Wrestling Forum banner

TDL XXVI: CROSSOVER PART I - THE RESULTS

4K views 46 replies 24 participants last post by  Chloe 
#1 ·
TDL XXVI: CROSSOVER PART I​


CHAMPviaDQ

GitRekt vs The Rabid Wolverine vs MoveMent vs SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS
Has the Rooney Rule been a success in the NFL?

*MoveMent is MIA*

SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS
before I get started on the question, I believe It's a good Idea to define what the Rooney rule Is and how it came about for people who are not familiar with it. it’s a rule that requires NFL teams to Interview minorities for head coaching and General Manager jobs. It was a rule made in reaction to two Minority head coaches being fired after having pretty successful stints as head coaches. a discrimination lawyer named Cyrus Mehri threatened the NFL over the perceived justness of the Tony Dungy firing. He and John Cochran came up with a report that showed African american’s success in the NFL. after some debate, the Rooney rule was in place.

Even though this is the most noticeable act of the NFL trying to diversify it’s sidelines. in the 70’s the NFL created a program called Black Coaches Visitation Program. This program was designed to invite coaches of historically black colleges into the NFL training camps to familiarized them with the teams and owners. and in the 80’s they expanded a minority internship program started by the 49ers coach Bill Walsh. But it still didn't lead to minority head coaches being hired as much as people would have liked.


while it’s not been perfect or anything, I believe that the Rooney Rule has been a success in what it is attempting to do. Before the rule was made in 2003, there were only 7 minority head coaches or GM’s in the 80 years before it was instated and made a rule. Since then there have been 17 minority head coaches or gm’s, nearly 2/3rds of the league. in fact the percentage of minority head choaches jumped from 6 percent to 22 in just 3 years. in fact someone who is a minority head coach or gm has been in the superbowl every year since 2006. in fact from 07-11 4 out of the five Super Bowls featured coaches of some minorities. Also in those 5 years 2 of the coach of the year winners were black people.

While yes, it can it lead to “sham” interviews where the candidates are only interviewed to that they can pass the rule, it’s certainly not always the case. people like Mike Tomlin, coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers, were not regarded as the lead candidate when the Steelers were looking for a coach. His first year the team went to the playoffs, and second year they won it all. He’s also been to another Superbowl and a few other playoff appearances.

Even people who were passed up year after year like Ron Rivera and Leslie Frazier ended up eventually getting jobs. And while Frazier was fired and Ron Rivera will probably get fired at the end of the season, i don’t think it’s out of the question that they will be back on the sidelines soon.While i’m sure it sucked to constantly get turned down for jobs, all those interviews may have helped them prepare for the interview that sold the team on the idea for them as coaches.

So while it could certainly used some tweaking, I feel like it’s done what it set out to do, It used to be more of a big deal when a Minority was hired, now it’s not one at all really. Minority head coaches,assistant coaches and GM’s are now a fixture on the sidelines and in the front office, something they were not in the first 80 years of the NFL. So yes, it does have it problems, but i think to say it hasn't worked is wrong.

http://triblive.com/sports/nfl/5119438-74/rooney-rule-minority#axzz3LA9D4OZA
http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/01/26/why-the-nfls-rooney-rule-matters/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...later-its-worked-usually-and-we-still-need-it
http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201101/rooney-rule-not-perfect-it-undeniable-it-has-worked

GitRekt
Has the Rooney Rule been a success in the NFL?

The Rooney Rule is one of the most polarizing rules in American sports today. Has it been successful? Yes, to some degree. Has it also been a failure at times? Yes. It has been a success in that minorities are being given a better chance to land head coaching jobs, but there are also a lot of drawbacks. Overall I think the Rooney Rule has hindered the NFL more than it has helped.


The focus should always be on winning and hiring the best candidate for the job, regardless of the position. There is no more important position in the NFL than the head coach. Some may argue that QB may be more important. To them I say look at the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Those teams won the SB despite their QB’s. Many other teams have almost won the SB despite meager play from their QB, such as the 2006 Bears, 2010 Jets, etc. The HC is the leader of the organization, you need a good one to be successful, let alone be championship calibre. I’m not for one second saying minorities aren’t capable of being great HC’s. I can use examples of great minority HC’s in the NFL- Mike Tomlin, Tony Dungy, both SB champions. Jim Caldwell went to the SB, later won a ring with the Ravens in 2012, and has Detroit thinking playoffs this season. My point is simply that it’s about hiring who is best for the job. All 3 of those coaches were not hired because they were black. They were hired because they were the right fit for the job.

You do not need the Rooney Rule in order to have minority coaches. There have been minority coaches before the rule was enacted. Having the Rooney Rule in a lot of ways is just a sham to shut people up and put together phony interviews where the candidates know they are just there so the organization isn’t fined. It’s frankly a waste a time and resources. Why beat around the bush? In 2003 the Detroit Lions were fined by the league because they hired Steve Mariucci. They had failed to interview a minority HC. If you want to hire someone and they are available, why go through with all of that, when you know who you want, and the other candidates do as well. The Lions claimed they had reached out to a few minority candidates, but were aware of whom Detroit wanted, so they didn’t waste their time. It’s not about race, as the owner, Ford has won an NCAAP award for man of the year, and has gone on to hire numerous black coaches. Their current coach at this moment is black.


A lot of people want to compare the Rooney Rule to Affirmative Action. While some of the principles are similar, overall they are not the same. America is 12.5% black. The NFL right now is over 2/3rds black. Minorities, mostly blacks make up the majority of the league. There are minorities in every role in the league. From the field to the front office, and behind the scenes. GM’s, coaches, scouts, QB’s, RB’s, etc. Maybe not kicker, but you get the point. This isn’t the 1960’s anymore. Having the Rooney Rule in 2014 just because there ‘aren’t enough’ minority head coaches is if anything a double standard. The players are there because of their abilities, not their skin color. Should be the same way all around for everyone.


In conclusion, the NFL is a diverse league. When hiring the most important position for the organization, you need to hire who you think is the best possible candidate for the job. If they happen to be white, pick them, if they’re a minority, pick them. It’s simply about what is best for your organization. We have seen black HC’s have great success in this league, and it’s not because of the Rooney Rule. The Rooney Rule has seen more minority HC’s land positions, but I still don’t think it’s best for the league to make it mandatory is all. I believe teams will hire whoever they feel is best. With the majority of the locker rooms being black, hiring a minority isn’t a racial issue at all in 2014. You shouldn’t have to force teams to interview/hire people based on skin color.

The Rabid Wolverine
"Has the Rooney Rule in the NFL been a success?"

The "Rooney Rule" in the NFL was put in place to require teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and high ranking official positions. The purpose of this rule was to create more diversity in the NFL head coaching ranks, and I believe judging it on the numbers alone, it has been a success.

Before the Rooney Rule was put in place in 2003, about 6% of the head coaches in the NFL were minorities. By 2006, that number had jumped to 22%. Right now as of 2014 it sits at about 12.5%. Those numbers right there should be the end of the debate in my view, there are currently double the amount of minority head coaches than there were before the rule, and that number has been as high as 3 and 1/2 times as many as before the rule. There is no arguing, it's been successful in creating diversity among the head coaching ranks.

The one way you can seek to claim the Rooney Rule has not been successful is that many of these minorities who have interviewed for the head coaching positions in the NFL claim that they were never given a fair shot at landing the job in the interview, that it was made obvious in the meeting with the team that they were only there for the team to be in compliance with the Rooney Rule. Teams such as the Redskins and Seahawks in 2010 were accused by Tony Dungy of complying with the letter but not the spirit of the Rooney Rule. In each case, it was obvious the Redskins and Seahawks had decided on Mike Shannahan and Pete Carroll respectively for their head coaching spots. For that, I say the Rooney Rule is still succeeding, because it's still giving these coaches the chance and experience of interviewing for the position. It's completely reasonable that teams would have their hearts set on a guy who they believe is "the perfect guy" for the job, and giving a minority the interview time is doing him a favor by letting him hone his game, get himself more prepared for when a real head coaching spot emerges where he is a real possibility to be hired. I myself have obviously gotten better at interviewing for jobs since my first interview when I was 14, it's only logical to assume interviewing for coaching jobs in the NFL would work the same way. I've read the book "The War Room" by Michael Holley, which discusses the New England Patriots organization and their keys to the sustained success they have had over the years. One of the key chapters discusses the interview Thomas Dimitroff had with Arthur Blank to become the General Manager of the Atlanta Falcons. In it, Dimitroff truly doesn't think he has a shot at being hired, as he's never been in a position higher than "Director of Scouting" but he desperately wants to take the interview just to get the experience. Arthur Blank himself says in the book that he had 2-3 other guys, including Bill Parcells, that he had in mind for the General Manager position, but Thomas leaped ahead of them because he just knocked the interview out of the park. It's totally feasible that that could happen in other cases where teams interview a minority they don't necessarily plan on hiring and just get so blown away by him they are forced to reconsider.

There are only 32 NFL head coaching jobs in the world, it's more rare to be a NFL head coach than it is to be a leader of a country. To have that experience in seeing what type of preparation teams are expecting from the coach to me seems invaluable. Without the Rooney Rule, these coaches never would have gotten through the door.

To sum it up, the facts or numbers alone prove the Rooney Rule has succeeded. While this rule is far from perfect, and small revisions would go a long way to strengthening it (such as requiring teams to interview minority candidates outside of their own organization) it still has done a lot to diversify the coaching ranks in the NFL. Whether the Rooney Rule is the best way of accomplishing that, I'm not sure I can say. What I can say is that it's doubled the minorities currently holding head coaching positions in the NFL, 12.5% is higher than in any year from the 1970s. 1980s, or 1990s. The Rooney Rule can be the only reason for such success.

RetepAdam.
SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS
Didn’t need to spend the first two paragraphs on the Rooney Rule. Judges need to be familiar with it to judge the submissions, so assume we know. Brought out numbers pre-Rooney Rule and post-Rooney Rule, which is simple and effective. Trotted out more numbers, which opened up a few interesting doors that were unfortunately not pursued (does black coaches going to the Super Bowl mean they were good and justify the Rooney Rule because it provided opportunities for good coaches, or did it mean that only the best black coaches got hired?) Tomlin was a good example to suggest it was the former. Needed more like that. Tell us what the fact that Rivera and Frazier potentially getting recycled means. (Missed opportunity to use Lovie Smith as an example of a black coach getting a second chance.) Overall, decent argument. Just didn’t have anything to really drive the point home.

GitRekt
Interesting response. Not sure you needed to get into HC vs. QB. Teams have won Super Bowls with mediocre HCs too. Also, it doesn’t really matter. Semantics. You make a good argument about Detroit not needing to interview a minority candidate because they knew who they wanted, but you didn’t throw out any numbers to prove that there were minority coaches before the rule was enacted. Comparing the Rooney Rule to not having affirmative action for white players is interesting and actually pretty effective. That having been said, the NFL is only 2/3 black compared to 99% white in terms of coaches/GMs pre-Rooney Rule. You end on a point about how coaches will hire the best candidate in the end. That weakened your point, imo. If they’ll hire the best candidates anyway, then at worst, the Rooney Rule is a waste of time. It doesn’t actually hinder teams in hiring who they want. They just have to interview one extra candidate to fulfill their obligations.

The Rabid Wolverine
Trotted out the numbers at the start, and as I mentioned above, it was simple and effective. Brought up that it doesn’t always result in the team viewing the interviewee as a serious candidate, but at worst, it makes no difference, and it gets them in the door (which is valuable). “The War Room” is a good book, and the Dimitroff example just blows the doors off this debate.

Overall
SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS and GitRekt each raised good points, but each entry also had its flaws. The Rabid Wolverine combined the best of SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS and GitRekt’s arguments and threw in an additional example that hammered home the point. No question, I give this one to The Rabid Wolverine.

Magic
SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS:

Firstly, I’d just like to say you should probably do a grammar check before sending these in. It’s not a huge complaint, but you should be capitalizing words that start sentences and stuff like that, it just makes your debate look better overall.

I liked your introduction of the Rooney Rule as it made it quite clear what it was and what its intended purpose was, but I don’t think you made your stance as aggressively as you could have. Admitting it isn’t perfect doesn’t need to be said, you should just put more emphasis on it doing what its intended purpose was.

Using the numbers of head coaches brought in since the rule was made was a nice touch, but you should expand on those points more as they can be the backbone of your argument, rather than just stating the stats.

The rest of The Rabid Wolverineame off very bland to me. You had points, but it never felt like you expanded on them and it never felt very convincing to me. They were just there. Next time try to focus on 2 or 3 arguments and expand fully on them, explaining why the new rule has greatly improved the standing and how much different the league is today because of it rather than just stating it.

GitRekt:

You made your stance early in your intro which was nice and had a good follow-up paragraph showing the significance of the head coach position and how it should always go to the most qualified person, rather than just a minority for the sake of it.

Your next paragraph is good, but I think if you want to say “there were minority coaches before the rule” you have to support it with numbers. SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS showed that there was a huge change in the amount of minority coaches after the rule, showing clearly that it did have an impact in the numbers and so I think that point falls flat here. That being said, using the Lions as your example and the case with Steve was nice, it makes little sense to interview people you have no intention of hiring.

I really liked your follow up paragraph because it shows that the NFL is already highly diverse and that the players themselves are mostly black, not because of their skin colour, but due to their ability and the same standard should be held for coaches. Your conclusion was done well, tying up your debate without adding in anymore filler and restating your key points. A solid debate.

The Rabid Wolverine:

You did a good job of stating what the question was asking and your stance on it in your introduction, which is the point of the intro so good job there.

Jumping immediately to numbers to show the impact it has had was a good touch and you made the point aggressively, which is better than how SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS presented theirs.

I like the counter-argument you made in regards to minorities not having an actual shot at the job, stating that the interview process alone gives them experience in landing future jobs and using your example to state that they might still be able to blow the organization away and still land the job even if they originally had no intention of hiring that person. Excellent counter argument.

Nice little follow-up showing how small of a chance you have at actually getting the job and how the increased opportunities has only helped minorities in having a chance. Your conclusion was well done too, finishing up with the numbers again to make it clear that it has done what it was set out to do.

Decision: SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS felt really weak in terms of arguments and convincing me that the rule has been a success, so it was mostly between GitRekt and The Rabid Wolverine. I think GitRekt was good, but the counter-argument provided by The Rabid Wolverine about the experienced gained simply from the interviews put him up above GitRekt as well as the use of percentages and numbers, so my winner is The Rabid Wolverine.

ZOMBO
SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS

The brief history lesson was a nice lead in. Although the first paragraph was probably unnecessary (assume the judges assigned to your topic know the general subject matter), the second one was something I hadn't heard of before.

Your stats confuse me a little bit. The statement about 17 minoroty head coaches or GMs since 2003 being nearly 2/3rds of the league (I assume you were getting at 17 minorities / 32 teams? which is closer to 50%... and still doesn't account for the fact that there is a GM AND a coach, therefore 17/64. Going further, there would have been multiple hirings / firings in that time, so the disparity is even greater...) The overall point you're trying to make is fair, but the execution is a little sloppy here.

The "sham" interview section attempts to address the counter-argument to its effectiveness, but doesn't really shut the door or prove that the rule actually helps. The last couple paragraphs, although honest in their assessment, doesn't really hammer home your point with any authority, which weakens the take somewhat.

GITREKT

Good job identifying your stance early on. Essentially you argue that the Rule hasn't been a success because the black coaches / GMs who have found success would have eventually found them anyways based on talent.

I mean, I don't really have an issue with what you're saying throughout the debate - teams should hire the best candidate for the job and if they have that individual selected, then why go through a farcical interview process? However, the issue is that The Rabid Wolverine addresses that.

I also feel that there is a possible fundamental issue with your approach here. When you state that the Rooney Rule has not been a "success", then it must be a failure. However, you don't really address how it "fails", you just repeatedly state that the best person should be hired, regardless of colour. When the numbers show an increase of minorities in head coaching and GM roles - ie: exactly what the rule is set out to accomplish - it is very tough to call it a failure without bringing any compelling evidence stating why it should be considered one.

THE RABID WOLVERINE

Good job identifying your stance early on, while giving a brief recap. The numbers area was spot on, concise, and used the stats more clearly than SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS.

However, the bread and butter of this debate is the giant motherfucking wall of text in the middle. First off, break that shit up into digestible chunks. Help a reader out. Second off, there was some gems in here. The whole story about the Falcons hiring process, showing how unlikely candidates at the bottom of the totem pole could leap to the top, displayed how the Rule COULD work successfully. No, Dimitroff isn't black, but the storyline is what's important. This area alone was a wonderful counter to most of GitRekt's argument.

Overall, this was a very thorough entry, start to finish.

