 was the better PPV.

Seabs
ROHFan19 - This was pretty good even if it did have a pretty one dimensional outlook on determining which show was better. You really only looked at it from the perspective of the 3 hours itself when you could have broadened that outlook. For example, build up, buyrates, historical perspective. What you did was fine but it could have been furthered with a more expansive analysis of the success of each show. I would have liked to see a bit more detail on why the opener is important to a PPV and part of your evaluation process. You had one little sentence but some stronger reasoning would have been good here. Likewise a bit stronger and possibly more expansive reasoning as to why the Hardcore match was inferior. You state why it wasn't a good opener but maybe just an extra line at the end of this paragraph directly stating why one was better than the other would have helped. The flow argument is good. You could argue that sometimes shows need a come down match after an epic battle but point out that matches like Stevie/Lawler were just dull and boring rather than a less serious but still good break between main events. There's a big contradiction in your debate here too which doesn't really hurt your overall argument but makes your debate seem a tad sloppy. "Every match was better than the next, and the anticipation kept building towards the big matches.". In the next paragraph although you don't directly say it you allude to Rey/Angle being better than the UnAmericans tag but then later you very directly contradict this line with "The main event that night was Brock Lesnar vs the Rock. And while the match was very good, it didn’t top HBK/HHH.". It didn't really matter but be wary of doing that in the future when it could very costly. The direct comparison here was better though by explicitly stating that Summerslam had no filler whereas No Way Out did and this is what gives it the edge in this area rather than leaving it for the reader to assume. When you're comparing match quality just be wary of mistaking your personal opinion on a match for the general consensus. It's a hard one this is and one your opponent fell victim to much more than you imo. Remember you're arguing which is better and if you can show that everyone would feel this way rather than just you feel this way then that makes your argument stronger. That's tough though so I'm not holding it against you. I mentioned at the start how you could focus on historical perspective and you had a chance to focus on that more in the penultimate paragraph. I thought there was a lack of direct comparison between the two main events on both shows too. In this paragraph you talk about the Summerslam main events and I was expecting you to compare them to the No Way Out main events but you never mentioned the No Way Out main events other than indirectly earlier in your debate. Direct comparisons and saying exactly why Summerslam was not just great but also better than No Way Out would have helped you. Conclusion is a good wrap up of your debate too.

The Japanese Buzzsaw - Ok the big fault with this is it feels way too much like just your own opinion and just your own opinion doesn't make for the most convincing argument. If you can find a way to show that while it's your opinion it's also the opinion of many others as well then that's when your debate goes from being just what you think and towards this is actually the RIGHT answer. "SS 2002 is the greatest PPV of all time while NWO 2001 is average at best." is a pretty bold statement but it also shows that you're 100% behind your stance. Just be careful not to under/oversell things beyond credibility though. Giving the other stance some credit but then also being able to show that your stance is better regardless of the pros of the other stance can actually help your stance look stronger. The opening match part is way too descriptive. You spend most of it just telling me what happened in the Kurt/Rey match rather than using them words to really explain why one is better than the other. Also you really needed something telling me why it's important to compare the openers when determining which show is better. What's so important about the opener? The IC Title part is again really opinion sounding. Your focusing primarily on match quality which is super opinion based so maybe look at quality from a broader perspective and not just as which match is better because that could be hard to do without devoting an entire debate to it. Look at things like historical perspective and build up to argue why one match made the whole show better. One match could be better snowflakes wise but what about significance wise? Then which is more important in determining the better show, the one with more significant matches or with better wrestled matches? The Hunter/Austin burial is where the whole just my opinion thing was its worst. It's ok for you to feel that way but this debate is more about just your opinion. Which show was better, not which show did you prefer. Surely you have to acknowledge that A LOT of people thought that match was a classic? Shouldn't that be a big factor in this debate? You sort of touch on the historical perspective of HHH/HBK but it doesn't feel like the reasoning for Summerslam having the advantage. Also "I wasn’t watching wrestling at the time of this match, but based off of what I’ve seen this looks like one of the biggest hyped matches of all time," is really badly worded. Don't show the reader that you're not sure of something you're arguing for. Word it more convincingly with more assertion to "this WAS one of the most hyped matches of all time" and then that would be a good point to possibly bring buyrates into the argument to show that this show not only delivered match quality wise but also business wise. The business a PPV did is a pretty big aspect of determining the success of a PPV and neither of you mentioned the business side once. Both of you should read Andre's debate for Wrestlemania 17 vs 19 @ the Andre vs TLK Captain Wars show for how to tackle the success of a PPV from multiple angles. Also you would have bettered your debate by looking at the flow of the show like ROHFan19 did to his advantage. You only focus on direct match comparisons which really limited your debate. Same point as with Austin/HHH for Angle/Rock. You even acknowledge here that people like it. At the end you say "These are other matches I have not covered from both shows and I will be comparing them" but you just list them and don't compare them so this bit was very odd and in the end just wasted words without a comparison. Again though you don't need to directly compare every single match to determine which PPV was better. The topic doesn't state in what way better has to refer to. Try to look at the topics with a bit more of a broader view as to how you can answer them.

Winner - ROHFan19

Aid180
ROHFan19

I think you did a solid job here. I liked how you covered not only the matches themselves, but the flow of the Pay-Per-View as well. A good show isn’t only about matches, and you covered that here well. In particular, this part really shines IMO, “ The “semi-main” on this show was the 4th match of the night. Austin and Triple H put on an absolute clinic. A MOTY contender. So you have a MOTY, and you have filler to follow it. That’s fine. The show ends with a solid Rock/Angle match, but nothing spectacular. Nothing memorable. The flow was just inconsistent and we went through many peaks and valleys.”

I did have a minor problem with your argument on the undercard. Mainly: “No Way Out had 2 solid undercard matches in Steph/Trish and the IC Title 4 way. 4 is greater than 2.” Isn’t is better to have quality over quantity? I mean, yeah, the Austin vs. Triple H match at No Way Out took a lot of time and resulted in fewer matches, but I would have rathered you mention quality over simply stating that 4 is greater than 2. In fact, going by your four is greater than two logic, shouldn’t the fatal 4 way from No Way Out be better than the IC title match from Summerslam because there are 4 competitors instead of two? Yeah, just watch for stuff like that.

Anyway, after that, you finish up your debate mentioning that Summerslam was a little more memorable with its ending. So solid job, you covered a lot of points here.

Pros:
  • Covered Multiple Points
  • Sold the pacing argument well

Cons:
  • 4 > 2. Mathematically correct; argumentally flawed.

The Japanese Buzzsaw

I don’t have much to critique here. There was nothing overtly wrong with your debate. In fact, I liked the idea of covering the matches for each show individually. However, the biggest issue with this choice is limiting what you can cover. You make solid points about each match and you are pretty convincing in selling the fact that Summerslam was the better PPV in terms of match quality. But that’s all you really covered. I mean, you did a great job selling the match quality aspect of Summerslam. But your opponent covered match quality, lack of filler, and the pacing of the show. I think you did a much better job with the match quality aspect compared to your opponent, but your opponent simply covered more in the space provided.

Overall, your debate wasn’t bad at all. I do bring up a few questions from your writing though. One is this point, “The fatal 4 way is a really fun hard hitting match, but RVD vs Benoit was a war that felt huge as it was not only Raw vs Smackdown, it was for the IC championship.” I mean, weren’t both matches for the IC Title? So selling RVD vs. Benoit as great because it was for the IC title seems a little flawed. I mean, can’t you also say the fatal 4 way is not only a really fun, hard hitting match, is was for the IC championship? That last part weakened your argument IMO.

Other than that, I don’t really see a lot of hiccups. Like I said, you really only covered the match aspect of the two shows, but you never really covered the pacing, the ending, or much else. It always helps to cover as much as you can and vary as much as possible.

Pros:
  • Good sell on the match quality
  • Nice detail on the comparing

Cons:
  • Kind of a one point debate
  • IC Title Match sell was weak

DECISION: Both were solid, but ROHFan19 was a little more varied and covers more points. The Japanese Buzzsaw just felt a little single minded.

Winner: ROHFan19

Headliner
ROHFan19

This debate was nearly flawless. I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Your comparisons of the matches were great. I really liked how you highlighted the positives and negatives of each match beyond just the wrestling. It created a big picture image of how a PPV should be layed out from start to finish for it's rememberance. The moment of Bork winning the title and it's importance, HBK's return plus the quality matches in between vs the piss breaks, and the poor lay out of matches in No Way Out 2001 that caused it to be less memoreable.
This was probably one of the best comparison debates I've ever read. Good job.


The Japanese Buzzsaw

This was solid. Your comparisons were ok but it seemed like you were playing the J.R commentary/review role rather than actually putting over why and how these matches were better. Also, it's not compare to just compare four matches and completely ignore the rest of the card. That leaves holes in your comparison and ultimately your debate. And you did come off a bit bias in areas which is never a good thing in debating.


Winner-ROHFan19

Winner via Unanimous Decision - ROHFan19

MichaelDD vs shackles vs TheWhistler vs RealManRegal
Who should WWE put the Intercontinental Championship on at Battleground 2014?

shackles
Who should win the Intercontinental Championship at Battleground?

Well first let's establish what holding Intercontinental Championship should mean for a wrestler. It should mean that they are an upper-midcard talent waiting to be elevated to the mainevent, that they are the workhorse of the company and last but not least be over with the fans. The person holding the title should fit this description if the Intercontinental Championship is going to be utilised properly.

Let's assess the participants in the battle royal and see who is suitable as champion:

Ziggler - Giving him victory then taking it away. It's like feeding a rabbit. Rabbits don't win titles.
Fandango - The guy's dancing on announce tables now. I'm surprised JBL hasn't put a dollar in his tights.
Sandow - He's more likely to be given a replica belt.
Sheamus - Irish Cena doesn't need it tho.
RVD - Putting over people Y2J style.
ADR - Bland.
Big E - Had his shot and missed.
Ryback - What's he even doing?
Axel - See Big E and Ryback.
Khali - All's he done is one chop ALL YEAR.
Bo - Big things in store, I mean pinning El Torito! But he's not ready for the title...yet.
Kofi - Right now all he is, is Cesaro's whipping boy...

Wait...Cesaro...

Due to the process of elimination and being the right guy for it...Cesaro should win the title. Apparent backstage news is that Cesaro is earmarked for one of the top 3 spots by WM 31 despite WWE doing a shitty job in building him that way (1). But let's look at what we do know, his 2 Wrestlemania moments basically he's a future maineventer which was followed up by making Paul Heyman his manager which WWE uses when trying to elevate somebody, a pinfall over RVD at EXTREME RULES which is the equivalent to beating the Yankees in NY for wrestling fans and two title matches at following PPV's, one of which was for the WWEWHC despite not being the main focus. Not quite the mainevent but the Intercontinental title is perfect for someone in Cesaro's position.

Now let's look at if he's a workhorse by looking at some of his matches...vs Zayn in a 2 out of 3 falls match which people were calling MOTY (2) and at NXT Arrival (3) which was MOTN which were only parts of a epic series, a hidden gem vs Regal on NXT which I have watched more than a few times (4), vs Cena on RAW which has been the best RAW match we've seen this year (5)(6) and vs Orton on SD! who was the WWEWHC at the time, who he beat clean (7). Yeah he isn't a work horse or anything...His matches has provided us with rewatchable classics and has proved that he can go with the best in the company. Don't take my word for it watch for yourselves. Everybody on the internet jizzed over the 2 out of 3 falls match and I don't blame them.

However is Cesaro over? At Wrestlemania 30 he was, now it's harder to tell. The problem is the audience wanted to cheer Cesaro after WM 30 but with his pairing with Heyman the next night on RAW blurred the alignment. There's no doubt that Cesaro is a full blown heel but some may argue that people are still confused what to do...that in no way means that he isn't over. He'll get a face reaction when he does the swing, but the kids and soccer moms will cry their hearts out when he's beating on poor Kofi. If people are deciding whether to cheer or boo that means Cesaro is over, if he wasn't over people wouldn't be trying to decide at all. There's a big difference between confliction and indifference.

Now all's good if he wins but what about afterwards? The best route is a unification bout with Sheamus at Summerslam. The timing is perfect, they will give a great match being the brawlers that they are and THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A STORY. From the build up to Payback they have been duking out over a refused handshake, so WWE could actually give us a proper payoff to a midcard feud or continue the feud into Night of Champions. Afterwards Cesaro can go over former world champs in feuds like Ziggler, Swagger and RVD to get mainevent ready until Barrett comes back, losing the title so he can go on to have the rumored feud with Brock or another high level feud. The two titles mirroring each other has ran it's course as brand extension has died, the unification of the World Championships showed that. Cesaro may be a predictable choice but that's because it's the right one.

You don't cheat on your wife because you want a swerve in your marriage.
______________________________________________________________________________

(1) Cesaro report:

http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe...le_Royal_Backstage_News_on_Cesaro_s_Push.html

And for your viewing pleasure:

(2) vs Zayn 2 out of 3 falls:



(3) vs Zayn at Arrival highlights:



(4) vs Regal:



(5) vs Cena part 1:



(6) vs Cena part 2:



(7) vs Orton:





RealManRegal
The Intercontinental Championship is in dire need of a prestige boost, and I posit that Cesaro is the man to make that happen.

I’ve always firmly believed that when it comes to wrestling titles, the man should make the belt, not the other way around. However for the past several years, WWE have typically used their secondary titles either to try to get somebody over, or as props to build empty feuds around; and in doing so they have severely diminished their image.

The road to recovery for the Intercontinental title requires it to be held by the right man, and showcased in the right way; and I believe that putting the title on Cesaro at Battleground would be the first step down that path.

Before we get to the reason Cesaro is the guy to go with, let’s look at some of the other participants in the match.

While I’m sure many passionate wrestling fans would love to see names like Damien Sandow or Dolph Ziggler come out on top, I simply lack the confidence in WWE creative’s willingness to get behind either of these guys, and as such putting the belt on either of them would tell me one of two things - this person is a transitional champion, or they’re holding the belt purely because the belt needs to be held.

Alberto Del Rio and Sheamus add a bit of star power, and while their involvement helps to give a better indication to fans of the positioning of the IC title in a Universe without two world champs; there is very little reason to put the title on either of these guys right now as creatively they have nothing going on. Besides, Sheamus already has one midcard title that serves almost no purpose, he doesn’t need another unless they’re planning on unifying those belts too which I can’t imagine them doing at this stage.

While it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest for the WWE to hotshot the title onto Bo Dallas, this would yet again be a case of trying to use the belt to make the man, which has proven to be ineffective, you only need to look at Big E, or even Paige, for a recent example of this.

The rest of the participants are mainly filler. Kofi and RVD are there to add a couple of high spots, Big E and Rybaxyl add a bit of muscle; and Khali is there to fill the ‘Haystacks Calhoun’ role of “huge dude in Battle Royal”.

Cesaro already has some championship pedigree and is fresh from competing in the main event at Money in the Bank for the WWE title. While I’m not sure many took him seriously as a WWE title contender, nobody questioned his placement in the midcard-to-main event scene, which is where the IC champion should be hanging. The IC title should be seen as a legit stepping stone to the WWE title - there shouldn’t be as huge a gulf between the top two titles in the company as has existed in recent years.

Another thing to consider is the match itself. This is an opportunity to not only put the IC title in good hands, but to also give Cesaro a “signature match”. Surely adding another high profile Battle Royal win for the winner of the Andre the Giant Memorial would see Cesaro branded as a Battle Royal specialist; adding a further weapon to his arsenal.

I remember during the Triple H/Mick Foley feud back in 2000, the reaction of the crowd when - given the opportunity to pick the stipulation for their match at No Way Out - Foley chose Hell in a Cell. The audience popped, Triple H look petrified, because everyone knew this was Foley’s match, he was a Hell in the Cell specialist (that he’d only been on one HIAC and didn’t win is beside the point). Giving Cesaro that sort of trump card to play would be a huge boost.

With Brock Lesnar’s expected return imminent, the spotlight is going to be shining brightly on Paul Heyman; and Cesaro will undoubtedly be called upon to proxy for the part-time Lesnar. Assuming Lesnar will, as rumoured, go after the WWE title then this could lead to some champion v champion matches in the build-up; once again showing that the IC champion belongs in the same ring as the WWE champion and further adding to its prestige and prominence within the WWE landscape.

So, if WWE truly want to restore the prestige of the Intercontinental title and cement its place as a serious secondary prize rather than a meaningless prop, then the only sane decision is to put the belt on Cesaro come July 20th.


MichaelDD
Who should WWE put the Intercontinental Championship on at Battleground? Dolph Ziggler.

Now, I know that Dolph may seem like a odd choice seeing as he's currently being criminally under utilised but hear me out. The Intercontinental Championship used to be know as the workhorse title, whenever a wrestler became the Intercontinental Champion it was a sign that WWE had big plans for them, some of the biggest names of all time were Intercontinental Champions, now quite frankly the belt has gone to shit. Dolph may not be the best on the microphone but he's amazing in the ring, he's charismatic and the crowds absolutely love him.

The fact that the audience are still behind Dolph is a good sign, he could use his relevance to bring a level of relevance to the belt and he could bring some legitimacy back as he's a former WHC. The only negative with Dolph is that the WWE seemingly don't want to trust him due to his history of getting concussions, however I believe that just because he got a few concussions it shouldn't rule him out of winning titles.

Unfortunately Dolph also has a history of running his mouth about the company, this is one thing he needs to cut down on, if you want to get somewhere in the WWE you can't keep slandering them.

A second choice to win the championship would be a client of Paul Heyman. No, not BROCKKK LESNARRRR, the other guy, the guy that's lost in the shuffle, Cesaro.

Cesaro had a great Wrestlemania, he finally split off into being a singles wrestler again and he went on to win the Andre the Giant battle royal and then he even gets paired with one of the greatest talkers of all time, Paul Heyman, what could go wrong? Well...

For starters it's probably not the best idea for Heyman to continually come out putting over Brock Lesnar giving his speech of how "BROCK DESTROYED YOUR DREAMS" We get it, Brock broke the streak but we don't need to be reminded of it every single week, something that huge will go down in history and won't be forgotten. Heyman should be selling Cesaro as the next big thing and that's something that could be done by having Cesaro win the Intercontinental Championship.

Alas, I don't feel Cesaro needs this like Dolph does. As I said Cesaro has Heyman, that can transition to the storyline of Cesaro leaving Heyman and then Brock vs Cesaro ensues, there's your elevation for Cesaro. What does Dolph have right now? Nothing. That's why i'm amazed that he's remained so over, WWE don't give a damn about him so why should the audience? Because the audience know talent. That's why putting the strap on Dolph would actually give him something to do and at the same time bring interest to the belt.

I also don't think it's fair to count out Damien Sandow. Sandow right now is emulating Charlie Haas in the way he's coming out each week impersonating a celebrity and when you think about how skilled this man it just seems like a waste of talent. However, I don't think he should win the championship because of one reason, in a way i'm enjoying his gimmick and I feel that given time he could get the character over, but it isn't the sort of character that should win a belt.

In fact i'd even say Big E could be a contender for winning the belt because he currently has no direction and winning the belt could give him direction, however I feel WWE should just bring the five count gimmick back as it'd be better for him to bring the gimmick back and then go after the belt, that'd actually give him a chance of getting him over instead of being generic big man #5783.

The final option is a stretch, bring up someone from NXT and having them win the belt. Now, it doesn't matter to me who got brought up for this as I don't see it working but if WWE wanted to get a new wrestler over by having them make an impression this would certainly be the way to do it, however I feel this shouldn't happen because the WWE should focus on the wrestlers on the main roster first before bringing up any new faces to an already cluttered roster and avoid risking another Xavier Woods.

Out of all the choices presented i'd still choose Dolph Ziggler, he's over, he's a work horse and he's got a great look, unfortunately I don't see this happening due to his record of getting concussions and slandering the company, we're probably going to get Kofi's 90th reign.


TheWhistler
My pick for the battle royal is Bo Dallas.
I bo-lieve the belt should be put on Dallas continuing his inspirational run. Although other guys like cesaro and sheamus are more established and popular I believe Bo is the best choice. Cesaro won at wrestlemania and has a bright future with Heyman. Bo is arguably one of the most annoying and hated character in wwe at this time, something wwe is lacking. Heels like The Wyatt’s and Seth Rollins are at a main event level and wwe need someone to really work the crowd at a mid card level.
Let's not look past Bo as a talent. He had a small run against Wade Barrett before and is a former NXT champion following other stars Big E and Seth Rollins
Now let’s look beyond the gimmick. Bo has a great family lineage in professional wrestling. His father was the IRS Mike Rotunda, his grandfather was Blackjack Mulligan and his uncles Barry and Kendall Windham. Let’s not forget his brother is arguably one of the best heels in WWE on the mic at the minute Bray Wyatt. Bo has the lineage to be a breakout heel star with a slight tweak to his gimmick. Play up his heritage, that his family instilled greatness in him and he bo-lieved in himself.

WWE fans expect someone like cesaro to win or some even hope for dolph ziggler to win. So why not do what wwe does best and piss off the fans. Pick the least likely, most hated option and go Bo. Imagine the promos, “I went into the battle royal an underdog. Main event players like Cesaro and Rob Van Damn were in there with me and I beat them. I won the title and you can be a winner like me if you just bo-lieve!”
Guys like Rob Van Damn, cesaro, Dolph ziggler and del rio all have the chance to be main event either in the past or the future. Why not have the intercontinental title like it was in the past, as a way to build up young up and coming talent to try and get them ready for the main event level, to test them with the gold. Champions like Macho man Randy Savage and the ultimate warrior all went on the be main eventers after having this title and guys like the ****** tonk man showed that the intercontinental title can be alot more than some cheap belt to fill mid card level. ****** brought prestige to the title and showed it could be worth something to a young guy in the mid card and just as exciting and valued as the main event.
I believe Bo could be the guy to do just that and make the mid card intercontinental title something worth watching.
Even in FCW Bo was a top level talent. Main eventer, FCW champion and tag team champion with his brother (the now Bray Wyatt) So why not have him add intercontinental champion to the list.
Have Bo win the belt, go on to feud with cesaro for the belt. Imagine the promos with Bo and Heyman. “I am the one behind the one in 21 and 1” “and all you had to do was bo-lieve :D” comedy from them on the mic would be great and Cesaro has the talent to carry the match for fans who feel Bo isn’t up to the challenge.
People felt Husky Harris was nothing, a fat guy with no mic skills and no talent, same for his brother Bo. Now Husky is Bray Wyatt and the IWC and fans love him, his mic skills and unmatched and his gimmick is something fresh and exciting. I believe this battle royal and Intercontinental title win could do the same for Bo and give us that great mid card heel we have been missing, and all wwe has to do is bo-lieve


Seabs
shackles - I liked you laying out some criteria for your choice at the start. Normally I'd say get to your stance sooner but it worked here going through the process of elimination first. Just be careful in future debates to not leave stating your stance too far into the debate. Honestly your process of elimination felt pretty lazy. If you're struggling to cut down to the word count then maybe just highlight 3-4 key contenders and then eliminate 2-3 of them better. Stuff like just "bland" for ADR not only looks lazy but it also a really weak argument. Your reasons for the geeks not winning are fine but you could lump them all together and say they're geeks right now or just concentrate on the actual contenders. Your reasoning for the more likely contenders were on the whole very weak. Be careful basing arguments on rumours because they are just that, rumours. However good stuff adding a credible source to it though. Then it felt like you used up a lot of words telling me what he's done lately without really connecting it to an argument. Also I'm not sure on " a pinfall over RVD at EXTREME RULES which is the equivalent to beating the Yankees in NY for wrestling fans" since as you yourself admitted RVD is just putting over people now. The evidence for him being a workhorse is great although I would have liked to see you expand more on why that should mean he should be given the belt rather than just listing off his great matches. For example putting the belt on a worker like Cesaro can help elevate the title to some form of prestige again. The split reaction is better than no reaction paragraph was pretty good. Again you could have done with a little something to explain why being over is important in choosing the winner. You state it's all part of your criteria for selecting Cesaro (good stuff stating your criteria and structuring your debate around it btw) but you don't really explain the reasoning for your criteria. This didn't need to be super long but with nothing it felt like you missed a key part of the debate. Addressing how the title can benefit Cesaro after winning was a good direction to take and this paragraph was good. The last line I didn't get and wasn't really any sort of conclusion to your debate but ok. This had good potential if you had focused more on reasons why and expanding on that rather than focusing too much on this happened and this happened. As a result it made your debate feel lacking really strong arguments. Also just keep the youtube links in your references as links rather than actual videos. Nobody likes needless scrolling.

RealManRegal - On the whole this was a well argued debate. Starts off really well stating your main reason why you've chosen your stance as well as stating that stance. Can't disagree with the reasoning either although more layers to your reasoning would have benefited your debate more. For example using a more multi-layered criteria for your pick like shackles had. Unlike shackles however you explained the reasoning for your criteria really well. Your elimination of other contenders felt kinda weak in all honesty. The reasoning against Sandow but Dolph in particular felt very weak. This is where a more expansive criteria could have helped you write names off and point out that Cesaro is the only who meets all your points. Bonus points for the Haystacks name drop though. Paragraph about Cesaro's credibility was good. You could have expanded on it further by saying Cesaro not only has roster positioning credibility but also in ring credibility and get the belt over by having great matches too. The Battle Royal paragraph I liked as a sub point but I would have left it at the end of that paragraph. I don't think the Foley comparison was great because Cesaro announcing his hate filled grudge match with say Triple is going to be a.... TWO MAN BATTLE ROYAL is hardly getting people excited. Maybe using to present Cesaro as a real threat going into Rumble's would have been a better use of your words here. Lesnar/Heyman point was good too in showing how Cesaro is likely to be in a position soon to showcase the title more although you could argue back that Cesaro is probably gonna be a surrogate for Brock's ass kickings in the build up so is he likely to be well protected? Overall a good debate.

MichaelDD - This was a pretty good debate with a few rookie issues. You start off really well introducing your argument for Dolph and how he can still have enough credibility to raise the belt as a former world champion and someone who has remained very over. You bring up the counter argument of his concussion history but don't really shoot it down with enough conviction. "I believe" is never the best start to presenting an argument because it makes it sounds like an opinion exclusive to you rather than sure fire reasoning so be a bit more decisive in your choice of language and make the reader think your reasoning for Dolph winning is indisputable. To counter the concussions argument you probably would have been better mentioning that the IC Title is less important and there's less pressure on WWE if Dolph does have to vacate it like Barrett compared to the World Title. Leave out the running his mouth paragraph. All you do here is raise a legit counter to your own argument without countering it back. Never argue against yourself in a debate. There's no need to present both sides of the coin. Be biased and just present yours while shooting down the opposing side. It's fine to bring up points like this as you did with the concussion argument but only if you effectively flip them around to support your own stance. Then you get to other candidates and forget about Dolph for the rest of the debate. Good job eliminating other contenders but the balance of the debate felt too heavy on the talking about other contenders side compared to how much you talked about your own stance. Try and make sure you're at least spending as much time arguing for your own stance as you are against other options. You can kill two birds with one stone in a debate like this by presenting a reason for Dolph winning and then using that same reason to say why X shouldn't win. Doing that will help you with the word count too. Again here be careful about being too convincing about why someone who isn't your pick should win. You present a reason for and then against. I'd just concentrate on the reason against. With Cesaro I felt you wasted a whole paragraph on Cesaro with Heyman which for me added nothing to your argument. Good argument for why Dolph should be picked over Cesaro though. This could have been a debate winning point if the rest of your debate was as strong as RealManRegal's. Your reasons for the alternatives being less favourable than Dolph are good but would be better if you didn't raise reasons for them winning too. I thought you missed out by ignoring Sheamus and ADR in this too and instead choosing to dismiss less likely alternatives such as Big E, Sandow and an NXT name. There's good potential in this debate with the arguments you do raise in favour of your stance. Just get the balance between arguments for your stance and arguments against other stances better and don't waste words raising arguments for other stances as well. Just shoot them straight down.

TheWhistler - Ok first off try and space your paragraphs out a bit better like your opponents have done. Straight away it looks like a chore to read because of the big walls of text. Don't give the reader a reason to be down on your debate before they even start reading. Work on the presentation and line it out better next time. The way you use capitals is a tad annoying too. Sometimes you use them for names and sometimes you don't. Try and proof-read this a bit better before submitting. The other debates in this match set up criteria for why the winner should be chosen and this is something that would have benefited your debate here. You don't directly say that Cesaro can be elevated via Heyman so doesn't need the belt to be elevated but I can see the argument in there. State it explicitly and be clearer next time though. Not sure about Bo being hated on the main roster because everytime I've seen him he's been getting laughs rather than heel heat. Also if you're stating something like Bo is one of the most hated characters then providing a link to a video showcasing this helps to prove your point here rather it just being you stating something without any evidence to validate your claim. Then you say " Let's not look past Bo as a talent. He had a small run against Wade Barrett before and is a former NXT champion following other stars Big E and Seth Rollins" - so what? Link it back to the question and say why this matters. The same for the family history point. You spent a long time telling me about the family history but then never said why this is a valid reason for him winning. The part about the title being used to elevate Bo with comparisons to how that had been successfully done in the past was good. However, it was also countered nicely by RealManRegal nicely arguing that the title needs to have prestige brought back to it before it can be used to elevate talent again. " So why not have him add intercontinental champion to the list." isn't an argument for. Don't just say why not, actually tell me why he should. You do good job highlighting how Bo can use the win in his promos to potentially get more heat but overall your arguments felt rather weak and didn't convince me this was the right choice ahead of the other picks chosen. Try and read the other debates on this card and work on getting your structure better. Dedicate one paragraph to making on reason for your stance and so on instead of raising points in one line without explanation before suddenly jumping to something else.

Winner - RealManRegal

The Lady Killer
This was essentially a 2 debate race.

shackles = this is pretty great. Love how you set up the criteria that the winning choice would need to "check all the boxes" so to speak. You quickly ruled out the other viable options in a quick and efficient manner, then spent the rest of your time focusing on Cesaro and how he does check all the boxes. Not much negative to point out here. I am impressed.