THE DECISION

The Rabid Wolverine takes this one for me. A very nicely executed piece.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Rabid Wolverine

jackbhoy vs dylster88 vs A-C-P vs MyNameIsJonMarston
Were WWE wrong to not have Sting on the Raw after Survivor Series?

*MyNameIsJonMarston no showed*

Dylster88
On November 23, 2014, Team Authority collided with Team Cena. As HHH interfered in the end of the match to help Seth Rollins of Team Authority, the WWE Universe was shocked when in his first appearance in a WWE ring, Sting (Steve Borden) attacked an interfering Triple HHH, subsequently helping Team Cena win.


The next night on RAW showed that interest in Sting’s return was massive. The first hour of RAW scored the highest amount of viewers (4.73 million) since post-WrestleMania 30’s RAW. Most viewers tuned in to see Sting show up; and when he did not, 740,000 left during the second hour (3.99 million). At first, one could argue that by not bringing Sting in, the WWE made a mistake. After all, since WWE is desperate for both ratings and revenue, Sting returning should have brought additional interest in the product.


Looking at the precedent of the WWE and WCW, however, and one can see that not only has the return of historical wrestlers not brought hot long-term ratings for WWE, but by keeping Sting in the dark, the WWE is following in the footsteps of a company who was successful with Sting.


First, with regards to the return (or debut) of certain historical wrestlers within a given period of time, ratings have in the long-term not bred additional success. The problem with those who argue that Sting should have shown up relies on the notion of short-term success. It is true that given the right hype and surprise, and return will necessitate a short-term ratings pop, as seen when the return of Ric Flair to WCW in 1998 led to them winning the Monday Night Wars during that specific night. However, in the long-term, the mere presence of a superstar will wane, causing the revenue of a company to stabilize to pre-return levels. For example, the week after Brock Lesnar returned to WWE by F-5’ing John Cena, John Lauraneitis gave Lesnar an iron-clad contract, setting the pace for a hot angle between Cena and Lesnar. Many expected WWE’s ratings to skyrocket when Lesnar debuted. When Lesnar debuted on the night after WrestleMania, five million viewed RAW. When Lesnar attended the next RAW in a heavily hyped appearance, an average of 4.3 million viewed his return. During the next few weeks, viewership would rise by nearly 700,000 (from the aftermath of Extreme Rules), although once Lesnar left until RAW 1,000, the ratings declined. Similar proposition can be made with The Rock in 2011 (3.9 vs. 3.12 rating in two months), CM Punk in 2011 (3.21 vs. 2.72 in two months), and the return of “Stone Cold” Steve Austin in 2003 (4.5 vs. 3.45 in two months). With this evidence, the belief that wrestlers appearing on RAW to bolster ratings cannot be made accurate in the long-term.


Basing Sting’s presence to a limited set of dates also breeds precedent. Between late-1996-through-1997, Sting (in a metamorphic changer from Surfer to Crow) was in a feud with the nWo. During most weeks, the only presence of Sting to scare off the nWo would be through the imagery of a crow or bat. When Sting rarely appeared (usually in large-markets such as Boston or Chicago), his presence was at maximum impact, having usually disposed of the entire nWo. During his run, numerous fans attended WCW events, hoping to see Sting appear and wreck havoc on the nWo. By limiting the appearance of Sting, WCW thrived. Whereas the WWF struggled to maintain attendances of more than 7,000 in mid-sized arenas, whenever WCW went to Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc., said company sold-out. Of course, Sting was not the only reason behind the success, although he did play an integral role.

When Sting finally wrestled against Hollywood Hulk Hogan, the results spoke for themselves. With an attendance of $17,500, a gate of $543,000, and $6 million in revenue through a 1.9 PPV buy-rate, the lack of appearances made Sting’s eventual match special.

One note, as an aside to the argument of both precedent and historical options, one important facet remains. Under the performance contract of Sting, he has six appearances, one of which has been used. With WrestleMania constituting as another appearance, during the next five months, Sting will only be able to appear four more times. Whereas his appearance at a PPV/Network event may drive up subscriptions (for the month at least), an appearance on TV will generate less subscriptions.


In closing, it may seem obvious that by not bringing in Sting on RAW for an immediate appearance, the company has made an economic mistake. However, so long as the WWE keeps its’ Universe informed that Sting’s return bring tremendous consequences against the Authority, when Sting debuts in the wrestling ring, the WWE will receive the money that said company expects to achieve.


A-C-P
Were WWE wrong to not have Sting on the Raw after Survivor Series?

I do not believe the WWE was wrong to not have Sting on the Raw after Survivor Series. I do believe that the mistake was actually having Sting appear the way he did at Survivor Series. It was blatantly obvious, to me, that the Sting appearance was a ploy to attempt to retain some of the "free month" subscribers to the WWE Network, and to presumably to set-up a Wrestlemania match with HHH, an event that was 4 months away from the Survivor Series event. In a "WWE Universe" where the audience is not supposed to remember things that happen more than 6 weeks in the past, it seems, why then does the WWE think having a "story line" start 4 months in advance is a good idea? Also, the other major issue I have with Sting debuting the way he did at Survivor Series is that Sting overshadowed what should have been a GREAT moment for Ziggler, a full-time performer that is starting to gain major traction as a face. With that said, what's done is done and Sting did debut at Survivor Series, and I still do not believe that not having him on Raw the next night was a mistake.

First, like I said earlier the Sting appearance was presumably to set-up a Sting v HHH story line for Wrestlemania 31, which is an event 4 months in the future. This means there are 4 months to "build" this story, so the build did not really need to start the Monday night after Survivor Series. The Raw after Survivor Series was used correctly, in my opinion, to give "The Authority" a send off and give Team Cena, most importantly, Ziggler the recognition for getting rid of "The Authority. There is still plenty of time to build a Sting/HHH Wrestlemania program that there was no need for any build to start, past the comments made by HHH on Raw about Sting's involvement at Survivor Series.

Next, I know people will say Sting needed to explain why he did what he did at Survivor Series, but I say Sting remaining "mysterious" is better for his WWE on screen persona, especially now right after his WWE debut. "Mystery" was always one of the biggest positive attributes of the "Crow" Sting character from his WCW days. By having his WWE character stay "mysterious" it will appeal to the older fans that know that character, and since in my opinion, it was one of Sting's best persona, I believe that it will appeal best to the part of the WWE audience that has not seen Sting before.

Also, Sting is really one of the last new "special attractions" from the past that the WWE has to go to, and they should not be using up the "special" from having him appear to often. Right now with Sting, less is actually more. By not having Sting on Raw the night after Survivor Series it keeps people wanting to see him so they get an explanation on why he did what he did. If the WWE did have Sting appear on Raw and explain everything what reason would there be for Sting's next appearance, other than to see him actually wrestle? By not having him on the Raw after Survivor Series Sting's next appearance is still a HUGE deal without it being a match, and the more appearances that seem HUGE without being an actual Sting match the better.

In conclusion, the big question you need to ask yourself when asking if Sting not appearing on the Raw after Survivor Series is, What would the WWE have gained by having Sting appear on the Raw after Survivor Series? To me the answer is very little to nothing. You can argue that maybe if Sting would have appeared on the Raw it would have helped retain some network subs, but I really doubt it would have had much of an effect on that. Also, people may argue Sting would have boosted the ratings for Raw on Monday, in which I would say the Sting appearance at the Survivor Series created enough of a buzz on its own to boost the ratings for Raw the next night, and actually having Sting on the show would have done nothing extra for the ratings. For the WWE having Sting not appear on the Raw after Survivor Series it was a risk/reward decision, and in my opinion the risks, or what the WWE had to lose outweighed any rewards gained from having Sting appear, so they made the correct decision of not having Sting on the Raw after Survivor Series.


Jackbhoy
Were WWE wrong to not have Sting on the Raw after Survivor Series?

So lets take this back a little bit and go slow with it. Sting, a man who has never stepped foot in a WWE ring. One of the reasons most people watched WCW in the late 90's. This is a man who people have dreamed and drooled about having in WWE for well over a decade. People have dreamed of seeing him in a match with the likes of Stone Cold, The Rock, Mick Foley, Triple H, Shawn Michaels and of course The Undertaker.

One of the most talked about dream matches in professional wrestling history, The "Icon" Sting vs The Undertaker at the grandest stage of them all Wrestlemania. Skip ahead over a decade and a half later and people are starting to say it will never happen now. Sting will retire in TNA and The Undertaker is too old ect.

Over one week ago. November 23rd 2014 to be exact we finally saw the unthinkable. Yup you guessed it, STING finally stepped foot in a WWE ring in which has to be one of the most badass WWE debuts off all time. The music hit, the crowd goes nuts and outcomes Sting with his badass leather coat and goes face to face with Triple H and drops him with the scorpion death drop and then drags a mangled Dolph Zigler onto Seth Rollins to put the authority out of power.

Now after that brief lesson of history we skip to the following night, Monday night Raw in Indiana. Everyone was waiting in anticipation for the man they call Sting to come out and tell everyone why he did what he did. Why he finally decided, after all these years to choose this moment to come out. Why Triple H? There is so many question everyone wants to know the answer to and no one got the anwsers on Monday night.

So, back to the original question. Everyone is asking the question what the point of bringing Sting out to not have him on the following episode of Raw? In my personal opinion, this was a very weird move by the WWE but also a smart one and I fully agree with not bringing The Stinger out. See with The Authority out of power their would be no need to have Sting fued with Triple H, he has already done what he came to do and that was shift The Authority ironically out of Authority. Sting has always been a character who fights against The Authority, he has never been one to defend them and Sting getting rid of Triple H opens the door for something down the road.

On Monday night last week we did see a recap of what had happened at Survivor Series and it was mainly focused around Sting, we also saw the another clip on the most recent episode of Raw. So at the moment I think its a good idea to keep sting away from the show but always remind the audience he is here with video clips ect, maybe black out the arena and have a Sting promo saying "its showtime" or a small video of him in the rafters with his bat ect. I believe the WWE will just keep building the suspense for Sting until after the Royal Rumble when the build to Wrestlemania starts and hopefully we will see the return of The Undertaker.

I can imagine it now. The lights go out, the bells ring. Undertaker comes out to one of the biggest pops of the year and after cutting a legendary promo the lights go out. The spotlight is aimed up at the rafters and Sting is there! This is what should happen and not Triple H v Sting imo.

So as for the monday after Raw, I think it was in the WWEs best interest to keep Sting away. Having Sting on Raw would be a waste for him. Right now they are building this anonymous GM to replace The Authority right now. Triple H is gone for now so if Sting was to show up there would be nothing for him to do than call out Triple H which wouldn't make any sense at this point. Save him for after the Royal Rumble, show clips on the screen during Raw and tease the audience and finally, after all the wait and build to the Raw after the Royal Rumble give everyone what they want and have the dream match everyone has been drooling over for a decade and a half.

Give them The "Icon" Sting vs The Undertaker.

Seabs
dylster88 – This was a good debate but you steered too far off topic for it to be a good debate for this specific question. You setup your own questions to answer and answer them well but this felt just too far away from the actual question given which ultimately felt unanswered to me. If the topic was about WWE limiting Sting’s appearances then you nailed it. Sadly for you though, this topic was just about one appearance and the timing of it, not the frequency of Sting’s appearances. I guess you went for if they used one appearance up the night after then he’d appear more but what’s wrong with him on that show and then not again until Mania? You seemed to make this weird connection between Sting on the Raw after SS and Sting being overexposed. It’s a shame because besides the odd issue you nailed arguing why Sting’s appearances should be very limited. Steve Borden in brackets after Sting looked super odd. I thought you could have got to your stance sooner and made it more clear what your stance is. Making this the first thing you state is good practice if you’re unsure on this. I’m always critical over attributing figures directly to one event but I think crediting Sting for the first hour is ok but I do think the drop off also had a lot to do the riots breaking that night. Still this was good evidence all the same for Sting’s impact but the follow up was weak. I thought this worked against your stance. All these people according to you tuned in to see Sting and they didn’t deliver. Those people didn’t stick around so it’s fair to assume WWE disappointed this part of their audience? Is that not wrong? You don’t really deal with the idea that one Sting appearance to explain his actions and see Hunter and Steph out wouldn’t have blown his uniqueness and forced him to become a weekly character. The long vs short term success argument is well explained but why does it matter to this topic? Sting isn’t going to be a regular character at any point so shouldn’t WWE benefit on this short term success? If he just turns up unadvertised in February then does that work better or worse than him on the Raw after SS. Based on the ratings info you gave I’d say worse given people were watching to see Sting. The stuff about the drawing power of returns decreasing as the audience becomes accustomed to them again is good but it doesn’t really support your stance here sadly. The WCW comparison arguing for Sting’s appearances to be limited is again argued really well but where is the link to the actual question you’re given to answer? Attendances aren’t in $ remember :side:. That brings me to another issue. You have a lot of figures that need sourcing. You found the figures so just copy the source link and paste it into your debate. Otherwise the figures could be made up by you to support your stance for all I know. Same when you said Sting had 6 appearances signed. Show me this is so. I believe you but good debates will show this not just say it. I also think this info worked against your stance. He has 6 appearances regardless so you needed to talk about the timing of them rather than the frequency. It’s a shame that you answered the actual topic so poorly because what you did answer you argued very well for.

A-C-P – The opening is a waste and adds nothing to your debate. It’s really just a side ramble from you. When I read that first I was worried for this debate but after that poor start you turn in a very good debate. The time argument is fine. I think there’s definite counters to it that you don’t address but I guess you can’t address every counter. I thought this one was needed though and could have been done if you hadn’t wasted so many words at the start. You say there’s plenty of time for an explanation for example from Sting but wasn’t the following Raw the optimum time for it when everyone was talking about Sting/HHH? If not then maybe suggest an equally effective time when what would have happened on Raw could happen. I think the rating worked against this argument too given the spike at the start of the show. You deal with it a bit with the mystery argument which is also well done but I’m still feeling some doubt to your stance. I can see your side of the argument explained well though which is great. Next paragraph is good again. Some forward thinking might have helped. If Sting has so many appearances to run through (six as dylster88 stated) then is spacing them out rather than having him on every week going into Mania a better idea? Like I said it would be a superb debate to cover every counter in this debate but I really felt you could have addressed more counter arguments from the opposing stance because your opening was such a waste. The argument that a rating was already gained was interesting but I think the drop off worked against you. If they promise Sting somewhere on the show then that rating carries throughout the show and not just for the first hour meaning everyone else on the show is watched by more people. I don’t really have any issues with the arguments you present in themselves, just the amount of counters that they don’t perfectly shut down. That being said I don’t think there’s any major holes in your debate to discredit what you argue. Just try and make sure you don’t waste words like you did at the start because obviously less words used on the actual topic will leave you with more areas left unaddressed. Very good debate overall though.

jackbhoy – Like dylster88 I thought you strayed too far away from directly answering the question given for too much of your debate. The first 3 paragraphs add nothing to your debate. Too descriptive. If you find yourself being that descriptive for so long then seriously ask yourself if it’s really needed or not because arguments win debates not descriptions. You could even argue the 4th paragraph is too descriptive and not answering the topic either. The fact that you start the 5th paragraph with “So, back to the original question” says everything. You could even argue you never actually went to the original question in order to go back to it. Their when it should be there is so infuriating. Just typing this up on Word with spell check should point these errors out so they look pretty sloppy. You’re more than halfway into your debate now and I’m not sure what your stance is and you have provided no arguments to support your stance. This is a big issue because you don’t have anything that will win you any debate if you don’t have a stance and arguments. So far you’ve written an article not a debate. A debate has a clearly defined stance (put this as the first thing for good practice) and then provides arguments that are explained and proven to support this stance. This debate didn’t so try to follow that formula for your next debate and it will help you write a debate not an article. Read it back and if it feels like you’re describing what happened then redo it until it doesn’t. We know what happened. The question isn’t what happened at Survivor Series. The “On Monday night last week” paragraph was the closest thing you had to what a debate should resemble because you clearly had a stance and were attempting to state why this stance is the correct one. Then you get distracted by some Sting/Undertaker scenario which really has nothing to do with the topic. You say “Triple H is gone for now so if Sting was to show up there would be nothing for him to do than call out Triple H which wouldn't make any sense at this point” but Hunter was on the Raw in question and Sting could easily have been inserted into the promo to explain his actions and see The Authority out setting up Hunter coming back later for revenge on Sting. It’s hard to give feedback on this because you don’t really have any arguments for me to analyse and provide feedback for. You describe a lot and get distracted talking about things which don’t answer the actual question given. The only thing I can suggest is reading through some debates at the top of this and past cards and looking at how they structure their debate. State their stance, say why this stance is superior and then prove their arguments to be true. Do that and then hopefully your next debate will be a debate not an article and will have some actual arguments supporting your stance that the judges can give feedback on.