RealManRegal = this was also very good, though I'm not sure it did as good a job as shackles on defining the parameters for the IC title holder and discounting the other options. Still a good debate that would likely win a midcard match.

MichaelDD = this one lost focus a bit. When selecting a choice, just choose 1. When you pick two other options and make them seem equally as viable that weakens your stance. You're much better off sticking with one even though you feel there are multiple good options. Find ways to make the lesser options seem, well, lesser.

TheWhistler = physical structure was bad, and please remember to capitalize proper nouns. Also, is Bo Dallas really hated? Maybe I'm not up to speed here but I seem to recall him getting cheered. Anyway, aside from the layout, you need to try to explain why the other viable options aren't as good as Bo.

Winner - shackles

ZOMBO
shackles

I thought you did a good job in defining what traits an IC champ should possess in your opening.

Although some of the guys you bring up might not be dismissed in the most thorough way, I thought your approach was fair enough in that you wanted to knock down as much of the competition as quickly as you could. Maybe less names next time of guys that don't 'really' have a chance (Khali, Fandango, Sandow) and save your words for more meaningful argument.

You do a good job building up Cesaro initially, showing how he ticks off the requirements you establish earlier on. However, you talk about how it's tough to tell if he's over. It really halts the momentum that you got going talking about his match quality.

The future booking area was fine, and gave ideas / direction for Cesaro that would legitimize him being chosen. The final line was so epically weird, that I'm going to pretend I didn't see it.

RealManRegal

As with shackles, you give an outline as to what "makes" an IC Champ, and you identify your choice right away. Good start.

I feel that you did a more effective job at eliminating other options than shackles did, even if you expended more words in the process.

The area about his current card placement being perfect for the IC belt made sense. The signature match argument was neat and creative too, I really liked it. I'm not crazy about a battle royale being someone's "specialty" match (hey, I prefer my odds when it's 1 vs 19 or 29!), but you use it effectively in this debate.

As with shackles, you also look towards the future with Cesaro as IC Champ, which rounds everything out nicely. A very strong debate.

MichaelDD

You choose your side early on. Bold letters and everything, right there in the opening line. HOWEVER, in the opening paragraph, you're knocking Dolph's mic work. Then you bring up the concussion issues. THEN you bring up him running his mouth... As a reader, am I supposed to be agreeing with your choice or not?

Then you go on to recommend Cesaro. Then Sandow. Then Big E. Then an NXT guy. You give valid points why each could be considered, then shut them down with varying degrees of effectiveness. It really wasn't a good way to sell your pick, ESPECIALLY after the opening where you brought up basically everything bad about Ziggler.

Then there's the conclusion that had SHADES OF OXI, where you cite concussion problems and throw out a name completely out of the blue as the "probable" winner.

I think that when you pick a side in a debate, you got to STAND BY that decide CONVINCINGLY, while MURDERING the opposing choices. By the end of the debate, the reader shouldn't even THINK it's a choice, they should just be nodding along with you. After reading this, I was questioning Dolph more than every other guy you brought up.

I think it's a simple improvement to make, in terms of your approach, and it will greatly benefit you. You have an engaging writing style, very clean and easy to read. Just build your side better and you'll be well on your way.

TheWhistler

Good job making your pick early on and standing by it throughout the debate. Your "quotes" and ideas added some humour throughout, and gave this debate a lot of personality.

You also did a pretty good job in terms of your arguments surrounding Dallas as your pick. I especially liked the part about the past prestige naming guys like Warrior, Savage and Honky Tonk Man.

There were some parts where I felt the debate was a little bit off, though. Early on, you offer suggestions about tweaking his gimmick and reflect his heritage. Then, you constantly refer to how funny it would be if he kept using the "Bo-lieve!" line in promos. If you're going to go one way, go with it.

One area that lacked versus the other debates was knocking down other options. It's always good in a debate with several choices to at least identify some of the more likely / realistic choices and explain why they'd be bad. You didn't really do that here, so the reader can finish your entry and ask "but what about Cesaro? Ziggler? Sheamus?" etc... If you shut those guys down, the reader is compelled to agree with YOUR choice and your choice alone. Just a tip for future debates.

THE DECISION


RealManRegal was the most well-rounded and effective entry, so that's my pick.

Winner via Split Decision - RealManRegal

Kiz vs Curry vs UnbelievableJeff
Were Chelsea right to loan Romelu Lukaku out this season?

UnbelieavbleJeff

Last season, Chelsea were seemingly incapable of finding a striker capable of starting on a regular basis and scoring the goals needed to give them the advantage over their closest competition. This means that they must have made an error in judgement when choosing to loan out the 3rd top scorer in the Premier League over the past two seasons, yep...?



Chelsea suffered from a goal-scoring problem during the 2013/14 season, with just 71 league goals in comparison to Manchester City’s and Liverpool’s tallies of 102 and 101 respectively. However, this was not down to an inability to take chances; but more so the result of Jose Mourinho’s dour tactical choices which resulted in a general shortage of goal-scoring opportunities. Over the course of the season Chelsea managed to create just 275 chances at home, notably less than the 305 and 290 created by Manchester City and Liverpool.

These are pass-maps from Chelsea’s 0-0 draws against Norwich and West Ham last season, typical games in which Chelsea struggled:-



When the onus was on them to break down defensive minded sides, Chelsea struggled with a lack of creation and penetration in and around the 18 yard box, a key reason as to why they dropped seventeen points against sides that finished in the bottom-half of the league last season; this ultimately contributing to their below-par 3rd place finish. To solve these problems, they required a technically capable striker who could link up with Hazard/Willian/Schurrle to both create and score goals.

But why is this relevant to Lukaku?

Lukaku would not have changed a single thing at Chelsea last season. A 20 year-old, 6 foot-3 battering-ram with the grace of an elephant and (to put it bluntly) the touch of a rapist would not have solved their attacking problems or improved their finishing league position. Lukaku has shown in his loan spells that he is most effective when using his physical presence and athleticism to take advantage of lax defending from his opponents and put the ball in the net. Although he has shown flashes of brilliance regarding his technical ability and effectiveness when holding the ball up and bringing others into play, generally speaking the Belgian has struggled when faced with opponents able to mark him out of games and has had very little impact when it comes to creating in the final third of the pitch. Lukaku’s performance for Belgium against Russia shows this to devastating effect, with the frontman completing a total of seven passes during his hour on the pitch, with just 4 of those coming in the final third.

A small sample size? Yes, but it demonstrates Lukaku’s weaknesses and shows how he would of been of little value to Chelsea last season. This point is then furthered when comparing Lukaku's performance to that of Chelsea's 3 strikers last season:


Lukaku was bettered in EVERY STATISTIC regarding what Chelsea’s strikers would have needed to improve on in order for the club to be more successful. Some may point to Chelsea's strikers playing in a better side and therefore being allowed to perform better, but I'd argue that there wasn't really too much discrepancy in performance between Chelsea and Everton last season, plus the difference is further balanced by Lukaku playing consistently in a system that was suited to his strengths, and not in a squad rotation system like the one deployed at Chelsea.

It is also worth considering that Lukaku himself wanted to be loaned out. After the signing of Samuel Eto’o, Lukaku was vocal with his displeasure at being shoved further down the Chelsea striker pecking order. Both Lukaku and Chelsea benefited from a loan deal, as Lukaku was able to hone his skills in a side playing attractive football (and also increase his market value should Chelsea wish to sell this summer), whilst Chelsea did not have to deal with an unhappy player potentially disrupting the morale of the dressing room.

BUT THAT ONE-IN-TWO RATIO?!

The common argument for Chelsea choosing to keep Lukaku is that he has shown an aptitude for finding the back of the net, gathering a reputation for his 2:1 games-to-goals ratio. In response to this, I have already shown both a) how Lukaku would have struggled to play in Chelsea’s 2013/14 side and b) how he actually had a WORSE goals per-90 minutes ratio than Demba Ba and Samuel Eto’o last season. Loaning him out enabled Lukaku to get game time in a good team, score a few goals and come back to Chelsea as a stronger player, as opposed to sulking around on the bench for a year playing second fiddle to Demba Ba.

So were Chelsea right to loan Romelu Lukaku out?

Absolutely.




Kiz

Ever since ‘The Special One’ returned the Stamford Bridge, the same question seemed to be on the lips of every Chelsea fan. ‘Would this finally be Lukaku’s season?’ ‘Will he be able to finally replace The Drog up front?’ You would think it would happen too, after a largely impressive spell at West Brom, scoring goal after goal, finishing with 17 in total, while outscoring fellow Chelsea strikers Fernando Torres and Demba Ba. Surely, 2013-14 would be the season that Romelu Lukaku shines for Chelsea.

Well, no.

Instead, he was loaned to Everton. Scoring another impressive 15 league goals, while Chelsea fans again bemoaned their lack of firepower from again Torres, Ba and a newly added Samuel Eto’o, fresh from underachieving in Russia.

However, Chelsea still made the right decision to loan out Romelu Lukaku.

It is no secret that Jose Mourinho looks for a certain type of player, especially in his strikers. At Inter he had Ibrahimovic and Eto’o, Madrid he had Benzema. All three are strong players who work to create their own opportunities. Lukaku lacks that work ethic. This could come down to youth. Lukaku is still only 21, but is also 6’3. However, Lukaku does not make the most of his size. At times he seems scared to initiate contact with his opponents, or use his body during the play. Especially during the World Cup, Lukaku seemed incredibly tentative to get involved in the box, and was eventually replaced by the impressive Origi. This lack of strength, combined with a lack of defensive contribution, is not a Mourinho trait. Remember that Juan Mata bloke? Chelsea player of the year for 2 seasons running. Sold due to his lack of tracking back. Lukaku won’t be around Chelsea much longer if he doesn’t show improvement in this side of his game.

He also just does not have the experience yet, or the endurance required. Not his fault, it once again comes back to his tender age. He does not have the experience yet of being capable of leading the line, like he believes he deserves. So far, he’s proven that he can be a good, solid scorer in teams without the pressure of European football. Everyone saw how Lukaku would fade out of games. He seems to regularly hit the proverbial wall around the 70th minute, and constantly have little to no impact after that time. He desperately needs to build up his endurance to be a key figure in Chelsea’s side in the future.

However, after all that, the biggest factor in loaning Lukaku to Everton was undoubtedly new boss Roberto Martinez. With a reputation for playing football ‘the right way’ and giving youth a chance, he threw Lukaku right into the mix and demanded the very best out of him. He was Everton’s undoubted number one upfront, and Martinez made sure that he knew he was the FOCAL POINT. We saw Lukaku at his very best and worst this season. Efforts like his in the 3-3 Merseyside Derby, where his movement and smarts lead to him scoring a brace and causing headaches aplenty for Liverpool centrebacks Agger and Skrtel. However, that game also displayed more negatives with Lukaku’s game.


This graphic displays Lukaku’s passing for the entire game. 14/22 completed. But some of those passes that he didn’t complete were in quite dangerous positions, helping Liverpool start off their plays in advanced positions. In this game, and others as well, Lukaku often decided against the pass into an open team mate, deciding to take on the Liverpool players instead. It appears sometimes that Lukaku does no know his limits when playing, and in the Liverpool game especially, left Everton vulnerable to counter attacks. Due to his lack of a defensive contribution, Lukaku often remained up the pitch, not impacting on the play.

However, it much be pointed out the progression he made under Martinez. One of his best games all season was where Martinez plonked Lukaku out on the right wing against Arsenal. Lukaku had a devastating effect, scoring a goal and generally created havoc for poor Nacho Monreal. Unfortunately for Lukaku, that will matter nowt to Mourinho. Especially now since the big money purchase of Diego Costa, someone with the reputation of being a hard at it grafter, it once again seems that Lukaku does not have a spot at Chelsea for the 2014/15 season.

While the loan move for Lukaku may not benefit him in his Chelsea career, it was certainly the right move. He is still only 21 years old, and has obvious shortcomings in his game that prevent him from being top class. Martinez definitely helped Lukaku improve on his shortcomings, and the loan may just have helped Lukaku end up somewhere other than Chelsea.

Sources:
http://www.whoscored.com/Players/78498
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/romelu-lukaku/leistungsdaten/spieler/96341/saison/2013
http://outsideoftheboot.com/2014/05...ut-report-on-the-most-complete-young-striker/

Curry

Since his transfer in 2011, Romelu Lukaku has played only 15 games for Chelsea, being overshadowed by Didier Drogba and Fernando Torres in his first season and being loaned to West Brom in his second. This season, Chelsea were right to loan Lukaku out again.

Whatever Chelsea's long-term goal for Lukaku, be it selling him for a profit or developing him into a star striker, it was in their best interests for him to play regular Premier League Football in order to maximise his market value as well as allow him to fully adapt to the style of the Premier League.

In order to do this, Lukaku would need to be playing well consistently at a high level. While a player of Lukaku's quality should be able to play well and Chelsea could offer him the chance to play at a high level, they wouldn't be able to offer him consistent first team football with Torres, Demba Ba and Samuel Eto'o in the squad.

Chelsea also have a history of overlooking young talent and harming their careers by failing to allow them an opportunity to develop with proper playing time. Players like Josh McEachran (who made his Champions League debut at 17), Fabio Borini (Who would go on to be worth £10.5m) and Scott Sinclair (Who was later signed by the Premier League champions) have all been youth players at Chelsea and have all been underused by the club. The list of Chelsea youth players who have failed at the club but gone on to find success elsewhere is long and shows no signs of being complete. In the 2012-13 season alone, youth prospects Nathan Ake, Lucas Piazon and Oriol Romeu played in only 10 Premier League games between them.

In Lukaku's case, evidence of this can be seen in Chelsea's first 3 games of the season, before he was sent on loan. Lukaku stated each of those 3 games on the bench and came on twice as a substitute. In his first game as an Everton player he had already played more minutes of Premier League Football than in those three Chelsea games. Within his first three Everton games he had already played more Premier League Football than he had in his entire Chelsea career. Being on loan clearly affords Lukaku more opportunities than playing at Chelsea does. In the 2012-13 season, Torres played in 36 Premier League games and Ba in 14 despite only arriving at Chelsea in January. If he were competing with these players for playing time in Chelsea's one-striker system, Lukaku wouldn't be able to play for large portions of the season. While he was on loan however, Lukaku was able to take part in 35 Premier League games.

So with a full season under his belt, Lukaku would surely be ready for the challenge of starting up front for Chelsea? Well, no. He wasn't quite ready. 43% of Lukaku's league appearances for West brom were made as a substitute. If Lukaku isn't good enough to earn a regular start for a midtable team, why should he be good enough to start for a team set to compete for the title?

These factors likely contributed to Chelsea eventually deciding to loan Romelu Lukaku out, which proved to be the right decision. Over the course of the season he played in more Premier League games than any Chelsea striker and started more of these games than he had the year before, this time at a higher level of club.

The obvious argument in favour of Chelsea holding onto Lukaku this season would have been his goals. Lukaku may have been the 6th highest scorer in the Premier League when he was on loan at West Brom but a single high-scoring season does not always lead to lasting talent. In the past, players like Peter Odemwingie, Benjani Mwaruwari and Grant Holt have all scored 15 goals in a single season. Those single seasons aside, none of the three were able to net more than 10 times in one season again.

Outside of his goalscoring Lukaku has received criticism for many aspects of his play, notably his first touch and passing. These two skills would be even more important if he were to remain at Chelsea, who have made good use of counter attacks and are often faced with compact defenses.

As much as Lukaku may have arrived at Chelsea as “The New Drogba”, he has proven again and again that despite his pace and physique being Drogba-esque he does not have the touch, the ability to hold up play and retain possession, the aggression or the composure that made Drogba one of the Premier League's great strikers. If Lukaku is left to sit on the bench and make 20 minute substitute appearances, maybe he never will.


Sources:

Seabs
UnbelievableJeff - This was a really great debate with superb analysis of the question. Good job getting the "but Lukaku scored more goals" argument out of the way immediately as I thought that was necessary to do straight away before you could properly build on your own argument. Reasoning for why Chelsea needed a technically capable striker rather than just a finisher was good. Maybe could have added a point that when teams came to Stamford Bridge and parked the bus in front of the penalty area that Lukaku standing in the area ready to finish chances would have been useless because the problem was before they got inside the area. This would have explained the heat maps a little better imo but this wasn't a negative by any means. Then the analysis of Lukaku's skills that would be needed to make a major difference to Chelsea's problem last year was top notch. I would have reworded "Lukaku would not have changed a single thing at Chelsea last season." to Lukaku wouldn't have allowed Chelsea to finish any higher. It's nitpicking yes but I think it's a tighter statement than saying NOTHING would have changed. That suggests that Lukaku wouldn't have earned them one single extra point whereas the 2nd option says any change would have been insignificant. Evidence supporting your claims here was great. Belgium/Russia game was a great game to point too but great stuff acknowledging that conclusions shouldn't be drawn from just one game and then bringing up stats over the course of a season which are far more representative. Maybe from them stats you could argue that Lukaku would have been a better third option than Ba but how you used them was fine. That's just maybe a possible I would raise if I was arguing against you. Again being kinda nitpicky because this is very strong. You did deal with this indirectly with the benefits of the loan move to Chelsea though which was again very well done. With regards to the goal ratio you could have maybe looked at what teams Lukaku's goals came against and if they were typically teams who park the bus away from home. Maybe you did and there wasn't an argument to be made but bear in mind not just how often someone scored but who they scored against for future debates perhaps. Overall a super debate.

Kiz - Your intro is kinda wordy but here it works because the words aren't wasted imo. Yes they're stating things rather than arguing them but they're used to build into an argument so it's fine. Just be aware that wordy intros aren't the best with a tight word count if they don't really add anything other than setting the scene which might not always be necessary. Overall this felt like a weaker attempt at doing what UnbelievableJeff did so well. Not a bad attempt but definitely weaker, largely due to a lack of supporting evidence to really back your argument up and not linking it back to Chelsea as well as A did. For example you say "He seems to regularly hit the proverbial wall around the 70th minute, and constantly have little to no impact after that time" but you don't prove it. Also seems to isn't the best language when arguing a point because it makes you sound unsure when you should be certain in your own arguments. That stat is pretty easy to work out yourself if it's not easily available already. Changing it from seems to to something like 14/15 of his league goals came before the 70th minute is a much more convincing argument. Stats are facts and facts are near impossible to argue against. Instead you don't provide those figures so for all I know you could be totally wrong about it. The Everton/Liverpool heat map was much better because you had the supporting evidence to prove your point, although again UnbelievableJeff managed to make the connection and analyse just that bit better by putting in context via a comparison to Chelsea's strikers. The second to last paragraph felt rather pointless imo. As you say yourself "that will matter nowt to Mourinho" so how does it matter to the topic? Same for your last paragraph. It seemed to focus too much on how it affected Lukaku rather than Chelsea. Read UnbelievableJeff 's debate and feedback to see where you could make this stronger.

Curry - This was ok but really lacked the level of analysis of Chelsea's shortcomings and Lukaku's offerings last season to compete with UnbelievableJeff or be all that convincing. The first half of the debate felt like you were telling me things but not really linking them back to the topic or any arguments. For example you say "Chelsea also have a history of overlooking young talent and harming their careers by failing to allow them an opportunity to develop with proper playing time" but I didn't think you really linked this point back to why they were right to loan Lukaku out. Ok it benefits Lukaku to be playing first team football but does it benefit Chelsea to not have him available for selection? You then state that he wasn't good enough to break into Chelsea's team last season but I felt the supporting evidence was lacking whereas A had it in abundance along with analysis of that evidence breaking down exactly why Lukaku's strengths weren't what Chelsea required to perform better last season. This felt a lot like why Chelsea loaned him rather than if it actually benefited both parties. You then mention Lukaku's scoring record at West Brom could be a fluke but didn't this season at Everton prove otherwise and deem your comparison to players like Benjani useless? The second to last paragraph very briefly touched on what UnbelievableJeff used to make their debate so great and was something you should have expanded on much more. This really lacked strong arguments for why it was the right move and whether or not Chelsea would have performed better with Lukaku in their squad last season.

Winner - UnbelievableJeff

Anark
UnbelievableJeff
Nice explanation as to why Lukaku wouldn’t have made a difference to Chelsea’s season with regards to Mourinho’s style of play. The passage about Lukaku wanting to be loaned himself was also very good. I do, however, find it difficult to accept the notion that Chelsea’s three strikers all outperformed Lukaku. If that was even nearly true then we wouldn’t be having this debate. Nice effort though, and your enthusiasm added an energy to your writing which moved it along nicely and made for an enjoyable read.

Kiz
I honestly don’t see the relevance that three or four misplaced passes in one match has on this debate. There was some contradiction in your debate too. You made good points about Lukaku not being exactly the kind of player that Mourinho likes just yet, and that he has a lot to work on and improve, but then you highlight his mistakes in one match and say he doesn’t know his own limits. Wouldn’t it be better for Mourinho to keep him close and help guide him in his improvement? Especially if he’s making the sort of mistakes at his loan club which confirm that Chelsea were right to loan him out. Then you talk about Lukaku’s progression under Martinez, which was a very good passage, but didn’t really build on what you had written before. This was really good in parts, but some of it drifted away from building on your original premise and the debate lost momentum because of that.

Curry
This was a nice read. If you added some hyperbole and sensationalism then it wouldn’t look out of place in the sports section of a national newspaper. I liked the slow build towards ever more convincing arguments which allows you to maximise the effect of a heavy hitting closing statement, which you nailed. You also analysed less obvious areas that your competitors missed and really drove it home on the obvious points like his goal scoring record by comparing him to other 15-goal one season wonders.

VERDICT
This was an interesting one to judge, as after reading UnbelievableJeff's I thought it might be the winner, then I thought the same about Kiz's, and again about Curry's. Good quality all round, but Curry edged ahead due to having more arguments supporting the stance and exhibiting a deeper understanding of all the issues involved. While some elements of Curry's were head and shoulders above the others, UnbelievableJeff and Kiz were both solid efforts and gave Curry a good run for his money.

Winner: Curry

Andre
UnbelievableJeff

A minor note: please don’t use meme style gifs that fail to further your debate, especially wrestling ones in a fuckern fitba debate :bigron

Okay, now that the nonsense is out of the way…

Your statistical analysis of why Chelsea struggled to score goals (I also loved the fact that you used two match situations to show that this was more than a one off problem for Chelsea) and how Lukaku wouldn’t have solved that problem was excellent. The Chelsea narrative was more analytical than just being a mere back story and brilliantly fed into your arguments about Lukaku in the sense that he isn’t a fantastic dribbler or a player with a clean first touch or an incisive pass in his locker.

Rather than writing ‘A small sample size?’ I would have preferred further evidence from other isolated matches to prove that Lukaku is a liability in terms of involving himself in terms of attempting to maintain possession. The other stats you provided are a tad vague because criteria such as ‘assists’, ‘key passes’ and ‘goals scored’ are often heavily reliant on the quality of team mates (although that actually works in your favour from the goals scored perspective in a roundabout way), so without an incredibly detailed analysis of these qualities it’s difficult to take as concrete evidence. However, ‘chances created’, ‘total forward passes’ and ‘pass completion rate’ are stronger indicators of a player’s quality in terms of raw stats, so this wall of evidence was partially helpful to your stance.

The part about Lukaku wanting out certainly added credibility to your debate, while the idea that the player benefited from the loan because it helped him progress was on point, although you could have provided more details.



Kiz
Your intro paragraph was largely whimsical and irrelevant, failing to add any real quality to your debate. You could have cut most of it and made room for another strong argument. ‘However, Chelsea still made the right decision…’ is where your debate really started, with the previous section mostly being introductory fluff (why waste words on Lukaku’s time at WBA when you failed to directly dismiss it during your debate?).

The point about Lukaku lacking work ethic (which can also be viewed as lacking a strong engine) was fine but it would have looked more impressive with supporting statistics. The point about Mourinho discarding those who can’t fit into his hard pressing system is also decent, but further analysis with statistics proving that Lukaku is not the player for this type of system would have turned decent into great.

You were completely on point when suggesting that working with Martinez and playing regularly for Everton in a less pressurised situation was key to Lukaku’s development. The evidence supporting the idea that Lukaku is a defensive liability when in possession was good, but further examples from other matches would have proved that this wasn’t just a one off.

The basic ideas that you presented were good, but you failed to go into enough detail overall, while your evidence was lacking in comparison to UnbelievableJeff .



Curry

I liked that you covered the idea that loaning out Lukaku could benefit Chelsea from two perspectives, the first being that it could help them to develop a top striker, the second being that it might assist in luring a buyer for the player.

However, you failed to provide a strong enough argument when suggesting that Lukaku wouldn’t be able to oust the other Chelsea strikers from the starting XI throughout the 13/14 season, whereas UnbelievableJeff excelled in this area while tying this argument into the concept that Lukaku wouldn’t have improved Chelsea’s fortunes due to their style and the team’s overall shortcomings (again, with decent evidence).

I found the comparisons between Lukaku and former Chelsea youngsters strange because a lot of the examples involved players who haven’t shown anywhere near the same amount as potential as Romelu. Meanwhile, the idea that youth players at Chelsea have been underused by the club before making it elsewhere and securing big moves goes against your stance and suggests a consistently poor level of judgement from the club. Maybe it wasn’t your intention to convey that, but the entire paragraph was clumsy and lacked clarity.

The following paragraph was much clearer but again lacked supporting evidence to convincingly argue that Lukaku wouldn’t have managed to oust or improve upon the other Chelsea strikers. So while you made a good claim that the loan to Everton has probably helped Lukaku’s development, you didn’t put enough effort or detail into convincing me that he couldn’t have managed the same at Chelsea over the entire duration of the 13/14 season when Mourinho kept rotating his strikers because none of them were performing well enough. It’s reasons like those which leave me unconvinced by the small sample size of Lukaku being available for Chelsea’s first three games and only appearing twice as a sub, because surely in a season where EVERY Chelsea striker (that made themselves available for the whole season) was given a fair crack of the whip Lukaku could have forced his way into the team and developed at a faster rate while playing at a higher standard than he did at Everton? Debater A expertly explained why Lukaku would have struggled at Chelsea.

The problem I have with the argument you made from the fact that Lukaku started just 43% of games for WBA is that Lukaku started regularly for Everton in 13/14, a team that was FAR superior to the 12/13 version of WBA. So by using your logic then Lukaku shouldn’t have been good enough to start for Everton last season? The 43% stat also fails to clarify whether Lukaku started more games for WBA as the 12/13 progressed, or whether he was still a regular sub. After further investigation (http://www.espnfc.com/player/139437/romelu-lukaku?season=2012 just click on the 12/13 drop down box) I discovered that Lukaku started 18 of WBA’s final 22 games in 12/13, scoring 8 times during those 18 starts, which suggests that he WAS ready for regular starts by the time the summer of 2013 came around. “Lukaku may have been the 6th highest scorer in the Premier League when he was on loan at West Brom but a single high-scoring season does not always lead to lasting talent” is a stronger argument in Chelsea’s favour during the summer of 2013.

You FINALLY (albeit briefly) covered the idea that Lukaku wasn’t technically proficient enough to make an impact during Chelsea’s 13/14 season, but you failed to go into depth and provide evidence in the manner that UnbelievableJeff did.

At face value this might seem like a decent debate (and after a first quick glance it did), but after further analysis it comes across as very shallow and lacking an accurate review of the statistics provided.



The Decision:

UnbelievableJeff wins the vote.

Winner via Split Decision - UnbelievableJeff

Elipses Corter vs Pez vs RugbyRat
Daniel Bryan cuts better promos than Triple H. Agree or Disagree?

Elipses Corter

The idea of a promo is to get a talent over, get an angle over or sell an upcoming match. Essentially, it’s wrestlers trying to sell what they want us (the fans) to buy into. And what we have, with Daniel Bryan and HHH, is a guy that’s trying to sell the idea of him being the underdog vs. a guy that is also trying to sell the idea of Bryan being the underdog, while also selling the idea of him being a smug, corporate figure who knows what’s best for business. It’s a situation where the protagonist is only going to appear as good as the antagonist makes him out to be. Daniel Bryan cuts better promos than HHH? Given their roles, I’d have to disagree.

These days, people have the perception that if the promo resembles a shoot, it’s a good promo. But, you see, this is a business. A character based business and success is largely dependent on how characters are portrayed, how programs are built and how stories are sold. The objective is to make fans buy into it.

So, when Daniel Bryan cuts a promo about how John Cena is a parody of what wrestling should be or how the company likes to choose who the face of the company is, it’s a rehash of what fans have been saying and thinking for years. The shock factor is there because Bryan went there. When the protagonist does that, it leaves the door open for the antagonist to elaborate and build the story even more, which is exactly what HHH did in that situation.

HHH went from having excuses for screwing Bryan to pretty much revealing he doesn’t like Bryan and doesn’t think he’s good enough. Now, while some can debate whether or not those are his genuine sentiments, the point is he has taken the lead in selling the story. What Bryan and the fans initial belief was, became slowly confirmed by HHH. And what resulted from that was months of patronizing, labeling Bryan a “B+ player” and not caring who felt otherwise, because he knows what’s best for business. That created interest into whether or not Bryan would finally get his moment. And the moment finally came.

But what changed?

Even after achieving something he had been robbed of far too many times, Bryan continued to cut promos in the tone of an underdog challenger. Doesn’t help that he was placed in a situation with a talent that doesn’t even cut promos.

The thing with Bryan is, his promos rely too much on “I think I can, I think I can…” and if your objective is to sell the story after already showing you can, you need a new sales pitch. And HHH got a new sales pitch. Instead of continuing to play the “You’re just not good enough” role, he transitioned into it being pure luck. And that’s the difference between the two.

It has a lot to do with their roles and how they’re being portrayed. It’s like writing a book. As it progresses and new chapters begin, other elements are added. Tones change, things get dramatic. A gripping story resembles a roller coaster. You have highs and lows but on Bryan’s end, you’re stuck in the middle.

You see, the underdog character can only thrive in promos if it resembles a shoot. That’s one dimensional. That means your dialogue is always going to be about the company holding you back and screwing you over. While there may be truth to it, this ain’t the truth business. Your job is to take something obviously fake and give it some kind of believability.

Believe.

For nearly 15 years, HHH made you believe. As a heel, he was able to make you legitimately hate him with his words. Same goes for him as a babyface. A part of making you believe was the way he expressed himself. His promos resemble real life dialogue, filled with dramatic pauses, blatant stumbling over words and mannerisms that coincided and complemented everything he was saying. He made it seem “realer”, without relying on the shoot aspect.

It’s about selling a story. It’s about playing the game. But in this game, there are no losers. It’s a team, an idea of eliciting a certain reaction for yourself and garnering the opposite for your counterpart. It’s about captivating the fans with your words and and have them tune in to see you get your comeuppance. It’s about knowing what’s best for business. And what’s best for business is selling a story that fans will buy into. HHH does that a lot better than Daniel Bryan does.

RugbyRat

Triple H is undoubtably a better promo than Daniel Bryan. To put this into context; HHH is held as one of the top mic workers of the Attitude Era. A period containing Rock, Austin, Foley, Jericho, Angle, McMahon all of whom can make a very valid claim to being the greatest promo ever. On the other hand Daniel Bryan's mic skills are his stumbling block, in an era in which Seth Rollins & Randy Orton are regarded as two of the better promos.

The traditional view sees that a promo is there to promote a feud and hence draw numbers. This view shows the clear disparity between HHH and Daniel Bryan on the stick. If we were to compare SummerSlam 1999, where Triple H's first title win was originally booked to occur, with SummerSlam 2013 where Bryan defeated John Cena, there is a clear difference in the buy rate. The 1999 buy rate was 600,000 and the 2013 buy rate was less than 300,000. The '99 number was only a couple of hundred thousand from the Mania number, whereas Bryan's SummerSlam number was nearly 800,000 away from the WrestleMania number that year. We can throw into the mix the fact that a Triple H headlined SummerSlam 2012 drew over 60,000 buys than the 2013 edition headlined by Bryan.

Another way to look at what a good mic man is how well they can portray characters. Mick Foley is heralded as one of the greatest promo men in history, and rightly so, because he can play so many characters. Triple H is another guy capable of portraying many characters to a good standard. Since '95, HHH has played a foreign heel, a snobby heel, a comedic face, a comedic heel, an anti-authority heel, a heel faction leader, a face authority figure and a heel authority figure. All of which have forced him to somewhat change his act and all of which have led to him getting the desired response. Compare this with Bryan, who's largely played the same character his entire career; a junior heavyweight who kicks people hard. Nobody in wrestling history has played all the gimmicks HHH has played. As for Bryan, in the US alone over the past 10 years we've had; Low Ki, Davey Richards, Eddie Edwards, Yoshi Tajiri, Rob Van Dam and many more. The point is, Daniel Bryan doesn't have the versatility and range within his promo artillery to do what Triple H does. Even in his American Dragon persona, there was no new ground covered, in fact his signature chant in this character was "You're gonna get you're fucking head kicked in."

As the previous paragraph stated Triple H is among the dying breed of wrestlers who are able to be booed because of the character he portrays, instead of "go away" heat. Daniel Bryan has struggled with this for many years, he has consistently been cheered as a heel. Granted, he is a great talent, so fans are inclined to cheer for him, but so is Triple H. Helmsley is a master manipulator of the crowd, in 2000-1 he had an outstanding catalogue of matches yet was still able to get heat, which Daniel Bryan couldn't get in early-mid 2013 further showing that Tripper is the superior promo.

Now let's tackle the major counter-argument.

Daniel Bryan is more over than HHH has ever been and this is over the past 2 years, if Triple H is this great promo, surely it should be him that's the most over person on the roster.

The Raw after WrestleMania 28, is when the "Yes Movement" is said to have spread like wildfire. However, this was as the result of an 18 second loss, not an epic promo. It's also worth noting that Daniel Bryan got the most over being positioned against the Authority. The main reason Bryan got so over from the Authority angle was being positioned against one of the GOAT heels in Triple H, which shows that HHH is also very capable of getting opponents over, adding to his repertoire.

As for HHH never being as over as Bryan, all but 6 months of his 1999-2006 top of the card run was spent as a heel. I can't think of a single heel who was the most over person in a promotion. In his babyface run at the start of 2002, HHH got probably the biggest pop all year in his return at Madison Square Garden.

At 45, Triple H still remains one of the best in the business, and for good reason too.

Pez

Does Daniel Bryan cut a better promo than Triple H? Completely disagree. There are many ways you can judge a wrestler's ability on the stick. Do they put over themselves, their opponent and the match (if applicable)? Are they capable of improv and rolling with the flow on a live broadcast? Are they comfortable on the microphone? How well do they incorporate their gimmick into the promo? Are they able to work different styles for different effects (such as being humorous instead of serious). If you take an objective look at both Bryan and Triple H's promo skills, it's clear that Triple H has more skill on the stick.

Take for example the first question above – do they put over themselves, their opponent(s) and whatever sort of conclusion the story is headed toward (such as a match)? Both guys are capable of doing so. Objectively – as I will be for this entire debate, I give the nod to Triple H here. Despite his reputation for burying his opponents, when it comes to individual promos, HHH can certainly put over all parties involved and the feud itself. The eventual result here doesn't take away from his skill on the microphone.

Improv is a very vital skill to have on the mic, especially in front of a live audience. Whether it's changing things up based on the responses of the crowd or reacting seamlessly to a mistake, all of the best talkers have it to some degree. Triple H edges out Bryan in this regard as well. While this is highlighted more in his dark match segments and house shows, these have been officially aired by the WWE and I feel they show proof of his improv skill which is essential to cut a great promo.

HHH also looks far more comfortable cutting a promo than Bryan does. Bryan is often subdued; shoulders slumped and head angled downward. It can be subtle, but it is there. Triple H is confident and carries himself in a proud stance with a straight back and puffed chest. Triple H commands the area around him with presence, Bryan simply does not. Both guys can play up their gimmicks in a promo just fine, so I won't talk about it at length. I bring it up however to illustrate that Bryan has still not bested HHH in any way I know how to judge a promo, being only even with him here.

Range is another ability that great talkers have. While it isn't always necessary depending on the character and gimmick, the ability to portray multiple moods and motivations is important on the mic as much as it is in the ring. Triple H again has this in spades. Triple H has a great comedic character. As a matter of fact, so does Daniel Bryan. I feel Bryan's comedic promos to be of a higher quality than his more serious underdog promos. Someone in this very debate may use this as a reason to argue that Bryan gives a better promo. So why does The King of Kings best Bryan here? Why does this not prove Bryan is a better worker, as someone might argue? Bryan's non-comedic promos aren't at the same level as HHH's. Triple H has better character range.

Daniel Bryan is a good talker. He can keep up. He's better when he's talking to an opponent than he is the camera or the audience. I think people who think he can't talk might ignore that, and it's another argument someone might make to claim he's better. The issue with that is that HHH does this just as well and has proved it with his verbal sparring sessions with the likes of Austin, Angle and The Rock. But when addressing the crowd, HHH is more in control than Bryan ever is with the exception of the YES chant which doesn't show skill at all. HHH can cut a promo to the audience just as well, if not better than he can on a person.

Someone might try to detract from HHH's skill by saying that his promos go on too long. While I would agree with them, I don't think that is enough to really swing the decision in Bryan's favor. It's the only flaw I see when I watch HHH's promo work, something I cannot say for Bryan. When you look at all of the evidence, it's objectively clear that Triple H is cuts better promos than Daniel Bryan.

Seabs
First I'm not really sure how we had 3 submissions for this topic and nobody linked to or really referenced an actual promo. That should be pretty basic imo to actually link to some promos when arguing who a better promo is. Also all 3 of you missed out on determining any context to the question, particularly what time period you're going to look at, just the last year or over the course of their careers.

Elipses Corter - Up until "but what changed" imo doesn't tell me anything about who cuts better promos but rather what they're talking about. Which can be ok but you don't really link it to anything to give it meaning. You seem like you're about to start a good point with Bryan's constant happy go lucky almost lack of self-belief but it doesn't really go anywhere. Honestly if I had to summarise why you though HHH cut better promos I'm not sure what I'd say. It felt like you focused a lot on the actual material but then you could also say promos these days are scripted so maybe the actual material isn't the best measurement but how they deliver the material should be. You never really state what makes a good promo or what you're judging them comparatively on. What is your measuring stick for deciding who is better? Your arguments lack clarity tbh. What about charisma, ability to sell a match, draw a reaction from the live crowd, variety, etc? Also I thought "You see, the underdog character can only thrive in promos if it resembles a shoot." was a somewhat stupid line if you consider every single babyface before like 2011.

RugbyRat - Seth Rollins & Randy Orton are regarded as two of the better promos? That's news to me. Hulk Hogan is held as one of the greatest wrestlers of all time too btw. Doesn't mean he is. The buyrates comparison was pretty lousy and sorry if that sounds harsh but they weren't fair comparisons in any way. The business in 1999 compared to 2013 was just way different. It's like saying X is a better draw than Y because Y sold all 200 of their 200 tickets but Y sold 201 of their 2000 tickets. It just isn't a fair comparison because the wrestling industry is so different. You even mention all the top names throughout the Attitude Era in your intro who will have also contributed to the bigger number and then also mention the lack of top stars or promos to sell PPVs in the modern era. Comparisons need to be comparing two things on somewhat equal ground. The same for the comparison to Wrestlemania. The Wrestlemania brand has become a selling point in its own right that it never was in 1999. The Summerslam 2012-2013 comparison is better Triple H was also a part of selling Summerslam 2013 and played a big part in the build to Bryan's match. I didn't know we were considering Hunter's gimmicks pre Triple H to be good but the variety point stands even without them. However, "Compare this with Bryan, who's largely played the same character his entire career; a junior heavyweight who kicks people hard." is bullshit and so easy to counter with a couple of youtube links. They could even be restricted to his WWE run. Did you miss his heel run as WHC? " a junior heavyweight who kicks people hard" really sells Bryan's current character insultingly short too. I'm not even sure what to say if you think Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson is playing the same character as Tajiri, Low Ki and Davey Richards. This whole paragraph is kinda awful. Sorry to be blunt but it's just factually wrong and so easy to counter argue. " Even in his American Dragon persona, there was no new ground covered" - As Bryan Danielson he played a comedic old school heel in FIP, heel champion in ROH, babyface veteran in ROH, babyface and heel face of the company in ROH and many Indies, comedic babyface in PWG. Also I don't see what " in fact his signature chant in this character was "You're gonna get you're fucking head kicked in."" proves at all. The points that you're trying to argue here are good but you're doing a terrible job at actually implementing them into this topic. Again the heel heat argument is not only wrong but doesn't take into other factors. 2013 is an era where the insider fans basically refuse to boo any heel compared to Hunter's peak years where the fans played along with the face/heel dynamic a lot more. Not to mention the notion that Bryan can't draw heel heat is wrong anyway. Hello - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkCKh6s7Pgs. His heel run as WHC got plenty of heel heat until the Yes thing really took off at Wrestlemania which was due to the booking rather than Bryan being an ineffective heel. Additionally just look up any Danielson match in FIP or ROH during 2006. That guy was fucking HATED. So your claims aren't really very well researched. The over thing seemed to be clutching at straws. You try to credit Hunter for Bryan being so over but he was getting (arguably louder) as loud reactions during The Shield feud BEFORE Hunter even turned heel. It's a shame because the way you structured this would have made for a good debate if your arguments weren't so easily countered because of poor research on your part and stating things to be true that aren't.

Pez - Ok the intro sets your debate up very well and you do a neat job of then expanding on each aspect that you feel makes for a good promo guy. This is a good way to structure this debate as you say what is needed and then go into how well each wrestler meets these requirements. Sadly though you fall flat with your actual arguments for each aspect because it's all just your opinion at the end of the day. You don't show me any proof of what you're referring to so how am I supposed to know? Pretend the reader has never seen a Triple H or Daniel Bryan promo before in their life and imagine you're convincing that person who is better. Link to promos and reference them! " HHH can certainly put over all parties involved and the feud itself." - give examples! The same true is pretty much every paragraph so I won't repeat myself. This was set up really nicely but you need supporting evidence to prove your arguments otherwise it's just you stating "I think in my opinion x is better than y" when it needs to be "x is better than y and this link shows you why" and then analyse it as well. Also try and revert from using phrases like "I feel" or "I think" when referring to your stance. It makes the stance sound like an opinion when you should be presenting it like fact like you believe your stance is the right one so deeply it's beyond just mere opinion.

None of these were honestly good debates which was a shame given all 3 of you are good debaters. Winner is therefore the one I think came closest to a good debate which is Pez. Elipses Corter lacked clarity in their argument and RugbyRat was factually all over the place. Pez was only lacking the supporting evidence which put him closest.

Winner - Pez

Headliner
Elipses Corter

This debate was good to some degree, but it felt like you over-analyzed a lot of stuff. You basically used the question to talk about how Triple H was the superior mic worker in the H/Bryan feud. And I guess there's nothing wrong with that because you showed how Triple H was able to adapt when the roles changed while Bryan failed to do so.

One thing I disagreed with that was an underdog character can only succeed if the promo resemebles a shoot. That's pretty inaccurate. I never recall Shawn Michaels or Rey Mysterio talking about how their being held back and screwed over during the height of their face underdog runs. Get the facts straight plz.

You recovered by finishing quite strong in regards to why Triple H is the better mic worker. This was the best breakdown of "how" Triple H is better out of all the debates.

You spent too much time focusing on the promos in their feud which made the debate seem narrow in its views. Less time would have been better for your debate.



RugbyRat

This debate was ok. You had potential to make it much better. For starts, it wasn't a good idea to make a direct coorelation between mic work and buys. That's just not a fair argument because there's so much more that factor into buys. If anything, mic work is a small piece of the larger puzzle.

You explained how Triple H has played many different roles and was able to find success in all of them, but how did he do it? What did he say on the mic? How did his mic style change? Etc. You could have gone deeper here, but I did like your mention of Triple H being able to get heat even he was having good matches. Compared to Bryan who was getting cheered.

Other than that, the rest of the argument was fine. I think you did a better job of showing that Bryan is more one-dimensional rather than how good Triple H is.


Pez

This was simple and effective. I liked the organization of the debate. You asked questions, then broke down those questions into catagories for comparison to show why Triple H is the superior mic worker. While it's obvious that H is the better guy in these catagories, a couple of examples via text or youtube would have added some strength to your debate. Other than that, good debate.


Winner-Pez. This had the best breakdown of the skill sets

Aid180
Elipses Corter

What I liked:

  • Well, I did like this paragraph here: “For nearly 15 years, HHH made you believe. As a heel, he was able to make you legitimately hate him with his words. Same goes for him as a babyface. A part of making you believe was the way he expressed himself. His promos resemble real life dialogue, filled with dramatic pauses, blatant stumbling over words and mannerisms that coincided and complemented everything he was saying. He made it seem “realer”, without relying on the shoot aspect.” I liked it because you focused on skills that Triple H has that helps him get over with his words. This is truly a part in your debate that you actually began to sell the point the question asked.

What I didn’t like:

  • I think you were too narrow here in just talking about their mic work during their feud together. Like you really didn’t talk about Triple H’s or Bryan’s past characters when talking about their promo skills. The debate isn’t about just the feud, it’s about Daniel Bryan and Triple H and their respective promo abilities. This is something your opponents go through. They talk about Triple H’s past characters and his ability to play many roles. They also mention Bryan and his work in comedic roles as well. The tunnel focus on just this feud didn’t help you IMO.
  • I didn’t see a lot about what makes one guy better at promos than the other. I didn’t see much about delivery, tone, body language, or ability to connect to the crowd. These are all things I kind of expected to see when you judge promo ability. It seemed you focused on content a lot, and as I mentioned, it was only content from the feud itself. It seemed limited and really didn’t sell me. Sorry.

RugbyRat

What I liked:

  • The character gaining heat point was solid. I personally can’t think of too many instances in which Bryan has been booed unless he really insults the crowd. Of course, the past few years haven’t really had too many heels that can do that, but your point works as Triple H does indeed do that. So this point helps you. It works because you mentioned that Triple H manipulates the crowd. You were dangerously close to having this paragraph not mention promos at all, so I’d be careful about that in the future.

What I didn’t like:


  • I thought the buy rate argument was a unique idea, however, I think your execution was a bit off. The years are so far apart and the interest in wrestling in the 90s was much, much greater than it is now. Wrestling was pretty cool back then. Today, not so much, So I didn’t like the use of this. Maybe if the years were closer, I’d be ok. Just something that bothered me. The comparison from Summerslam 2012 to 2013 was better.
  • I didn’t like your character argument either. I think you vastly ignore a lot of Bryan’s characters with the jealous/obnoxious boyfriend, the straight guy to Derrick Bateman’s funny guy, the crazy heel that went to therapy for the words “Yes” and “No”, as well as the series characters you mentioned and the underdog role. Plus, Triple H has been around a lot too. Just kind of a weak argument choice again. That and the idea that Bryan’s character has been played by a lot of wrestlers is also weak considering there have been a lot of stable leaders, degenerates, and comedic heels (like Bryan for example).

Pez

What I liked:

  • I thought your improv point was good. It’s important to talk about how well a person does in front of a live audience and when they are chanting. Like when they chant “What”. I feel mentioning something like this chant and how it’s countered would have helped you a lot, but you still made a solid point here that allowed me to infer this type of point. So good point here.
  • The posture point was good here too. It makes sense. The imagery you gave when comparing the two and their stance was good. It was a solid point to mention, albeit, a tad brief. This leads to my next point about your debate that’s kind of a what I like and don’t like together.
  • The amount of points you had was pretty good. You covered quite a few different things. That’s pretty good. I like it when you can cover more ground in a debate. There’s a tiny drawback to this though. That is that having too many points makes your arguments for the points shorter and empty, so to speak. Like you don’t get out everything you could and it weakens your argument. That’s something you need to watch out for. Like, it’s great that you cover improv, talking to the crowd, body language, talking to other wrestlers, range, promo length, and the ability to put others and themselves over, but I think it diluted your arguments a bit.

What I didn’t like:

  • I think your comedic point got a little lost. You mention that Bryan is good at it and that Triple H is too, but I don’t recall reading that you said Triple H was better at this. Instead, you talked about how Triple H is better at other stuff, so it doesn’t matter if Bryan is great at this. A weak argument IMO. I feel your next point about being a good talker suffers from this as well. You really need to sell your choice as much as you can instead of saying both a great, even if you think this is an absolute draw. That’s what I think was missing here in these two paragraphs.

DECISION: Pez's was the better debate here. Pez covered a lot of topics and didn’t have too many issues. Elipses Corter was too limited in focus and didn’t really cover the abilities of the two men and RugbyRat really missed out on a few points that hurt his argument. Specifically, I thought the choice to forget about Bryan’s other characters when your opponent covered this in Bryan’s comedic characters hurt you.

Winner: Pez

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Pez

STEVEN BARETHEON vs WrestlingOracle
Which match should have main evented Wrestlemania 25, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels or Triple H vs Randy Orton?

STEVEN BARETHEON
HBK/Taker and Trips/Orton were easily the two feuds everyone were looking out for going into Wrestlemania 25. One personified heaven versus hell, whereas the other one was a story about some good old fashioned revenge. And while both the feuds looked pretty solid going into the PPV, one had a blowoff which will be remembered as one of the greatest Wrestlemania matches, while the other one... blowed. Now which of these bouts should've headlined the PPV? I'm gonna stand by the decision WWE took, and say that Trips/Randy should've, just like it did.

Now let me make one thing clear. Everything we're gonna talk about now, should be looked at like you would've going into the PPV. So you don't know that Undertaker and Shawn will put up a GOAT match, and you don't know Hunter's going over in a match full of headlocks and stomps. All you know is the two feuds have been real good so far, and we, as fans, are arguing as to why Trips/Randy should mainevent instead. Okay?

* Italics is me talking in hindsight.

Okay, so HBK and Undertaker were colliding for the first time in eleven years and it truly had a big-match feel to it. But so did Hogan/Rock and Austin/Rock III. Yes, HBK promised to break the streak. But so did everyone who came before (and after) him. (They did mainevent next year though, and rightfully so, as it wasn't just gonna be another number next to zero, Michaels' career was on the line.) Everyone predicted it to be the MOTN (and it turned out to be the MOTY instead), but as important as having a good match is, it doesn't necessarily mean it should be the mainevent. There have been so many PPVs where another uppercard match has overshadowed the mainevent, doesn't mean all those matches should've been the mainevents instead. There are some other factors to be considered.

Here's a quote from Hunter himself, on why him and Jericho had to go on last at X8.

Trips said:
If we didn't go on last that spits on every Federation Champion that came before him.
Exactly. It only makes sense for the biggest PPV of the industry to feature the biggest title in its biggest match. The prestige of the title alone dictates it to be the mainevent. The only times the title hasn't been in the mainevent of the was when there was something else really huge that they could capitalize upon - VIII being billed Hogan's last match and Warrior's return, XXVI being the end of Shawn's career, and XXVIII being Rocky's return to the big stage in his hometown. The only other time the title didn't mainevent was at XI, when Bigelow faced a NFL player over HBK/Diesel with WWE's whole mindset of engraining mainstream culture into wrestling, and that decision has been criticized even to this day.

On the other hand, Hunter/Orton didn't just deserve to mainevent because they had the title to fight for. (As much as the match sucked,) the feud was something you'd rarely see today with the PG rating and all. Randy doing whatever the fuck he wants to BECAUSE IED, seeking revenge for the thumbs down Hunter gave him back in '04, by taking out his father and brother-in-law, RKO'ing his wife and sealing it all with a kiss while Hunter lied helpless; and Hunter hitting back by invading Randy's house, and then with the McMahons and Hunter getting their hands on Randy and company on the go home show, the feud created some real memorable moments. So it wasn't like the feud wasn't good enough to headline the PPV on its own or anything, it certainly was.

While as much as Wrestlemania is about legends, its also about making new stars. The likes of Batista, Cena, (and Bryan now) were 'made' by winning the title in the mainevent, and for someone like Orton to get that sort of exposure (hadn't had a Mania mainevent before btw) given the longetivity left in him compared to the others in question, it only seemed right. (Also, remember, you don't know Hunter's going over, so there's a major chance Randy's closing the show with the title on his shoulder) So while Taker/HBK doesn't necessarily mainevent the PPV, the fans still get their dose of 'The Showcase Of The Immortals' that Mania promises to be, and at the same time, it helps build the future with the stars of tomorrow maineventing and creating many more Wrestlemania moments for years to come.

So yeah, maybe looking back in hindsight, it seems like Taker/HBK would've made a better mainevent. But you don't book a show looking back in hindsight, you do it going into the PPV. And that way, it only made sense that Trips/Randy closed the show.



WrestlingOracle
Motorhead's riffs dissipate as HHH concludes celebrating. The fans eagerly pop as J.R. announces "Ladies and Gentleman, two of the greatest in our industry are main eventing. It's Streak time!" An all time classic concludes Wrestlemania sending audiences to their feet as 17-0 flashes on the titron. This was not the final scene of Wrestlemania but it damn sure should have been!.

Supporters of Hunter/Orton main eventing Wrestlemania 25 immediately point to the "epic" buildup that warrants closing. Taking a closer look at this "epic" build makes the feud seem far weaker. Even basic casting of sadistic heel/ sympathetic face doesn't equate properly.

This feud started when Vince in another power trip threatened to terminate Randy Orton if he didn't APOLOGIZE. Randy had yet to lay his hands on any Mcmahon (Stephanie slapped Randy earlier) or provoke Vince. Before Vince terminated Orton with such little merit, Orton punted Mcmahon’s head. Of course, this was met with light cheers and previously RKO chants occurred. The remaining Mcmahons tried making Randy’s life hell but Randy prevailed. Randy then revealed his desire for vengeance on HHH for “ruining his life” when HHH kicked Randy out of Evolution for no reason and beat him down viciously. Certainly, Randy seemed to be not only badass, but justified in this story. Even if someone can make the extreme reach of Mcmahons/HHH being sympathetic faces, well Orton’s heat was undone the week before Wrestlemania when Vince and Shane returned with HHH to kick Orton’s ass. HHH had the belt, Mcmahons were back and Orton received payback. The match at 25 was now nothing but a formality. Michaels/Taker never needed heavy build, but the light/dark contrasts of the reborn Christian vs former Lord of Darkness sparked an interesting and layered build that unlike Orton/HHH was coherent and unsettled until Wrestlemania.

Obviously, Wrestlemania is the biggest show of World WRESTLING Entertainment. Looking at potential for quality wrestling, Michels and Taker had the overwhelming advantage. Shawn Michaels is considered by fans and countless peers as one of the greatest in ring performers of all time. A performer so good that despite a losing record at Wrestlemania, is considered Mr Wrestlemania for his stellar ring performances across a wide spectrum of opponents. The Undertaker with his veteran understanding of timing, psychology usage and adaptability developed into a tremendous worker in his own right. Clearly age wasn't slowing either down considering Taker had a thriller with Edge and Michaels led old Flair to a modern classic at 24. Michaels' quickness, selling and bumping with Taker's power and unmatched ability to play aggressor produced an all time classic inside Hell in a Cell in 1997. Michaels/Taker at Wrestlemania on paper seemed as close to an instant classic as possible..
Comparing the glorious Mania match prospects of Michaels/Taker to Orton/HHH is like comparing the postseason success of Joe Montana to Tony Romo's big game success. HHH's mania reputation in 09 was subpar considering his big match performances at mania were a forgettable match with a horrendous ending at 16, a disaster at 18, a failure at 19,a classic at 20 albeit with two greats in HBK and Benoit followed by an average match at 21, and 22 is one of the worst in Hunter's career. Orton when predator cuts a horrid pace and is boring. It is no fluke that HHH/Orton bombed while Michaels/Taker remains acclaimed.


Common sense basics points to Michaels/Taker main eventing. The occasion was the silver anniversary of Wrestlemania. You have Mr. Wrestlemania vs the man synonymous with Wrestlemania with the crown jewel of wrestling milestones on the line. Both men could easily make anyone's top ten WWE performers of the last two decades list without question. Comparatively, Orton already peaked and was no legend facing an often resented guy many were sick of seeing main event. Putting this match below two enduring and heralded legends of WWE with the Streak wouldn't devalue the title at all. In terms of predictability, no way Orton wins. With the exceptions of 16 and 17, a face won every main event and even at 16 Rock closed. Babyface Hunter and Mcmahons together are odds not even Cena could overcome. Finally, Michaels/Taker as discussed was going to be tremendous. The crowd would be so invested in the match they'd be gassed for the closer, which makes the main event and subsequently show worsen. HBK/Taker closing avoids this issue and ends the grandest event on the grandest note and leaves fans mesmerized.

Michaels\Taker had far more historic value, infinitely more quality potential and was more coherent. Michaels/Undertaker: Elite wrestlers in both the sport and entertainment aspects of WWE, and the match that should’ve closed Wrestlemania 25.

Seabs
STEVEN BARETHEON - Good move imo looking at this without the hindsight of what happened. I wouldn't say looking at it either way was right but this was a good way of looking at the question. The only thing I'd say is give some reasoning for why you're looking at this way. You say " should be looked at like you would've going into the PPV" but why should it be? Don't forget to include the reasoning for why you're doing something like this. MOTN not being the main event was a good angle to take. You say there's loads of examples of the MOTN not being the main event without overshadowing the actual main event so throw in a just a few examples to validate your point. Reasoning and evidence for validation are key to any argument you make. Also when you're providing a quote a source would be good. Just to prove you haven't just made it up. The point about the prestige of the title warranting it to always main event was good but again you were a tad weak on your actual reasoning. WHY should the title always main event bar the special circumstances you outlined well. Something like in order for the title to keep its prestige it should always main event whereas The Streak not main eventing doesn't hurt its prestige. The HHH/Orton feud write up is a tad descriptive but you bring it full circle well at the end by linking all these moments back to it making it a feud of strong build. Good point with Orton having the chance to be elevated by main eventing. You're maybe missing a line about HBK and Taker not being elevated if they main evented but the point was there all the same. I don't think the hindsight thing worked as well here when you mentioned that Orton could have won. Well now we know he wasn't going to that point is pretty much mute right? I would have dropped this line " So yeah, maybe looking back in hindsight, it seems like Taker/HBK would've made a better mainevent." or at least reworded it. I get that you've decided not to look at in hindsight but the question doesn't say you have to do that. By admitting that Taker/HBK actually would have been a better main event it reads like an admission of defeat on your end and like you chose the wrong stance. Maybe reword it to in hindsight Taker/HBK MIGHT have been the better choice so it's a little less convincing that in hindsight you may be wrong.

WrestlingOracle - For me this debate isn't all that convincing because I don't think you really linked any of your points back to validated reasoning for why the better match should go on last whereas STEVEN countered you nicely by saying that the title should always main event even if it's not the best match and then presenting reasons why. I didn't think your reasoning was all that strong personally. The analysis of the Hunter/Orton feud was pretty good but I felt it needed something to link back to WHY this means it shouldn't main event. Is it because the feud was cold for example? STEVEN raised the point about the prestige of the title and you didn't really have a response for this argument which hurt you on top of your own arguments lacking convincing reasoning. You then focus on match quality but why should match quality determine the main event? You failed to answer this. If you had made that connection then this point would have been well made but without it I'm left unsure as to why it actually matters in determining the main event.

Winner - STEVEN BARETHEON.

Headliner
STEVEN BARETHEON


This was good. Your hindsight POV shut down potential counter argument. Because you have to book in the present, not in the past or future. You showed that just because a match will be good, it doesn't have to main-event. You also pointed out that HBK wasn't doing anything special by challenging Taker's streak because it's been done before. You quoted DA GAME to show that World title matches should always main-event because of the title's credibility, with a few exceptions.