Winner – A-C-P

BkB Hulk
dylster88
I thought this was a pretty solid effort. You addressed most the ratings issue pretty well, but I thought you could have done it even better with regards to the hour-by-hour breakdown by referring to how the ratings usually drop after the first hour into the second anyway (or at least I believe they do, and I’m not bothering to look it up as just a judge).

The other obvious improvement I think you could have made is provide a credible reference to back up that Sting only has six appearances written into his contract. I’m not doubting it’s true, but evidence like that is key.

With that out of the way, evidence was probably what set your debate apart. The Lesnar return argument was crafted really well, especially with the use of the numbers. The same can be said for the WCW comparison, and it also provides evidence that this type of disappearing act is actually in Sting’s character. You could have maybe emphasised this more though.

Solid debate that covered most ground well.

A-C-P
Straight away, you’re not actually addressing the debate. Whether you wanted Sting to appear as he did at Survivor Series is entirely irrelevant to the topic. The topic is to address the next night. Keep your thoughts on other stuff to the other sections if it’s not the topic of the debate, because not only is it a waste of words, but it dilutes better arguments if they’re surrounded by stuff that just plain doesn’t matter.

On top of that, your argument that feuds of length shouldn’t be encouraged is weird. Really weird. If anything, I feel like it should be encouraged and you really don’t do anything to prove to the contrary, other than pointing out that WWE’s booking is usually abysmal.

The rest of the debate was quite good after the poor start. You addressed the mystery point better than the others. The next night ratings and special attraction argument could have used numbers to compare to others, but it was still solid. I just think it’s a shame that you could have used wasted words better to potentially win this.

jackbhoy
I initially liked the way you started your debate. It built excitement and set the scene well. Unfortunately, it maybe went too long in the end, as you really didn’t cover much ground with your debate.

While I’m fine with you arguing he should stay away for the ‘Taker/Sting match to happen, you really need to make sure it’s good enough to make to take up an entire debate. You could have used it in part and used points the others took advantage of, and I think that would have made a stronger debate. Instead, you just used one point, which isn’t entirely convincing because Sting could still feud with Undertaker even if he did appear after Survivor Series.

Winner: dylster88

ZOMBO
dylster88

Your opening is okay, getting to your stance a short ways in but you don't explicitly state it one way or another. It's easy to imply, yes. However, as advice for future debates, always declare your stance affirmatively and explicitly rather than alluding to it.

The ratings argument is a solid one. No real complaints here, but I do have a suggestion. When you cite ratings / specific numbers like that, you should link to a source (either in the text or by using footnotes), just to (a) prove to the reader that you're not pulling numbers out your ass, and (b) even further hammer home your point with supporting evidence. Just makes the case a big stronger.

The analysis of limited apearances and the numbers that Hogan / Sting did were good. The conclusion wrapped up your debate nicely. I'd say this was a good debate, but it still needs a few tweaks to jump into that level where "great" debates exist.

A-C-P

Immediately state your stance, which is good. I really enjoyed the progression of your debate, flowing from point to point in a very natural, unforced manner.

One critique I have is how you kind of veer off-topic a bit in your introduction and raise objections to the timing of his debut, etc. When you say "what's done is done", it made me feel as a reader "Yeah, now get back to answering the question!" When there are only so many words allotted to a debate, the strong ones utilize every single word pushing their answer to the specific question asked.

That complaint aside, I felt that once you got into the debate, it was very well executed. Your points are all valid, and you express them clearly. A strong conclusion wraps everything up, putting the bookend on a well done debate.

jackbhoy

In my feedback for A-C-P, I note that the answer briefly went off topic from the question asked. Your entry begins by asking the reader to take a step back and go slow... and leaves the reader (at least, THIS ONE) wondering what the hell your answer to the question is.

We don't get that answer until AFTER the midway point, where you finally state that you think it's a good idea to keep Sting away from the show. The issue with this is that you've wasted half of your space on recap / stuff irrelevant to the question asked of you. No matter how good your second half is, you've essentially cut your chances of winning way down.

The points about building an anonymous GM or focusing on current storylines while still dropping reminders of Sting's presence is fine, but just doesn't get to the depth of analysis that you see in dylster88 and A-C-P's. I'd really like to see what you can do if you dedicated the entire 800 words towards the question properly.

THE DECISION

Each debate had its positive moments, and each has some tweaking to make it a little better. That said, A-C-P stood out to me as the most well-rounded of the group, with only one relatively minor hiccup in an otherwise very good entry.

Winner via Split Decision - A-C-P

Bring Back Russo vs sharkboy22 vs Oxi vs StillReal2MeDammit
Who has more potential to succeed in WWE, Finn Balor or Hideo Itami?

*Oxi & StillReal2MeDammit no-showed*

sharkboy22
While both Finn Balor and Hideo Itami bring their own unique styles to the WWE, the likelihood that Balor will succeed is far greater.

Let us look at WWE’s track record with Japanese wrestlers must be examined. Over the years many renowned Japanese wrestlers have worked for the WWE such as Hakushi, Taka Michinoku, Tajiri and Ultimo Dragon. While they have achieved some level of success during their tenure, none of them have ever held a World title. You may think that this could work in Itami’s favour. Perhaps Itami can become the WWE’s first ever Japaense-born World Champion? But let’s not jump the gun. There is a reason why there has never been a Japanese WWE champion. It’s because of their limited English which makes them unmarketable to wider segment.

Japanese wrestlers are unable to perform perhaps the biggest aspect of North American wrestling- promos. As a result, they are reduced to comedy gimmicks such as Kung Fu Naki or just talent enhancement. And while these gimmicks do get them over (such as Tajiri’s mist) they still cannot connect with the audience on an emotional level. This is not a problem for Finn Balor who is a native of Ireland. Speaking of which, history is definitely on Balor’s side as there has been an Irish-born WWE Champion.

Not only is Finn perceived as more marketable because he speaks English, there is more room for development. He is more coachable in the promo department as well as adapting to the WWE style. This may present another big challenge for Itami whose moveset resolves around stiff strikes and kicks. If Itami has trouble learning the WWE style then he may never even make it past developmental. Furthermore, many WWE superstars have never worked with Japanese wrestlers before. As a result, calling a match with Balor may be far easier than with itami. Balor is simply easier to work with making him more accessible.

What exactly do I mean by more accessible? There is simply more that can be done with him, with just about anyone, at any given time. In addition to the countless matches that can easily be had, there are a multitude of options for him. How about a tag team of Balor and Sheamus? Or how about a heel stable consisting of the UK trio of Balor, Sheamus and Paige? They all have pasty-white skin and both Paige and Balor have deep, dark looks to their character. With Sheamus’ orange hair and beard, it’s just as easy for him to emit a creepy vibe. Then there’s a possibility of Balor, Sheamus, Paige, Barrett and any other UK wrestler. WWE could form their own bullet club. Furthermore, since he can better connect with the crowd, this means that face/heel turns would be more meaningful and dramatic.

Itami may only exist for the sole purpose of “having a match”. There is not much room for promos, arguments or any sort of verbal interaction. These things are a must in WWE in order for the audience to get behind a superstar. Take Daniel Bryan for example. Although he may have originally connected with the audience through his matches (and of course the Yes chant) it was through his promos he was able to vent his frustration. Thus, through his promos, he spoke not only to the fans but through the fans as well. Itami could have great matches every week but he will never truly be catapulted into superstardom if he cannot tell a story with words.

Even if he were to be put into a tag team, there aren’t many (if any) Japanese wrestlers In the WWE to team with. It would be a difficult task to find a partner for him with whom he can have chemistry with character and personality wise. This is currently the situation in NXT where he’s teaming with Balor. While they have had good matches, they definitely do not have the chemistry of Enzo and Cass, the Ascension or the Lucha Dragons.

Outside of wrestling, Balor can also better represent the company at conventions, interviews, Make A Wish, B A Star and any other P.R. and/or marketing campaign. It's quite obvious at this point why Balor would make a much better spokesperson for the publicly traded company which is just as important, if not more important, than the wrestling aspect. While something can be written for Itami to say, just like with promos, delivery may be unnatural and uninteresting. Hopefully, there isn't a Q&A. Of course, Funaki can always translate but who has time for that in today's fast-paced world?

With history on his side, greater marketability and more potential for storylines, the possibilities for Finn Balor are endless. Hideo Itami, no doubt, has a glass ceiling.


Bring Back Russo
Finn Balor and Hideo Itami are two gifted individuals from New Japan Pro Wrestling. They are coming into WWE as fan favorites of people who follow that brand, but it is a very niche market, so they will have to go the extra mile to appeal to the mainstream audience. I believe Balor has more potential to succeed. Given WWE’s track record with Japanese wrestlers(Taka, Funaki, Tajiri, Tatsu, etc.) Itami is already at a statistical disadvantage. I will proceed to break down all of the necessary qualities in a top WWE performer and explain why Balor is superior in every category.

Appearance​

WWE prioritizes "THE LOOK" over everything else when it comes to pushing talent. It is important that the performers look like stars so they can draw in more casual fans. With WWE catering more to women and children in the current era, it's always good for a performer to be easy on the eyes and/or have some kind of superhuman appeal.

Finn Balor fits this bill very well. He is not tall or overly musclebound, but he is an attractive ex-Armani Exchange model with a nice physique. In addition, his comic book body paints and light up jackets will do wonders in appealing to the mainstream audience.

Itami doesn't have much going for him in this department. He looks like a generic Japanese guy. No height, no commanding presence, no "WOW" factor. He just wears trunks and wrestles.

Microphone Skills​

It is essential for the performer to directly connect with the audience through verbal exchanges. They should be able to communicate their ideas and intentions, and incorporate fan interactions. If a performer is not able to do this, then it gives the fans less reason to provide the desired reaction.

Balor isn't great in this department, but he isn't terrible either. He speaks clearly and concisely, he gets straight to the point, and his accent is more of an invitation than a deterrent. He can only improve these skills over time.

Itami has not yet grasped the English language, and his accent is really thick, so he can't really say much aside from one liners. This will hurt him more than anything because it directly prevents him from being able to connect with the audience.

Charisma​

Balor's charisma comes from his presence. He’s a good looking guy with bad ass appeal and a bad ass theme song to go with it. It is clear that his entrance is catered to his body paints and light up jackets as it is overly dramatic, and when he has those, they will only increase his charismatic qualities.

Itami's charisma comes from inside the ring. I was sold by his mannerisms during his debut against The Ascension. He brings intensity with his fast strikes and aggressive demeanor. The problem is that Balor can do all of this and more.

Moveset​

Balor has an assortment of kicks, high flying maneuvers, and elevated slams. He moves at a fast pace and keeps the crowd invested with the hype he brings.

Itami does everything Balor does on a lesser scale, due to his watered down WWE moveset. When you have two guys doing the same thing, one of them is going to stand out because they have other things going for them. For example, despite having a similar moveset, Jeff was always the standout in the Hardy Boyz because he was more of a daredevil and had more charisma than Matt.

Booking​

Possibly the most important factor in determining success, booking can make or break a wrestler, because no matter how good you are, you won’t succeed without the backing of the powers that be.

Upon arriving to NXT, Itami made a killer debut by punking out the Ascension in believable fashion and sitting in the chair like a bad ass, telling them to come get some more. Things were looking good for him, then he got beaten up every week, paired with Funaki, and eventually overshadowed by Balor. He lost a ton of momentum that he may not ever get back.

Balor came in as Itami’s secret partner, helped him kick the crap out of the Ascension, then immediately became the focus of the pairing. He began to get promo time, have a separate program with Kidd, and label himself “The Future”. This tells me that he’s the one they want to push. If this booking continues down the road and they split the two sometime soon, I can see Itami getting lost in the shuffle or being stuck in the mid card while Balor is pushed to the main event.

Conclusion​

Balor is the better choice for overall success. He beats Itami in every category, and the things they do have in common, he does better.

Seabs
sharkboy22 - "Let us look at WWE’s track record with Japanese wrestlers must be examined." isn't a great sentence. Granted minor mistakes like that won't cost you a debate but it does make it look a bit sloppy. Comparison with other Japanese wrestlers is done well. Could have done with showing why KENTA won't be an exception though. Does he have what it takes to succeed at a high level that they didn't? The language barrier is a valid one. You made a great point later on about Itami's delivery given English isn't a natural language for him and not being able to cut long dialogues naturally is a definite barrier for him and something that puts him short of Balor. With these topics you really need to argue for Balor but also at the expense of Itami and I felt you struck that balance nicely. This is a flaw of Itami but it's also a strength of Balor and hence the difference between one succeeding more than the other. The language barrier in the ring I thought was weaker though because KENTA has had plenty of great matches with english speaking wrestlers in ROH so this point fell a bit short. Plus based on NXT he can speak some English and is improving in a short space of time already so I don't think spot calling should be an issue. Overall the language barrier argument is well done though. The accessible paragraph I thought was weak. A bit too fantasy booking esque with the UK wrestlers love thing. I get it but you don't really show you can't do this with Itami with different wrestlers? Also a stable like that doesn't really scream main event unless you're arguing Itami won't surpass midcard status. I don't know, I just didn't take much of a convincing point from this paragraph that Balor would succeed more because of this. You get back on track by going back to the promo point though. This probably should have come with the other promo/language points but that's being a tad picky. The tag argument is a bit more like the stable paragraph. So what? I think it's fair to say succeeding in WWE is being a star on your own based on what tag teams mean in the modern era. At times you argue well that Balor could be a main event act because of his promos but then you go to arguing he'd do better in the midcard too. I guess the connection could be made if you argue both would start in the midcard and Balor has more creative opportunities to get over at that level than Itami. That would have worked. You also could have done with stating more explicitly exactly what the glass ceiling is for both. You state Itami has one but where is it and can Balor surpass that? Stating that and answering it would have been the money argument to answering this topic for me. The out of the ring argument was very good. Anytime you talk about speaking ability you nail it. The other stuff just fell flat and you needed that connection to the wording of the question a bit better to have a great debate and not just a good one. Remember you can win a debate just by breaking down the wording of the question better. Succeed more = achieving more than the other so think to yourself how much each is likely to achieve and why and which ends up likely achieving more.

Bring Back Russo - "Finn Balor and Hideo Itami are two gifted individuals from New Japan Pro Wrestling.". Ouch. Itami came from NOAH in Japan not NJPW in Japan. Make sure your facts are right because that looked bad, especially as your first line. I liked the breakdown of the debate. Oh and PRETTY COLOURS YAY! Read what I said to sharkboy22 at the end about making the connection between the glass ceiling for each. I really like how you state why most of your factors are important to success in WWE. You don't really do it for charisma and moveset but you get the big ones. You reference Balor's body paint but he hasn't actually used it yet in WWE so it's just a hypothetical argument which are weaker than this has happened evidence. The mic skills argument is done much better by sharkboy22 but he also focused most of his debate on it. With charisma I felt you focused too much on Balor's entrance. Entrances only get the entrance over not the act. Just ask Adam Rose. I thought you could have stated that Itami's charisma is just in ring whereas Balor's is out of the ring too a little clearer than "The problem is that Balor can do all of this and more.". The moveset point I thought was weak. The Hardys comparison fell short imo because Jeff was much more of a stunt guy than Matt moveset wise and took the more daring bumps which got him over. So does one of Itami and Balor do this too? If not then what's the point of the comparison? You had something when you mentioned Jeff's superior charisma although again you could have worded it a bit clearer to show that Balor is Jeff and Itami is Matt? I think that's the point right? I get that 800 words is tough but at times it did feel as though your explanations weren't as clear as they needed to be and that at times you were almost writing in bullet point style. I think the first 3 probably could have been grouped together to save some repeated word count. For example charisma and mic skills were largely the same argument from a different angle. The booking point I was meh on because I don't think any of it is a sign of being more committed to one than the other. Right now they're pretty much paired as equals. Yes Balor has probably had more focus since debuting but that's because he's the new guy whereas Itami had like a month on TV before he debuted. Also Balor's promo time over Itami is probably because of Itami's shortcomings you mentioned before. Personally I would have cut this part because I don't think either has been on NXT long enough for their booking to mean much and the difference in how each has been booked is really very little at all besides Balor getting more mic time. I see the point about Itami getting beat down when he came in and Balor not but that's more storyline progression than a sign of commitment. Overall I liked this debate and you have good arguments. Dropping the booking part and moving the point that Balor has had more mic time to the mic skills part would have helped you a lot imo because the other parts did feel like they needed a tad more depth that was used to lesser effect under Booking. Still I liked the breakdown and how you said why certain aspects were important and worthy of being a factor in deciding who would succeed more.

This is a tough one that I'm still oohing and aahing over now. Gonna give my vote to Bring Back Russo because I think his debate was more consistent and suffered more from use of the word count compared to sharkboy22's debate which suffered more from a couple of flat arguments. That said sharkboy22's debate peaked higher but on this occasion I think the consistency of Bring Back Russo was stronger than the peak of sharkboy22. Two good debates with a lot of promise.