Unlike Debate B I thought you clearly showed how hot the HHH/Orton feud was that gave them another reason to main-event moreso than just the title being on the line. You finished nice by explaining that Orton/HHH as the main-event gives WWE the chance to establish new stars through Mania (even though Orton was already one, but I see what you're saying) while Taker/HBK gives fans the showcase of immortals that Mania prides itself on. Best of both worlds.

Overall. Good debate.



WrestlingOracle

Not a fan of this debate. This wasn't convicing at all. If anything it was more opinated and it hurt your debate. You tried to downplay the hot feud of Orton/HHH to show why Taker/HBK should have main-evented and that didn't work at all. You also downplayed the feud by basically saying that HHH/Orton was pointless because the McMahons finally got there revenge so Orton's heat was gone right before Mania. That also didn't work because Orton was trying to take out Triple H for the title to finally break the McMahon family. Just because they got a little revenge before the PPV doesn't mean anything. It's standard booking 101.

Then you tried to compare Mania records to further show why Taker/HBK should have main-evented. What if HHH/Orton was a good match and what if HBK/Taker somehow flopped? You can't based your opinion on this.



Clear winner-STEVEN BARETHEON

ZOMBO
STEVEN BARETHEON

An smart approach, given that anyone who was assessing this question IN HINDSIGHT would obviously pick Taker / HBK.

The italics where you comment on the hindsight view were partly well done (and helpful in reminding the reader of your viewpoint), but it was distracting at times as well, where I felt that the flow of your arguments was interrupted.

The paragraph acknowledging that the main-event is sometimes overshadowed by lower-card matches is clever, especially when you illustrate how many times the title didn't go on last at Mania. It shows the historical precedent for your stance, and elevates the importance of the title going on last.

The background of the feud, especially the "won't be seen on PG TV anymore" bits helped your argument too. The new stars argument is probably your weakest one, and I probably would have wedged it in between the bits about titles main eventing and the feud recap.

A solid closing wraps up a well-constructed, nicely flowing debate.

WrestlingOracle

You acknowledge the opposition's stance pretty much bang-on, which is good, because the build-up is one of the strongest points in favour of STEVEN BARETHEON's stance. You do an effective job taking down the feud, really making it seem less memorable than STEVEN BARETHEON recalled.

I don't know how much "wrestling" quality factors in to a main event choice. How many main events did Hogan wrestle? Cena / Rock? Sometimes it's about SPECTACLE - and quite frankly, you COULD have made that argument with Taker and Michaels as well (or, really, ANY Taker match at Mania).

Although brief, big points for also taking down the argument of "devaluing the title" if it doesn't go on last. You do this effectively by building up Taker and HBK's status, as well as the importance of The Streak. The comment about burning out a crowd is smart, and accurate.

A solid closing wraps up another great effort.

THE DECISION

Both of these debates were well done in my eyes. Both raised the strong points of each argument. However, I think WrestlingOracle did a slightly better job at knocking down the arguments put forth by the opposing side, so I'm going to go with that. WrestlingOracle is my pick in a close one.

Winner via Split Decision - STEVEN BARETHEON

Bearodactyl vs Tater
Since 1998, which films have been better, Marvel Films or DC Films?

Tater


Since 1998, Marvel films have been considerably better than their DC counterparts. Over the course of this debate, I am going to explain exactly why this is the case.

The Tale of the Tape:

Marvel blows DC away in amount of films, so it's unfair to judge by quantity. Judging by quality is the goal. Both have produced great movies. Both have produced horrible movies. When looking at the averages, the drawing power from each side is quite close. Marvel has the slight edge but not by much. Based on the results, I would say that the success of both are pretty much equal.

Why mention it then? By showing that the success rates between the two are fairly even, it allows me to point out the true reasons why Marvel films have overall been better films than DC films.

Continuity:

Stand-alone movies can be good. Continuing film series are better. The first two Iron Mans, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor all built up an overall story that led to arguably the greatest superhero movie of all time; The Avengers. To pull off a feat like that takes incredible long term planning. The plan was so successful that Marvel is almost through a second phase of films that is building to a second Avengers movie. [1]

DC could have had something like that too. They've had the time. They've had the movies. What they haven't had is the planning and continuity. Imagine what could've been had the Nolan Batman trilogy, Man of Steel and Green Lantern all been a part of a larger plan to build up to a Justice League movie. With a little better planning, they could have already had five films building up to Batman vs. Superman and the upcoming Justice League movie. Instead, they have one movie (MoS) leading into the future. Batman is being completely rebooted, so the Nolan trilogy has no effect on the grand scheme of things. Green Lantern was just an absolute disaster.

Another fine example of continuity in Marvel movies is the X-Men franchise. Of the seven films made, two were stinkers (Last Stand & Origins: Wolverine) but the other five have been fine movies. What's really impressive is how they rebooted the series and made it all work with the previous films. In DOFP, they even managed to fix their past mistakes and now the franchise has a bright future again. That's great continuity.

Use of Lesser Known Characters:

Another way Marvel has been better than DC is the success they've been able to have with lesser known characters. With A-listers such as Superman and Batman, DC should have no problem in making successful movies with those characters. Marvel took a B-lister like Iron Man and turned him into a household name. [2] Before a few years ago, most of the mainstream audience didn't even know who Iron Man was. If I were to say ten years ago that a third Iron Man movie would out-draw a new Superman movie by over half a billion dollars, I'd have been called crazy. Yet, that's what has happened because of how good the Marvel movies have been.

Drawing power alone does not define what makes a movie good. However, it is relevant to note that when movies starring B-listers are out-drawing the ones with the A-listers, they're doing it because they are better movies. That is why it is important to note how well they've done at the box office. People will show up to see a Batman or Superman movie because of name recognition. The MCU has had to sell the audience on lesser known characters. The audience for the MCU movies has grown with each passing film because of movie quality. It's why each Iron Man has drawn more than the previous one. It's why Cap 2 and Thor 2 drew more than their originals after The Avengers. People are getting to know the characters and want to see more of them.

Marvel >>>>> DC.

Considering that the two compare almost evenly at the box office, the true way to decide who has had the better movies is by looking at what they've done with what they've got. As Marvel has shown with the MCU, people are becoming more and more invested in the characters and the movies over the long haul because of the quality of the movies. Marvel had a plan, they put it in motion and it has turned into one of the best movie franchises in history. While DC can't even figure out how to make a movie with an A-lister like Wonder Woman [3], Marvel is giving you a D-lister raccoon with a machine gun. [4] Yes, Marvel is that kind of good. And they're that much better than DC.

Bearodactyl
What makes a better film? Hardly a simple question, further complicated by the addition of these BE-A-UTIFUL two choices and the “special” considerations this might require. Considering the wording of the question carefully, I will make it clear to you that the only accurate answer has to be DC Films. Follow me in my musings, if you will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcZOkQ_Fowg
Now if this was just a comparing of their respective top films the following would end up as a Nolan vs Whedon/Russo Brothers rant. The Dark Knight vs either The Avengers or The Winter Soldier, dependant on what day you ask me, as which one of those latter two is better is a debate quite on its own. Cinematography. Score. Acting. The whole nine yards. HOWEVER, the question is which films have been better. Plural, not singular. So since oeuvres are being compared, going too far into detail is out of the question. Averages, overall approval and performance is what’s going to win this war.
There are several aspects to possibly consider, both specific and unspecific to the choices at hand.
Awards (nominated for and received) seems to be an obvious first point of focus to come to an objective and informed perspective in this matter, with critical acclaim on the top movie rating sites a close second. These are the topics that are unspecific to the two given groups, as the same comparison could be made for WB vs Miramax or any other two studios/production teams/etc. They should also be a fair representation of avg opinion, balancing out the subjectivity as much as possible by sheer numbers.
Comparing which of the two have done a better job at staying true to the original content and providing us with that real comicbook “feel” as a possible tie breaking third point of focus is a warranted choice on my part, as it is a way of comparing quality unique to these two groups. I do not, however, find it as important as the previous two points, as I do think things become a lot more subjective here.
I am purposely leaving out box office numbers, as I don’t believe this rightly reflects the quality of the movies in discussion. Not only do I have no way to factor in inflation of movie ticket prices while comparing movies from different years, but in a world where Justin Bieber is a top selling artist I just fail to see how it could possibly hold any merit.

So on to our points of comparison.

First up is awards. It’s a movies discussion, so naturally you have tot think Oscars there. And low and behold, first round DC actually has the numbers in their favor. Since 1998, DC films add up to a total of 9 live action movies. Those nine movies have accumulated 2 won Oscars, as well as 7 more nominations. Now sure all but one of those are from ONE movie (yes, the one you’re thinking of right now), but the average is still impressive. Far more impressive than Marvel’s score: out of 34 (soon to be 35) live action Marvel movies since ’98, they have accumulated only 1 Oscar and 9 more nominations.

We then move on to round two, ratings on the internet. Quality as deduced by the masses and those to claim to be in the know. For purpose of this debate I have compared scores on two of the more well respected and known sites that rate movies, rottentomatoes and IMDB.
At first glance DC has a tough shot here, as they have several utter duds in their short line up. Jonah Hex, The Green Lantern and Catwoman lower the average rating considerably, and even the highly acclaimed Batman Trilogy can only bring it up to a mediocre 6,7.
But then you get to Marvel, and turns out they have their underachievers too. Blade Trinity, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghostrider.. the hits don’t come as hard because most didn’t tanks as hard as DC’s black sheep but they sure add up, and Marvel ends up with an average of 6,2, losing by a decent bit. Making the third point somewhat mute.
I do however want to mention the winner of said mute point: Marvel. I had to give DC its due props in the discussion in general because numbers don’t lie, but Marvel’s current execution of its larger Universe is truly a sight to behold and is bringing up the avg Marvel movie’s score movie after movie while doing its origins and roots nothing but justice. Heroes feel like the heroes in the comics, stories are well written, there’s clearly a vision behind it. So congrats to DC Comics, but they better not get complacent or Marvel will end up wipping their ass..


1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics
3 www.imdb.com
4 www.rottentomatoes.com

Anark
Tater
I thought the continuity passage was a fine example of Marvel’s superior planning paying off in ways that the DC films can’t compete with. The Avengers and X-Men examples were spot on and the DC argument could never hope to compete with that kind of angle.

Box office numbers are an easy (read: lazy) way to go about a question like this (same with sales in a best album debate for example), but then going into how Marvel’s superior box office was achieved with lesser known characters was truly awesome. Whether intended or not, it actually served as a perfect counter to Bearodactyl’s own counter that box office figures shouldn’t matter.

Eloquently written, well formatted and easy to read and follow.

Bearodactyl
I didn’t like how long you took to get onto it. You had a nice early stance reveal, but then didn’t really add anything else to your actual argument until close to the halfway point. I liked you countering the box office numbers element, which was done very well. However, Tater had a built-in counter for your counter which trumped it. Yes, Marvel has had a better box office than DC, and yes the box office doesn’t mean that much because of the reasons you stated, but also Marvel did that superior box office with lesser known characters than DC's big hitters (and guaranteed draws) like Superman and Batman; a very interesting and valid point imo.

The main problem I had is the way you ended your debate by practically arguing against the rest of what you were arguing. There is just no need to do that. Obviously there are two sides to the argument and both can have a case made for them, hence why the topic was chosen in the first place. But you dedicated your conclusion to putting doubts in my head as to whether everything else you just said could really clinch the deal for DC. It was the kind of point that someone arguing for Marvel should have mentioned, not someone arguing for DC, and certainly not when it constituted the entirety of your conclusion.

Also try PMing yourself the debate before submitting so you can check the formatting. The first half of the debate was a bit awkward to read without the proper spacing.

VERDICT
Bearodactyl’s counter and Tater’s countering of that counter was like a little close-fighting kung fu exchange of reasoning, so you both get a wise nodding motion in your general directions from me for that. Overall though, Tater was more clear and concise throughout and had more expansive reasoning for each of the main arguments, while Bearodactyl made a school boy error in that conclusion.

School boy, I tell ya.

Winner: Tater

Hollywood Hanoi
Tater:

Solid debate right here, can’t find many holes in it. Opening with the graph was a good idea as you got lay out exactly what each has done without eating up your word limit. The continuity section was handled very well, it was something your opponent only briefly touched on that I felt was key when comparing the two, its not the only factor but the bigger picture and long term booking that Marvel has executed has been remarkably strong and always good to point out how DC could have had this too with just a little planning and foresight.

The use of lesser known characters section was done well too, plenty of salient points made and led in nicely to your conclusion and you nailed it with “the true way to decide who has had the better movies is by looking at what they've done with what they've got”. I liked how overall you didn’t just make points but explained why those points were important. Good debate.

Bearodactyl:

Well I felt this one had a couple of good ideas but struggled to work them into a clear narrative, I thought you spent a bit too much space defining your criteria for what makes the movies ‘good’ and then didn’t leave enough space to actually compare the works.

I also thought it kinda weird to disregard box office numbers but then use internet ratings as a source, its not that box office is an indicator of quality but I just thought Tater handled this aspect better by looking at it not just as money made but as how audiences embraced the movies/characters and created more demand for them (sequels etc).

The ‘mute’/third point mentioned was actually one I was most interested in, I know the movies but Im not a big comic guy so I was interested to see how a hardcore fan views the topic, I understand getting stuck for space but this debate was just starting to grab my attention in the last couple of paragraphs. Not a bad debate but I just felt Tater explained its points and criteria a lot clearer.

Winner – Tater

Aid180
Tater

Not that I should be talking as I’m the king of ugly charts, but that’s an ugly chart bro. :lol Anyway, it is good that you used a chart like this to your advantage. It really shows just how much more Marvel has made compared to DC in terms of amount of films. I also like how you added Avg. Per Film. That’s a really nice stat. I like how you point at early on the quantity really can’t be the only measure and that both companies had flops. This leads to your continuity argument, which is a good choice to make here. This here is a really good line: “Continuing film series are better. The first two Iron Mans, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor all built up an overall story that led to arguably the greatest superhero movie of all time; The Avengers. To pull off a feat like that takes incredible long term planning. “ It’s hard to argue with that. Then you bring in the second point that DC could have done this and they missed the chance and messed up. It’s pretty disappointing considering how good some of the Nolan films were. The X-Men argument is solid. The timeline is very wonky and confusing with it though, but it’s mostly rectified with Days of Future Past. Mostly. I won’t get into a rant about that though.

Your next argument is the use of lesser known characters. You bring up an excellent point about Iron Man being built up into an A-level hero thanks to the movies. It’s been a while since Iron Man 1 came out, so I don’t know if many remember just how low he was on the Superhero totem pole until the movie came out. Many even hated his character in the comics at that point thanks to the Civil War storyline. I think I would have mentioned Guardians of the Galaxy at this point, but I see you brought it up later, so no foul. It’s amazing how Marvel is really expanding their lesser known properties. This is another great point you bring up, “Drawing power alone does not define what makes a movie good. However, it is relevant to note that when movies starring B-listers are out-drawing the ones with the A-listers, they're doing it because they are better movies.”. That really says a lot.

You end your debate with the sentence: “While DC can't even figure out how to make a movie with an A-lister like Wonder Woman [3], Marvel is giving you a D-lister raccoon with a machine gun. [4] Yes, Marvel is that kind of good. And they're that much better than DC.”. Great final point. Very solid debate overall. If I were to put on my super critiquing hat for a moment, I have to wonder why you didn’t mention how much money the highest grossing Marvel film did compared to the highest grossing DC film. That would have been something to talk about. I also would have liked to see something about how the Marvel films vary in tone and there’s almost a film for everyone with a political thriller (Cap 2), a space odyssey (GotG), a fantasy adventure (Thor), a historical adventure (Cap 1), and even movies with darker tones like alcoholism (Iron Man 2) and racism (X-Men). I know there’s only so many words that can be filled in a debate, but some of that stuff would have been cool to mention.

Pros:
  • Continuity Argument
  • Lesser Known Characters Point
  • Drawing Power vs. Quality point
  • Nice use of chart

Cons:

  • Would have been nice to see something about the genres or highest grossing films
  • Kind of an ugly chart :side:

Bearodactyl

Ok, so I watched the video. I would be lying if I said I haven’t seen it before :side:. My biggest gripe with it is that unlike your opponents chart, I don’t see how it really helps you other than to just have a cool video showing cutscenes from Marvel and DC video games (which I have played those games too. I may have a problem). So with that aside, I would have liked to have seen something that is more helpful to your debate. At least it wasn’t like Stax’s inclusion of “Are You Afraid of the Dark” or a Star Wars picture about Luke and Leia finding love :lol.

Anyway, onto the real debate. I have to say that the formatting feels a little weird in this first paragraph. It looks kind of strange to the eye. Only minor here. It’s the words that we truly judge you on, but I’d be lying if I said some judges didn’t use that as a deciding point between two even debates. So see if you can clean that up a bit in the future too. I like how you mention that this isn’t about just the top films, but the averages of all the films. It adds to your points later. I like how you explain the three points you are discussing and how they matter. It makes sense. It’s a better reasoning that just saying that you like them, so therefore they are better. It was a bit of space needed to explain it all, but I think you did a solid job.

Now for your awards point, you make a solid argument on how Marvel has had many more movies and only 2 more nominations and one less Oscar than DC, but I feel you kind of backtracked a little with pointing out that it was only The Dark Knight won when you mentioned this isn’t about top movie vs. top movie. You kind of make it about top movie vs. top movie here, but I guess your point still stands. (Just remember, I have to be as judgy as possible here and point out anything I can find as a potential flaw.) Now your second point here, about reviews and only, would have been greatly benefited with a chart. A chart having all of these numbers would have done wonders. I personally use the Google Documents Spreadsheet to make mine, and I’m sure a chart has won me a debate or too. If anything, it lets you add more data without taking up words and it makes it easier for the reader to find everything you are saying. Anyway, just think about applying that in the future in a spot that it would work. For this point in particular, I would have liked more detail on how you got the averages. Did you average all of the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes scores together, or did you pull the lower of the two or what? I would have liked to have seen a Marvel RT, Marvel IMDB, a DC RT, and a DC IMDB rating for each. I also would have liked to have seen Metacritics Reviewer and fan scores too if possible. I know the reasoning for your two choices, but I think movie reviewers for some of those early superhero movies didn’t quite get or like superhero movies. That said, if your math checks out, your point is technically true. Another thing I would have liked to have seen is the percentage of duds compared to overall movies for the two companies. If DC has 3 duds in 9 movies and Marvel has like 9 duds in 34 movies, isn’t Marvel’s dud ratio smaller compared to DC’s? Just a thought. Kind of like Field Goal percentage in basketball. Marvel obviously took more shots, but it had a better shooting percentage compared to DC. This point is more towards both points 1 and 2 for your debate, but just something I think should be brought up.

Your final point is fair, but I think it kind of hurts you to praise the other side so much in the conclusion. I think a counter would have been appropriate to add here. Or switch points 2 and 3 in your debate. Like, it’s okay to talk about the side that doesn’t help you, but ending with praise for the losing side gives readers the last thought that Marvel is doing a lot better. It always helps to end with your point, not the one you are debating against. Use the sandwich method. Say something positive about your point, then negative, then close with the positive again. It gives readers the lasting impression that your point was right at the beginning and the end. Anyway, solid debate. You bring up some good points.

Pros:
  • Explaining your reasoning for your points
  • The more overall awards towards DC
  • Better overall ratings compared to Marvel

Cons:
  • Video seemed kind of pointless towards the debate other than having Marvel and DC in it.
  • The ratings point could have used a little more detail

DECISION: Both debates were pretty solid. Both had their highs and lows. Since I have to pick a winner, I’m leaning towards Tater. Here’s the reason, Bearodactyl had some very good points, but Tater’s point about continuity and lesser known heroes is very good. If I were to bring it down to one thing that would have changed my opinion, I think if Bearodactyl showed the math in his ratings point or swapped the video with a well known internet reviewer comparing the two franchises and awarding it to DC, then Debate B would have won. It was close though. I hope you guys both read the advice I left though. I think you guys are both improving.

Winner: Tater

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Tater

Hoopy Frood vs pinkandblack vs SludgeHammer
Is the act of a person making a sizeable donation to charity morally good if the motive is something other than helping the cause of the charity, e.g. tax benefits, publicity, etc?

SludgeHammer
Is the act of a person making a sizeable donation to charity morally good if the motive is something other than helping the cause of the charity, e.g. tax benefits, publicity, etc?

The fulcrum on which the answer to this question rests is the inclusion of the word ‘morally’ and having looked at the checks and balances I would argue that donating to charity is morally good regardless of the motives. Incidentally, I think the concept of true altruism, defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others” [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/altruism], is a far rarer human trait than it might first appear.

First let’s have a look at tax benefits (for the purposes of this argument I will be referring to the UK tax system [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk]). We must assume that the donator is financially secure enough to be making the donation for the simple fact that the fiscal benefits are far outweighed by the fiscal ‘loss’ of the donation itself. People who are in the position to make “sizeable” donations to charities are liable to be in the highest income tax bracket which as of 2014 in this country is 40% [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm] of gross earnings. Reclaiming tax on charitable donations can only be done at the standard rate of 25% however. Let’s say somebody in the highest tax bracket donates £1000 to a charity; by playing the system just right they’d be able to reclaim £250 but at a ‘loss’ of £750. This means they are still 'losing' £750 but the charity is still 'earning' £1000. To a financially stable person this hardly seems a worthwhile endeavor, especially given the headaches often involved with dealing with Revenue and Customs in this country.

All this would be doing is "sticking it to The Man" and, for the purely profit-driven, there are far more effective (albeit shadier) means to do this. The only conceivable reason I can see for doing it is if the person in question has moral or ethical concerns about how the country is using his income tax, but that’s a different debate entirely. The true altruist would donate to a charity that is part of the Gift Aid scheme [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/individuals/giving/gift-aid.htm] which allows the charity to claim the tax that the donator would have paid, again at the standard income tax rate of 25% meaning that their donation of £1000 is worth £1250 to the charity. Whatever the personal moral code of the donator, even without Gift Aid the charity still has £1000 and that can only be a good thing; ergo morally right.

Donating for publicity is a trickier issue, and for the purposes of this I will assume that the person is actively fame/publicity-hungry. I think the best form of this is a person doing something strenuous to earn sponsorship from the public, with one important proviso: the famous person is funding their activity from their own pocket and 100% of the sponsorship goes to the intended charity. This is a moral deal-breaker, for example:

Celebrity A: “I’ve spent months of time and money training and will now swim the English channel for charity. Please sponsor whatever you can afford and re-tweet to all your friends”

Nobody loses here. The celebrity earns publicity, undertakes a challenging task, raises their profile as a philanthropist and money goes to charity, whose public profile is raised as a result. All good so all morally correct. Alternatively:

Celebrity B: I’ve always wanted to travel across America in a limousine, help me realize my dream and all profits will go to charity! Please tell all your friends and help however you can!

Here the person is using the guise of charity to do something cushy for themselves and the charitable aspect is a side-effect making it immorally self-serving. An exaggerated example I know, but it illustrates my point.

I was interested to find that most of the largest charitable donations of 2013 came from people I had barely or never heard of [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/01/donations-us-philanthropists-2013]. Insanely rich people giving to good causes with only the residual yet inevitable media coverage that any known personality will generate upon doing something good for society. These people weren’t waving around novelty oversized cheques at glitzy fundraising galas. They simply looked at their bank balance, realized it was huge and donated money to good causes with as little fuss as possible. Humans are curious by nature so of course some publicity was generated but it was not of the self-serving variety. What, then, of the cheque wavers, tax dodgers and gala-goers? While I find the glaring, ego-centric methods distasteful the end result is still money in the pockets of good causes.

Ultimately, regardless of the motive I feel that provided all of the donation and/or sponsorships go directly to charity (unlike our Celebrity B, above) then it is morally correct. In a media saturated culture we will undoubtedly hear about the publicity-hungry givers but we will also hear about the charities themselves, raising awareness and hopefully driving further donations and that can only be a good thing.

Hoopy Frood
Is the act of making a large donation to a charity for reasons other than cause morally good? Yes. Why a donation is made is irrelevant, you are making a donation to a cause that would not have received that money anyways. Donating to charity as a tax break above all else does not cheapen the donation, because you, or someone with in your decision circle, has made the determination that THIS charity is more worthy of a donation than others. The same thing applies to doing it for publicity. Motive has no bearing on morality when the cause is deemed worthy. Donating to charity when you have the money is deemed to be natural and expected by the general populace in today’s world. [1]

Donating for the tax break does not take away the good will involved. You are taking tax payer money, and instead of giving it to taxes where it gets spent on art so abstract no one understands it’s even art[2], or lines pockets of corporate backers,[3] and themselves by extension,[4] you can invest it in an area you actually care about. Sorry government kickbacks, Bill Gates thinks that money should be spent on AID’s relief in Africa instead.[5] Why should Gates pay more in taxes when he cannot personally direct that money to a cause he cares about? “Is it morally wrong for Gates to take tax breaks in America for giving globally versus the disadvantaged in his own country?” would be the real question here. Perhaps, though he does support many minority scholarships in the United States as well as helped build new computer science buildings at half a dozen universities.[6] Giving to charities for tax breaks supports local, national, and global charities, which would not receive that money otherwise.

Donating to charity for publicity also does not take away the good will involved. When you decide to donate for whatever reason[7], your publicity team always does their research and comes up with a list of possible charities you could donate to. This is perhaps the most important kind of donation these charities even get. While Gates might donate behind the scenes, a celebrity fresh off of a screw up like Lindsay Lohan donates publically, often through an auction or a publicized donation, and the charity of their choice gets out there in all of the associated articles. Free publicity gets the name out through publicity often times the charity either could not afford, say as a small local charity, or saves hundreds of thousands of dollars in publicity even if they could have afforded the publicity themselves.

Heck, often time’s celebrities will have a favorite cause such as Colin Kaepernick and Camp Taylor, a camp for children with heart disease.[8] A small local charity like this would likely go under the radar for the most part, surviving mainly on the good will of the people who started it. But Kaepernick can come in and donate and promote said donations of time and money and all of a sudden, that small local charity is more known in the region, and it is receiving revenue from places it never knew possible. For instance, kids raised $3,000 for the camp in Kaepernick’s home town.[9] Is it immoral for Kaepernick to want to publicize a cause he cares about?

The reasons for donating to charity do not affect the morality involved; giving when you can is always a moral plus. Donating money for tax breaks puts money where you most see fit for where it needs to go, cutting out the government middle man. Donating money for publicity never hurts the charity that is receiving the donation, as they usually get free publicity attached to stories of your donation. Morality is pretty black and white here when it comes to donations, you either do or you do not, there is no in between for supposed immoral purposes. At the end of the day, money is money, and any given to a charity is more than it had before the donation. What the charity actually does with that money is out of your hands.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sophie-bradley/celebrities-and-charity-philanthropy_b_2639058.html

[2] http://watchdog.org/107230/nashville-taxpayers-to-fund-californians-750000-stick-art/

[3] http://politics.suntimes.com/articl...y-stealing-taxpayer-funds/thu-04102014-1212pm

[4] http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...-massive-kickback-scheme-blog-entry-1.1832951

[5] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/HIV

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Education

[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/lindsay-lohan-auctions-al_n_596193.html

[8] http://www.49ers.com/news/article-2...p-Taylor/d6b5e354-7990-4d0a-9387-f969245f44e9

[9] http://turlockcitynews.com/life-social/item/1784-kissing-for-kaepernick-s-heart-warriors

pinkandblack
I strongly accept the premise that donating is still morally good regardless of the person's motives to help. Like many other people, I admire people who do good things for good reasons, people who are motivated by love of others rather than praise of themselves. I tend to resent those who do good things for appearance or attention rather than the goodness of the act itself. For example, celebrities that volunteer at soup kitchens for the photo-op, companies that give to charity for the good press rather than out of concern for the needy, etc… I spent my youth judging people who dropped money into the collection basket at Church, quietly “knowing” that they cared more about looking charitable than helping the poor. And all the while, the well-known bible verse always popped in my head from Matthew:

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.” (Matthew 6:2)

Even with my original contention, I still agree with this verse. Bragging is not good. Moreover, doing good things for appearance, even without “announcing it with trumpets” is not ideal. To be motivated primarily by praise, or money, or other earthly rewards is a weakness of character. With that said, I believe there is a danger in ranking motivation over action.

A few years ago, I most certainly would argue that donating to charity should unanimously be because you want to help out, and you should reap zero benefits in doing so. It wasn’t until college during an extended conversation with a philosophical professor who’d been reading too much Kant that my self-loathing conviction culminated into a philosophy. Beginning my freshman year of college, I had the mindset that a person's action is only as good as his reason for doing it. I would only compliment someone for the sake of uplifting him, only give if it was out of love for the receiver, only go to Church if it was out of love for God, and only thank someone if I really wanted to show them gratitude.

I was paralyzed, trapped in my own selfishness; unable to do good for my inability to extricate praise, and popularity from the top of my priorities. It seemed everything I’d ever done had been for some vain purpose, and I was incapable of altering my course. I was spiritually immobile, and I became very depressed. Fortunately, my philosophical narcissism allowed me to recognize my depression. I knew I was not happy, and my unhappiness forced me to reconsider this “philosophy of motivation.”

Can it really be true that the goodness of my actions rely wholly on the nobility of my reasons for doing them? Does a selfish motivation render a good action not worth doing? No, on both accounts. The fact of the matter is that if good exists, and an action is inherently good, it does not rely on the nobility of your motivations to be so. Good actions are good, even when they are done for the silliest of reasons. Giving what is needed to those in need is always good, even if you are doing it because you want to look like a charitable person. Would it be better if you were giving primarily out of love and concern for the receiver or, even better, for the greater glory of God? Absolutely. But selfish motivations do not render a good action bad, only imperfect. And if you insist on performing only perfect actions, you will do very little good.

There are better and worse reasons for doing things, yes. But one does not elevate or purify his motivations by forbidding himself to act until his motivations are transformed. You do not abandon the proverbial old lady in the middle of the street until you’re pretty sure you’d be helping her for the right reasons. That way lies madness, trust me.