Winner - Bring Back Russo

WOOLCOCK
sharkboy22
I thought you covered most of the arguments well, and laid out a logical reason for Balor having more upside. The overview of past Japanese talent was always going to be utilised, though I did think both of you overlooked the extent to which WWE sought out Itami. Ultimo was arguably the last Japanese talent they made a fuss over in terms of recruitment and publicity, so I thought that was an argument you failed to consider. The accessibility argument was good, and covered the areas Balor distances himself from Itami in. Again though, Itami has wrestled extensively in America in the past, with minimal problems. Debuting in NXT also allows him time to adjust and develop an understanding with much of the roster, so the idea he might prove difficult to work with ala Sin Cara isn't set in stone.

The second part of the accessibility argument I honestly thought was a complete waste. The fantasy booking/attempt at comedy really stood out as unnecessary and I would focused more on the importance of Balor being able to communicate more with the audience, or have more crossover appeal with different demographics (hardcores for his ring work/history and women with his looks). Fantasy booking arguments are also a bad idea because they're entirely hypothetical and without merit. There is nothing to suggest a UK stable would ever be considered nor booked to live up to its potential, so it's a terrible argument to use in a debate where you are trying to make tangible and irrefutable arguments. Avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.

The marketability argument was better and tapped into Balor's charisma/appearance which is definitely tailor made for extensive PR work which WWE prides its stars in being a part of. I would have cut out that second accessibility paragraph so you could have built on this more, because it might be the strongest argument in why Balor has more upside in WWE, where work outside of the ring is honestly as important if not more than work in the ring.

The conclusion was short and sweet, and says everything it needs to. My advice would be to re-read your debate before submitting, and ask yourself if every paragraph answers the question. Reading that second accessibility paragraph really exposed how fluffy it was in terms of content that was entirely hypothetical. Learn from that and ensure you only raise arguments you can solidify and back up, or at the very least minimise fantasy booking ideas to no more than a couple of lines, rather than an entire paragraph which cuts into your word count.


Bring Back Russo

Firstly, research would have clarified KENTA/Itami isn't a New Japan based wrestler. That's a fairly easy bit of history to locate based on a mere Google search, and really gets your debate off to a bad start with such a glaring error. Again, research your points ans ensure total accuracy because judges will be able to spot faux pas of this nature.

The crux of your appearance argument was good, though you made a silly error in suggesting the bodypaint/light up jacket would become a mainstay in WWE. Again, where is the proof of this? Don't cite the recent NXT live special because that came after you submitted the debate. Point being there was no confirmed source to suggest Balor would use his past look, so it's a wasted argument if you can't confirm it at the time of writing. You got lucky that WWE allowed him to utilise the bodypaint, but you should avoid arguing opinion as perceived fact if there is nothing to suggest what you're saying is true. If I'd read this days before the NXT special it would be an even bigger issue because there would be no evidence to suggest your argument has any merit. Ensure you don't repeat the error.

Again with the charisma argument, ensure you raise arguments you can defend. You're presuming he'll have said attire, but in the event WWE veto'd this part of his look you'd have no leg to stand on. Ensure your arguments are factual because it is a basic error and it's essentially a counter argument against yourself when the judge can easily spot the lack of strength in your argument, the fact you've broken your debate down into individual factors makes this even more troublesome because you're drastically weakening a key argument you're basing your debate on. This then stands out more when you admit Itami has a physical charisma that absorbed you when watching him, but claim Balor has more of this. The problem obviously is that based on the argument you made I can't claim that to be true because it entirely depends on whether he does get authority to keep the overly dramatic parts of his attire.

The moveset argument again I felt was questionable, based on the content. Your opponent had a stronger argument by claiming Itami might struggle to develop natural chemistry with a wide range of opponents. "Assortment of kicks and high-flying" could easily apply to anyone who has seen Itami over the years, so again I felt you undercut your own argument there.

The booking argument was better at least in terms of making a logical claim that a wrestler more liked by the upper brass is likely to benefit from sustained/stronger booking than someone deemed less unique. The problem I did find with the content is that Itami was purposefully booked in a 2 on 1 situation to allow Balor to debut as his ally. Ergo, Itami was booked the way he was so Balor had a natural angle/motive for arriving when he did. You can say that infers they have more faith in Balor, or you could arguably say it was simply a case of a basic angle requiring one wrestler to seek support from the other when faced with weekly beatdowns. Point being, I don't think Itami's initial booking indicates he's perceived on a lower level than Balor, or at least not in the way you construed in your argument.

Overall, I think your content and the way you set about your arguments was your own un-doing. Be careful in arguing opinion as fact because you undercut two main arguments in your debate which will only cause problems if you repeat this mistake again. Weakening your own debate only lessens your chances of victory if you do your opponent's job for themselves. Re-read future entries and ensure you only argue factually and make sure your arguments both relate to the question and are worded in a way which avoids easy counter arguments.


Winner - sharkboy22

Bearodactyl
sharkboy22

Clear introduction off the bat. You chose Balor, which I’m ASSUMING your opponent did as well since it’s the obvious choice. I’m guessing this is going to come down to who argued better, not who made the right decision. Though who knows, maybe not. Sorry, I’m getting distracted here. Back on topic!

You spend the first paragraph looking at the past (smart, as past behaviour/actions/succes often accurately predicts the future in similar circumstances) and making a segway towards the next paragraph where you explain the natural obstacles Japanese wrestlers have to overcome because of the language barrier. A great start, though I have to point out that there are three mistakes of the grammatical/spelling variety in this first paragraph. Might wanna proofread a bit more accurately.

The talking bit I mostly agree with, though a valet-based counter should’ve probably come up here, if only in a throwaway sentence. Still, decent stuff here. Not sure I like the backtracking back to the history argument, but at least the point is more than clear.

You go on to explain that it’s not JUST the history, or the language factor vis-a-vis promos for that matter. And I want to agree with you as I do think you are right, but I find myself slightly confused by everything up until the “coöperation part” in this section as you attempt to make your point. My main concern here is that I don’t think you prove to me enough that Itami will have a tougher time to learn the WWE style. I guess your point is that Itami will have a tougher time acclimatizing on all fronts, but I’m not sure you prove the wrestling part to me.
The calling the match part however I fully agree with. No complaints there (except for another typo…).

The accessible part.. I surprisingly find myself agreeing with, though if I think about it it IS a very “A New Day” kind of thinking. UK Superstars can only team with UK Superstars?
I don’t know how much you’re really “proving” here.

As you go on, I find myself back in the language barrier argument. I really think you missed an opportunity here by ignoring the valet option as it leaves you very open to counters. It makes your point less strong than it could have been.

I do like the part about natural tagteam chemistry, as I think it’s a very valid point indeed. It also somewhat counters my previous issues with the accessible part, so that’s a good thing as well.

The final main point is again a very good one, and well written at that. Leading up to your concluding section, which is a very decisive and to the point summarisation of your debate. Well done there.

A good debate with only a few weakpoints. The spellling errors were unnecessary, the lay out was a bit underwhelming, and I feel you didn’t adequately explore the option of a valet enough as it’s basically one of the only possible equalisers for Itami and therefore somewhat deserves mentioning for me, but all in all a good and convincing read. Not going to be easy to beat at any stretch of the imagination.

Bring Back Russo

First sentence is a bit of a facepalm, as KENTA never wrestled for NJPW. It’s just a bad start, but the race is obviously far from over. After what feels like a bit of a throwaway sentence (what does it add to your debate?) you state that you’re going with Balor, as I expected. Gotcha. You then quickly go over the history of Japanese wrestling success (or lack thereof) and explain how you will be proving your point of view. I like how you structure this debate, as I feel like I know what’s coming from here on out, which might make it easier to adhere to your train of thought.

Appearance is first. I literally have zero qualms with this section, and completely agree. Very well done.

Mic skills are up next. You make the same point as your opponent in this case, and you make it well. You also ignore the option of a valet however. Disappointing.

Charisma. A bit of overlap with the looks section here. I do like how you don’t completely dismiss Itami by pointing out his strengths, only to then state that Balor can do the same, essentially countering what Itami might have going for him in someone’s preconception of this issue. Not sure about the “and more” though. I think that’s open for debate, and I think that Balor being able to do the same makes your point just as well as him being able to do it better. Slight detail though.

Moveset.

Hmmm.. I agree with the first part, but then right at the start of the second paragraph I find myself thinking “aren’t both their movesets watered down?”. I do see what you’re getting at in the remainder of the section, but you haven’t fully sold me on how this section isn’t a tie. I’m nitpicking here though to an extent. I was in the other debate too. It’s only fair.

Booking.

A well written piece that shows how much the WWE is already invested in the both of them (and moreso in one than the other). I had some issues with this section at first as I felt you somewhat failed to adequately connect it to the question being asked here, but upon re-reading I started to fully grasp what you were going for, and now I at least partially approve. Potential as measured in how the WWE will likely treat them, with a hint of “initial momentum” thrown in. Interesting.

The Concluding sentence is short and to the point. Little to add here as I’ve touched upon most of it already.

All in all, again a good debate that felt distinctly different from the first debate, although it has distinct similarities.

AND THE WINNER IS:

This one is close enough for me to need to look at it a bit more closely before deciding, which is a credit to both participants.

Both debates cover approximately the same amount of points (with similar distribution of well and a bit less well argued points), and I feel you both made the most out of your wordcount.
Bring Back Russo started off with a factual error but recovered from it impressively. sharkboy22's was written with a bit more stylistic flair, but badly needed another round of editing to weed out the last misedits and typos, and was also slightly less well structured compared to Bring Back Russo, though the narrative was definitely followable.

Again, it’s pretty damn close, but after some internal debate I have to go with the debate that better convinced me of the point it was trying to make. Which was..

Bring Back Russo

Winner via Split Decision - Bring Back Russo

samizayn vs SPCDRI
Is Christmas truly the most wonderful time of the year?

SPCDRI
FUCK CHRISTMAS!



The question itself is hopeless Eurocentric. Something on the order of 5 billion out of 7 billion people do not practice Christmas and the day and season is no more special than any other. As the holiday in many respects (Christmas trees from Pagans, mistletoe from druids, the December 25th date) is a perversion of Pagan ritual, even the remaining Christian aspect of the holiday is perverted and attacked. Christ is not the reason for the season for about 20 percent of the people in countries that practice Christmas and getting roped into culture wars by snotty militants in the War on Christmas is most certainly not wonderful. The holiday is spiritually divisive and crummy.

Who drafted us into THIS shit?!


Christmas makes you more likely to get fat, too. Soul and body are threatened by this menace. The average weight gain is 10 pounds, as if Brits and American fatasses need to gain even more weight. This ugly season makes us all a little uglier.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/the-skinny-on-holiday-weight-gain/?_r=0



Along with this religious desecration and commercialization, Santa Claus, that fat bastard, is around to get people to lie to children when children cannot differentiate fact from fantasy. The realization that trusted people in children’s live, (even their parents and siblings!) lied to them can be a crushing blow to children’s trust and faith in authority. If your requests for presents go unanswered, just as your prayers do, and Santa does not exist, then perhaps God does not, either. For this reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right when they do not celebrate Christmas, as it is a dishonest profanation of Christianity that undermines belief in God.

Christmas leads to forced travel, at the very worst time to travel. Anybody slogging through airport after airport during brutal winters can attest to that. Once, I was stranded in a Detroit airport and only offered a hotel in the ghetto of Detroit. On another occasion, my brother was stranded in Buffalo, New York for 3 days while on military leave. Anybody forced to buy a ticket during the holidays knows what a Scroogejob it is. The ticket prices are outrageous.

Car travel is even worse! “Merriment” and social drinking quickly become socially-sanctioned binge drinking and alcoholism. It is no wonder the month of December leads the year in drunk driving and 40 percent of all car accidents in these months involve alcohol. This jolly eggnog-chugging kills about 50 people a year without factoring injuries.
Fatal Christmas Crash in England


Shopping for Christmas is a nightmare and this rotten festivity has birthed another revolting and uncouth practice: Black Friday. In a name that cannot help but remind you of The Black Death bubonic plagues, Black Friday dumps all over Thanksgiving by forcing stores open at midnight on Thursday for stampedes of idiots to buy their “hot Christmas items.” These hordes of consumers have killed and injured others for years. Christmas: Wrecking Thanksgiving Since 2006

An Employee Was Trampled To Death, But At Least I Got A Good Price On My T.V.

http://blackfridaydeathcount.com/

It is crass for the wealthy to blow their money on toys for each other while tens of millions of people starve every year. The spirit of giving just has the richest people shuffling around their opulent wealth as the desperately poor starve and die.

What Do You Buy For the Man Who Has Everything?


The reason for the season is conspicuous consumption. The tacky advertisements of Christmas spirit, obnoxious blinking lights and ugly plastic garbage made overseas in countries that do not even practice Christmas, are both eyesores and dangers to the public. In any given year, approximately 6000 people in the United States along are injured sufficiently severely to require emergency room treatment. There are an average of 25 fire-based fatalities a year and over 30 million dollars in property damage just in America on account of this unsightly nonsense.
Happy Holidays, idiots!


November and December lead the year in home invasion and burglaries. The UK reports about 25,000 of these cases per year and in the United States, 400,000 burglaries occur during the X-Mas Season. A more sensible strategy of spreading out charity and cheer throughout the year would not lead to a month where everybody is a drunken rube leaving their homes with high-priced items in the living room for the taking. Christmas time for burglars is like, well, Christmas!

What did the burglar get for Christmas?

YOUR PRESENTS!

Christmas trivializes religion, degrades Thanksgiving, makes you more likely to die while driving, puts weight straight on your belly and bitch tits, makes your neighborhood look like shit, incentives half a million burglars and LITERALLY KILLS PEOPLE.
FUCK CHRISTMAS!



samizayn
It’s the most wonderful time of the year! I’m listening to Andy Williams right now and for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would feel the urge to contradict him. Granted, there are some obvious contenders in the homeless and other disadvantaged – a slither of turkey along with the usual bread and soup is hardly cause to call this bitter winter month “wonderful.” I have to take focus away from the extreme ends of society though, because prioritising outliers over the general average makes it impossible to gain a sense of the bigger picture. The bigger picture which, of course, quite clearly shows Christmas to be the most kick-hiney time in all of the calendar year.

There’s nothing new to mention as to why Christmas is great – having been around the sun this many times most of us know the deal by now. Gifts! Snow! Food for days! Fairy lights that make everything sparkling and glowy and pretty, and overpriced coffee shops selling their overpriced coffee in different colour containers! Oooooooooh!!!

Thing is, a lot of people find all of these things pointless. They think the whole food and presents and overpriced hot drinks deal is a con, just so big business can have a guaranteed time of year where everyone lines their pockets a little bit more, to fulfil some warped sense of societal obligation.

Is all of that really true? Is that what the Great Farce of Christmas truly boils down to? We have to consider the start of this holiday to ascertain, because they say that Jesus was actually born some time in April. That conclusion begs the question of exactly how we came to celebrate it so late, and not in the spring as apparently intended. Socially, the change in date makes a lot of sense – without anticipation of festive cheer, the winter months are cold, wet, dark and generally unpleasant to be in. The concept of Christmas embraces those would-be negatives and turns them into trademarks of the holiday, more closely associating the cold weather to the festive season, and in turn, happiness. Windchill and frost drive us inside to warm blankets and fireplaces, no longer nuisances but cause to facilitate the hibernation that becomes required of us. After all, Christmas is the one time of year we are strongly encouraged to not work – something that tends to be a welcome change from the hectic pace that’s demanded by employers and educators during the rest of the year. Little wonder that this tends to make us all very happy; being ordered to go home and do nothing but eat lots, sleep more and open presents with your loved ones means it would only be obvious that suicide rates routinely drop during these winter months.

Christmas is very much a holiday about loved ones, but the commercial side to it is pointed at, not without disgust, as if it’s evidence of Christmas’ inability to be the cherished family time it claims to be. This belief rests on the assertion that the tradition of gift-giving is something void of social meaning, which is obviously illogical and untrue. As the one time of the year where family members are guaranteed to be together, gifts serve as the forget-me-nots that embellish the fond memories we create over the festive period. It’s impossible to forget the circumstances of a present received, and people meticulously hunt through stores to ensure the item brings about positive associations from their loved ones instead of the opposite. Retailers have naturally taken the opportunity to exploit that sentiment, but that does not mean gift giving in itself is not good.

The best thing about Christmas is its contradiction of being – it remains a holiday both steeped in traditions, and completely void of them. Once a holiday purely intended to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, it’s now largely secular, mainly focused on spending time with family and loved ones. And if the first happens to not be the same as the second, it’s not a problem – without strict emphasis on family tradition in modern times it’s more and more common to spend the holidays away from your blood relations, with friends and significant others that are often preferred company. It's a good time to have, so however you choose to spend it, it's important to spend it well. The most wonderful time of year only comes around once in a while after all.