On the contrary, when you are a slave to earthly motivation, the solution is to do good things relentlessly, regardless of motivation. If you are motivated to do good things primarily by praise, or money, or appearance, take note of it, and then continue to do good things, always. Why is that? Because doing good things positively impacts our whole being, including our motivations, and desires. Doing good things helps us to want the right things. So if you want to be a person motivated to do good by love and good will, keep doing good. Pray, think, be honest with yourself, whatever…but keep doing good. Thank you.

WOOLCOCK
SludgeHammer

I felt your tax argument to be significantly weaker than your publicity argument, and felt the debate suffered in terms of flow as your intro and subsequent argument felt weak and lacking in conviction, which hurt the overall credence of your argument by forcing your publicity argument to be of great quality to supercede the weaker arguments in this entry. I felt the tax argument suffered from overly descriptive writing to establish the context, which becomes a problem when your eventual analysis and evaluation takes a backseat, as I found to be the case here. "Whatever the personal moral code of the donator, even without Gift Aid the charity still has £1000 and that can only be a good thing; ergo morally right" is basically the summary of your argument, but you spend 295 words arriving at this summary, which feels like far too much of your wordcount for your eventual critical argument. I understand people like to 'set the scene' and provide a description of their argument at the start, but too much of your argument was focused on describing the process to me, rather than convincing me it was acceptable and still morally good to give to charity for the purpose of a tax break.

Your publicity argument was an improvement, as you consider the benefits that can be achieved for the charity if someone is making a donation with a view to securing publicity. I liked that you alluded to the fact that publicity in this instance would be focused as much on the charity as the individual, which can only raise awareness for a cause, thus achieving a specific purpose and aiding the charity. I felt the ending of your argument to be a tad weaker, but the brunt of the argument was better and drew closer attention to how a donation for publicity purposes can still be categorised as morally good.

Your conclusion was ok, though felt quite brief and a mere summary of your thoughts rather than an empassioned closing argument. Overall, I felt your overly descriptive approach to the tax argument really weakened the eventual argument you made, whilst your publicity argument, despite being of a better standard, failed to overcome the pitfalls of the first half of your entry.


Hoopy Frood

I liked your opening, concise but illustrates your POV well and clarifies your position. You also introduce themes I expect to be the core of your debate, whilst displaying some critical analysis of what 'morally good' is. The tax argument was a stronger argument than SludgeHammer, as you focus on how donating to receive a tax break still benefits a charity, by donating money said charity would otherwise receive. "You can invest it in an area you actually care about" was a nice line I thought to convey donations under this circumstance can still have a personal attachment to them.

If I had to critique one area, it would be your publicity argument. I felt you strayed away from the question a bit when you based your argument around "Is it immoral for Kaepernick to want to publicize a cause he cares about?". To me, the question at hand here is looking at celebrities who would donate a substantial sum, without having the personal attachment/care for the cause they are contributing to. Kaepernick's story is touching, but to me it's a strange example to use as it's arguably not what the question is asking. The question focuses more on your Lohan example of someone who may donate to a cause to save face/divert attention from making the headlines due to erratic behaviour. I felt your argument for that scenario to be fine, displaying a similar argument to SludgeHammer that the charity still benefits from the publicity, with the added bonus of you considering how it aids an unknown charity, as well as a bigger charity who would earn free publicity even if they could have afforded it.

Still, I thought your conclusion was strong and a good way to build on your prior arguments, whilst still offering some critical analysis and making additional arguments to end your debate on a strong note. The Kaepernick example aside, I felt you supplied more convincing arguments than SludgeHammer, whilst having a more effective and digestable flow to your arguments.

pinkandblack

Uhhh, I'm afraid that personal reflection story really was far too long without really telling me much in the way of your argument. It was well written but it's all for nought if it fails to directly address or relate to the question posed. The indecisiveness with you seemingly making a critical argument against donating for selfish purposes, before gradually reverting to the same side as your opponents further troubled me, because as a reader I still can't gauge the direction you're taking your debate and that is an issue. Not only are you wasting words and failing to make critical arguments, but you're also positioning yourself to theoretically argue either side which really hurts your position. When you actually arrive at an argument, you made a good one regarding inherently good actions being the key, not the motivation. This was well written and could have been the catalyst to a stronger entry, had you then considered tax breaks/publicity as supplied in the question. Sadly this was a brief argument found amongst a cluster of descriptive storytelling that takes up far too much space without really saying much of direct relevance, which really won't get you far in debates when your objective is to convince me your stance is the best. You need to cut down the descriptive writing, and focus more on evaluating and analysing the question and supplying direct examples to explain your position.



Hoppy Frood wins for me, simply for making the stronger arguments and having less flaws in their debate upon digesting all three.


Winner - Hoopy Frood

Anark
SludgeHammer
Many, many good points made in this debate. The Celebrity A/B example was well executed. I especially liked the introduction heading straight for the ‘what is morality’ issue which so often accompanies these kinds of debates. Just from reading the debate question, I was interested to see how each debater handled that aspect of it and you went for the jugular.

Hoopy Frood
I appreciated the in-depth explanation as to why selfish donations did not affect the morality issue. This was quite similar to SludgeHammer though SludgeHammer was a little more succinct in most of the similar points you make. There wasn’t that much difference between the two though and this was a really good effort.

pinkandblack
I liked you getting into the subject of morality itself, and I thought you explained your stance very well. One thing that stood out to me is that the bulk of the debate revolved around personal experience. Now, personal experience isn’t a bad thing to include, but it only really serves to show me why you believe you are right, rather than convince me that you are right. Not every debate subject lends itself to producing hard evidence and facts to back a stance up, but the inclusion of something like that to balance with the personal experience could possibly have clinched it for you.

VERDICT
I think SludgeHammer directly tackling the meaning of morality and altruism was the clincher here. While it was brief and I feel it could have been expanded upon even further, this clarification of morality’s meaning was missing from Hoopy Frood, while pinkandblack focused on it at the expense of so much more that both SludgeHammer and Hoopy Frood did manage to include. SludgeHammer’s example of 2013 charitable donations also helped that debate shine just slightly more than the others.

Winner: SludgeHammer

ZOMBO
All of you identify your stance early. All of you do a great job committing and not wavering from that stance. All of you convinced me of your argument, the goal of any debate. The paragraph / sentence structure throughout is spot-on. These are 3 upper-class debates, in my opinion.

SludgeHammer

You did a great job deconstructing the examples given in the question, although I think the topic was on a broader / more general scale.

The Celeb A vs B example was a clever piece, and I really enjoyed how you set out that distinction.

I feel the penultimate paragraph kind of stalled the debate, as you made a good point as it pertained to the publicity area already - perhaps this is where you could've widened the focus of your debate? Still a good conclusion and a solid, solid entry.

Hoopy Frood

I thought this was an extremely well-rounded debate. Like SludgeHammer, you touched mainly on the examples listed in the question.

However, I thought you distinguished yourself by turning the question on its head somewhat and showing that publicity / exposure CAN BE a good thing (saves the charity money, reaches a larger target audience), rather than just focusing on publicity as a bad thing. A neat trick on your part, and something I hadn't considered when crafting the question.

Solid top to bottom, I really have no complaints here.

pinkandblack

This was another solid debate, told from a personal perspective which distinguished it from SludgeHammer and Hoopy Frood. I dug that. A good chunk of it was pretty cool. The bible quote and how you tied it in with your argument was neat.

Ultimately, however, I feel that your debate spends a long time (its entirety, basically) on a journey to reach the crux of your argument - the bolded part in your final paragraph: "Because doing good things positively impacts our whole being, including our motivations and desires."

I really wish you got to THIS maybe halfway through, and then unpacked it. I believe that would've been a VERY compelling argument, after the buildup of the personal experiences you described, and would've made this a true home run.

THE DECISION

This debate topic was one that I submitted to Seabs a while back, and I was selfishly hoping it might appear in a TITLE match or something like that. Well, I couldn't be happier it ended up here because, frankly, I think you three EACH did it justice - and then some.

In the end, I can only pick one. My choice is Hoopy Frood, but dammit all three of you earned my respect with this. Hats off to you.

Winner via Split Decision - Hoopy Frood

Hollywood Hanoi vs AwSmash vs RAB
Who has had a bigger impact on the music industry, Lady Gaga or Adele?

Hollywood Hanoi

Lady Gaga is a more interesting artist than Adele, she draws from a more diverse well of inspirations, she is currently worth much more money, she has had a bigger impact on fashion, video, performance art and LGBT activism, she has a far larger presence in celebrity culture and has created a multi-media industry around herself in just a few years.

Yet NONE of this changes the fact that Adele has had a bigger impact on the MUSIC industry.

Why? Simple, because while Gaga was busy aggressively (and successfully) building her status as polymath popular culture icon, Adele took the relatively straightforward approach of a talented, everywoman musician singing heartfelt songs of universal appeal. While hardly the first singer to take this approach, Adele’s second album 21 struck a global chord and became a sales phenomenon, to date it has outsold Gaga’s four studio albums combined. In the sole context of the MUSIC industry Adele has not only had a bigger impact, she’s done it with a fraction of the promotional push.

Even in a comparative sense its hard to downplay Gaga’s own gigantic impact, a talented vocalist/pianist who found her feet performing in New York’s eclectic lower east side club scene, molding iconic pop influences like Madonna, David Bowie and Queen to avant-garde performance art and electronic dance music then delivering the whole package in an eye-popping haute couture fashion aesthetic. Gaga has a taste for the bizarre, but bizarre doesn’t sell millions of records, the real factor in her success is her skill at making her songs and melodies simple, catchy and universal enough to become radio hits. Its something she learned as ghost writer for the likes of Britney Spears and Pussycat Dolls and it shows in her music, removed from the strange behaviour and meat dresses etc this is pretty ordinary pop music, simple dance beats married to huge hooks and choruses. I suspect that if she hadn’t pursued a solo career then her biggest hits would have been just as successful sung by other artists.

However Gaga has a great sense for visual flair, she recognizes that an overall definable aesthetic is the difference between a mere pop star and a pop ICON and she’s put as much effort into crafting her image as her music. Ask a stranger what comes to mind when you mention Gaga, sure some will say Poker Face or Born This Way, I’d wager an even greater number will mention ridiculous outfits, sunglasses, onstage puking, ****** rumours and LGBT activism. She has the talent to back it up but the music only accounts for a portion of the Gaga brand. Had she not aligned herself with absolute hippest of designers, directors, photographers and performance artists Gaga would be ‘just another’ pop singer, her overall persona is what is really responsible for her impact.

It would be tempting to call Adele the anti-Gaga, an organic example of substance over style. That’s not quite accurate though, Adele is the product of a prestigious stage school, long groomed for a career in music, the success of Amy Winehouse created an industry trend for young female Brit performers who could sing like vintage soul singers, there was Joss Stone, Duffy and then there was Adele. Arguably the most talented vocalist of the bunch but certainly the least photogenic and charismatic, this is important because it meant Adele would always be marketed almost solely on the power of her voice. First album 19 sold a few million and put her on the map as an emerging talent but not yet anything close to a superstar. During that same year Gaga exploded off the back of a couple of massive singles from her debut album, at that time there would be no question who had the bigger impact and no reason to even compare them in any way, its with Adele’s second album that the lines shift.

21 – Adele and a handful of collaborators lay down a collection of songs inspired by a painful break up, set to an organic, sparse soul production and delivered with utmost conviction by a voice that could move mountains. Everything clicks, it’s a legitimate phenomenon, hit follows hit, the songs unavoidable and universal in appeal become engrained. 30 million copies sold, the list of accolades, awards and records set would eat my entire word limit. There’s none of Gaga’s hip references, hype or mystique to its success, just an incredible voice and beautiful songs that anyone who has experienced a relationship can (and did) relate to.

Gaga planned, hyped, designed, and conceptualized herself into huge stardom, she sold millions along the way, Adele let nothing but her voice and raw talent do the talking and sold even more, in purely music industry terms Adele has had the bigger impact.


RAB
Who has had a bigger impact on the music industry, Lady Gaga or Adele?

The answer to this question is absolute: Adele.

One of the key aspects of the music industry is the marketability of an artist, which is an area in which Adele outshines Lady Gaga brightly. Lady Gaga is very marketable in the sense that she is a… unique… human being. She is different, and because of that she already has a head start over Adele when it comes to marketability. This, however, does not mean that she has made a big splash in the music industry. Lady Gaga is a freak; a woman who is making herself look odd and wearing all manners of odd outfits for publicity. Due to the success of Lady Gaga, she has been paving the way in marketability for female music performers. Or at least she was until a plain, normal looking woman named ADELE FUCKING ADKINS came in and absolutely wrecked her. Adele taught the music industry and indeed society that you don’t have to be obnoxiously outgoing in order to be successful. She taught the producers and the managers that looks aren’t everything they’re cracked up to be. Sure, many ‘normal’ looking people have been successful in music over the years, but have any been as big as Adele in recent times? In times where music is dominated by over the top figures that pull outrageous publicity stunts and the most successful are the most obnoxious and outgoing, Adele has taught the music industry that it’s okay to be normal. Adele has taught the music industry that it’s still possible to look and act normal and still make big sales. Adele has carved a path for literally MILLIONS of artists to just go out there and do their thing without altering their look at all. What has Lady Gaga done? Nothing much, just planted the idea that to be successful in the music industry you have to be a freak who dresses up in fucking meat-dresses into the heads of millions. To add to this comparison, Adele has become a beacon of light for those hoping to become successful in the music industry without being raunchy or sexual as Richard Russell, the owner of XL recordings, the home of Adele, said: "The whole message with Adele is that it's just music, it's just really good music. There is nothing else. There are no gimmicks, no selling of sexuality. I think in the American market, particularly, they have come to the conclusion that is what you have to do."

To see who has made a bigger profitable impact (who has more sales etc) on the music industry, I will compare an album each from the two artists. In the interest of fairness I will use two from the same year, released 2-4 months apart, depending on location. From Adele I will use the album 21, her second studio album and from Lady Gaga, Born This Way, also her second studio album. We will be using two markets, the UK and the US, as these two are two of the largest on earth. For the album 21, 4,665,822 sales were made, which meant that it went platinum 16 times over. For Born this Way, there are no specific sales figures, but there is a certification available: platinum 3 times over. This shows that in the United Kingdom, Adele has had a much larger impact on the music industry, as the music industry requires fans to survive and Adele has millions more sales than Lady Gaga. Now, this comparison is not completely fair, as Adele is the home star in this comparison; therefore it is only fair that we compare the album sales in Lady Gaga’s home market – America. Lady Gaga, somehow, managed to get fewer sales in America than in the United Kingdom, with a certification of only 2x platinum. Adele, on the other hand, saw a massive boost in sales: over 10,000,000 sales and the elusive ‘diamond’ certification. This further consolidates the fact that Adele has made a bigger impact in the music industry than Lady Gaga.

In conclusion, Adele is a better role model than Lady Gaga, both in the sense that she shows it is possible to be normal and non-sexual and still be a very profitable musician, which satisfies producers and big-wigs in recording companies. She also shows the audience, who are an integral piece of the music industry that you don’t need to do outrageous shit to be successful. Adele has made a bigger impact in the music industry than Lady Gaga ever has, and Lady Gaga has been trying so hard to intentionally do it. Sometimes simplicity truly is key.


AwSmash
Adele You Now, Lady Gaga is the More Significant Artist. 8*D
To be frank, neither one of these women has had an obvious, substantial impact on the music aspect of the music industry as it is (Someone Like You could make more of an impact by Just Dance[ing] 8*D).That’s not the question, however, it’s who’s had the greater impact and the answer to that is clear as day. Lady Gaga has had a greater impact on the music industry that Adele.

ADELE: Big ≠ big impact
The question caught me off guard, to be honest, as Adele and big go together like vegemite on toast and AwSmash (well), but she still wasn’t the correct answer :confused:. Adele being fat aside (it took her a couple of minutes 8*D), she has had little to no impact on the music industry. But to prove that, we must look at what Adele utilises to composes her music and what kind of music Adele is putting out there. Well, Adele herself uses her vocals… she doesn’t do much else, but that’d be okay when looking for her impact... if you were in the seventies or earlier. What Adele does now would have been revolutionary way back then, however, it does not have the same effect when many singers that are very similar have reached commercial success between that time and now (Janet Jackson, Mariah Carie etc.) had she been one of the women whom introduced the power of some women’s vocal chords a la Billie Holiday, she’d have impacted the music industry. Or had she spearheaded the commercialisation of contemporary R&B with Whitney and Tina then she’d be innovative. It’s not Adele’s fault that she was born when she was, it does mean she hasn’t had a great impact on the music industry though. She’s not introducing or commercialising anything, R&B has remained consistently popular since it sprung on the scene and she’s simply keeping that train rolling along.

So a summary of what Adele has done for the music industry?
Introduce something new? Nope. Nothing Adele has done has been unique, ever.
Influence another musician? Not clearly enough for anyone to know or care.
Change the image? Nope. She’s boring.

Basically, sweet fuck all. She hasn’t really set the bar high.

LADY GAGA: Better than the other option
Now, if you’re trying to find Lady Gaga’s impact on the music industry music wise, give up now (fuck you google). But where Lady Gaga’s impact was blatantly obvious was in the image of modern day stars. Her outlandish looks weren’t for everyone when she first hit the scene, and they still aren’t (seriously, what the fuck is she thinking?), but that’s become the image of the modern day pop star. To say that’s anyone else’s influence is naïve, as she was at the time and still is truly unique. She did Elton John better than Elton John, managing to actually create a trend and change the scene.

It takes no more than flicking through a magazine, scrolling through television channels or having a quick surf of the net to see her influence on various modern day musicians. I’m not just speaking about young’uns trying to make it big with hopes and aspirations to follow in her footsteps (good luck finding people attempting to follow in Adele’s footsteps), but also more established stars, such as Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Nicki Minaj and Beyonce.

As stated before, it simply takes a quick google search to see that Lady Gaga genuinely has created a new adaptation of fashion that’s being donned by many a major stars nowadays. See here with Katy Perry.



Now let’s summarize what what Lady Gaga’s done for the music industry.
Introduce something new? Yes. The generally upbeat music she releases has been around for a long, long time, but she’s re-introduced the art influence that hasn’t been seen since Elton John, which is evident in such music videos as GOTYE’s “Somebody That I Used To Know”.
Influence another artists? Well duh, it’s pop. They’re always borrowing ideas from each other in that industry.
Change the image? YES. Massively.

Lady Gaga has had more of an impact and it’s clear as day. It’s evident in what musicians nowadays wear and the music videos they develop. Plus, pop musicians are some of the biggest thieves in the industry and Lady Gaga has more than likely been ripped off more than once.

Adele? Welp, it seems there’s been less songs that are reliant on vocals on the radio since she hit the scene, so make of that what you will. And Adele is also an excruciatingly boring musician, there is nothing to copy, so make of that what you will.

What I made of it is quite simple; Lady Gaga has had an immensely bigger impact on the music industry than Adele.

Image: http://www.lovelyish.com/2011/10/02/pop-stars-before-and-after-lady-gaga/

Seabs
Hollywood Hanoi - This is really well written but the thing it's missing for me is clarification of what you're considering as the music industry. You vaguely mention it at the start but I would have devoted a paragraph to the start setting up some context for what "impact on the music industry" can apply to in your debate and then work around that criteria. State why x is applicable to impact on the music industry and why y isn't. That was really the main pitfall I found with this and because of that it let AwSmash gain some ground on you because he ended up covering more areas of impact and I wasn't convinced by your debate that they weren't relevant to the music industry because you didn't really tell me why. I think you also focus a lot on success which is ok if you can make a link to why success = impact. AwSmash's 3 point criteria for impact was imo a better criteria for impact. Again some defining of what you're deeming impact would have helped here. Your arguments are well made but why they're applicable to the topic needed working on.

RAB - Ugh sort the formatting out on that thing PLEASE. Walls of text aren't what a judge likes to see and you don't want to start off on a negative before we've even read a word. Read my feedback for Hanoi's debate because it applies here as well only you didn't present your arguments nearly as well. The walls of text do contribute towards this but the structure of this felt lacking. Here you really focus in on the success = impact argument and you really needed to explain why success = impact. You showed that Adele has been more successful but why does that matter? The way you worded that paragraph was pretty messy too and read like an unedited first draft that was pretty rambly and unclear at times. Space it out better and when you're presenting figures and comparing them try to have a line where you directly list the numbers rather than vaguely alluding to them. For example "For the album 21, 4,665,822 sales were made, which meant that it went platinum 16 times over." and "Adele, on the other hand, saw a massive boost in sales: over 10,000,000 sales and the elusive ‘diamond’ certification." seem to contradict each other from how I'm reading it. In your first paragraph you say "Adele has taught the music industry that it’s still possible to look and act normal and still make big sales.". This could have been the start of something good had you expanded on it and presented evidence of this point. WHO has she influenced? Then you say, "What has Lady Gaga done? Nothing much, just planted the idea that to be successful in the music industry you have to be a freak who dresses up in fucking meat-dresses into the heads of millions.". Well isn't that impact on the music industry all the same?

AwSmash - First off lose the smileys in your debates in the future. They make it look amateurish. I like your personality in this debate although at times it does feel a little forced for instance with the Fat Adele jokes. Don't force it in there. Lines like "Adele You Now, Lady Gaga is the More Significant Artist." are money because they make your point with personality. There's lines in this that feel like you're just trying to be quirky for the sake of it. Pick your spots. The Adele hate seemed to go a little overboard at times too which almost detracted from your debate. Like with the other 2 debates yours could also have done with a paragraph at the start saying what impact is and how it can apply to the music industry. I think your criteria is the best in determining impact but you still need to explain why you've chosen this criteria and why it's applicable. It only needs to be like 100 brief words at the start but it will make a big difference to the quality of your debate because it gives your reasoning meaning. This is her impact and this is why that impact is relevant and actually should be classed as impact. The criteria in the summary's I really like and apply really well to impact imo. Explaining why this is so again though would have really put this over the top. Arguments for how Gaga has changed the industry to are very well done. For the image aspect you could have maybe linked it back to the music industry a tad better by showing how image is relevant to music videos, live shows and general marketability in this current era. The before and after image is good. On the link there's pics for other artists too. I would have referenced and linked to them too. You don't need a long list of images but just a link to how they apply to others too. Probably where you said "but also more established stars, such as Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Nicki Minaj and Beyonce." hyperlink the link to the before and after images. Giving you my vote as I think you criteria for impact was more expansive than Hanoi's.

Winner - AwSmash

Aid180
These were all pretty good attempts, fellas. I enjoyed reading them. Although, this means judging is going to be tough, so I now hate you all. :side:

Hollywood Hanoi

What I liked:

  • I thought your intro was spot on. I liked how you built me up to Gaga being the big deal and then you pulled the good ol’ bait-n’-switch on me by saying Adele truly had the bigger impact. Nice job with that. It got my attention and made me interested in reading the debate. It also set up your tone well too.
  • You brought up an interesting point here: “Ask a stranger what comes to mind when you mention Gaga, sure some will say Poker Face or Born This Way, I’d wager an even greater number will mention ridiculous outfits, sunglasses, onstage puking, ****** rumours and LGBT activism.” I like the begging the question technique personally. Thinking about myself here, yeah, when I think of Lady Gaga, I think of her outfits. So this point strikes particularly well with me.
  • As a sports fan, I love statistics. STATS are awesome. You provided this little nugget here early on: “While hardly the first singer to take this approach, Adele’s second album 21 struck a global chord and became a sales phenomenon, to date it has outsold Gaga’s four studio albums combined.” Fantastic. Nothing is more convincing than absolute dominance. Adele’s one album outselling all of Gaga’s four albums combined is amazing. Simply a stat that is impossible to argue. You go on to talk about the album in question later near the end, giving it its own paragraph. This sentence here really drove the point home: “30 million copies sold, the list of accolades, awards and records set would eat my entire word limit.” So good job with this point.

What I didn’t like:

  • I think you spent a bit too much time hyping up Lady Gaga IMO. After your swerve opening, I was expecting you to pump up Adele as much as possible and put down Gaga. Instead it felt more like you were saying how both are great and awesome, but Adele is slightly more awesome if you like her more. That may be a slightly exaggerated point on my part, but it felt like a strange direction to take after your great opening. After that though, no complaints.


RAB

What I liked:

  • I liked how you compared their second albums that were released roughly the same time. Even better, you showed the numbers you found for both England and America, the two singers’ respective homes. The extreme difference in number of albums sold was really effective for your point.
  • Your paragraph highlighting the looks of both artists and how Adele is just a normal woman was good too. This sentence truly made your point IMO, “Adele has taught the music industry that it’s still possible to look and act normal and still make big sales. Adele has carved a path for literally MILLIONS of artists to just go out there and do their thing without altering their look at all.”. The quote from Russell at the end was a nice touch too. Quotes are cool.
  • You continued the look point at the end mentioning: “Adele is a better role model than Lady Gaga, both in the sense that she shows it is possible to be normal and non-sexual and still be a very profitable musician, which satisfies producers and big-wigs in recording companies.” Solid point overall. No complaints here from this. It built upon your earlier point.
What I didn’t like:

  • I felt you were a tad limited in your perspectives compared to your opponents. It’s only a minor complaint though. You did solid work, but as you can tell, from the three bulleted points above from what I liked, two of them are about the same thing. So it was a little lacking in that aspect.

AwSmash

What I liked:

  • I enjoyed how you split up the debate into two sections showing what Adele has done and what Gaga has done. The introduce something new, influence others, and change the image categories were super effective to me as a reader. 4 Times the damage done. Big props there.
  • The look into how she influenced Katy Perry was interesting. I knew she started dressing wildly, but I didn’t really look and see when she started dressing like that. The image really helped here. Using visual aid certainly helps a debate, especially if it is relevant.
  • Your overall style was effective as well. The way you split things up, the look, the use of images, the whole thing was a nice read. From the eye test alone, yours was the best to look at. No big blocks of words to read through, nice breaks, and good symmetry in both the Gaga and Adele paragraphs when in comparison. So solid job here, bro.

What I didn’t like:

  • I’ll be honest, I didn’t quite understand the opening pun. Was it suppose to be a play on words meaning “I’ll tell you now”? Or was is a play on “Oh don’t you know”? I guess this is a minor thing. I guess I also didn’t get the reason for the fat joke either, but again, another minor complaint. Other than that, I have no real big complaints from your debate.

DECISION: This is a tough one. It feels like it’s coming down to substance vs. style. If I were to take Hanoi’s points, with RAB’s album sale stats, and AwSmash’s style, this would be the ultimate debate. So I need to pick one. I think I have to personally look at one thing here. How important is looks? Kiss was special because of their looks. Red Hot Chili Peppers gained attention from performing in just tube socks on their junk. See, the music industry isn’t just the sound we listen to, IMO. Not these days. It’s the whole feel and look of the concert put on and the show itself. I think AwSmash's point on how Gaga inspired other artists is very good. RAB mentioned that Adele can lead the way for other artists and inspire them, but didn't mention any artists that have been inspired by something Adele has done, unlike AwSmash with Gaga and Perry. Hanoi actually mentions that Adele seems to have been inspired more by Amy Winehouse instead. So with that said, I have to give the vote to AwSmash for really showing how Lady Gaga impacted the music industry by affecting and influencing other artists.

Winner: AwSmash

Anark
Hollywood Hanoi
This was excellent. I loved the dissection of Lady Gaga and the presentation of the points that supported your stance that Adele had the bigger impact on the music industry. The intro deserves special mention as well, as I like that swerve style of intro which leads you one way and then slaps you back the other. There was a real sense of understanding the situation in a deep and meaningful way that flowed through this debate.

RAB
A very good debate, though perhaps could have done with separating the two massive paragraphs into two or three smaller ones each. The debate was very hyperbolic as well, which sometimes works but can get outshined if a competing debate takes a more sober approach. Aside from that, I don’t really have many criticisms as the debate was very good.

AwSmash
I like attempts at humour. I usually put loads in my own debates but end up cutting them all out to meet the word limit. I don’t like smilies though, and if you need them to indicate you made a funny then maybe just cut the funny altogether. The debate did actually gain momentum as it went on, getting better and better. However, you focused a little too much on the fashion/image side of things. There is definitely an element of that to be mentioned, but not focused on as fashion and style are only a very small part of the music industry, and could possibly be argued to not be part of it at all. I also didn’t like the quick dismissals of Adele’s impact, as a more rounded debate would have been produced if a bit more time had been spent on properly dissecting exactly why Adele had less impact in your view.

VERDICT
This was a quality match from all three debaters. I wouldn’t be surprised by any result either tbh, be it a unanimous decision, split or even a three-way tie. I’m choosing the winner based off of their all round approach, which included a weighty dissection of the opposing stance and a consistency of quality that edged it in front of the others.

Winner: Hollywood Hanoi

Winner via Split Decision - AwSmash

BkB Hulk vs CGS
If Luis Suarez and Sergio Aguero were both available for the same transfer fee and contract to Chelsea, who should they sign?

CGS

If Luis Suarez and Sergio Aguero were both available for the same transfer fee and contract to Chelsea,
who should they sign?​

Luis Suarez & Sergio Aguero. Two amazing talents, two of the best strikers to ever grace the world of football and two strikers who if bought by Chelsea would immediately improve the attacking line up that they currently have…but if given the option who should Chelsea go for? Easy answer really. The Manchester City man himself. Sergio Aguero

It’s good to note first of all that for this debate, the current transfer window (summer 2014) shall be used as an outline.

Now transfers. It all seems so easy, a player is doing well, you like him, and you sign him up on the spot….simple right? No not really. Unfortunately for us this isn’t a game of football manager and real life transfers require much more thought behind them. Factors such as which player would the owner approve of more? Who would fit the style of the club more? And who would be a better long term investment also have to come into play. Let’s firstly look at Chelsea’s current forward line up.

With E’to now gone Chelsea’s current attacking situation consists of the recently acquired Atletico Madrid man and breakout star Diego Costa who has yet to prove himself consistently on the big stage, A pretty green and still growing Romelu Lukaku, A filler 4th choice Demba Ba, and a well… simply awful Fernando Torres.

With Demba Ba likely to rarely play or even be sold and rumours of Lukaku being sent out on loan for another year leaving just Torres & Costa to lead the line up it’s not stupid to suggest that both Suarez & Aguero would improve Chelsea’s line up immensely. What makes Aguero the better signing however is this:

Chelsea’s style of play suits Aguero more than it does Suarez

Jose has made it very clear how he expects his team to play. Glamorous football isn’t on his agenda. However ball possession, defensive play if required, heavy use of the flanks and catching teams on the counter attack is. This is where Suarez wouldn’t cut it. He’s not that sort of player, you look at him at Liverpool under Rodgers and compare him to how he was under Kenny and you can see that an all out attacking style suits him a hell of a lot more. He’s a player who would rather grab the ball in the middle of the park and run through a defence aiming to create chances for himself over others.

Aguero on the other hand, knows how to play as a team more. Being less selfish than Suarez mixed with good counter attack and ball possession style he's just what Jose would want in a striker. A creative yet static when required forward. Plus he also is the type of player Roman Abramovich wants. A silky smooth striker who can score vital goals while also playing exciting attacking football.

On top of this, Aguero is also a Better investment for the club. Suarez, as brilliant of a player he is, is the definition of controversy. From diving to biting to racism the guy has managed to get himself suspended for a combined 18 games during his 3 years at Liverpool despite never receiving an official red card. Not to mention the 7 game ban he got for biting while at Ajax and off course the recent 9 game international ban and 4 month football ban for once again…biting . He can’t even train right now! At this rate who knows if he will still be allowed to play football by the time he hits 30.

Aguero on the other hand, pretty clean record, no major controversies, no long term bans and very professional. Sure he has a few bad tackles here and there and missed a few games through suspension but even the greatest of players have that on their records. Whatever he has done is nothing compared to Suarez.

Last but not least, Aguero has the edge in terms of champion’s league experience and title contenderships experience. A team of Chelsea’s calibre would be looking to go for every trophy so having a player already primed and experienced in high pressured situations could prove vital during as the season goes on. Who can forget Aguero’s title winning kick after all? A Player like that is exactly what Chelsea need and guys like Torres & Ba simply cannot provide this.

While it’s hard to deny that Suarez was indeed the player of the season last year this doesn’t mean that he would automatically is the better signing. While both players are amazing talents and while both would immediately improve Chelsea’s attacking line up Aguero’s style, experience and history proves that he would be the more worthwhile signing.

BkB Hulk

Okay, I’ll bite. I get why this could be considered a question. Both are different yet complete strikers that appear to fit Chelsea. They’re around the same age and they’ve both been prolific in the league. However, if you properly consider influence on a team – both on and off the pitch – personality, potential and perks for Chelsea, Aguero is the only answer there can be. He’s simply the better option.

Look at last season. Aguero suffered with injuries which meant he struggled with his fitness base. Despite this, per ninety minutes, Aguero scored more goals than Suarez (1.00 to 0.94), required less shots per goal (5.07 per ninety minutes to 5.50), had a greater shot accuracy (60% on target to 53%), and matched Suarez for assists (0.35 to 0.36 per ninety minutes)(1).

In a Chelsea team that is cautious in big games, and struggled to score against teams like West Ham and West Brom with a huge number of shots, this clinical edge and greater influence that Aguero possesses is vital. These stats indicate that Aguero is a much better fit for Chelsea than Suarez.

The big games in particular are where Kun excels. Last season Aguero scored against Tottenham, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Everton in all games he played against them, including the crucial practical season decider at Goodison(2).

Needing a win to ward off a potential Liverpool challenge for the title, City were down to a Barkley wonderstrike. It was enough to make you wonder if they just weren’t meant to win, until Aguero burst through the defence and finished perfectly for 1-1. City would go on to win 3-2, and that result ultimately killed off Liverpool’s title challenge. Need I even mention the “AGGGGGUEEERRROOOOOO!” QPR moment to show he’s done it before?

Contrast that with Suarez. He failed to score against Arsenal, City, and Chelsea in six games against them(3). Influence stifled, Suarez took to diving in these big games instead.

This big game failure was no more evident than in the run in. While Liverpool won against City at Anfield to secure top spot at the time, Suarez should have been sent off for a blatant dive early in the second half. Suarez was already beyond Demichelis and could have broken into the box like Aguero against Everton – instead he decided to take an awful dive. Had appropriate action been taken against him, it’s unlikely Liverpool would have been able to beat City with ten men.

Still, Liverpool ultimately slipped up against Chelsea, where Suarez had no impact whatsoever. Unlike Aguero a week later, Suarez couldn’t manage to even come close. That’s why Aguero is a two-time champion in England and Suarez is titleless. Aguero was crucial in both league successes, while Suarez was crucial in his team falling at the last hurdle.

Despite the near miss and Suarez claiming just two months prior that he would stay at Liverpool(4), the striker skipped town, claiming a dream move. He did the same last season with different reasoning(5), before reportedly considering legal action to force through a move to Arsenal(6). And indeed, Suarez does have a history – he took legal action to attempt to force a move to Ajax from FC Groningen, eventually getting the move(7).

Meanwhile Aguero has shown unwavering loyalty in his career, despite pressure from home. Aguero’s then father-in-law Diego Maradona pushed for Kun to head for Real Madrid not just once(8), but twice(9). Ignoring Maradona’s obvious influence, Aguero stayed put at City, showing not just loyalty to his current club, but also his former club Atletico by not going to their rivals.

Really, the only potential argument against Aguero is his injury riddled past season. That, however, is an outlier. In the five seasons previous, Aguero missed only around five league games a season(10) – and that can be largely put down to rotation. More worrying is that Suarez is currently banned from all football related activity for four months for biting – for a THIRD time. Even if Aguero suffers an injury setback, he can be managed on a specific program. The only way to manage Suarez is to muzzle him.

The cherry on top is that buying Aguero would directly weaken a rival in City, while buying Suarez only weakens Barcelona, and not in any major way considering he’s never played for them. The benefits of weakening City are much stronger, both a domestic and continental rival.

Honestly, you’d be barking mad to not say Aguero. He’s more suited to Chelsea’s needs, he thrives on big moments, and he’s just an all-round better person to have at your club. Aguero neatly ticks all the boxes, while Suarez tries to con you into believing that he does. Aguero’s goals would help Chelsea achieve theirs for years to come.




(1)
http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2013/2014/sergio_ag%C3%BCero/64/64/564/0/p|premier_league/2013/2014/luis_su%C3%A1rez/64/64/529/0/p#goals_scored/total_shots/shot_accuracy/assists#90
(2) http://www.whoscored.com/Players/14260/Fixtures/Sergio-Agero
(3) http://www.whoscored.com/Players/22221/Fixtures/Luis-Suarez
(4) http://www1.skysports.com/football/...-suarez-pledges-future-to-premier-league-club
(5) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Liverpool-dont-qualify-Champions-League.html
(6) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-action-force-transfer-Liverpool-Arsenal.html
(7) http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jul/26/luis-suarez-groningen-ajax-liverpool
(8) http://www.espnfc.com/story/1030524/diego-maradona-sergio-aguero-should-play-for-real-madrid
(9) http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/195968.html
(10) http://www.sergioaguero.com/EN/estadisticas

Seabs
CGS - I thought stating that either player would improve Chelsea's squad was a waste of words because it's pretty much implied with the topic as there's no option to not sign either of them so arguing that both would make a difference felt like a waste to me. Just concentrate on Suarez vs Aguero. Your argument that Aguero fits Chelsea's style of play better was a good area to go to in principle but really you needed some stats to back up your claims here. You say Suarez works better in a more free flowing attack but couldn't you really say that for any striker? Or at least Aguero too? One of the Lukaku debates had heat maps for passing direction so maybe use something like that to compare the two to illustrate this point? With debates where you can point to stats to prove your point you really need to make use of them. The discipline argument is a pretty obvious one to make but you argue it well. At this point though you're getting to the end of your debate and you've only really given me a basic argument and an unproven argument. This comes back to the words that you wasted at the beginning. The final point you make is your best imo but sadly also you're least developed.

BkB Hulk - Ok CGS, you know how I said you needed to use stats as supporting evidence to show your arguments are fact that rather than just opinion. Ok I worded it differently but whatever. This is how to prove your arguments are THE TRUTH. Excellent use of stats and past games to illustrate your arguments and validate your stance. " Last season Aguero scored against Tottenham, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Everton in all games he played against them" amazed me so much that I had to check it and it's correct. Granted the sample size isn't the largest as he missed many of the games but it's super impressive all the same. These first two arguments were phenomenal. The part you where bury Suarez is big games is extra amusing coming off your "Is Luis Suarez a big game player" debate. I thought you argued the discipline and off the pitch issues better than CGS too and bringing in the loyalty argument only enhanced this. Great stuff countering the injury argument too. This was a super debate and pretty much flawless.

Winner - BkB Hulk

WOOLCOCK
CGS:

I thought overall this was a good entry with a strong support of directly relevant arguments. I liked how you considered Aguero offered more to Chelsea's style than Suarez, a key determinant when understanding individuals alone cannot always make for a great team. It broke down nicely that this was a debate concerning the better signing, not the overall better player in terms of ability/technique. Your followup argument considering Suarez's erratic behaviour proving a liability for a club was good, though I felt your opponent shaded this particular comparison in their debate. Still, you outline Suarez's talents might be for nought if you can't play him due to his stupidity and reckless attitude on the pitch, which again comes back to who is the better investment by Chelsea to improve their squad. The title winning experience argument wasn't your strongest, and I don't think it's necessarily as convincing that Suarez's lack of success would severly impact on his contribution to Chelsea. He's still a mercurial talent and a genuine game changer, whilst Chelsea still possess a number of experienced champions in their line up, not to mention having arguably the best motivator in the game as their manager. It wasn't a bad argument, but I felt it came off more as a hypothetical, lacking in credence, at least compared to your prior arguments.

BkB Hulk

Good use of stats initially to draw attention to Aguero's prolific nature, even when riddled with injuries. The subsequent argument relating to Chelsea's woes against deep lying teams last season was a nice touch to expand on the stats, though if you'd have supplied additional focus on Aguero's playing style and ability to exploit deep lying teams, this would have been even better. Drawing attention to Aguero's consistency in the big games was a good followup to the argument that his proficiency in front of goal would aid Chelsea against smaller sides looking to contain and play not to lose, although I did feel you went a bit too long with this particular argument. The overall argument that Suarez's antics drew attention to his questionable mindset and trustworthiness was fine, but I felt this could have been arrived at sooner, leaving yourself more words to play with.

Documenting Suarez's petty behaviour to force moves to different clubs, drawing attention to his lack of long-term commitment to a club was a nice ploy to compare alongside Aguero's loyalty. Again, you're displaying a nice range in terms of how Aguero is a better overall investment for Chelsea, not merely contained to ability and attributes, but rather a broader evaluation. The final two arguments I really enjoyed however. Accepting Aguero's injury woes, only to highlight how Suarez misses just as many if not more games through his own deliberate actions was a bold but great move, and I loved the line regarding managing Aguero's fitness differing from how to manage Suarez. Considering how buying Aguero would directly weaken City, Chelsea's strongest rival currently in terms of squad depth and quality gave you an advantage over your opponent, as this was an argument they never explored. The conclusion was well-written and managed to say an awful lot for four lines, which I mean as a compliment.


Overall, both debates raised pertinent and strong arguments to support their stance. BkB Hulk gets the nod for me, as I felt they produced arguments their opponent failed to cover, whilst trumping their opponent when it came to similar arguments between the two debates.


Winner - BkB Hulk

Andre
CGS

I have two main points that I immediately need to get out of the way:

(1) Your use of grammar was very poor at times and made your debate a chore to read.

(2) You used up roughly 300 words in your overly long intro before you even began to make any actual arguments for your pick! You basically rambled on about how Chelsea need an extra quality striker, but the point of this debate wasn’t to convince me of that. In future try not to waste so many words on intros and pointless filler.

Moving on…

I was left puzzled by your suggestion that Aguero is more of a Mourinho type player than Suarez is, especially when you made the point about Jose demanding strong defensive work. We all know that Jose binned Mata due to his lack of an engine and inability to work in a hard pressing team, so why would Aguero be a great fit when he goes missing (a point that was even made by Thomas Muller in 2013) for large parts of big games? You even wrote that Aguero is more of a static striker than Suarez who does like to fly into tackles and harry for the ball at times, so I’m feeling perplexed as to why this makes Kun a better fit when Jose demands his players to fit into a system that defends aggressively from front to back. Aguero “Being less selfish than Suarez” was also quite the throwaway statement without any evidence to support the claim.

Despite that, your suggestions about Suarez being a waste of an investment due to his disciplinary record were on point, while it’s true that Aguero has the edge when it comes to major title clinching experiences. Unfortunately you didn’t leave yourself enough words to make any other strong arguments, so your debate ended up being quite shallow.


BkB Hulk

I know this makes me really pedantic but I found your use of stats a little bit underwhelming when comparing the potency of Aguero and Suarez. Suarez might have needed more chances to score or hit the target, but did he have harder chances (distance, angles, the number of opposition players to beat or shoot through, etc) and was Kun given superior assistance (such as regular defence splitting passes into acres of space) from the likes Silva and Toure? I’m not going to completely discredit your point because it obviously holds some merit, but it’s not completely convincing without a detailed breakdown using the sort of stats that are available from opta and other sites. Meanwhile, a five yard sideways pass to a team mate thirty yards from goal would count as an assist if it leads to a goal, while a brilliant combination of a dribble and a defence splitting pass that leads to a miss in the box from a team mate would obviously not count as an assist. So really the assist stat is very vague and glosses over how good a player’s supporting cast is. A superior stat to use would have been “chances created”, although again that requires a detailed breakdown for complete conviction and clarity.

I was also dubious about your claims that Chelsea needed Aguero due to who he scores against seeing as last season Chelsea had an amazing record in big matches (equal first with Citeh in terms of points per match in games vs the top ten during 13/14, 16 points from 18 against the other three teams in the top four), but struggled to break down the lesser sides (as you pointed out). Last season, Kun scored just 7 of his 17 league goals against dross sides outside of the top 8 (7 goals in 14 matches against those sides). Meanwhile Suarez banged in an astonishing 24 league goals from 31 league goals overall against sides outside of the top 8 (24 goals in 20 matches against those sides). So surely the supposed “flat track bully” Suarez would be the better fit for a Chelsea side that already know how to win the big games yet struggle to break down the lesser sides? I’ll also extend this point to the argument you made when pointing out how Kun dragged Citeh over the line in big games whereas Suarez didn’t; this was obviously a problem to a certain degree for Liverpool, but this debate concerns Mourinho’s Chelsea’s needs which are clearly different based on performances from last season. I felt that this was a general problem throughout large portions of your debate where you focused too much on Suarez’s short comings and how they would affect Liverpool, rather than Chelsea.

Arguments against Suarez and his desire to keep on moving around and for Kun’s loyalty were much stronger. You also smoothly negotiated the Aguero injury issues (your opponent failed to cover this) from last season by displaying that it hasn’t been a long term problem, before neatly contrasting that with Suarez’ tendency to do stupid shit which causes him to become unavailable for team selection during large parts of every season. The point that buying from Citeh rather than Barca would be of greater benefit to Chelsea was also very well made and was an area that your opponent failed to cover.

Decision:

So while this was far from being a great match, due to CGS' pointlessly long intro and BkB Hulk's weak statistical analysis, I’ll have to pick a winner from the limited number of solid arguments presented. BkB Hulk efficiently defended Aguero’s injury record and argued that damaging Citeh (rather than Barca) is more beneficial to Chelsea, two areas that CGS completely failed to cover, although CGS pointed out that Aguero has the actual know how and experience of winning premier league titles whereas BkB Hulk didn’t. The rest of their few decent points were quite similar. Meanwhile, BkB Hulk’s vague stats comparisons did at least hold some merit whereas CGS just shat the bed with nearly 300 words of absolute nothing at the start of his debate. It seems like I’ve criticised BkB Hulk far more with my feedback, but that’s only because CGS left me with such a small amount of actual arguments to analyse!

BkB Hulk wins the vote.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - BkB Hulk

WOOLCOCK vs Rush
Was Luis Suarez's ban for biting Giorgio Chiellini fair?

WOOLCOCK

Was Luis Suarez's ban for biting Giorgio Chiellini fair?

‘Fair’ is a funny word isn’t it? Often open to interpretation. It isn’t fair for an unsuspecting player to be cowardly bitten by an opposition player. It isn’t fair that one of the most gifted and talented players of his era continues to ignite more headlines for his disgraceful antics on the pitch, rather than his machiavellian and mercurial technique. Unquestionably, Luis Suarez’s ban was fair.

To arrive at why the ban was fair, we need to consider what suspensions and sanctions in football desire to achieve. Not only are they concerned with reprimanding heinous and unsportsmanlike acts, but they also serve a purpose to act as a deterrent. Luis Suarez biting Giorgio Chiellini was his THIRD offence of this nature since 2010. His two prior offences earnt him a 7 and 10 game suspension respectively, they also clearly failed to deter and prevent Suarez from committing the same cowardly act for a third time, on the biggest advert for football to a worldwide audience.

In committing a THIRD offence of the same nature, Suarez not only demonstrated a combined 17 game suspension had no apparent effect in combating his recurring unacceptable behaviour, he ultimately forced FIFA to severely reprimand him, because if a 10 game ban doesn’t convince Suarez to refrain from persisting with biting opponents, then how are we to believe a 15 game ban would serve any greater use?

This is not a widespread issue, this is an individualistic problem. Suarez’s failure to deter from biting opponents undermines the prior suspensions he was issued, and forces FIFA to present a punishment that truly underlines their intention to expel Suarez’s biting antics from football for good, as well as ensuring no other player/aspiring youth player sees his behaviour as something to imitate.


But why impose a worldwide ban now, why not before?

Well firstly, the Dutch and English FA’s lack the jurisdiction and sovereignty to impose a worldwide ban on a player. They are confined to the domestic regions they govern. Secondly, if Suarez were to have been merely suspended indefinitely for Uruguay, it defeats the entire purpose of reprimanding him for his behaviour.

If Suarez were to be banned for internationals alone, this would allow him to still perform on a weekly basis for his club. International games are not frequent in the football calendar, thus a 9-15 game international suspension could accumulate over nearly two years before being completed. In the meantime, Suarez is free to play week to week for the majority of the calendar year. Not really an effective punishment for a THIRD offence, considering his two prior suspensions under regional jurisdiction saw him miss over a month on both occasions.

If imposing an immediate suspension lasting two months wasn’t enough to curtail Suarez’s biting, then under what circumstance could an international ban alone be expected to succeed in preventing Suarez biting again? It couldn’t. And if FIFA were to impose such a limp and ineffectual ban, they would only further highlight how inept they are.

This is why Suarez’s four month worldwide ban was fair, and just. He chose to foolishly and maliciously bite an opponent for a third time, all the while knowing the extent to which his two prior offences had landed him in hot water. Suarez chose to once again undermine and expose how ineffective his prior suspensions had been in addressing his behaviour, and he therefore presented FIFA with no other choice than to severely reprimand him, because a third offence is inexcusable. Once is disgusting enough, three times is just an indictment of Suarez’s lack of regard for his opponents and the punishments he has previously incurred. A worldwide ban imposes a precedent, and truly has a greater chance than any prior punishment had in preventing a fourth offence.

Suarez is a clear football fanatic, thus imposing a ban on all football related activities on his part has far more personal impact than a mere suspension would. Peope arguing leg breaking challenges are worse overlooks the crux of this issue. This is a problem confined to Luis Suarez alone. Leg breaking challenges can often be the result of unfortunate timing, quite often they lack the mens rea of a deliberate attempt to harm another professional. The same CANNOT be said of Suarez’s biting. It is pre-meditated and a clear process of thought is registered by Suarez before he commits the offence.
So:

• A clear unequivocal deterrent aimed at eliminating Suarez’s isolated behaviour, as any punishment should aim to do.

• A personal and carefully weighted ban which offers more to prevent a fourth offence.

• A severe and defining punishment, necessitated by virtue of Suarez’s persistent offending and failure to learn from prior suspensions.


Sounds fair to me.

Rush

Was Luis Suarez's ban for biting Giorgio Chiellini fair?

This debate really doesn’t need to be 800 words long. Is Suarez’s ban fair? Absolutely not.

It has the unique distinction of being too harsh and too lenient at the very same time. In his 2 previous bans for biting he has received a suspension of 7 games whilst playing for Ajax, 10 games while playing for Liverpool and now 9 international games playing for Uruguay. If you’re confused at why it’s a seeming drop in length he has also received a 4 month ban on any football related activity bringing another string of bans for his club side, which was Liverpool until his recent transfer for 75 million pounds to Barcelona. I’m not going to get into the ridiculousness of having a broad, total ban on any football related activity and then being allowed by FIFA to transfer clubs any further than saying it is ridiculous. Anyway so he now has a 4 month ban on any game played by Barcelona, in addition to the 9 Uruguay games which in effect makes it harsher than the previous bans. However does the harsher penalty come anywhere close to being a fair ban? Not in the slightest.

It is not even remotely logical for a foul performed in an international game to have any bearing on club football. Now I know that Suarez has a history of acting like a grub in football games. That doesn’t change the fact that if he performed almost any other foul such as kicking, headbutting, punching, elbowing, stomping etc he would have received a suspension for international games. You know, because the foul was performed in an international game. Like how every other suspension, drug and match fixing aside, is handed down. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at Pepe. Another player who has a history of being a grub. Among his wall of infamy is the 10 match ban he received for kicking and stomping an opponent on the ground, allegedly stomping on Messi’s hand when it was on the ground, and a few other red card offences in his career. He headbutted Muller in Portugal’s opening game of the 2014 World Cup. The ban he received? 1 international game. If we go to the other end of the spectrum, Cantona got a very heavy ban for kicking a fan in the chest. His ban which totalled around 8 months was a long time spent out of the game. However even he was allowed to train and to coach during this ban. 4 months complete ban from football is far too harsh. It’s harsh on the player and it’s harsh on his club side, who should not be affected by a ban which occurred from a foul in an international game. Which brings me onto how the ban is also not harsh enough.

Uruguay are without Suarez for 9 games, which is now 8 after they got bundled out of the World Cup without Suarez. That’s not even as large of a ban as what Suarez got for his last bite. He should be facing a more severe international ban as 9 games is not harsh enough, and the ban revolving around 4 months out of football related activity is too harsh. Now I fully understand that even biting once is disgraceful, so to do it three times is utterly deplorable; and I understand that Suarez has clearly not learned his lesson from the last time so FIFA are trying this 4 month ban as a harsh implementation to try and stop it from ever happening again. However spending time out of the game is clearly not a deterrent for Suarez as he is a repeat offender. What he needs is some help from a psychologist to try and help him get to the root of the problem. A 7 match ban didn’t do it, a 10 match ban didn’t do it, will banning for more matches, plus stopping him from training with the team, a third time really have the desired effect? In my humble opinion, it won’t. The ban is too harsh on his club side, not harsh enough on his international side and too harsh on the player himself. So to go back to the start, is Suarez’s ban fair? Absolutely not.

Seabs
WOOLCOCK - Bonus points straight away for " his machiavellian and mercurial technique". The deterrent point is really good because if a more lenient punishment doesn't stop someone doing something then the only solution in any context is to be harsher until you reach that stage where the punishment deters the crime from happening again. The next part about why it needed to be a worldwide ban was well done and more importantly effectively countered Rush's main argument. A international exclusive ban wouldn't really be harsher punishment than the one he got last time for the same crime and with the way international fixtures are so spread it's not really an effective form of deterrence, even more so because it's 4 years until the next World Cup so the ban is only really limited to less important fixtures. You did a really strong job explaining this. Counter for the leg-breaking fouls comparison was neatly done too although not at quite the same level that the debate reached prior but still effective. You maybe could have condensed your argument a little more to make room for another area to be covered. For instance, is it fair to whatever club he's playing for that they incur the punishment as well for an action 100% out of their hands. But overall this was very good and convincing along with effectively countering your opponent.

Rush - Truthfully this felt pretty rushed (oh shit I didn't realise that when I said it in my head, please be rush now). It's almost a third of the way into the debate before you really start getting into the why. Try and get there a bit sooner so you're spending the majority of your debate presenting arguments. Your middle paragraph is argued pretty well but I also thought WOOLCOCK countered it fairly convincingly by illustrating how just an international ban wouldn't have the effect intended to deter and reprimand him and how this being the 3rd time committing the same crime calls for harsher punishment to actually finally put a stop to him doing it again. You maybe could have manipulated to the wording of the topic to just focus on how it isn't fair to Liverpool though but you argued that it's harsh on the player as well which WOOLCOCK countered you with for me. He left the argument for it not being fair on Liverpool open though had you focused on that aspect of the ban being unfair but giving up that the ban was fair for punishment for the player himself. That would have been a ballsy and creative route to take your debate mind and would have been interesting to see pulled off. The part about it needing to be more of a harsher ban on the international side I thought was also countered effectively by WOOLCOCK's debate in pointing out how Suarez doesn't feel the true punishment missing select games once every few months. Yes it's harsh on the club but you have to punish the player someway and just an international ban wouldn't have been effective in punishing him for his actions and preventing it from happening again.

Winner - WOOLCOCK

Andre
WOOLCOCK

You absolutely nailed why the outright ban was needed due to medium term match only bans not being a strong enough deterrent, proven by this being the third offence. Meanwhile, you also expertly pointed out why an international only ban wouldn’t be a sufficient enough punishment. That angle was also strongly supported by the piece about FIFA jurisdiction and why the seemingly inconsistent rules apply now whereas they didn’t in the previous two debates.

The leg breaking tackle vs biting comparison was something that I covered in a previous Suarez debate, and although you didn’t go into quite as much depth (the lack of words available didn’t really allow for that though) you at least managed to neatly point out why this type of biting violence in football is objectively intentional whereas sometimes poor tackles and stray elbows (you could have added this in briefly to strengthen your point against your opponents counters) are a case of clumsiness and poor technique rather than being classed as certifiably intentional. This solid argument successfully contrasted CLEAR violence against acts that are indistinguishable between violence and misfortune. The concept of this being an isolated incident only added to your point.

I think you could have improved this by including a counter against the idea that this is unfair to Liverpool by suggesting that Liverpool knew what they were in for when they bought Suarez who had bitten an opponent during a Eredivisie game, so they should have known they were investing in a temperamental liability who had the potential to end up in a situation like this. On the Barca front you should have briefly pointed out that they have no right to claim this is unfair to them because the ban was sanctioned before they invested in Suarez. You also failed to cover the idea that the ban isn’t fair from the perspective that Uruguay suffered fairly insignificant repercussions, despite Suarez acting the utter jeb end on their watch. Otherwise this was a decent yet narrow debate.

Rush

I absolutely love your stance with the idea that the ban ‘has the unique distinction of being too harsh and too lenient at the very same time’. It’s a smart way to balance your position in a nuanced way without countering your own points.

You made a fair point about international matches and club football having no relevance to each other, but your opponent countered this well by focusing on the repetition of the same offence, as well as the idea that this is a rare problem that is restricted to Suarez, hence the need for an outright ban. This also worked against you when you pointed out the fact that Cantona didn’t suffer an outright ban, seeing as his deranged act was a one off. So while you raised valid points your opponent just went that bit further. The point about Pepe’s “headbutt” against Muller was a waste of time as well seeing as we all know that this particularly lame and widespread style of faux macho aggression is not actually particularly violent within footballing circles (if he had committed a genuine Glasgow kiss then that would have added a fuck tonne of credibility to your stance), although the other stuff about Pepe was fine, but video evidence and analysis would have taken this much further (more on that in a few seconds).

Meanwhile, the bit about ‘kicking, headbutting, punching, elbowing, stomping etc’ was mostly decent (the headbutting bit I’m dubious about, as previously mentioned) although your opponent partially countered the kicking part. You should have (if possible) also shown CLEAR examples of a select player repeatedly elbowing and/or stomping opponents during a series of matches in a non-game context (aka off the ball incidents that don’t involve aerial duels and 50/50’s which prevent outright clarity). With that level of evidence coupled with an argument that said player (Pepe?) has avoided a similar ban to that of Suarez you could have secured victory. That’s really what you needed to do to counter your opponent’s strong arguments from the perspective of “this is fair/unfair to the player”.

Okay. So you briefly covered the part about the ban being unfair from the perspective that Uruguay suffered less punishment than Liverpool initially did (although I don’t see how Barca comes into this, which I’ll explain in a bit). However, you could have added to this by suggesting that this ban even partially pressured Liverpool into selling the player, therefore suggesting that Liverpool suffered a knock on effect that had far more consequences than Uruguay will suffer from an incident that occurred while Suarez was playing for Uruguay. That’s what you needed to do to clearly point out that the ban was in some way unfair, seeing as Suarez isn’t Liverpool’s responsibility now because they’ve cashed in on the player and don’t have to worry about Suarez’ ban anymore. By carefully pointing out that Liverpool would have benefitted more from keeping Suarez (which would be more likely sans the ban) you could have apportioned some blame to the ban in terms of accelerating the sale that has caused the loss of a nigh on impossible to replace player. Adding to that, an argument suggesting a comparatively fair punishment for Suarez with Uruguay (a ban from the next World Cup, or something like that) would have taken this to the next level in terms of contrast. The basic idea was excellent, but lacked total conviction.