Seabs
SPCDRI - Woah this went in HARD at Christmas. Great passion in this which helped your debate a lot. I won't lie I shed a tear while reading this because you obliterated such a joyful time of the year but you also did it in such a convincing way that was really hard to argue against. Yes you don't really counter argue against the good of Christmas but you provide pretty damning arguments against Christmas that not dealing with counters wasn't as big of a problem as it normally could be. Try not to forget there's 2 sides to every debate though and both ideally need addressing to have a top quality debate. Also you provide quite a few stats without sources which irks me because you could just make the numbers up. You're obviously getting the figures from somewhere (if you know them off your head then you're a bit odd mate) so just copy the source and link it in. Great use of the word count too, felt like you got A LOT more out of the 800 words than samizayn did. Wasn't sure about the parents lying point though. Your conclusion left me DEAD. Christmas, consider yourself BURIED. Pains me to me say it because of your stance but this was a great debate.

samizayn - Yay both of you didn't bury Christmas. I think in order for this to beat SPCDRI's debate it needed to either be one of the best debates we've had all year or shut down his arguments. Because you didn't shut down his arguments I felt you always had this hole in your debate of a "yeah but what about this". Granted, SPCDRI had it too but I felt his own arguments for his stance were stronger. This is a good debate but it's ultimately bettered by a great debate.

Winner - SPCDRI

ZOMBO
SPCDRI

Well, your stance is blatantly clear throughout. The first thing I want to say is to take it easy on the images / videos interspersed throughout your debate. A well-used image or two is usually all you need to accent your argument. This felt like overkill, and made it seem more like a joke than something I, as a judge / reader, am supposed to take seriously.

Another issue I have is the sourcing. The only links you have are the ones about gaining weight (fine) and the "death count" website which, like the tone of your approach, is almost joking in nature.

Some of your critiques are valid. The lying to children / craziness of Christmas travel are fine. The stuff about the starving poor of the world is a year-round problem. The point about fire and injuries is unclear whether you are talking about year-round statistics or just Xmas statistics. Again, a citation or simply clearer writing would help here.

Honestly, I found this most of this to be sensationalist, and I get what you were trying to do. However, you fail to really hammer home many points, the whole thing feels disjointed by the images and amount of topics you touch on briefly, but never dig into with any depth. Next time, pick a few of the best points, and expand upon them to create something truly good.

samizayn

First off, I like how you distinguish from the start about how yes, outliers exist and they can be pretty shitty, but that you'd be dealing with the norm. Debate A seemed to relish in the EXTREMES of the Xmas season (YOUR HOME WILL BE ROBBED, BURN DOWN, THEN YOU WILL DIE).

I thought the way you handled the potentially bitter divide between the religious and non-religious aspects of Christmas was extremely well done, and seemed almost effortless.

The gift-giving paragraph was a favourite of mine, taking a counter-argument (BOO CORPORATE SALES GRAB!!) and turning it into something sweet. Just as you said Christmas takes the negatives of winter and turns them into festive trademarks of a holiday, you do the same with this point.

There was some serious emotion in the writing ("Ooooooooh!", the rhetorical "is all of that really true?") and you deftly knocked aside the counter-arguments while making a fine case for your own argument.

THE DECISION

Clear winner here, and that's samizayn. MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE.

Anark
SPCDRI
I liked the early breakdown of Christmas, which was a smart exploitation of the lack of specifics in the debate question. The weight gain point could have been executed a lot more eloquently, but was still an valid point that supported your stance. The bit about lying to children and not being able to differentiate fact and fantasy was nonsense though. The forced travel point was interesting and not something I expected, though I’m not sure it adds that much weight to your stance. The increase in drink driving was very good though, as it’s definitely something that blights every Christmas season and is a massive argument against it being the most wonderful time of year.

The Black Friday association was another interesting one I didn’t expect. It was never going to be a great major argument, but as a minor additional point it worked, despite your rather clumsy way of executing it. I thought the point about the rich giving each other presents while people starve was awful. You probably should have scratched that and used the words to extrapolate on some of the more worthy points you made, such as the weight gain/health point, which was a little undercooked (boom boom).

The ‘conspicuous consumption’ paragraph could have been way better than it was. The consumerism and the eyesores of Christmas decorations was a good angle but you abandoned it almost straightaway to talk about Americans injuring themselves, which is neither here nor there imo. You did make an excellent point about the burglary rate rising during Xmas, but your conclusion was lazy as fuck.

I also didn’t like the randomly sized and sometimes completely inappropriate images.

Samizayn
I’m not fond of your intro, as it immediately got me thinking about people for whom Christmas certainly isn’t the most wonderful time of the year. I know you state that we shouldn’t consider the question from society’s outliers, but you actually did a good job of making me think otherwise.

The ‘Great Farce of Christmas’ paragraph was poor. It was well written and everything, but Christmas being put in December has absolutely nothing to do with having something to look forward to at the end of the year, and happens then because a Roman emperor decided to try and unify his Christian and pagan people by commandeering important pagan dates and customs (25th, decorated trees, presents) and using them to celebrate Jesus. This paragraph makes me think you’ve done zero research into the subject. Also, you set it out like the good things of Christmas just balance out the terrible weather. And I don’t know what job you’ve got, but I’ve never been discouraged to work during Christmas in any of the jobs I’ve had. Quite the opposite actually.

The suicide point was very good, though simply stating that ‘it would only be obvious that suicide rates routinely drop’ could have done with further explanation and some sources. I had to look into it myself to confirm you were right. The gift-giving section was very good, and I liked your last paragraph. You made some good points here but I can't help but think you missed several opportunities. The suicide point, for example, where you could have tied it in to the comfort people receive from being surrounded by family and friends, etc. There's some awesome material there which you could have centered your entire SPCDRIround.

Verdict
I don’t think there was enough in Samizayn for me to award the win. There’s was plenty proffered, but a lot of it wasn’t accurate or at least wasn’t convincing. I think the stance that Samizayn took had a lot to work with, almost as much as SPCDRI, but it just didn’t take advantage of it. Samizayn wasted a lot of words with nonsense which might persuade a judge who doesn’t know about the origins of Christmas, but unfortunately I do. I’m voting for SPCDRI, but really SPCDRI shouldn’t have been allowed to win with the way it was presented and the lazy way it approached a lot of its arguments. However, the arguments presented by SPCDRI were simply better and more convincing than those presented by Samizayn. So, bah humbug.

Winner: SPCDRI

Winner via Split Decision - SPCDRI

Bearodactyl vs CGS
Is there a right and a wrong way to play Professional Football?

Bearodactyl
Admittedly, I had some initial confusion where analyzing this question was concerned. The answer seemed almost too obvious. IF you wanted to approach it from an argumentative or overly literal point of view that is. Yes, there’s wrong ways to play Fooball. Just to name a few:

-Complacently
-With your hands

But that’s not what’s meant here, is it? I think you’re talking about the different styles of play. And NO, there is NOT a right or wrong style in football. There’s only right and wrong choices given the circumstances.

But we’ll get to that. First, let’s look at some different styles to get an idea of what we’re talking about here.

Football Manager (FM) lists the following styles in its tactics guide (1):

-Possession Football
-Counter Attacking (Direct) Football
-Attacking Football
-High Pressing Football
-Anti-Football (Parking the Bus)

Out of those 5, two (Attacking and High Pressing Football respectively) don’t get talked about as much in the article because there’s considerable overlap with Possession and Counter Attacking Football. I tend to agree with the writer’s point of view in this matter, and am therefore going to focus on the other three from here on out .

“These games imitating life give several ways to play, doesn’t that imply enough?“


Well, only to an extent. You can make a valid point argueing that it would be silly for a game to include options that are WRONG to utilize in real life, but the definitive answer to this question will have to be found in real life as games still aren’t completely the same as the real deal.

Now assuming there were a right or wrong way to do it, it would be logical to presume that the history books would be fairly one-sided, dominated by teams playing football the right way, whichever of the three that might be. So let’s take a look!

Ultra defensive football

Immediately it becomes apparent that dividing things into a mere 3 categories lacks a certain nuance. Ultra defensive football comes in many forms, and isn’t just synonymous to simply “parking the bus”.
If you’re from an earlier generation, the term might bring to mind the Catenaccio played by Inter in the 1960’s.
Or you might remember Greece winning the European Championship in 2004 with something that had as little to do with Catenaccio as it did with anything resembling attacking football.

Otto Rehagel (Greece’s winning coach) later replied to people that critiqued the way Greece played during the tournament with the following quote:

you tell me that my strategy is not modern football, but modern football is about winning”.

He had a valid point there. You also have to imagine the Greece players are going to laugh at anyone trying to tell them they played it wrong. They have a shiny medal that says the contrary. (2)

Possession Football

Whether you think of the Dutch school and “Total Football” in the early 70’s or a lot more recently the tiki-taka of FC Barcelona and the Spanish national team, no one can deny the effectiveness of well played possession football. Again, please note the different variantions and interpretations of the larger style.

It is an often praised style some might erroneously argue superior. However, as long as for example the Spanish may have dominated internationally (winning three major tournaments back to back in the last decade), even they suffered a harsh and sudden drop back to reality when they crashed out in the group stages of the WorldCup in 2014. Evidently the system isn’t foolproof, and highly dependant on having exactly the right pieces in place. (3)

Counter Football


This one turned out to be the hardest to pin down example-wise. Current day Real Madrid and Bayern Munich are two teams that by more than just some are currently seen as “Counter Attacking Teams” of the highest order (4,6) online.

But when called a counter attacking team by an opponent, Madrid player Ramos himself states that Real Madrid was not “just a counter attacking team” and that it was much more complicated than that. (5) So how can it be the “right or wrong thing” when we can’t even agree on the right label for it?

That’s aside from the fact that much like in the previous two categories, the teams playing this style of football seem to experience the same fortunes and misfortunes as everyone else, and also once again show a clear diversity in and among themselves.

Summarizing and concluding

Thinking there is one distinct right or wrong way to play football clearly is both naive and overly simplistic. There’s simply too many different variables to take into consideration to make any such claim for a prolonged period of time. If anything, the right style is the one that gives you the win.


References:


(1) http://www.passion4fm.com/football-playing-styles-tactics-guide/
(2) http://www.tsmplug.com/top-10/ultra-defensive-anti-football-teams-history/
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiki-taka
(4) http://www.givemesport.com/336213-which-are-the-best-counterattacking-teams-in-europe
(5) http://www.espnfc.com/real-madrid/s...ust-counter-attackwe-play-marvellous-football
(6) http://www.sportskeeda.com/football/top-five-counter-attacking-teams-in-european-football

CGS
Is there a right and a wrong way to play professional football?​


From the traditional 4-4-2, to the fast paced 4-3-3, to the modern day favourite 4-2-3-1 there are many ways a team could line up, all of which have their advantages and disadvantages. I mean in a world where possession is becoming king the 4-2-3-1 formation has proved to be extremely successful. Particularly with our current European champions Real Madrid, there are Indeed many ways a team can be set up to play the beautiful game known as football, all of which have their advantages and their disadvantages. But is there truly one way to really play the game correctly? Nope, no there is not.

In recent years there has been a huge level of praise for the Tiki Taka style of play which saw both Barca and Spain gain serious levels of success with. Barca of course under Pep Guardiola going on to win numerous titles from back to back La Liga titles, The Copa del rey, super cup and of course the champions league on more than one occasion, and of course Spain who famously won 3 major international trophies in a row going on to be hailed as one of the greatest international teams in history rivalling the historic Brazil team of the 70’s/80’s. Right here you had a formation that you could say was not only effective, but on its day could also be extremely exciting to watch too…but was in the correct way to play the game? Debatable.

Naturally it’s extremely hard to argue against the success the formation has provided…but it wasn’t unbeatable. Many occasions in recent memory (the recent World cup alone being a major one) has shown the limitations of the so called “right” way to play professional football. Spain was really exposed during that tournament relying on what was deemed as the best and right way to play the game and not really going out with a plan B.

Hell in the modern day set up going out with just one form of game play has proved to be an awful management decision in itself, just look at the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool in regards to that. Both Rodgers and Wenger have come under criticism for their lack of a plan B after all. Just think about it, how can there be a “right” way to play football when realistically you need more than one style of play at your finger tips in order to really compete. Doesn’t really make sense now does it?

Not to mention every player out there excels at a different aspect of football. Not every player can make a pin point accurate pass like Iniesta, or out muscle a player like Drogba or take on a team all by himself like Messi, every single player will have certain attributes that are better suited for different formations and tactics. Imagine trying to play Messi in a formation which never allowed him to take on a group of players, Would he be effective? Of course not.

Even when a manager moves to a new team, he can’t just pick up and place his formation from the old team into the new squad without considering if the formation/tactics would even work. Well actually…he could, but it probably would be playing with fire.

Fact is that if there was a “right” way to play football then surely everyone would be playing the game the exact same way, or at best there would be one team out there who were literally unbeatable due to their style of play, I mean while the likes of Barca and Spain were performing brilliantly in the last decade, but even they were not unbeatable. Many managers were able to implement differing tactics all of which managed to prove effective against the Tiki taka style of play. Even Bayern in recent years have been an amazing team, hell they even won the title in March last season, something extremely hard to do….but they were not unbeatable. End of the day in a world with so many different tactics, so many different formations and so many different types of players you cannot have a “right” or “wrong” way to play the beautiful game.

Seabs
Bearodactyl - DEAD at "with your hands". I thought the first part was a bit too waffle-y and took a bit too long to do what it needed to do. I thought using FM as a reference for styles was a bit odd but I guess it works. The 3 you focused gave a good summary of how teams can play football from one end of the spectrum to the other. I really liked your analysis of each style in showing that all can be effective at the very top level with strong examples. Could have been improved by showing that each style can also flop at the top level. That would have given you a bit more of an overview for each style. So yeah ultra defensive worked for Greece but if Liverpool this season tried it they'd be horrendous. You did do this with the possession style though. Trim down the overly wordy intro part and you'd have the words to do this and give your debate a better balance. That's really the only critique I had to a great debate. Air tight argument, great examples and written in a really entertaining manner but not at the expense of the quality and persuasiveness of your arguments. Actually, I probably would have added a line at the start about how the right way to play is the way that wins rather than the way which entertains to shut that counter down. Great debate.

CGS - I thought Bear's structure gave him an advantage of yours. He broke the question down really nicely which helped him structure his debate whereas you seemed as though you were just writing everything down at once and it felt a bit rushed and a bit ramble-y. I don't really think you start arguing your case until the 3rd paragraph which is an issue. Good stuff showing the two sides of any supposedly right way to play football. "Just think about it, how can there be a “right” way to play football when realistically you need more than one style of play at your finger tips in order to really compete." was a really great line. After that though I think you just repeated the same point in different ways whereas Bear's structure allowed him to essentially repeat the same point but in a different context (in this case style of play). This was the difference between the two debates, Bear had a better structure which meant he got more out of his 800 words. Beginning here is a bit long and the end is a bit too repeat-y but the middle had some great stuff when you focused in on making an argument and arguing it.

Winner - Bearodactyl

BkB Hulk
Bearodactyl
The first bit was maybe a bit unnecessary. It wasn’t really an introduction to your debate, and, as an extension, didn’t really add anything to it. I’m also not totally sold on the use of FM. While I love the game, I feel like you don’t really need to source it to break the game up into different general styles. I guess we’re not really stringent on what constitutes a good source as we’re not writing for journals or anything, but FM is an odd one.

With that said, I thought the rest of the debate was really good. The success that has been brought with different styles pretty much answers the question definitively then and there. On top of that, I thought the Ramos quote and Real example was excellent. The Bayern example is maybe a little different, because I don’t think they’re regarded as a counter attacking team by the majority now, but it is an example where supposed ‘styles’ mesh into one game plan.

I think the main strength of your debate has been pointing out how different the successful teams of the past decade or so have been. It’s the best point to bring to the table, and I think you’ve done it well.

CGS
I don’t really like the formation use at the start of the debate, as formations are really just a starting point. I don’t think they define a style. The continued emphasis on it throughout your debate is kind of a weakness compared to your opponent, because they’ve focused more on ways to actually play football (as the question asked) as opposed to set up.

The tiki taka stuff was all right, but it was really the only example you provided in terms of style. I did like the Wenger/Rodgers example, and the players being suited for different things is fine too, but I again don’t understand the formation reference to Messi.

The other weakness of this debate is it needs proofreading. You capitalise some titles but not others, and a few phrases are repeated quite frequently. It’s quite easy to clean that up to make for a better read.

Winner: Bearodactyl

Joel
Bearodactyl
First let me start with the things I liked about this debate. The structure was very good, because it allowed you to progress well into the different points of the debate, which I think makes it easy for judges to read. I liked how you listed a lot of different tactics, as by showing there are many different tactics, it reinforces that there is neither a right nor wrong way to play football, which is the side of the argument you are on. I also agree with what you said in the summary that the right way, is the way that gives you the win. However (that dreaded word!), I do think you missed a few big points in this debate, which I think really needed to be included. Those points are why are the different tactics are actually used? Why would some teams be set up more defensive than others? Why do these teams only have a chance of winning by going defensive? I think you spent a lot of time explaining what the tactics you listed are, but not enough time explaining why they are used and why it is not wrong to use them. So while it is good to say that the right way to play football is the way that gets you the win, what I want to read is why that style is used to give the teams using them a better chance of winning, thus proving that the reason for using that tactic couldn't possibly be wrong.

CGS
I think this was a very good debate. The reason why is quite simply because for me you hit the key points. You made note that there were different tactics and different formations. But what you did differently to the other debate was explain why teams differ when it comes to these and the reasons why. Explaining how each player is different and that they all have their strengths and weaknesses and why a manager must decide how to set the team up based on these key components, so that it gives his team the best chance to win, is exactly why they can be no right nor wrong way to play football. You also noted that if there were a right way to play and every team played that way, then only one team would win all the time (the majority of games anyway) and having one team win all the time cannot be what football is about. So yeah, after reading this debate, I felt like I understood why there is neither a right nor wrong way to play football, due to the explanations. The one criticism I would probably say is that you could have presented it a bit better. Highlighted/bolded some key points or used some sub sections, etc. But that’s may just be me being really pedantic.

Veridct: CGS takes this tie for me. Both debates shared the same stance; however CGS' explanation of why there is neither a right nor wrong way to play football had a lot more depth and left me with no doubts that it was indeed the right stance.

Winner via Split Decision - Bearodactyl

Seabs vs RetepAdam.
Was Derrick Rose wrong to say what he did 2 weeks ago regarding sitting games out?

RetepAdam.

"This is a tough game. There are times when you've got to play hurt, when you've got to block out the pain.”
Shaquille O'Neal

"I just felt all along that if I could get a certain amount of years in the league, have great years and still have my health when I walked away, that would be great.”
Kevin Johnson

“I know a lot of people get mad when they see me sit out or whatever, but I think a lot of people don't understand that … when I sit out it's not because of this year … I'm thinking about after I'm done with basketball … I don't want to be in my meetings all sore or be at my son's graduation all sore just because of something I did in the past.”
Derrick Rose

Derrick Rose is soft. Derrick Rose will never be a champion because he has no heart. Derrick Rose is a pussy. Derrick Rose is taking advantage of the Bulls. Derrick Rose is probably laughing his way to the bank. You’d never see Kobe sideline himself. Kobe would kill himself to get healthy and be able to play again. Derrick Rose is a bum.

I could go on, but I’m sure you’ve already heard enough hot takes about how Derrick Rose is the single-worst human being to have ever touched a basketball.

This bullshit macho mentality ignores one very simple and exceedingly obvious fact: Without a healthy Derrick Rose, the Chicago Bulls as currently constructed have virtually zero chance of winning an NBA championship. The only way the Bulls have a shot at getting to the mountaintop is if Rose can regain his MVP form from the 2010-11 season.

A lot of fans seem to understand this, which is why the hype surrounding his return each year is so joyously optimistic. But there’s another subsection of fans that seems to believe that the problem isn’t Derrick Rose’s knee cartilage but his heart. Over the past three years, Rose has probably endured more ridiculous criticism than any player in recent memory. Almost 20 years ago, Anfernee Hardaway was entering his third season in the league – one which would prove to be his last full season. Basketball fans still talk about Penny in hushed tones, swapping you-had-to-be-there stories about his glory days. Yet just four years out from Rose’s MVP season, his fragility is spoken of not as something that has stood in the way of NBA fans being able to witness greatness but as some sort of character flaw, like it’s Derrick Rose’s fault he hasn’t been able to stay on the floor.

Regardless, it finally seems like all that talk is beginning to get to Rose. His recent comments (quoted at the top) have painted a picture not of someone who is trying to get healthy in the best interest of the team but someone who views basketball as a potential detriment to his long-term comfort. And understandable or not, Derrick Rose’s misguided comments violated a trust between him and his fans that may ultimately have a long-term impact on the way his legacy is shaped.

Derrick Rose will earn $18.9 million this season to play basketball. As of December 7th, he has appeared in just 12 of the Bulls’ 20 games. This would be fine if the quote Rose gave the media back in November was “You know, it kills me to not be out there on the court helping my team.” But it wasn’t. The quote Rose gave was “I don’t want to be in meetings all sore … because of something I did in the past.” Compare that to the quotes from Shaq and KJ. Shaq knew that if you were healthy enough to help the team, you suited up. KJ knew that if you wanted to preserve your long-term health, there came a time to walk away. Rose seems to be trying to have it both ways, and for the fans that show up to games and cheer for the Bulls, saying “I care less about helping this team than I do about being in tip-top shape when I’m 45” is something of a slap in the face. As unfortunate as it is, the potential for long-term aftereffects comes with the territory of playing professional sports. So does getting paid millions of dollars. If Rose is that worried about the way his knees will ache in 2048, maybe he should just retire — or at the very least, renegotiate that contract.

Fans get it. Basketball is not priority #1. Fans may have rioted when Jason Williams said as much, but we get it. However, if Derrick Rose is more concerned with his long-term health than he is with helping his team, maybe it’s time for him to just call it a career.

Seabs

Was Derrick Rose Wrong to Say What He Did 2 Weeks Ago Regarding Sitting Games Out?

The Quote: http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/stor...-bulls-acknowledges-concerns-long-term-health1

What a fucking piece of shit that Derrick Rose is hey. Motherfucker wants to protect his health and not have serious issues walking post-Basketball. Has nobody told him that he signed his health away with that guaranteed contract because it's an unwritten rule of modern society that top athletes are just there to sacrifice themselves for our entertainment? Yeah that Derrick Rose bastard is WRONG WRONG WRONG for being smart about protecting his own body and Chicago's Championship hopes while refusing to show no concern for his health like the blood-thirsty modern sports culture demands.

Charles Barkley talked about Rose being wrong because he and many other NBA greats sacrificed their long-term health during their playing days2. Great. Neither Barkley or Rose are right or wrong though because it's their CHOICE. Let's get this done straight away, Rose isn't talking about sitting games out when he's 100% healthy because he's dying to see True Detective. He's sitting games out when in his opinion the risk of him doing serious damage (AGAIN) to his legs is too excessive. That's perfectly reasonable when he's banged up. He's only wrong when you manipulate what he said to mean something else3 like that he's playing to avoid injuries when 100%.

Rose isn't your usual case when it comes to missing games. His legs aren't as strong as Noah's for example because of those two season-ending injuries he suffered which means the risk of doing serious injury to his knees is much higher for Rose than other athletes. Rose HAS to be more careful now because the risk of him suffering another serious injury is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER4. When the risks of injury (missing even more months of action and sacrificing your own mobility for decades of your life) outweighs the benefits of winning a single game then yeah Rose isn't at all wrong to not take that EXCESSIVE risk.

And excessive is the key term. What these narrow-minded Bulls fans probably aren't grasping is that Rose sitting a handful or two more regular season games to ensure he's available for the season-defining games is actually good for their team. Rose missing 10 more regular season games (of course Bulls can't win without Rose right?) isn't losing them the Eastern Conference. Rose playing at 60% in an insignificant match vs Milwaukee causing him to miss an entire Play-Off series though? Well that could.

Remember Grant Hill? Hill is a very relevant case in this debate5 because much like Rose he sat virtually full seasons out through injury and niggling injuries here and there then plagued the rest of his playing career. Players like Rose and Hill who suffer these serious injuries end up with weaker legs, it's just how life works. The bad knee/ankle/whatever never truly recovers to what it was before and other body parts then start overcompensating and increase their risk of injury5,6. The risk of injury to Rose is simply greater than to a normal player and that has to be accommodated for. It's not wrong, it's smart conditioning.

People also seem to suggest that he was wrong for these comments because it showed a lack of commitment to playing. Yeah the commitment of a former MVP (who played banged up during that season7,8,9) who's comeback from two season-ending injuries is actually being questioned. Nowhere did Rose say he wasn't giving 100% when on court. Again, you have to manipulate what he said to subliminally say something else for him to be wrong.

And no you blood-thirsty animals, Rose isn't paid all them millions to play when unhealthy and he isn't paid to sacrifice his health for the success of the team because that would be BARBARIC. Sure he can go out there and act like an INTERGALATIC SUPERWARRIOR (read: dumbass) but that's his choice, not his job. The fact that modern society has moved to a predisposition that it's wrong to NOT sacrifice your long-term health for the sake of sporting success and public entertainment is pretty worrying.

All Derrick Rose has said is that it's important for him to think long-term when deciding whether to play or not banged up. He's under no obligation to play when hurt. If he does/doesn't then he's not right or wrong because it's his choice. If anything he's more right than he is wrong because the extra care gives Chicago a better shot at winning Championships and gives himself a better chance of not having a permanently fucked up leg before he even turns 30. He's only actually wrong if you start manipulating what he said to mean something else like he doesn't care about Chicago or playing when fit. Sure, you can disagree with his mindset or even if he should have been so honest but that doesn't make him wrong.

References:
(1) http://espn.go.com/chicago/nba/stor...-bulls-acknowledges-concerns-long-term-health
(2) http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/charles-barkley-derrick-rose-injury-tnt-inside-the-nba
(3) http://hoopshabit.com/2014/11/12/derrick-rose-talks-life-basketball-world-freaks/
(4) http://www.brianmac.co.uk/injury.htm "If you have been injured before then you are much more likely to get hurt than an athlete who has been injury free."
(5) http://www.blogabull.com/2014/12/3/7327383/grant-hill-talks-about-derrick-roses-recovery-from-injury
(6) http://kidshealth.org/teen/expert/fitness/play_injury.html
(7) http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nba-windows-a-depressing-discussion-about-derrick-rose/
(8) http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/mia...mes-miami-heat-welcome-derrick-rose-back-game
(9) http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment...ssing_discussion_about_derrick_rose/?sort=old

Joel
RetepAdam.
As this started I thought you were against what Rose said. As it went on a bit more, it seemed you were for what Rose said. Then it progressed some more and it seemed you were then against what he said (or the way he said it?). By the end of it, I don’t have a clue (lol). I can’t agree with you on Rose should either take a pay cut or retire. It’s not like he is saying he doesn’t want to play basketball anymore, he’s just trying to condition himself better, so there’s no reason for him to retire. And he is the Bull’s franchise player and when fit he is worth the money they pay him, so there’s no reason for his pay to go down. “I care less about helping this team than I do about being in tip-top shape when I’m 45” – I don’t agree with this being what he’s trying to say. After two massive injuries, he knows how has to manage his body. He chose to sit out some early regular season games when feeling banged up, because they were not important in the bigger picture. He’s a father and I’m sure he wants to run around with his kid in a few years time, rather than watching him with a broken leg. He can do this, while still playing basketball as long as he conditions himself properly. I see nothing wrong with that. Overall, I find myself disagreeing with the points of this debate, because although it seems you are trying to say that Rose didn’t do anything wrong, what you are proposing Rose should do and what Rose is thinking, tells another story.

Seabs
I found myself nodding in agreement as this debate went on and on. I’m happy that you pointed out that at the moment he is sitting out of games that aren’t very important due to the stage we are in the season, as this shows that the whole outrage over these comments were way over the top. As you said, the guy has had two serious injuries, his body isn’t what it once was and indeed, he is at more risk of picking up injuries after the previous ones, so he has to manage his time well. Yes, as a sports athlete you have to play hurt at times, but now is not the time. It’s not even close to play off time, therefore Bulls and Rose himself have to make sure he is in the best condition possible going into the play offs. Rose playing whilst hurt at this stage of the season won’t help. I think it’s ironic that you said that Rose words will be manipulated to make it seem like he doesn’t care about Chicago/basketball, as RetepAdam. (the first debate I read) basically did that. It’s just the way the media, fans and critics minds work, so I totally agree with that point of your debate. There’s no point of me continuing rambling on, as I would just be repeating lines from this high standard debate.

Verdict: Seabs takes the win here, which was a simple decision in the end. I just don’t buy into the points RetepAdam. made, as it feels like I’m being told basketball doesn’t mean much to Rose, due to a twisted account of his words. Seabs puts things into perspective from where we are into the season, to the caution Rose has to take with is weaker body and finally to the way people will twist these words to make Rose look like the bad guy here.

Aidan
This debate is interesting. At first it felt like you guys were starting on the same path and were going the same direction. Then suddenly one of you took an alternate route and ended up in a different spot. I like it.

RetepAdam.

Loved the use of quotes at the beginning. You even added Rose’s quote. I lost it at the worst guy to ever touch I basketball picture. Like, I can’t even. Some people actually do think that way. If it wasn’t for the next sentence saying that this was a bullshit mentality, I would have thought you were a tad crazy.

You then go on from saying that it is about the heart. Rose has received a lot of criticism. You then use Penny Hardaway as a nice example. Good touch. Then you go on to talk about how much money Rose will make. You make a solid point. If he is going to be paid that much to play basketball and professional sports, he should know the body will eventually be in pain. Take less to play less. But yeah, nice inclusion of heart and money here.

Overall, you made the side about Rose being wrong for what he said a good one. The argument that he should just retire is solid. So overall, good debate. I don’t really see any flaws.

Seabs

I almost got mad and got ready to start defending my superstar PG after the first sentence. I don’t care if he can’t read or sounds like a foreign exchange student when trying to speak English. That’s my PG. (This mini-rant was brought to you by Terrell Owens)

Kidding aside, I like the swerve here. I thought for sure you were going to bury the hell out of Rose. I like the clarifications on what he said. It makes sense to point out that he isn’t talking about sitting when 100%.Then you go into the injury stuff. You note that he has to be more careful because his injury rate is higher due to past injury. Nice use of source here. I like it. I’m not sure if I like the Noah example too much as he has missed some time this season too with a knee and foot injury, but I’ll let that slide. (For the record, you could always use future Rookie of the Year, Nikola Mirotic, as an example when referencing other Chicago teammates. He’s amazing and dreamy.)

I like how you bring up that he is sitting out some regular season games Chicago will likely win in order to play the important playoff games. That’s a great thing to remember. I feel you missed a counter argument here though by not mentioning how Jimmy Butler and Joakim Noah play extreme amounts of minutes and fight almost every night while Rose watches them break down around him. Just minor though. Your opponent didn’t mention anything about teammates, so it is what it is. The Grant Hill reference is great.

Once again, the clarification on the quote is good. Pointing out that he didn’t say he wasn’t giving it his all helps. Also, I hereby announce that Rose will officially be called INTERGALACTIC SUPERWARRIOR from now on. (On a side note, it is funny you said dumbass while having a typo in the word intergalactic. Unless intergalatic is a word. Then carry on.)

Anyway. Great points. Good work here.

DECISION: Seabs' is the winner here. The use of some sources and the arguments about clarifying what Rose said were strong. The argument about being more cautious was good too. RetepAdam. was good, but I feel he just missed out by a smidge. If I were to think of one thing that would have swayed my vote in the other direction, it probably would have been a small argument on how his teammates give it their all every night.

WINNER: Seabs

JM
Ok, I want to start by saying that I don’t think either of you really did a super job answering the question asked. The question was if he was wrong to say what he said. Not feel the way he feels or do what he is doing. Yes Derrick Rose is missing games, but you weren’t asked if he should be missing games or not. And yes, this is how Derrick feels but you weren’t asked if it’s right or wrong for him to feel this way. The question is about the brutal honesty of his quote and if he should have said it or not. Despite this, I will try to judge as best I can.

RetepAdam.
Good use of quotes to start, showing 3 very different views. From there, I think you took a really long time to get to the point. It’s not till about 3/4s of the way through the debate when you said “Rose’s misguided comments violated a trust between him and his fans that may ultimately have a long-term impact on the way his legacy is shaped” that I really was able to fully know if you felt if he was right or wrong to say what he said. This was a great point and by far the strongest remark in the debate. You talked a lot about him missing games and explained how him being on the court is necessary for the Bulls to have any shot of winning and compared his situation to Penny’s situation. Neither of these really answered the question though nor supports an answer to the question. After your sentence you quoted before you provided a much more suitable quote that Derrick could have said and this is great and then you compared it again to what Kevin and Shaq said and showed the vast differences in the quotes which again, is good. Overall, an answer is there but I feel you spent more time supporting answers to questions that weren’t asked than actually answering the question asked. You say if Rose is worried about his knees he should just retire as one of your strong points but again, that isn’t really what is being questioned here. Yes, Derrick is immensely worried about his knees but the question was not whether Derrick should be worried about his knees or not. Alright this has gone on long enough, I enjoyed the read, just not sure it was really a strong debate for the question asked.