However, you finished weakly when suggesting this ban wouldn’t make any difference to Suarez who has bitten after previous bans. Your opponent expertly explained the difference between a long outright ban and a short match only ban, plus the need for the extra punishment as a deterrent when more lenient deterrents didn’t work. Yes, the previous match bans weren’t enough of a deterrent, hence why FIFA have gone one step further as your opponent pointed out. ‘What he needs is some help from a psychologist to try and help him get to the root of the problem’ actually works against you because (1) Why didn’t Liverpool sort this issue out after Suarez’ second bite? The player also has to take some responsibility for the problem in terms of seeking help (2) If they did do this together then it is proven evidence that psychological help hasn’t been anywhere close to being “enough” so far, therefore stronger deterrents are more than appropriate. So with that comment you undid any potential sympathy I might have garnered for Liverpool/Suarez and the situation they were put in. When you consider that Barcelona knew full well about Suarez’ ban before they signed him (due to this you needed to cover this angle with greater depth than simply ‘The ban is too harsh on his club side’) then I just can’t see a completely convincing argument from the perspective of the ban being unfair to any sides that Suarez has recently been involved with at club level, which is the main issue when considering the comparison between Uruguay/Suarez’ clubs.

The decision:

WOOLCOCK's was stronger from the perspective of how the ban was fair/unfair to Suarez, yet failed to extend into the area where Rush neatly covered the idea that Uruguay weren’t punished enough, although Rush didn’t make a convincing argument that Suarez’ current club were actually being punished due to his failure to dismiss the later timing of the transfer as irrelevant. Rush also scored something of an own goal with the self-defeating catch 22 when analysing the need for psychologists. After putting these entire factors together, WOOLCOCK’s general stance of this being a fair ban due to the greater good of the situation came out as stronger, although Rush’s basic stance was far cleverer/broader and would have won with greater detail and conviction in key areas.

WOOLCOCK scrapes the vote in a match that showed promise yet failed to live up to its full potential.

Anark
WOOLCOCK
WOOLCOCK’s analysis of why suspensions and sanctions exist was a great foundation to build upon which afforded the rest of the debate real authority. I liked the breaking down of the problem to being an individualistic one as well, hence why the punishment had to be unique when compared with other punishments meted out previously to various offenders, especially when you later described the difference between Suarez’s offences and the oft-mentioned leg-breaking challenges. The explanations as to why his previous bans were limited due to jurisdictional issues really expanded the scope of the debate, while the passage about why an internationals-only ban would be insufficient was excellent. I actually gave this another read back after making a decision in an attempt to find something to criticise, but I came up empty.

Rush
The stance of too harsh on the club but not harsh enough internationally was really interesting. I think WOOLCOCK countered it though by detailing how an international ban would play out, with 9 matches possibly lasting up to two years. A few matches, yes, but a long time all the same. Much longer than that and we’re talking about him being automatically banned from the next Copa America. I also understand the statement that fouls committed in internationals should have no bearing on the club, but I would have preferred an explanation as to why it is ‘not even remotely logical’. Just stating it doesn’t really prove it, especially as this point is debatable and deserving of a little more explanation. WOOLCOCK had a sort of counter for this element as well by explaining how Suarez’s previous bans were dealt with by authorities with jurisdictional limits.

VERDICT
Debate was absolutely superb and I really don’t have any criticisms whatsoever. Rush was still really good as well though. Maybe the stance Rush chose left him with just a little bit too much to do in terms of explaining each supporting point in detail, while the more simplistically direct WOOLCOCK could keep building and building upon his premise instead of switching back and forth between the too harsh and not harsh enough angles.

Winner: WOOLCOCK

Winner via Unanimous Decision - WOOLCOCK

TDL Sports Division #1 Contenders Match
Magic vs RetepAdam.

Over the course of the last 4 seasons which Coach has done a better job out of Erik Spoelstra, Greg Popovich and Scott Brooks?

Magic

Last 4 years;

Spo:

Season: 224-104

Playoffs: 59-28

2 championships; 4 consecutive finals appearances.

Pop:

Season: 231-97

Playoffs: 41-23

1 championship; 2 consecutive finals appearances.

Brooks:

Season: 221-107

Playoffs: 37-30

1 finals appearances.

In the last 4 years Pop, Spo, and Brooks have all experienced the NBA finals and shown an ability to coach three of league’s most consistent and successful teams in that span. However, only two of those coaches have won a title in those 4 years and that immediately removes Brooks from the conversation. As good as the Thunder have been in the regular season, their goal has been to win a championship these last 4 years and they’ve failed to do that, in part because of injuries, but a lot of the blame also goes to Brooks’ inability to innovate his offense and involve his role players in more meaningful ways; something that both Pop and Spo have excelled in the last four years.

In 2011 Spo was still learning what role each player should have what rotations were the best. This led to them losing in 6 to the Mavericks in the finals, but still they came within 2 games of winning it all. In 2012 Spo turned Bosh into a stretch four to open up the paint and so Wade/Lebron could attack the rim, also allowing Bosh to conserve energy for the defensive end. He created as much space as possible by surrounding Wade/Lebron with three point shooters, allowing them to operate the offense and pass to an open teammate when necessary with constant ball movement and screens. This lead to them running through the East yet again and then beating the Thunder in 5 games, Brooks’s squad, and winning the championship just two years after they formed. The team eventually peaked in 2013 when they ripped off a 27 game win streak, the second longest winning streak in the NBA, only behind a 30+ win streak by the Lakers in the 70s. They managed to win another title, this time against Pop’s Spurs, in a 7 game series where they managed to come back after being down 3-2 in the series. This was only possible due to Pop taking Duncan out for the final play which allowed the Heat to grab an OREB. Finally in 2014, with the second oldest roster in the league and Wade breaking down, they were simply outmatched in the finals against the Spurs and lost in 5 games. Only 2 other teams in the history of the NBA have reached 4 straight finals and this was the first time in 30 years. Although it is easy to say Spo was expected to win, it is just as easy to point out how many coaches have failed to do what Spo accomplished with their own trio stars such as the Lakers/Nets/Thunder/Clippers/Bulls. He also successfully caused a change in the entire league’s dynamic when he used the most successful small ball style to date.

Meanwhile, Pop has shared the same regular success; his team’s overall success has been nowhere close. In 2011 the Spurs became only the 4th team to lose in the first round to an 8th seed and only 2nd team to lose to the 8th seed since round 1 expanded to 7 games. In 2012, after winning 10 straight playoff games, he couldn’t regroup his team whatsoever and they lost 4 straight games to the Thunder, after winning the first 2 games. That was the same Thunder team that would go on to be dismantled by the Heat in 5. In 2013 they entered game 6 of the finals with a 10 point with only 10 minutes left, but Pop made the horrendous decision of sitting both Duncan and Parker and putting Splitter/Manu in, two of the worst players in the series. The lead quickly collapsed and the Heat managed to comeback to win the series. Had it not been for Pop’s error in coaching they may have gone on to win the title. 2014 the team broke out in ways no one expected and dominated the Heat in 5, but if it were not for an injury to Ibaka that caused him to miss the first 2 games of the WCF, they may not have even reached the finals as they had been just 10-2 against the Thunder since playing them in WCF.

So while Pop has won a championship in the last 4 years, he has also endured a first round loss and was unable to ever comeback in a series to win it, something the Heat did in 3 of 4 years. The biggest knock against Spo is that he didn’t win EVERY year, which goes to show which coach has had the most success and consistency in the last 4 years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NBA_Playoffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NBA_Playoffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_NBA_Playoffs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NBA_Playoffs

RetepAdam.

Coaching is a process. In the results-oriented world of sports, it can be tempting to judge coaches in simple terms of wins and losses. However, when comparing success over any abbreviated period of time, it’s vital to keep in mind that success is measured not by winning percentage but by how much closer to hanging a championship banner that team is today than it was the day before.

Since 2010, the Miami Heat, Oklahoma City Thunder and San Antonio Spurs have been the best teams in basketball by just about any metric (besides championships… sorry, Dallas!). However, the paths they took were wildly divergent. Four years ago, Miami was dreaming of championships — plural; OKC was dreaming of what the future might hold for its glut of young superstars-in-the-making; and after being unceremoniously dumped in the playoffs for the second straight year, the aging Spurs woke up in a cold sweat wondering where the hell they go from here.

The next four years told a story about each team’s coach — one that made it clear that the NBA’s best coach for the past half-decade has been San Antonio’s Gregg Popovich.

Let’s start with Scott Brooks. Between 5-time All-NBA forward Kevin Durant, 3-time All-NBA guard Russell Westbrook and 3-time All-Defensive forward Serge Ibaka, Brooks has an embarrassment of riches at his disposal. In 2012, OKC made its first trip to the NBA Finals, only to be outclassed by Miami in 5. The Thunder have since failed to make a return trip and were beaten by an average of 10 points by the Spurs in this year’s playoffs.

Miami’s Erik Spoelstra accomplished what many believed to be impossible in getting Dwyane Wade to take a backseat to LeBron James. He also developed Chris Bosh into a 3-point shooting rim protector in order to better mesh with the “small ball” lineups he often ran to allow James to wreak maximum havoc. However, as the Heat got older and Wade struggled to stay healthy, Spoelstra’s unstoppable basketball machine ran out of batteries. After back-to-back titles, the Heat were throttled by the Spurs in 2014 — and by a record margin.

Ultimately, what the Heat and Thunder lacked is what helped transform the aging Spurs into a juggernaut: motion and misdirection.

It starts with $250,000. That’s how much the league office fined Popovich in 2012 for holding four starters out of a marquee matchup against Miami. Pop cited the need to give his key players rest instead of playing their sixth road game in 10 days, but the move had another hidden benefit for the Spurs. For every “DNP-Old” racked up by Tim Duncan and Co., the team’s role players quietly earned their stripes.

The amount of trust ‘Pop’ shows in his role players can be seen in the following graph from a study by FiveThirtyEight’s Benjamin Morris on usage rate:



Usage rate estimate the percentage of a team’s possessions a player “uses” while he’s on the floor. The higher a player’s USG%, the more his team is leaning on him to carry the offense. It’s fitting, then, that the gap in USG% between LeBron and Miami’s fourth-highest USG% (Mario Chalmers) is roughly as wide as the gap between Tony Parker and the Spurs’ 11th-highest USG% (Jeff Ayres). By empowering his role players, Popovich created an egalitarian system where everyone can contribute and anyone on the court can be a weapon.

Witness the effect:



The Spurs run two separate actions here simultaneously, which results in both Ginobili and Duncan getting open. With the Mavs’ defense preoccupied, Parker has a wide-open lane.

Compare and contrast with this Heat pick-and-roll play:



The outcome is the same, but the points are much tougher to come by. The lack of secondary movement enables the Spurs to converge on the play.

In this play, it’s Boris Diaw pretending to seal the lane for Parker — but actually getting Kawhi Leonard wide open for a 3:



Here, the Spurs use Duncan to force Miller to sag into the lane — only to kick it crosscourt to an open Danny Green:



In this one, the Spurs use constant motion to disguise a simple Parker iso:



It’s tempting to spend my remaining space on nothing but GIFs of the Spurs’ offense in motion.

It’s a testament to Pop’s genius how badly the Spurs embarrassed the second- and third-best teams in the league. Even more impressive, though, is the roster he did it with. Led by ageless wonders, a pair of draft-day steals and a collection of castoffs, the Spurs brought Popovich his fifth NBA championship in 18 seasons and will enter the 2014-15 season favored to win it again. Make no mistake, Spoelstra and Brooks are both quality coaches. But the past few years have been Pop’s masterpiece.


Citations

Miami Welcome Party video (YouTube) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYe8B--jrbs

OKC 2010 roster (Basketball-Reference) - http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2010.html#per_game::26

"What's next for the Spurs?" (ESPN - http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-100509/daily-dime

"NBA fines San Antonio Spurs $250,000" (USA Today) - http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2012/11/30/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000k/1738435/

Benjamin Morris: "The Spurs Were an Outlier of Unselfishness" (FiveThirtyEight) - http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-spurs-were-an-outlier-of-unselfishness/

Seabs
Magic - This felt way too basic of a debate imo. The level of analysis that I was expecting for this just wasn't here. You seem to focus all your debate on who won the most which is pretty short sighted analysis imo. Yes Spoelstra won more but did he have more talent to work with than Pop so was it easier for Spo to achieve what he did than what Pop achieved with what he had to work with. Your arguments are fine for which team has a done better collective job but this debate focuses just on the coach and I was expecting to see you analyse the work specific to each coach a bit more. Coaching aspects like motivation, squad use, etc. This was really lacking here. You dismiss Brooks straight away because he hasn't won a title. That's ok if you can explain why. You say their goal was to win championships but was this a realistic goal for what Brooks had to work with? Did he get more out of what he had to work with than Spo and Pop? Ideally you would have expanded a little more on "but a lot of the blame also goes to Brooks’ inability to innovate his offense and involve his role players in more meaningful ways" to dismiss Brooks rather than just relying on he didn't win anything so buh-bye. You do touch on some other aspects of Spo's success and Pop's shortcomings besides just success but it doesn't feel relative to anything. It reads like Spo did this so well done Spo. Try and analyse it relative to the question, in this case relative to what Spo has to work with and relative to what Pop also did in that department. This paragraph also could have done with being broken down into smaller paragraphs. Walls of text aren't nice things to read. If you cut out a lot of the descriptive elements in this then you'd have more room to focus on deeper and more meaningful analysis and comparison. If you're cutting stuff then cut anything descriptive out that doesn't directly answer the question in favour of analysis that does answer the question.

RetepAdam. - This had better analysis of what the coach actually achieved rather than just the team although I still feel it could have done with being more relative to what they had to work with for a better comparison. The part before you even get to your stance is a bit too long. Get to your stance sooner. I don't think that 2nd paragraph was necessary. Or at least it could have been one extra sentence on the first paragraph. You dismiss Brooks in better fashion by highlighting the quality he had at his disposal but again it could have done with being relative to what Spo and Pop had to work with. Yes their big 3 is impressive but impressive enough to deliver what Miami and San Antonio have delivered? The part about how Spo makes the best use out of his entire squad was very good and the highlight of this debate. You compare it nicely to Miami as well. If you were struggling to cut some good arguments because of the word count then maybe cutting the 2nd set of gifs would have been better as I feel the 2nd part didn't do much more that the 1st part hadn't already done. If you want to get more points in then work on making the ones you do more concisely. There was room for you to be more concise and less descriptive here. Remember when you're picking between A and B that you need to praise A relative to B or vice-versa. Otherwise it's kinda meaningless arguing that A did this well if it's not into relative context.

Winner - RetepAdam.

The Lady Killer
Magic = this was pretty solid with a lot of facts/stats at your disposal, but I think the main issue was struggling to define success and also not clarifying the fine line between coach's individual sucess and the team's success. Clearly Miami has been the most successful team but how much of that is due to the talented players and how much can be attributed to the talent of the coach? I would've liked to have seen this distinction quantifed. An overall well written debate that seemed to be lacking some substance.

RetepAdam. = I felt this debate lacked as well. You defined success by adding championships to the team, so I immediately thought you'd choose Spoelstra but you didn't. Then you dismissed Spo by stating a broken down a Wade and co. lost to the Spurs this year. I think you focused a bit too much on 2014. The gifs and such were fine but again it seemed a bit narrow.

Winner = Magic

Aid180
Magic

I thought putting the stats at the beginning was smart. It helped to show the record of these coaches up front and right away. The 18 additional playoff wins from Spo and the Heat is pretty shocking compared to the NATURALLY BUILT Spurs and Pop.

You had one paragraph that really helped sell your debate IMO. That was your points against Pop. While your opponent did a great job building Pop up as great, you did an equally great job taking him back down. In fact, he didn’t even mention Pop’s shortcomings in the first three years of the timeline for this debate. Mentioning how Pop made a decision that can be argued as one that cost the Spurs a championship is truly something that helped to make your point. The first round sweep in 2011 was a good point too. Overall, this was a great paragraph that did a great job in burying your opponent’s choice.

Your points on Spo were good as well. The win streak is certainly something worth mentioning since it hasn’t happened in that sort of magnitude in a long time. You mention a lot about how well the Heat have done overall, but the one point that really helps you the most IMO is: “Only 2 other teams in the history of the NBA have reached 4 straight finals and this was the first time in 30 years. Although it is easy to say Spo was expected to win, it is just as easy to point out how many coaches have failed to do what Spo accomplished with their own trio stars such as the Lakers/Nets/Thunder/Clippers/Bulls” Records, STATS, and history like this really help to drive your point home. Being one of 2 teams in the last 30 years to make the finals four straight times is great. Plus, the whole goal is winning, and that’s what the Heat have done in that past four years. Your conclusion paragraph was solid too.

The only minor complaint I have here is that I didn’t really see the counter for the popular belief that Spoelstra would be nothing without LeBron. Of course, that can be countered by saying LeBron didn’t win a title until his second year in Miami, and if it wasn’t for Spo’s adjustments, LeBron may have never won a title, but there’s only so much you can do in the space provided. So that’s why it’s only a minor complaint. Good job though.

Pros:
  • STATS at the beginning
  • Points against Pop
  • Records set by Heat/Spoelstra
Cons:
  • I guess it would have been nice to see you talk about if LeBron was the reason Spo did so well or not (minor)


RetepAdam.

Let’s just get this out of the way first, your writing is great. I was hooked after the first few words. After judging so many of these, sometimes I just want to close my eyes and hope the writing is good enough to keep my attention. So thank you for your writing.

I think you made solid points about Brooks and Spoelstra. Brooks failed to re-gain momentum from 2012 despite a young and talented roster. Spoelstra lost in the finals this past season by a record margin. To the guy you picked of all people. So your points were solid here.

Your next big section I’m going to address is the ball movement and team ball analysis. The GIFs were mostly effective, albeit, I got a little tired of them after the third one. You made your point with them though. The Spurs, compared to Miami and OKC, are better at running some plays and work together better as a unit. At least in these examples. So it’s a good point and the visuals were mostly nice. This leads me to the study though.

The study is interesting with the usage rate stats. I do have one big question about it though. It’s only from this past season, right? The season in which Wade missed a ton of games, Chalmers was ineffective, and LeBron had to really carry the Heat more than ever? I guess I would have liked to have seen this with the previous two seasons too. Was LeBron carrying the team that much in 2012 and 2013 too when they won the title? That’s what I question when seeing this. Overall, it’s a good point to bring up that Pop does a great job in coaching team ball. I really loved the phrase, egalitarian system. Other than that negative that I brought up, I thought this was a good point.

Anyway, your conclusion was good. I wish you talked about this point more though. OKC and Miami both have a recent MVP on their roster. Pop has a lot of older players. Roster analysis and how Pop got the most out of them would have really helped your points just a little more. I’m glad you at least added this small section instead of using your last words on GIFs like you said you could. :lol

Pros:
  • Great Writing
  • Nice promotion of TEAM BALL
  • Talking about the Spurs roster at the end

Cons:
  • The study would have benefitted from more years instead of just 2014.
DECISION: RetepAdam. did a great job convincing me that the Spurs were super fantastic this past year and super effective. Heck, they beat both Oklahoma City and Miami on their way to the title. However, yes, the nice big however that I’m sure RetepAdam. is going to dread, Magic mentioned that Pop made quite a few mistakes that cost a championship in 2013, a first round exit in 2011, and a sweep by the Thunder in 2012. Those can potentially be countered, but it felt more like RetepAdam. only wanted to talk about 2014. So if RetepAdam. would have mentioned the past failures, he would have won. So with that said, my vote goes to...

Winner: Magic

Winner via Split Decision - Magic

TDL Social Division Championship Match
Anark vs Rigby

Is (legal) pornography good for society?

Rigby

Jerk Offerings

There's a distinction that must be made between what we know (based on knowledge), and what we think we know (based on suggestion). To make a suggestion, you don't have to prove anything, all you need is correlation, and you can suggest causation. In contrast, proof demonstrates knowledge of causation with certainty.

What does this have to do with pornography? Pornographic proponents are pervasive perpetrators of preposterous postulation that produces profoundly insufficient proof. They suggest that pornography is "good" for society, but they can never prove it. The fact that I will prove is that pornography is not good for society.

First, context: The nature of pornography has undergone drastic changes in recent decades; what was once a magazine and home video market has transformed by the internet. Porn sites outrank CNN, Netflix, and ESPN in terms of web traffic[1]. Internet porn has never been more globally plentiful or accessible. The individual effects spread as more individuals acquire access, and the effect on society becomes that of the effect on the individual.

It's no surprise that with this ease of access that the average age of first exposure to pornography has dropped to 10-11 years old[2]. The earliest impression of sexuality that people will encounter will be fictitious depictions of sexual fantasies. Without any context for these images, pornography becomes a growing source of sexual knowledge for otherwise ignorant teenagers. While publications like Playboy featured informative articles about sexual activity and even non-sexual subjects[3], this practice has been eschewed in the age of the internet.

Considering that one of three American students will never receive any sexual education in school[4], pornography takes its place, providing inaccurate depictions of sex: Men in porn can last from 30-60 minutes, whereas the average male lasts 3-7 minutes[5].

The fact is that more men are using internet porn, so much so that it's become difficult to research the effects of internet porn, makes this troublesome. There is no longer enough men who don't use it to provide a control group for studies. However, research on its effects have still been researched: We know how porn affects the brain.

The brain chemical linked to porn use is dopamine: This is known as the Coolidge effect. This phenomena shows that as a male maintains a single subject/mate, the amount of dopamine released decreases and time necessary for ejaculation increases. This effect has been well documented:


(source)

This same behavior can be replicated in humans:


(source)

As men spent more time on the same piece of pornography, their arousal decreased. Introducing new content instantly renewed arousal, and released more dopamine.

With internet porn, a single click introduces new content, and instantly releases dopamine. With a virtually unlimited amount of free content, the dopamine binge never has to end. The peak of introducing new content can be replicated endlessly.

This enables men to binge on dopamine as they flood the reward circuits, releasing Delta-FosB[6]. Delta-FosB is triggered by compulsive behaviors that release chemicals such as dopamine, such as exercise. What differentiates exercise from porn, however, is that endless novelty factor fed by an endless supply of pornographic content offered by the internet.

Dopamine triggers Delta-FosB, which trigger the binge mechanisms, increasing desire for more dopamine. With binging comes tolerance; pleasure responses deteriorate, and the amount of dopamine required to achieve the Coolidge effect increases. These effects are mirrored in addicts of drugs[7], food[8], internet[9], and video games[10].

Now that we know how it works, let's examine how pornographic proponents think it works:

There's a massive methodological flaw in these and similar studies: They rely on self-reporting. They tell men to go use internet porn, and then report how they feel it affected them. This may incline self-reporting participants towards confirmation bias; they want to believe their porn use is not an issue, so they report that it's not an issue, and that it's actually good for themselves. All these participants can offer is the suggestion that they perceive benefits from porn use, they cannot prove anything.

This is potentially the strongest argument for porn. Since the rise of internet porn, rape and sexual assault has fallen:


(source)

Looking at '91 on, the rate has sharply decrease. This is indisputable. However, this only proves correlation, and suggests causation. This rate has clearly been falling prior to the spread of internet pornography: What accounts for the decrease from '73 to '90? Progressive education about consent and rape, which culminated in the Violence Against Women Act of '94, which was in the works since the '80s[11].

Despite this massive increase in funding of rape awareness, assistance programs for victims, increased databases and registries for offenders, pornographic proponents completely ignore these legislative and social efforts, and instead chalk this up as a victory of internet pornography, which is ultimately baseless postulation.

More issues make these claims harder to take seriously. The definition of rape used to gather these statistics is outdated[12]. Most cases of rape go unreported at various rates over time, making the numbers even less reliable[13].

Users of porn suggest that they don't feel any negative effects of porn, and some might even suggest that porn has reduced the rate of sexual assault and rape in society, but we know internet porn is a growing source of misinformation about sex, we know the release of dopamine from internet porn use drives binging, tolerance and a need for novelty, becoming increasingly identical to video game, internet, drug, and food addiction cycles. You cannot accept suggestions that pornography is good for society in the certain face of proof.

[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites
[2]. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html
[3]. http://www.playboyarchive.com/viewer#/2/39/10/S
[4]. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3071001/n.../carnal-knowledge-sex-ed-debate/#.U8QpqLGcybY
[5]. http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-r...-10-things-porn-gets-horribly-wrong-about-men
[6]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11572966
[7]. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/understanding-drug-abuse-addiction
[8]. www.anad.org/news/binge-eating-disorder-affected-by-brain-chemistry/
[9]. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2012/854524/
[10]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545602
[11]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act#Background
[12]. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
[13]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html


Anark

Legal pornography is good for society for many more reasons than because boobs. Pornography has a positive influence on issues as serious as gender equality, relationships, general liberty, education, and even sex crime.

I know, I know. I had you at because boobs. But humour me.


PART ONE – EXTRA SAUSAGE​

The key to understanding why porn is good is in the reasons why anti-porn rhetoric says it’s bad. Closer examination of those reasons reveals that, like a pizza delivery guy holding the pizza box suspiciously close to his groin, they’re not all they seem.

FALLACY #1: PORN ENCOURAGES SEX CRIME
It’s not a huge leap to imagine men predisposed to committing sex crimes might be encouraged to action by viewing pornography. It would, however, be an entirely inaccurate leap, according to the facts.

Studies in several countries where pornography was legalised reveal that in every case the rates of sex crimes did not increase, but decreased. A recent extensive study in the Czech Republic showed sex crime rates fell significantly across all varieties including molestation, rape, child abuse and exhibitionism. The Czech example is repeated in every single study like this. There are no exceptions.

Thus the availability of porn lessens the likelihood of at least some of the men who are predisposed to committing sex crimes from actually committing them.

That’s a good thing, no?

FALLACY #2: PORN HARMS RELATIONSHIPS
No, the inability to communicate sexual desires harms relationships. A secret porn habit discovered by an unwitting partner is a symptom of ill communication, not the cause. Porn is actually a wonderful way for couples to explore their sexual desires without exposing themselves to embarrassment and/or rejection.

Watching porn together can help a couple discover what the other really likes, and even what they like themselves. It can be especially useful for couples who found each other before becoming experienced, or for long-term couples who have lost their spark due to their sex lives becoming routine and boring.

FALLACY #3: PORN HARMS BODY IMAGE
The iconic porno image of bazooka-boobed bimbos is but a tiny sliver of actual pornography. The VAST majority of porn features extraordinarily ordinary women. There are all kinds of everything out there. I could write multi-volumed novels just describing all the different nipple shapes I’ll see during a five minute browse. It’s the same for men as the oft-mentioned giant members of male pornstars are actually far less prolific than the more ordinary-sized todgers that actually feature in the majority of porn.

This prevailing ordinariness proves porn has the capacity to teach us that people come in all shapes and sizes and we’re all attractive to somebody somewhere. Compared to photo-shopped fashion magazines and mainstream media, porn is a fountain of truth about body image.

If porn has achieved nothing else, it has shown us that no matter who you are or what you look like, somebody somewhere will happily let you sit on their face.

FALLACY #4: PORN FUELS ADDICTION/ISOLATION
Studies have revealed that self-confessed ‘porn addicts’ are just people with very high libidos. Porn is not the instigator in such cases, and any issues would still exist regardless of the availability of porn.

Some claim excessive porn use leads to individuals becoming isolated from society, but this is true of any excessive solo pursuit (gaming, TV-watching, etc). Once again, the problem isn’t porn; the problem is something pre-existent within the individual.


PART TWO – FREEDOMINATE ME, BABY​

GIRL POWER
Many feminists believe porn objectifies women. However, many other feminists (a majority, in fact), believe in the freedom of expression that female pornstars have, or they believe porn actually has many benefits for women.

One thing they all agree on: women's rights are far stronger in societies with liberal attitudes towards sex, including the availability of porn. This direct correlation between gender equality and porn’s availability is nothing absolute, but significant in a world where gender equality fluctuates wildly.

Thus, porn’s availability is an indicator of a free and equal society.

PORN IS EDUCATIONAL
People from repressed cultures often find porn a valuable educational tool. Consider a young man finally escaping religious repression and heading out wide-eyed into the world after having lived his whole life being told sex is dirty and sinful. Porn will open his eyes to the fact that sex is only dirty and sinful if she’s up for it.

PORN SAVES LIVES
Writing in the Guardian, porn director Anna (Span) Arrowsmith described correspondence from a badly-scarred face-cancer survivor. Wife divorced him and he wanted to die. However, interacting with web-cam girls gave him a reason to continue living.

Jesus be jelly because porn saves too.

Not everybody finds that someone who finds them attractive. Many folks are left sexless due to obesity, ugliness or just because of an incredibly boring personality. Some just don’t live near any sheep. Porn is a sexual experience for these people. Why should the ugly and sheepless go to the grave not knowing what cumming over somebody’s face looks like? I suppose they could try angling themselves in front of a mirror, though the logistics would be a nightmare.

Don’t ask me how I know that.


MONEY SHOTS​

You’ve borne witness to the many positive aspects of legal pornography and how the supposed problems caused by porn are not caused by porn at all. The repeatedly documented reduction in sex crime alone should be enough to realise pornography is absolutely good for society. Add onto that the genuine ordinariness of the vast majority of pornstars being a very real antidote to the false body image portrayed by mainstream media. Porn also educates the repressed and rescues the loneliest of souls from total abandonment.

Also remember the potential for porn to open up relationships and take them to a more intimately connected place. That is a valuable spiritual benefit of pornography that can strengthen and enrich the very relationships that ultimately bind our society together.

In this way, porn isn’t just good for society. It is necessary.

Seabs
Rigby - Your intro sets your debate up really well and the analysis in this is excellent. While I thought you did a great showing that porn advocates can't really prove that porn is good for society, I thought your attempt at actually proving it's not good for society was at a weaker level. For me you did a good job explaining the effects of porn but what was lacking was a really strong and direct and undisputed link to it being bad for society. Every time I read through this I'm not really convinced that you've proved anything to me that your stance is knowledge over suggestion. You talk about dopamine binging a lot but for me it was missing PROOF that dopamine binging results in negative effects on society. In your conclusion you say "we know the release of dopamine from internet porn use drives binging" and yes I now know that but I don't know why this is so bad for society. That's the part that was missing for me to really be convinced by your for argument. Also for me I thought you spent too long describing in this stage of your debate and more of this should have been used up linking it back to the question at hand. I also would suggest making the explanation a tad clearer and less academic-y if that makes sense. Remember who your audience is. We're not science or medical lecturers, try and phrase like it you're taking the really science-y parts and explaining it someone who doesn't understand what the science speak means. I understand it and it's not a case of it being badly worded beyond understanding but I feel it could be worded better. The second half is great though when you switch focus to counter arguing against the opposing stance. The self-reporting bit was maybe a little iffy. You say "All these participants can offer is the suggestion that they perceive benefits from porn use, they cannot prove anything." but can't this work the other way too? Can't they also just offer the suggestion that they don't perceive benefits? Maybe this would have stuck out less to me if you were able to prove that the detriments of porn could be proven rather than just suggested. The correlation doesn't equal causation part is super though and bang on the money analysis wise.