Seabs
Again, like I was getting at before, I feel you did a great job answering whether Derrick is right to miss games or not and not really a great job answering if he is right to say what he said or not. Went to great detail explaining how Chicago fans should be ok with him missing games if it means that he’s not missing games come playoff time but again, that isn’t the question. Despite that, I feel there is some good stuff here and if the question was more to do with if he is right to sit out games or not you’d have something quite good. There’s not much more I can say…

Decision:
This is tough and I have to be honest here and say I was rather disappointed. I did enjoy the debates as I did enjoy reading your opposing views on Derrick missing games but I am disappointed because I think both of you dedicated most of your debates to answering questions that weren’t asked. I need to give this to RetepAdam. simply because the point about the negative impact on fan trust is a stronger point for whether Derrick should have SAID what he SAID or not than anything Seabs had. Fan trust is a huge part of being a professional athlete especially when you are the star player on said team and the face of the franchise (which is quickly shifting over to Noah with the ongoing Rose saga). I don’t know if the other judges are going to speak on whether the question was answered or not and if not I’d encourage them to read them over again but ya, if the question was slightly different that there would certainly be something here.

Winner via Split Decision - Seabs

Baxter vs RealManRegal
Did CM Punk owe the fans a leaving run in WWE before walking out?

RealManRegal
CM Punk did not and does not owe fans anything, let alone a final run. In order to back up this statement, we need to first look at a broader question:

What do wrestlers owe their fans?

Some fans believe supporting a wrestler - whether with time/attention or paying for merchandise, event tickets or PPV's - that wrestler is then somehow indebted to them. Let's get this straight:

  • If you pay for a Punk t-shirt, you're owed a Punk t-shirt. Nothing more.
  • If you tune in to an episode of Raw, you're owed an episode of Raw. Nothing more.
  • If you buy a ticket for a WWE event, you're owed admission to a WWE event. Nothing more.

Lance Storm said it best:

Provided we give our best efforts that night to entertain you, you got your money's worth and there's no further obligation on either side. You sacrifice your hard earned money, we sacrifice our bodies, and when this job is done well both parties leave happy. We don't owe you additional years of service and you don't owe us additional money after we stop performing.
"I bought your house, Phil"

We need to recognise that WWE is a business whose product is entertainment. To provide that product, WWE make use of the assets available to them - of which Punk is one.

If WWE paid Punk $10M for his contribution to this process, then it's because they made far more than that from the use of his skills.

The same applies to every wrestler - WWE didn't give CM Punk a fat bank account as a benevolent act; they felt he'd make them money, he did, and received a proportion of that money. The fact that Punk may have received a dollar from the $15 you spent on a t-shirt with his name on it doesn't mean you're entitled to anything from him or that you're responsible for the fruits of his labour.

Was a final run even possible?

Here are the salient points revealed by Punk in his recent interview about his departure:

  • The main reason he walked out was his health, which compounded creative and backstage frustrations.
  • When Vince contacted him weeks after him walking to ask if he was ready to come back, the response wasn't "fuck you", it was "I'm physically and mentally burnt out"
  • He claims to have kept channels of communication open with WWE and was prepared to talk with Triple H; however was fired before this happened.

I'll play devil's advocate: let's imagine that even though Punk owes nothing to the fans, he believed he did...

The picture painted is that of a situation where the door was not closed, on Punk's part at least, to the notion of there being some sort of return - whether for a 'final run' or just as a one off to exit more ceremoniously.

So even if he had wanted to give fans a "final run", such a decision was not his to make. If his relationship with Triple H was a frosty as suggested, who is to say he would have been given the opportunity to go out the way he wanted to?

The notion of Punk "owing" fans a final run suggests that he is the one who deprived them of it. In truth, it's likely not so black and white.

What would satisfy the fans?

What constitutes a satisfactory final run? How many matches? What standards of match quality? Who decides whether the final 'run' consists of matches or promos? At what point are we satisfied?

Can't we simply accept his feud with Heyman as his final big programme in the WWE? After all he didn't leave any major loose ends creatively when he walked out. What's the defining factor of a final run? Would it involve him announcing his pending departure in advance? Did it need a kayfabe firing, or him quitting on-screen in order for it to count? Would fans have even bought that?

Had Punk turned up on Raw to say goodbye - similar to Edge - would that have sufficed? Did fans even want a final run, or just an explanation and farewell?

Where do we draw the line?

Ultimately the most pertinent aspect of Punk's departure is that the main reason he walked out was because of health issues.

Had Punk stuck around for a final run his health would be been in jeopardy, not just because of concussions but also because the MRSA Staph infection he had was apparently of such severity that doctors considered him lucky to be alive.

No matter what the most selfish of fans believe CM Punk owed them surely everyone agrees that he didn't owe you his life.

Lance Storm blog article on CM Punk's departure: http://www.stormwrestling.com/030414.html
Art of Wrestling 226/227 - Interview/Q+A with CM Punk: https://soundcloud.com/coltcabana


Baxter
Did CM Punk owe the WWE a leaving run? Absolutely not.
Did CM Punk owe the FANS a leaving run? Without a doubt.

If you believe even a fraction of what CM Punk said in his recent podcast with Colt Cabana then the man had every right walk out on the WWE; this company broke more promises to CM Punk than they have announce tables, were negligent about his health to the point where he could have potentially died in the ring and just generally treated him like a massive turd for almost ten years.

HOWEVER, none of this was at the fault of the fans, and these people gave enough to CM Punk during his time with the company that he DID owe them a leaving run.

The fans got behind CM Punk in style during his run with the WWE; perhaps one of the biggest indicators of this is his merchandise sales which helped bolster his bank account balance in a big way (see his recent agreement with the WWE over unpaid royalties that enables them to continue to sell his merchandise). At the time of him leaving he was the leading the WWE online shop merchandise sales and in terms of overall sales was second only to John Cena; when you consider that this was taking place at a time when Punk wasn’t a particularly prominent part of the show and playing second fiddle to John Cena, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton and even Bray Wyatt, it demonstrates how the fans wanted to get behind him and how despite the lack of a big push fans were still willing to throw money at him.

In his final months the fans love of CM Punk was somewhat overshadowed by the clamour for Daniel Bryan but they still got behind him nonetheless and did so during the whole of his WWE career. To see just how much people cared about this guy and how big he was you’ve only got to look at the fact that almost a year on from his departure virtually every week entire arenas of people are repeatedly chanting ‘CM Punk’ despite the complete lack of relevance of Punk to the current ongoings in WWE. Did the WWE ever push him at the level the fans wanted him to be pushed at? It’s debateable but again this is a gripe that should be directed at the WWE, not the fans. The fans really got behind Punk and tried their best to get him to the top tier so in that sense he did owe them a better end to things than getting chucked out the Rumble match by Kane; very, very few superstars on the level of CM Punk have ended their career in such an abrupt, unsatisfying manner.

CM Punk on why he left said:
The biggest part of my decision to leave was my health
Whilst it is unquestionably true that an in-ring performers health and wellbeing must take priority above all else, there’s absolutely no reason why Punk’s “leaving run” would have had to involve him working an intensive schedule on par with the one he was previously working, or indeed have to take place immediately after the Royal Rumble. He could have requested a few months (or longer) off and subsequently come back fresh and ready for a short run with the company, or failing that requested a schedule not too dissimilar to the one worked by the likes of The Undertaker/Lesnar that would see him show up periodically to cut a promo and only work the one match at ‘Mania; and when you consider that the man walked out unscathed after wrestling for the best part of an hour at the Royal Rumble PPV and is apparently healthy enough to transition into MMA, surely neither of these scenarios would have had any long term negative impact upon his health.

Would HHH/Vince have granted Punk’s requests for these schedules? It’s an entirely hypothetical scenario and your guess is as good as mine but you’d have to believe that if this was what it would take to stay on somewhat amicable terms with one of his best merchandise shifters and stop the man walking out and creating the shitstorm and PR disaster that he has, then Vince would have indeed allowed Punk to work a more relaxed schedule for his final hoorah with the company if he wanted it that much.

The fans bought tickets to see him, couldn’t get enough of his merchandise and cheered for him relentlessly (and still do to this day). For whatever gripes he may have had with the WWE, the man should have nothing but praise for WWE fans and subsequently he did owe them a leaving run before he walked out on the company.

Seabs
RealManRegal - I loved the start of this. Layin them truths down hard. Bang on as well. Burial of that quote was great too. There's no real right or wrong answer to this debate so it's great that you're laying down facts to support your stance. Punk got paid the money he did which he brought his house with. Not like these fans donated money straight to Punk as a charitable act. The was it possible part I thought was weaker because it seemed to stray away from the actual question a bit. You basically started asking your own question of was a leaving run possible rather than did he owe one. I see the connection so it's not a major critique. Not sure I agree with where it went though given that Vince called Punk up the week after asking if he was coming back. That doesn't sound like a shut door. The point here would be good if it was true though. Next part is better though. Who is to say that Punk post Heyman feud wasn't even a final run in his mind? It's not like he'd announce a final run on TV most likely so say he went up to Mania and then quit the same fans would still probably want a final run not realising that was it. They're probably the people who just wanted Punk/Bryan at Mania really badly. Final part rounds the debate up great too. Was he supposed to risk his health even further in order to give the fans this out of the goodness of his heart? This debate was great bar the door being closed slip imo. Great use of the word count too, felt like you got a lot out the word count with the concise wording of each argument.

Baxter - I didn't think this debate was bad but it looked weak in comparison to RealManRegal's simply because he argued his stance more effectively. It's not like you didn't argue your stance well (you did) but it didn't feel like you had the fire power arguments wise that he did. Good clarification that he didn't owe WWE anything at the start. I just don't think you have an argument that counters RealManRegal's opening. You buy his merchandise and you're owed a t-shirt. Nothing more. As far as arguments for Punk owing them a final run this was good argument though. If you faced a debate with the same stance you'd probably win fyi because I can't think of much else you could argue for in favour of this stance, I just think this was a case of one stance being easier to argue than the other because of having more and stronger ammunition so to speak. The second big paragraph feels a bit directed at booking. If Punk quit a year earlier after dropping the title to Rock would that be more ok than quitting in the middle of really nothing? The schedule thing I think is easily countered by Punk's stories about being constantly rushed back when he did take time off. You even admit that it's a hypothetical argument so it's hard to be really convincing with hypothetical's whereas RealManRegal was just laying it down as it was. You end with "the man should have nothing but praise for WWE fans and subsequently he did owe them a leaving run before he walked out on the company." but are praise and a leaving run connected or just two separate things?

Winner - RealManRegal

WOOLCOCK
RealManRegal

I thought this was a very impressive effort, and a really great breakdown of the parameters of the question to arrive at a balanced and well crafted answer.

The first argument was basic, though if I could offer a critique it would have been to see you briefly offer thoughts of your own immediately after Storm's quote. Whilst Storm's quote is a good one to use, I would prefer you to offer some form of overview/breakdown of his quote so it's not merely his words talking for you. You cover the second aspect of 'Punk owing the fans' very well immediately after, but I would have liked a final consideration of why Punk doesn't owe the fans anything.

The second part was super though, and a really great overview of the crux of the issue. Documenting Punk commanded a strong paycheck because he was a commodity was a good argument which translated into Punk making the company money and thereafter entertaining the fans enough to prove profitable in merchandise.

The next argument I liked, as you consider whether Punk had the means of which to make a comeback and 'go off on the right terms'. Whilst I think the nature of wrestling and the fact Punk's comments boil down to hearsay (even if I don't doubt most of them are close to the truth) means you have to factor just how perilous his relationship with HHH was, I think you made a decent argument that HHH may have proved a roadblock. Of course, Vince is still in charge and everyone knows Vince will set aside personal feelings if he feels the product and his wallet will benefit more, so I did think that was a little oversight on your part.

The final points I thought were strong however. Breaking down 'a leaving run' was a good way to tackle the ambiguity the question poses, specifically how much the fans can demand of him. I wish you had been able to tie in Punk's deteriorating body affecting his performance, therefore potentially scupering the means to which his leaving run could satisfy the fans, but the oonsideration of his health not being something he should be expected to sacrifice was a strong closing argument, which I think most can agree with.

Overall you broke down the question smartly and gave yourself time to craft succinct but logical arguments with enough depth to be convincing and not underdeveloped. This is a good illustration of how a deliberate structure can maximise your content and allow you to cover a number of arguments without crippling your word count.

Baxter

I think this debate was hurt by your opponent offering a strong counter to your overall argument, that Punk seemingly owes the fans. The first argument I think is successfully refuted by your opponent, and really requires you to expand on why Punk owes the fans. Sure they spent money on his merchandise, but this stems from Punk the performer and his ability to engross the audience and tap into their emotions. I felt you worded your argument as if people would naturally agree with you, rather than striving to point out why Punk is indebted to the fans. As a result, I felt your opponent offered a strong counter that Punk commanded a good paycheck because he proved himself a money maker for the company, which stems from his ability as a performer, ergo he fulfilled his obligations and entertained the fans. I don't think you were able to tell me here why Punk seemingly had to go out on the fans terms, rather than his own.

The next point is much of the same, I get the fans showed him admiration and support, but I don't think you're truly tapping into why Punk is obligated to go beyond his duty and health to appease the fans and leave in a manner they deem acceptable. Sure the fans supported him, but he wasn't the only person that was over. Should all wrestlers irrespective of their health/mindset be deemed obligated to carry on wrestling until the fans are satisfied they have been repaid? As your opponent remarked, at what point do the fans consider the debt repaid? It feels like you're making your argument on the understanding the reader already agrees with your view, rather than convincing a neutral and undecided viewer that Punk's obligatio to the fans is stronger than his obligation to his own health.

Again I also felt your closing argument was countered well by your opponent. What would be considered a leaving run? Working one more match at Mania to me doesn't constitute 'a run'. The original Summer of Punk angle in ROH was a leaving run, working a part-time schedule less so. Even so, I felt you ignored the crux argument (Punk's health being a priority) and the fantasy booking solution didn't convince me enough that Punk could work a schedule to reflect his broken down body. Your opponent also alluded to the MRSA Staph Infection which obviously had potentially dire health consequences for not only Punk but his peers had me continued to wrestle giving the fans 'his farewell run'. Even still, I don't feel you ever appropriately defined what a farewell run would entail, which crucially meant you never countered your opponent's strong question of 'when is Punk's debt repaid?'

RealManRegal raised the more pertinent arguments and satisfactorily rebuffed the key arguments of Baxter, on that basis RealManRegal is the clear winner.


Winner - RealManRegal

BkB Hulk
RealManRegal
I thought this was pretty excellent. You shut down any opposition arguments, and did a great job arguing your side at the same time.

The Lance Storm quote was a good one, and the idea that you’re paying for a WWE product not Punk is simple but effective. On top of that, the question as to what is enough and the final line were really strong. The ending especially, although perhaps a bit melodramatic, ends the debate on a strong note.

Baxter
While this is written well, I think your opponent effectively counters all of your arguments with just three lines. The point that they are buying a WWE product and not Punk pretty much covers most of your debate for me. The Lance Storm quote also pretty much covers it.

I don’t think this is a bad effort to cover this side of the debate, but I really think your opponent has really ripped your side of the debate up. You haven’t done the same to their side.

Winner: RealManRegal

Winner via Unanimous Decision - RealManRegal

Irish Jet vs The Acquired Taste
Which death(s) was/were the most impactful on Game of Thrones, Ned Stark's or The Red Wedding?

Irish Jet

Introduction
Undoubtedly two of the most iconic scenes of the series to this point – The impact of these deaths are still being seen within the series of Game of Thrones and will forever live in the memory of those who viewed them. The most impactful however - the scene that damn well defines every cruel aspect of George RR Martin’s world – was The Red Wedding.

The Shock Factor
“One of the most suddenly savage and devastating pieces of storytelling filmed, printed, or told around a campfire.”(1)
Ned Stark showed that no character was safe in Game of Thrones but nothing quite drove it home like the Red Wedding – Mothers, sons, wives, unborn children – Dead, just like that – Robb was in many eyes the hero of the story, destined to avenge his father and defeat the Lannister regime. The Red Wedding served to demonstrate how brilliantly unconventional and unpredictable Game of Thrones is.

Ned’s Starks death was a shock, but he was a prisoner who confessed to treason. In contrast the Red Wedding lulls us into this false sense of security. Robb on the face of it is as safe as could be, surrounded by his friends, families, bannermen and armies and protected by sacred guest right traditions. The betrayal and massacre that followed were almost impossible to comprehend – The controversial and graphical brutality of Robb’s pregnant wife being stabbed repeatedly in the stomach before his eyes – Is something that cannot be unseen. The fact that reaction videos are now almost as famous as the scene itself speaks volumes for the impact it had on viewers.