Anark - Awesome that you're arguing against each other but especially with the structure you both used for your debates of focusing as much on your stance as the opposing stance. Made for a fun comparison. I thought your first argument was countered nicely by Rigby's argument that correlation isn't causation and other factors can also be responsible thus this doesn't directly prove anything. Your source doesn't seem to dispel that either. Also you say "studies in several countries" but only source one of them. Well if there's multiple ones then reference them. Fallacy #2 was expertly dealt with though. Fallacy #3 sees you and Rigby come head to head again and I could only settle this battle as a draw. Both of you state your point but neither of you can really prove it. Both arguments are good though. If you had a reference to prove this line, "The VAST majority of porn features extraordinarily ordinary women." then that would have given you the edge. However I'm not sure how you would prove that so I'm not holding it against you at all. Fallacy #4 I'd call pretty even too although I'm maybe edging slightly towards your side of the argument. Yes people can become addicted to porn which is a strong argument for it being bad for society but does that also mean any vice is bad for society. Is alcohol bad for society too then? Again it's a tough argument to undisputedly win because it's hard to really prove this point. Additionally, I also thought your style of writing was better. Yes the personality is an added bonus but that's not really something that should split these two debates. The ability to make your arguments much more concisely without a big drop in quality relative to what Rigby produced using more words is though as it allowed you to cover much more ground and the concise nature of this debate didn't fall victim to a lack of expansion either imo. The feminists part I thought was ay ok. It felt like you argued some think it's good but others think it's bad and you almost cancelled both sides out to come to a tie rather than a point in favour of your stance. This was summed up by the some do some don't nature of your opening line here. The educational point is another strong point, although some sort of reference to really back your claim up would have put it really over the edge. The closing argument is great though and most importantly for me does a great job linking porn back to society and how the impact is positive. This is where I thought Rigby fell a little short in that the link back to negative effects on society didn't seem as strong as they were in this point here.

This is really tight but I'm gonna vote for Anark. I thought his debate benefited from covering more ground and whereas both arguments against the other stance were really strong I thought Anark edged it with a more impressive argument for his stance that linked back to the impact on society better.

Winner - Anark

WOOLCOCK
Rigby:

I think the main issue I had with this debate was that I felt you spent so much time outlining dopamine and the mental aspects of pornography, that your overall argument became very centralised and narrow compared to that of your opponent. It didn't help for me that the culmination of your argument was that essentially it produces compulsive behaviour that manifests itself in other forms, e.g video games. I just felt that after such a substantial overview of 'the porn effect', that your eventual analysis would provide a more damning insight into why porn is bad for society than you actually supplied. The way you countered the decrease in sex crime argument was excellent and your best point imo, but even this to a degree doesn't necessarily indicate porn is bad for society: just that it might not be fundamentally good in solely preventing sex crimes. I just felt you were straying away from the question at hand too much, and really lacked specific examples to explain why pornography isn't good for society. Your opponent produced a more expansive and varied outlook on how pornography can effect society, and in doing so raised a number of arguments for which you had no counter, but the key issue at hand for me is that for a debate arguing pornography isn't good for society, I just felt you supplied too few specific examples to support your argument. I really liked the opening with regard to causation and supplying proof, but overall I just felt you failed to make enough convincing arguments to convince me as a reader that you were correct.

Anark:

I felt your opponent supplied a strong counter for the decrease in sex crime argument, especially in America in terms of greater awareness into rape/sexual assaults and preventive measures to capture offenders and prevent repeat offences. The relationship argument however I thought was a very smart argument, and immediately introduced an argument for which your opponent had no answer. I liked how you initially focused on a secret porn habit being an indicator of poor communication between the couple, which could manifest in other ways beyond watching porn. But the argument of couples being able to privately explore and become creative as a couple through exposure to the many fantasies pornography instills, and the way in which this can prove vital for couples who lose their initial spark after prolonged years as a couple was a really inventive argument. The body image argument I felt was a bit weaker, though I felt you were onto something when you compared it to fashion/models where the perception of women focuses on dangerously skinny figures, as opposed to the diverse range of body types in porn. The educational example I felt was a bit unnecessary, in so far as I felt it applied to your prior example regarding couples who can use porn to become more creative and rekindle past passions. The liberal aspect of women's rights was an interesting example, though I felt porn was only one instance in which women's rights and a general freedom in which to act, rather than a specific instance in driving female power and freedom.

Your conclusion I felt was strong, aside from the sex crime argument which I felt your opponent left a logical counter for, at least in respect of their being many factors as to why sex crimes have decreased, rather than the introduction and growth of porn being the primary cause. Still, I felt you explored and raised more pertinent and convincing arguments for areas in which exposure to porn can benefit an individual, whilst also raising an intriguing counter to your opponent's argument relating to compulsive behaviour, with you arguing these instances are related to the individual, which can manfiest through other factors beyond merely porn.


Winner - Anark

Andre
Rigby

Look, this debate is excellent from a research perspective, but what it severely lacked in the beginning was elaboration in key areas. Yes, pornography can potentially form warped views of sexuality within the minds of minors, but WHY is this problematic for society? You failed to point out factors that could become problems from this, such as encouraging sexualisation of young children, possible growing rates of pregnancy within underage girls, heightened levels of misogyny within young boys who can’t rationalise that these fuck flicks are just for entertainment and not an accurate portrayal of the female population, etc. “Men in porn can last from 30-60 minutes, whereas the average male lasts 3-7 minutes”… so what is the problem with this, that it’s putting pressure on young boys to perform like studs before they’re old enough to legally be having sex? Maybe you’re implying that, but without explicitly writing that you’re just providing research without delving into the details of how serious a problem this could be.

The dopamine section is also technically very good in terms of scientific research and explanation, but debater B had a good counter for this in the sense that the problem often lies with the individual having an addictive personality. I thought you both made good arguments here. Meanwhile, your argument that self-reporting after Porn use creates research flaws was good.

You absolutely battered your opponent with the rape statistic material (although you could have strengthened this by pointing out that the internet wasn’t exactly widely used in the early to mid-90’s when rape statistics dropped off a fair bit) and came out looking strong with the correlation doesn’t equal causation argument.

This was a good debate that would have been great with further elaboration and expanded arguments.

Anark

You neatly argued that porn doesn’t encourage more sex crimes, yet at the same times your opponent made a great counter by successfully arguing that porn isn’t necessarily responsible for dropping rates of rape. So while you’ve proven that Porn isn’t bad for society in this instance, you haven’t proven it’s good either.

Your porn harms relationships section contains a good argument to suggest that other factors are more likely to ruin relationships before Porn does. However, I’m a bit dubious about “It can be especially useful for couples who found each other before becoming experienced” because it’s highly dependent on what type of porn is being viewed, with some being more realistic and others being a bunch of fantastical nonsense or of the taste that caters to hardcore fuckers. It’s not a major criticism but you could have been more specific there by pointing out that this would relate to a certain type of pornography. For example, it would be a bit much for an inexperienced girl to uncomfortably go along with being shagged up the arse and having her lover finish on her tits because the couple think it’s “normal” and that’s what all couples do. Your opponent even briefly covered how porn can set unrealistic expectations and how that isn’t good for society.

Your third section was easily your best and also an area which your opponent didn’t cover. Porn doesn’t discriminate against particular body types and with good reason because the world’s population has a variety of weird and wonderful tastes. There’s a lid for every pot as the saying goes. The idea that Porn is more representative of general societal body images than fashion and celebrity crazed media outlets only furthered this.

I’m not too keen on the use of "feminists" as an authority when it comes to societal issues because there are so many different types of feminists (I know that a lot of radical feminists absolutely loathe porn). More to the point, they’re just a minor sub section of society. I’d rather see statistics and reports concerning Women’s’ general attitudes towards porn, rather than just from a certain element of them. In the same section “This direct correlation between gender equality and porn’s availability is nothing absolute” played right into your opponent’s hands due to his overall stance that Porn can’t be credited with these societal improvements because correlation doesn’t equal causation. You needed a stronger use of language and deeper evidence to win me over there.

The “Porn will open his eyes” segment was kind of throwaway without any supporting evidence or persuasive stories. This could apply either way, it might make some think sex is normal, it might make others revile sex even more if they witness certain types of more extreme porn without the proper education to rationalise it as not being the norm.

The porn saving lives story is sweet and is at least supported by evidence unlike your previous example, but it’s an isolated incident. Also, what’s to say that this man wouldn’t have found other forms of acceptance in a society without porn, ones that aren’t so shallow and based on financial transactions? Surely it’s better for a man like that to find genuine help that can integrate him back into society where he doesn’t have to pay for interaction? This idea is even more obvious when reviewing the last part of your paragraph which concerns fatties, mingers and bores. Surely without access to porn it might encourage these people to try and meet someone in real life? After all, plenty of fat ugly boring people find love/sexual liaisons, while sexual therapy is readily available for those who have confidence issues. I’m not dismissing your argument, but I wasn’t totally convinced by it either.


The vote

The problem I had with this match is that neither debate convinced me that porn is strongly good or bad for society; instead it’s just “there”. However, with this debate concerning whether porn is “good for society” (and not “is it good or bad”) then I have to vote for the debate that argued that it isn’t necessarily good, the one that provided greater evidence and gave me less to criticise.

Rigby wins the vote.

Winner via Split Decision - Anark

CHAMPION VS CHAMPION
Seabs vs Aid180

What should be the top 2 matches at Wrestlemania 31?

Aid180

What should be the top 2 matches at Wrestlemania 31?
Ten years ago we saw the ushering in of a new era. WWE pushed two new stars to the top, John Cena and Batista. It’s time WWE does that again with two stars with very bright futures, Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose. In order to put these guys over, they need to be in the biggest matches possible. They need to be in matches with Brock Lesnar and John Cena. We need Lesnar vs. Reigns and Cena vs. Ambrose at Mania 31.

The Need for Stars

WWE is aging. They need new blood. Cena is 37, Punk is retired, The Rock is a movie star, Undertaker is gone, Triple H is semi-retired, and even Orton has a lot of mileage on him. Not only that, but WWE is also low on big stars. Daniel Bryan is getting his second surgery, Sheamus isn’t very over, Del Rio is rumored to be leaving, and Chris Jericho is only part time now. They need new blood at the top. Now look at the two guys I think should be in the top two matches. Ambrose is entering his prime at 28. Roman Reigns is just two months into 29.

Why Cena and Lesnar

Cena and Lesnar are the two biggest names under contract right now. Fact. Cena is the face of the WWE and the most over star right now (whether you like him or not). Lesnar is a huge draw. He still has crossover power from his time in UFC and defeating Undertaker at Wrestlemania solidifies him as not only a top star now, but of all time. They are the two biggest names. You can’t not have them in the top two matches at the biggest show of the year.

Why not have them face each other? Two reasons. Cena has already faced Lesnar in one of his few return matches. A rematch wouldn’t be as impactful as it could be, especially since Cena already overcame the odds and we may possibly get this match at Summerslam. Two, you need to separate your drawing power. Lesnar and Cena together in one match is only one big drawing match. Having a Lesnar match AND a Cena match makes two big drawing matches. A dual main event.

Why Reigns and Ambrose

As mentioned, both Ambrose and Reigns are 8+ years younger than Cena. Sure wrestlers can wrestle well into their 40’s, but at that age they need a lighter schedule with fewer matches, a safer style, and longer recoveries from injuries. Having younger guys move to the top will help WWE continue to produce big matches year round when guys like Cena can’t go every weekend a year. After age, Ambrose and Reigns have a lot going for them. This includes the audience.

Ambrose and Reigns are getting a strong crowd reactions on Raw and PPVs. They are managing to get crowd reactions from the casual and hardcore fans. That’s impressive for two guys that haven’t been world champions yet. The strong crowd reactions they get from both audiences combined with the reactions Cena and Lesnar get would create an epic environment at WrestleMania. The crowd would care and they would be involved. These reactions from their fan bases are also important for the specific matches. Dean Ambrose has more of a cult following from the hardcore fans thanks to his indy days. This matches up great with John Cena, who is typically booed by the hardcore fans. This would give the both fanbases a guy to cheer for. Reigns on the other hand, is more over with the casual fans thanks to his cool aura and explosive comeback moves like the Superman Punch. However, Reigns’ cult following is not nearly as strong as Ambrose’s or Lesnar’s. Matching Reigns with Lesnar provides both fan bases a guy to cheer for, like Ambrose vs. Cena.

Characters are Everything

Cena’s the ultimate good guy. He is the boy scout. He does the right thing and does what society would want a good person to do. Ambrose, he’s completely unhinged, crazy, and unpredictable. He’s a loose cannon. He fights society. He is anarchy. Cena vs. Ambrose would be the ultimate Rules vs. Rulebreaker matchup. They cannot be farther apart. On top of that, both guys can work the mic. Both guys can sell the feud with their words. They can fill the feud without the need of physical attacks. This means when things finally get more physical, the audience will be loving it. It will have been built up. It will be the perfect feud that culminates in a top match at Mania.

Reigns and Lesnar are both better when silent. Actions speak louder than words for them. If things go as expected, we may see Brock Lesnar as WWE World Heavyweight Champion by Summerslam. Brock Lesnar is coming off of the biggest Wrestlemania win ever with his conquering of the streak. Winning the title would give him the largest amount of credibility that is physically possible. He would be huge, and whoever could topple him would be made. This is where Roman Reigns comes in. Reigns is already getting a lot of vocal support with the crowd. It is getting pretty similar to Batista’s support in 2005. Having the young man on a mission winning the Rumble and facing the dominant champion Brock Lesnar in a Mania showdown would blow the roof off of the place. Since they’re not vocally as strong, building this matchup as the Immovable Object vs. the Unstoppable Force would be reminiscent of a classic feuds. With so much momentum given to both sides, the feud wouldn’t need as much speaking, making them perfect for each other.

Conclusion

WWE needs new blood. Ambrose and Reigns are the new blood. Lesnar and Cena are the two biggest stars in WWE and they produce great PPV matchups. It would be wrong not to have them in the top two matches. Reigns vs. Lesnar and Ambrose vs. Cena is the way to go.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestlemania_21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Rules_(2012)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Lesnar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Reigns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Ambrose

Seabs

What Should Be The Top 2 Matches at Wrestlemania 31?​

The top 2 matches at Wrestlemania traditionally follow a typical formula; the Title match and a Mega Attraction match (recently The Streak match). Wrestlemania 31 should be no different. One should be for the Championship and now The Streak is broken that role should now fall directly to the conqueror and who he faces. Therefore, the top 2 matches at Wrestlemania 31 that I propose are:

VS.


VS.




ROMAN REIGNS VS THE ROCK

A STAR IS BORN

We'll start with the Championship match. It's apparent to everyone that Roman Reigns is destined for stardom in the impending future and who they should be pulling the trigger on as the next big thing1. Bryan has already had his moment2, Bray is the guy THE guy feuds with and Cesaro doesn't have the star-presence charisma.

To get there though, he needs that career-defining moment where he "makes it" which typically comes from winning your first World Title3. To give Reigns the best chance of succeeding at the highest level possible this moment needs to be on the biggest stage in front of the biggest audience3.

For this defining win to achieve its maximum potential the opponent needs to be at the level that WWE want Reigns to get to. So that rules out your typical Randy Orton Champion. This Champion needs to be a MEGASTAR. Sadly for Hunter he isn't that and he's been working with Reigns throughout 2014 anyway. Additionally, Brock shouldn't be losing only one Wrestlemania after ending The Streak and nothing on TV has told us Brock will be Champion either. The other megastar at WWE's disposal is John Cena. However face vs. face doesn't give the desirable dynamic to make Reigns' defining moment emphatic enough. So we need someone on Cena's level they can afford to turn heel to properly feud with Reigns without burning the current face of the company and leaving them royally fucked babyface wise by putting all their eggs in one basket.

ENTER THE ROCK

Admittedly this would involve Rock actually returning to wrestle again but this does seem somewhat likely as of now and isn't some pipedream like Punk or Austin wrestling at Wrestlemania 31 is4. Not only working with The Rock but also beating him in the main event of Wrestlemania would firmly cement Reigns as the next chosen one along with exposing him to a whole new audience that only The Rock can bring in that Reigns can then convert to loyal subscribers.

SETTING THE MATCH UP

Getting there is insultingly simple. Reigns wins the Rumble and Rock comes back for his Title rematch he's touted about at the same event and wins. Then the feud writes itself once Rock turns heel. This should happen upon return when he goes up against the babyface champion and increasing traits of his Hollywood Rock persona start creeping out. Put the belt on an over babyface like Bryan (who has history with Rocky remember5) and have Rock not only cheat to snatch the Title but also gloat about it after. The key to making Rock the heel that puts Reigns over is that Rock can actually draw heel heat. "Insider fans" already hate him and putting the belt on him for another part time run would infuriate them enough even without the double-blow of him cheating to screw Bryan out of the title. This gets the "insider fans" booing Rock and cheering his opponent which offsets the risk of Reigns' defining moment being in a match with a split crowd cheering the bad guy.

SUBSCRIPTIONS.SUBSCRIPTIONS.SUBSCRIPTIONS.

Ok yes heel Rock probably won't be the huge draw that babyface Rock would be. This match isn't about a one-off transaction though. Subscriptions aren't buyrates, they're long term purchases and once Rock is gone again they need someone who can be a sustainable draw. Sacrificing a few instant purchases to create Cena's heir who can draw in regular purchases for years on end is merely logical.

BROCK LESNAR VS DANIEL BRYAN

BROCK HAS TO WIN

Brock's opponent needs to be someone who is big enough of a star that it's meaningful when Brock beats him but can also really gain something from a valiant loss. And yes I'm not even entertaining the ridiculous notion that Brock should lose just one year after ending The Streak. That's because one year and just a handful of wins is not the heat you build up for the guy who just broke your most sacred asset and deeply undercuts the rub the next guy to actually beat Brock gets.

THE OPPONENT

Three viable options jump out for Brock's opponent who fit the stated criteria. They are Daniel Bryan, Sheamus and Cesaro. Brock vs Cena has already been done and Cena can't be elevated in defeat, likewise for Hunter, Reigns and Rock are in the Title match and Undertaker died with The Streak and either Brock or Taker winning serves little purpose. Bryan, Sheamus and Cesaro could all be elevated from a courageous loss. Therefore, the spot should go to the hotter babyface and the bigger star for Brock to beat and gain the most momentum from beating. That guy is Daniel Bryan.

BUT WHAT ABOUT CENA?

Cena simply doesn't NEED to be the selling point of Wrestlemania as this year proved, especially with other major attractions such as Rock, Brock and the birth of the Reigns era for this show. Forcing Cena against Reigns or Brock just because he's John Cena would be counter-productive compared to the options selected which garner much more positive outcomes with Reigns being positioned as Cena's heir, Rock being someone they can afford to make a transitional heel, Brock building his heat and momentum further and Bryan having another star-making Wrestlemania performance.

That's why Cena doesn't need to be in one of the top 2 matches and why Roman Reigns vs. The Rock and Brock Lesnar vs. Daniel Bryan are the most productive main events for Wrestlemania 31 in not only the short-term but also the long-term.

References
[1] Listen to the reaction Reigns gets when Hogan lists off names - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTmPG9RSCKs
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_BfL79SjZY
[3] Savage @ WM4, Warrior @ WM 6, Austin @ WM 14, Michaels @ WM 12, Cena & Batista @ WM 21, Bryan & WM 30
[4] http://www.ringsidenews.com/article/15396/the-rock-teases-possible-match-for-wrestlemania-31/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2_y8ez5Qjs

ZOMBO
Aid180

I thought this was a well-thought out and extremely well-written debate. The logic behind each of your points was sound, the breakdown / flow of the debate was tremendous. Just an awesome set up and the in-between parts were pretty much nailed.

You made excellent cases for your four Superstars and why they matched up. You did a tremendous job of knocking down MOST of the other names. The analogy to WM21 was spot-on, and really added to help me - as a reader - identify with the decision-making you chose.

I say MOST of the other names simply because there was one noticeably absent - Rollins. The only potential easy switch I can see, given your setup of "old putting over new" is Rollins and Ambrose being swapped. Rollins is already a heel, has a mouthpiece in HHH, is young and can go. Really, the talking point is about the only thing that separates him and Ambrose, so I would've liked to see you knock Rollins from contention too.

Other than that comment, which is minor, this was pretty superb.

Seabs

You took an admittedly difficult route, opting to choose a moviestar and a guy about to undergo another major surgery.

The LOGIC behind your choices is solid, and you do a fair enough job establishing the WHY you chose who you chose. However, the getting there part is tougher to imagine.

The biggest issue is the probability of the Rock returning for a match, and the link you provided in footnote 4. I go there, and the article was in December of 2013. There's a link to a CURRENT STORY from LAST WEEK how Fast 7 comes out April 3 next year and Rock is being booked all over the world to promote the film, and how a Mania appearance is unlikely. I mean, that's bad luck depending on when you submitted the debate, but the article was from before the deadline.

I really didn't have an issue with the logic behind your decision with Lesnar / Bryan, and you did a good job eliminating the other major star that would need to be considered in Cena.

THE DECISION

Overall, a good effort from Seabs but a better effort from Aid180. Aid180 is my winner in this clash of champions.

WOOLCOCK
Aid180:

This was really good. The structure and presentation of your arguments were superb, and you left yourself enough room to be saying something of substance, without undercutting your words and stifling the number of arguments you were able to make. The reasoning behind your choices was well outlined, and helps to build your argument around the long-term sustainability of WWE. If I was to critique one area, it would be the fantasy booking of the actual programs. I felt this was hypotethical and based on desire, rather than how the programs could legitimately be built. Essentially, I felt your opponent consistently focused and outlined their choices, whilst making logical arguments and further considered the long-term implications of their choices. However, their consideration of the storyline was briefer, and in the case of Reigns/Rock, served to explain why Rock going heel was the necessary route. Your layout for Cena/Ambrose and Lesnar/Reigns was developed well, but I felt this area of your debate was noticeably weaker than your opponent's, simply because there's no way to predict how WWE would book the feuds, therefore it becomes more a case of you suggesting hypothetical scenarios. I felt your opponent resisting the temptation to repeat this outlook, instead focusing purely on the WHY, rather than the HOW was the difference.

Seabs:

This was excellent as well. I really loved the reasoning behind Reigns/Rock, especially the line about Reigns needing to beat a star "at the level WWE sees Reigns". That was a money quote and a really genius way to outline your stance. The subsequent consideration of how Rock going heel appeals to insider fans who resent his part-time status, whilst providing Reigns with a character contrast that would see him be cheered, all whilst ensuring they don't have to pre-emptively turn Cena heel and put everything on Reigns to succeed overnight was great stuff. The Network argument was also a clever topical ploy to consider the new implications of hooking subscribers, rather than buyrates. What really impressed me was how you pieced together the logical benefits of Reigns/Rock, whilst carefully eliminating active roster choices, and in Cena's case outlining how Rock could be turned heel by virtue of being a part time attraction, ensuring Cena can still play face consistently whilst Reigns slowly transitions to replacing him as the defacto face. Builds a star, but covers their bases by ensuring they don't hastily turn the current top star. Lovely.

Lesnar/Bryan gets less time devoted to it, but in all honesty I thought this might have been an even better argument. Again I loved how you looked at how it impacted Lesnar as much as Bryan, whilst carefully eliminating options to arrive at Bryan, whilst considering how best to maximise Lesnar ending The Streak. You present a logical reason for how Lesnar beats the most beloved and over guy, whilst Bryan has a valiant performance and gets to look as good as he possibly could. If you'd had enough time to mention Bryan losing would arguably get him more over (based on the crowd seeing him almost as a rebel entity they cheer 10x louder for when the writing appears to be on the wall), then that would have been the icing on the cake. The conclusion was also a fine overview of your central arguments, and I liked how you briefly touched on why Cena was excluded from either match, and the purpose of your selections. Great stuff.


Winner - Seabs

Andre
Aid180

Your arguments for selecting Ambrose and Reigns as rising stars and why WWE need to create new top guys were generally sound. You also did a great job of pointing out that Cena and Brock are the two biggest currently contracted stars that WWE have available, although I think you could have gone into greater depth by arguing why two guys like Brock and Cena are specifically needed to put over Reigns and Ambrose so that they can become legit. Seabs did this with greater effect when explaining his star picks.

Besides this, I had two major issues with your match selections. Not so much with the participants, but the actual combinations.

(1)

You made a good point about Cena and Ambrose having the potential to work a great feud, but that would require Ambrose working as a heel because we all know that WWE won’t turn Cena for many reasons. Right now Ambrose is working as an in ring babyface with great success due to his fantastic selling and knack for performing as a face in peril, so having him work as a pure heel/tweener would be counterproductive against the recent great work that has gotten him over massively with the casual audience on his own right. So with Cena being the archetypal “overcoming the odds” type character I just don’t see how this feud could work without drastic changes to one of the performers’ current in ring styles, changes that would either be detrimental towards Ambrose’s momentum or even WWE’s child pandering cash cow Cena who would have to make a potentially business damaging heel turn without any reliable and established full time mega stars ready to take over his role. Basically either Cena or Ambrose would have to work the feud/match as a heel because they can’t both work as underdogs or FIP’s, so in essence you’ve presented a problem which you’ve failed to solve. Seabs also made the point about why WWE can’t/shouldn’t turn Cena, so it partially works as a counter, although you could have saved yourself by making a convincing argument that Ambrose’s future lies in being a top heel.

(2)

You made the point about Reigns/Brock being a silent feud, but that actually poses problems. When Taker faced Brock at last year’s Mania Paul Heyman carried the feud in terms of mic duties, but the fan reaction to the eventual match was absolutely dire (before the finish, lol). That was for one of the most intriguing matches in WWE history, but even Heyman couldn’t sell the importance of that streak match. So what’s he supposed to do with a match that once again involves Brock against another man of few words within a match with far less importance and consequences? As one of the top two matches it needs to be a big selling point for WWE’s biggest show of the year, one that should translate to network subs. Seabs' made a more convincing argument for how The Rock could draw interest as Reigns’ opponent. He also countered you by making a strong argument for why Brock should remain undefeated beyond next year’s Mania in order to give a genuinely huge rub to the face that eventually topples him. So with that in mind I’ve now been made to think that Brock/Reigns is a bad idea because a lot of potential could be lost with either man losing, whereas Seabs made a convincing argument for how Brock and Daniel Bryan could both come out looking strong if Brock were to go over in that match.

This isn’t a bad debate at all because it has the raw components and ideas all in place, but the execution when combining them all was a little bit off. Your debate was a decent effort but left me with a lot of doubts, whereas your opponent thoroughly convinced me throughout the majority of his debate.



Seabs

I’m not going to write much because this is a genuinely great debate. Like Aid180 your individual picks were all sound, but you went one step further by convincing me that the actual match combinations were rock solid. Your rebuttals for why guys like HHH aren’t enough to put over Reigns as the potential new top guy in 2014 were great. Saving Cena by turning Rock heel in order to create a legit top heel star to put over Reigns was a great move and the common sense booking added to that, although you could have made it even better by bringing up the family ties of the two men and how that would add to a potentially red hot angle. The point about long term thinking over short term thinking in regards to creating a sustainable draw was also well made. There was potential for a counter from Aid180 who could have argued that Rocky is highly unlikely to wrestle again, but he didn’t go into any depth with that so you got away with it.

Your arguments for Brock/Bryan were actually even stronger due to your idea of creating a new streak which could be a selling point at the next few Manias before Brock gives an even BIGGER rub to a new potential top face. Aid180 made good points about how Reigns would benefit from the rub next year but you created a scenario where Reigns could gain a huge rub while Brock maintains his heat. You were just that one step ahead throughout it seems. The idea that Bryan is a big enough star to make the match up legit while giving Brock someone to beat who can give him more heat was smart, while the argument that (if booked correctly) Bryan could leave the match looking like a hero despite losing was spot on, although you could have explained this with more clarity. The suggestion that Cena isn’t needed in the top two matches (with supporting evidence) also helped you a lot.

Your debate contained very few flaws and generally convinced me. Great work.

Decision

Seabs wins my vote

Winner via Split Decision - Seabs
 
See less See more
6 21
#23 · (Edited)
Lebron leaving Miami is actually a pretty big knock against Spo. you dont often get big time superstars leaving big time coaches...and by that I mean it pretty much never happens. Although you get certain idiots like DWill that want to ruin their own careers and do so by doing such stupid things. :ti


and im looking forward to winning the best 2 out of 3, peter. :kobe3


edit: btw im pretty sure Peter would have won this debate with a bigger word count. his looked like it could have been a really good one. Like aid i also enjoy his writing style which I can safely say is a lot more interesting and engaging than mine. :lol
 
#38 ·
That was the toughest debate I've had to judge in all honesty. Pretty much came down to a hypothetical argument vs. factual argument.

The 25 of the 159 home runs stat isn't really relevent without mentioning Miggy's HRs. For all we know none of those 25 were Miggys. I'm sure some were, even a lot but it's not there to read.
 
#41 · (Edited)
I totally agree about the supporting evidence/linking videos portion of the feedback I got. Completely.

Problem was youtube has apparently decided to cut down on the promos on there. Seriously, everything I saw was just match promos. Wrote that debate 100% on memory without actually watching any HHH/Bryan promos. fpalm

Winning because your opponents did worse. Well... a win is a win, chico.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top