The Impact in Westeros
Westeros was at war with or without Ned Stark's death. Stannis and Renly has declared themselves king and Robb had raised a Northern army and captured Jaime. The fact that Ned's death preceded the Red Wedding and inadvertently contributed to it is significant but not decisive – The snowball effect of Ned’s death may have caused Rob proclaim himself king but it didn’t cause him to break a vow. Ned’s death was the catalyst for a lot of Robb’s actions but it did not directly lead to the Red Wedding.

The impact of Ned’s death was huge on his family but the Red Wedding has all of this impact and more, killing off several character arcs as opposed to one and effectively wiping out the Stark family as a major house in Westeros. There was never the issue of inheritance with Ned – Robb was his heir. The Red Wedding however has left the inheritance of Winterfell in serious question. Sansa - the assumed heir – is unaware of her brothers being alive. We’ve seen through the Tyrell’s, the Lannisters and now Littlefinger the prestige her assumed status holds as “key to the North”(2). Robb’s death has left a very unstable situation and how it is resolved will unquestionably have a huge impact going forward. If Ned’s death was hard on his family, the Red Wedding has left it in chaos.

The Bad Guys

“On a show that features unrelentingly cruel things, the ugly and dark hearted Walder Frey has now risen up the ranks as this shows top monster”(3)
The Red Wedding directly made two of the biggest antagonists on the show. Bran’s foreshadowing with the story of the Rat Cook – “He killed a guest beneath his roof. That’s something the God’s can’t forgive.”(4) – Highlights how deplorable Walder Frey’s actions are and lends credence to the idea that the Red Wedding will see him pay dearly for his crime.

“The North Is Mine” – Roose Bolton(5)
Perhaps more significant that anything that emerged from any of these deaths is the rise of House Bolton at the expense of House Stark. House Stark has essentially been wiped out in the eyes of most in Westeros and their 8,000 year rule of the North has ended(6). Roose is in control and his now legitimate son Ramsay is his heir. The redemptive arc we assumed Robb was on is dead, but the emergence of these two gives some potentially great arcs for other characters down the line and as Tyrion has said – “The Northerners will never forget”(7).

Conclusion
“(The Red Wedding) killed much more than Robb Stark, and Catelyn Stark, and Talisa Stark, and Grey Wind, and the Northern army. It killed an idea. In the world of the show, it killed the hope of the North”(8)
The impact of Red Wedding is unquestionable. The Rains Of Castamere remains the most critically acclaimed episode of Game of Thrones(9), for virtually nothing but The Red Wedding. It is ranked #5 on IMDB’s highest rated TV episodes of all time(10) and its impact on the show, the viewers and in pop culture is incredible. As much as I love dead Ned, he just doesn’t compare.

-------------------------------

References

1. http://www.tv.com/news/game-of-thro...iew-four-funerals-and-a-wedding-137010438279/

2.

3. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/06/03/game-of-thrones-the-rains-of-castamere-review

4.

5.

6. http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_of_Winterfell

7.

8. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/game-of-thrones-recap-red-red-red-20130603

9. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/eprate?ref_=ttep_sa_2

10. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?num_votes=1000,&sort=user_rating,desc&title_type=tv_episode

The Acquired Taste

First let me emphasize the question asks which death was more impactful on GAME OF THRONES. Meaning Game of Thrones as a show and how it affected:

- The storyline
- The characters
- The events

Not which deaths were more sad and shocking or which deaths had more numerical value.

Ned Stark's death was pivotal in the development of the "War of the Five Kings". A war that certainly affects everyone in Westeros. In fact, it allowed Robb Stark to become the "King in the North" and follow a chain of events that lead him to The Red Wedding. So really Ned Stark's death was more impactful than The Red Wedding as The Red Wedding and any impact it caused is really just an extension of the impact caused by the beheading...


STORYLINE:

The North had already been on edge, but Ned's death was the linchpin to the "War of Five Kings" storyline advancing.

Before the execution, Robb had merely been prepping to rebel. However after Ned's excution, the Northern banners proclaimed Robb the "King in the North". As Ned was the liege lord in the North, that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been murdered. Ned's death set the scene for Robb to win battles, needing to pass through The Twins and him and his mother ending up in Walder Frey's hall...

As for the other four kings, Joffrey and Renly hadn't yet been portrayed in their journey as legitimate kings and Stannis and Balon hadn't even been portrayed on screen before Ned's dismemberment.

The "War of Five Kings" has been the underlying storyline for nearly all the events occurring in Westeros. It raged on from Seasons 1-3 which is the majority of episodes that have aire. Meaning Ned's death has been a very important piece of the puzzle that is Game of Thrones.


CHARACTERS:

Ned Stark was the cornerstone of honor but more importantly he was the main protagonist. The center of all major happenings in Westeros. Meaning his death affected nearly all the main characters and their roles in the show.

Robb and Catelyn Stark by default, assumed being the main protagonists from the North with Robb now being "the man" and Catelyn being the only parent left standing in the Stark family. Ned's death was a huge motivator for their actions and further fueled their hatred for the Lannisters...

Speaking of Lannisters, Tyrion wouldn't have become Hand of the King had it not been for Ned's untimely fate. Tywin had been originally named the Hand but since Robb sought vengeance and was giving Tywin trouble on the battlefield, Tywin sent Tyrion in his stead. With Tyrion being the main protagonist after Ned, him being the Hand was a big focal point in the show which saw him shake things up. If not for the beheading, Tyrion wouldn't have been the Hand and would still be screwing around at Casterly Rock.

Going back to the Stark family, Ned's death caused all of them obvious emotional disturbances that added to their stories.

But Ned's death impacted Arya the most. Everything she has done and everything she has been through is because of her father's death. Think about it. Her journey really started when Yoren took her from the Sept of Baelor...and what was she doing in the Sept of Baelor? She was there for her father's execution. Without it, she'd still be chasing cats in King's Landing.


EVENTS:

Everything Arya has done and will do is impacted by Ned Stark's death. If she'd never been in the Sept of Baelor, she would've never met Yoren. If she'd never met Yoren, she would've never met Jaqen H'ghar on The Kingsroad. If she'd never Jaqen H'ghar, she would've never received the Valar Morghulis coin and wouldn't be on her way to Bravos. Arya may not be involved in the war but she's a major character...

Tyrion however was involved in the war. Namely the Battle of Blackwater. If he hadn't become the Hand, he wouldn't have had the authority to confer with the pyromancer about the wildfire, the standing to be on the battlefield at Blackwater and use the wildfire and he wouldn't have rallied the soldiers when their spirits were down. The Battle of Blackwater still would've happened but Tyrion drastically affected the result. Something he wouldn't have done without being the Hand and by extension, Ned Stark's death.


AND FINALLY...

The Red Wedding. It saw the deaths of Robb and Catelyn Stark. Yes they were impactful. But if you lose an arm and a leg, you can still live. Ned Stark's death was a beheading literally and figuratively. I don't need to tell you how much of an impact that has. If you don't know, maybe you should find out for yourself...


Seabs
Irish Jet - I would have liked to have seen you state why the factors you used to separate the two were important and sufficient criteria. Why is shock factor important in deciding which was more impactful? I see where you were going with "Ned Stark showed that no character was safe in Game of Thrones but nothing quite drove it home like the Red Wedding" and it is a two sided coin. You can say that but you can also say that Ned was the first major character to die and it showed the viewers that NOBODY is safe in this universe. What other show would do something as ballsy as killing off what seemed like the main character in the first season (it wasn't even the finale! take that convention)? I guess the question is which had a bigger impact, the first one which laid the groundwork for people to believe that the events during The Red Wedding would mean something because Ned's death showed us actions have consequences or the more brutal massacre which essentially killed off a family and an army and a major story arc in just a handful of terrifying minutes? I didn't really feel that you argued for one at the expense of the other. It felt like well both were shocking but I flipped a coin and picked The Red Wedding so here's why The Red Wedding was shocking. Really to produce an effective argument for X > Y you need to add why it was MORE shocking than Ned's death. I do think you tried to do that here but the execution (hehe) was lacking because I wasn't convinced of any reason why one was MORE shocking than the other (also could do with knowing why shock factor = impact). You say "Robb on the face of it is as safe as could be" but wasn't Ned in the eyes of viewers? Book readers aside who actually thought Ned would be killed off even when standing there about to go. TV convention has pretty much taught us major characters don't die and if they do it's in finale's and more often than not shows love teasing that they'll die but then they get saved at the last moment. I know I for one figured that was the direction and then BAM. Now come The Red Wedding I'm not expecting it but when the massacre starts and Robb and Catelyn are still alive it's been implanted in my thought process through Ned's death that this COULD happen. That's impact. The Red Wedding was a continuation but Ned's was the catalyst for changing how people watched the show. Hopefully that makes sense and sorry for going off and writing my own debate there for a second. I felt you undersold the impact on the story of Ned's death short and The Acquired Taste exposed this pretty well in his debate. You largely focused on the effect each death had on the people directly involved in it whereas The Acquired Taste widened the scope and showed how it affected unrelated story arcs (Tyrion for example). The next part argues the impact of The Red Wedding well again but again feels like it falls short on arguing it at the expense of Ned's death. Remember that Ned's death established Joffrey as the biggest dick of all time and so far Joffrey has been far more important to the show than Frey or Bolton after the Red Wedding. Bit in the conclusion is also arguing which is better rather than more impactful.

The Acquired Taste - I like your manipulation of the question by focusing on the impact relating to the show. That kinda does rule out the viewer impact although I think the wording of the question allows for both interpretations. You could say what you did or you could say it means the deaths which happened on the show Game of Thrones. Either works imo but that was good and gives you structure meaning. "So really Ned Stark's death was more impactful than The Red Wedding as The Red Wedding and any impact it caused is really just an extension of the impact caused by the beheading..." reads a bit like well this happened first so it had more impact because more preceded it. I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intention but it read a bit like that. The storyline part is well done. I think there's an issue saying it brought Renly and Stannis into the story though because Ned was already in the process of bringing them into the main story. Would have liked to have seen you go into more depth on the impact it had on Joffrey's character and story arc. Ned's death was a huge catalyst to that which had a big impact on everyone in Kings Landing at the time. Sansa you kinda neglected too but I get you can only cover so much ground, I just think the impact on Joffrey and Sansa deserved more of a mention due to the importance of where it took them. The impact on Tyrion and Tywin was great because it worked against Irish Jet 's debate. At this point you've barely mentioned The Red Wedding which is an issue in a direct comparison debate. You only really get to it at the end and then it's a pretty weak dismissal because of the depth of it. You show the impact Ned's death had brilliantly but you needed to show how the same was true for The Red Wedding but to a lesser extent. I felt the events part was really just repeating points you already made in the storyline and characters part. They're pretty interrelated so you could have cut this and used these words to compare to The Red Wedding more. This is kinda like your Breaking Bad debate in that you argue well for your pick but you need to argue it at the expense of the other stance better. Short on The Red Wedding Side but really good on the Ned's beheading side of things and that's where you won. Irish Jet was short ruling out the other pick too but you argued better for your stance with minimal flaws. God I wished I'd done a debate for this topic now.

Winner - The Acquired Taste

Magic
Irish Jet

The intro was short, but well-made as you quickly stated what side you’re on and why.

As far as the shock factor goes, it depends on what perspective you look at it from. For the viewers it was more shocking, but for the story and characters involved in the story, there was nothing more shocking than Joffrey switching the plan and beheading Ned on his own free will. The Red Wedding was a planned and calculated move, again shocking to the viewers, but to the characters of the story it was all a part of a well-executed plan. So as far as “impact” goes, I think it’s harder to say that the Red Wedding had a bigger impact for the Lannisters when it was planned by Tywin, while Ned’s death setup another enemy and change of plans for them completely. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as “opinion” like, I just don’t think this goes along with what the topic is supposed to be about and I don’t think viewer reactions really matter for “impact on the Game of Thrones”.

Well I’d like to just point on some errors and false claims in your writing first, seeing as I know the story quite well myself and making false claims to make a point isn’t good writing, in my honest opinion:

"The snowball effect of Ned’s death may have caused Rob proclaim himself king but it didn’t cause him to break a vow. Ned’s death was the catalyst for a lot of Robb’s actions but it did not directly lead to the Red Wedding.”

This is very much incorrect as the North has stated many times that it does like getting involved in the wars of the South and not only that but the entire reason Cersei and everybody else wanted to keep Ned alive as a prisoner was so that the North wouldn’t revolt against them. So, Ned’s beheading did in fact entirely lead to the Red wedding as they wouldn’t have gone to war with him still alive nor could Robb declare himself King when Ned was still the true lord.

However, your following point about the impact on his family as well as the impact it has for the rest of the Kingdom as far the North goes is huge as it made Sansa a target and a pawn for them to use and abuse and it did leave the heir to the North, as well as the Northern army itself, in chaos. Very good follow-up.

I think the “bad guys” section was well done too.
Although it differs from the books, the show clearly intends to establish that there are “bad guys” and the red wedding pretty much made it clear who those bad guys were, which makes its impact rather huge as Ned’s death only made one clear bad guy out of Joffrey seeing as he was the only one that wanted it to happen.

You conclusion also summed up your debate well, showing that the episode is what got everyone’s attention and was one of the most seen things of all time. Although again, from my interpretation of the question, I don’t really think that matters.

The Acquired Taste:

The Acquired Taste had a much stronger intro and quickly countered many of the points Irish Jet tried making about the shock factor and audience in one short list followed up with a great sentence:

“Not which deaths were more sad and shocking or which deaths had more numerical value.”

The point about Ned’s beheading affecting more people than the Red Wedding would be great if it were true; However, I don’t know how true that is because, like Irish Jet pointed out: Renly already was planning to go to war, as was Stannis after finding out about Joffrey being a false heir, and the Iron Islands got involved for their reasons that didn’t include anything to do with Ned. So really, both events affected the same people, the North.

Again you used a counter in your debate that I used to critique Irish Jet, which was Ned’s death is the only reason Robb ever became King and the only reason the Red Wedding was able to go down, so another solid counter. And the beheading is very much a crucial part to the entire story, whereas the Red Wedding hasn’t been brought up nearly in the same way as the beheading was.

I think you use false claims again in your “character” portions, which isn’t a good way to debate as your simply trying to mislead your reader. It didn’t affect most of the main characters, it only affected mostly the Starks that you listed and the Lannisters as they were behind it. I agree with the points you made about the characters, but trying to say it affected “most of the main characters” isn’t true.

The events section is much more on point and entirely agreeable. Ned’s death setup both the battle of blackwater and the red wedding, which were both the highpoints of story. Arya’s entire journey beginning from that beheading is also true and caused her to create her “list”. I like how you concluded with it being the cause of the Red Wedding because that truly goes to show the impact it had on the story, without it that plot point could never have happened in the first place.

Decision: The Acquired Taste had the better counters and focused more on which event had a bigger effect on the story, which is what I think the question was about so this was an easy choice for me. Both were fun reads, but again for future debates you shouldn’t try to mislead the judges by overstating things.

Bearodactyl
Irish Jet

You drop me in cold without reminding me of the exact wording of the question, which makes me have to go look for it. I think I do that a lot too. I’m gonna stop doing that.
Anyway, you chose The Red Wedding (TRW from here on out) as the most IMPACTFUL. Gotcha.

The Shock Factor section. Shock is a part of impact in a “how did it leave people feeling” kind of way, I tend to agree. You don’t have me FULLY convinced with the initial section because Robb in my eyes WASN’T the “hero of the story” so that takes me out of the moment when reading, but you drive it home quite well in the second part and I like the nod to the youtube reaction videos. I’m guilty of watching them myself so again I see what you’re saying here.

Second comes the Westeros Impact. This is the first thing that came to mind for me when I read the question, so it’s good that you devoted a section to it as I was waiting for it to be brought up.
You make a great start by pointing out that the DEATH of Ned Stark wasn’t the first domino to fall. Things were already very much fucked beforehand. War was already fast approaching. The impact of TRW you then build up quite eloquently in how it DID in and of itself change things vehemently. And again I find myself agreeing. Good section again.

The Bad Guys.. I love the quotes you used here to illustrate how the events of TRW MADE two guys as far as hate factor was concerned. But where’s the comparison? Joffrey really cemented his status as most hated character with Ned’s beheading as well.
So decent section, but the lack of comparison makes it less than it could have been.

Concluding section. You drive your point home with another good quote, you throw in a last fact (so tempted to do the smiley but this is TDL, standards dammit!!) and a relevant sidenote towards pop culture, and manage to convince me yours is the right stance.

All in all a very good debate, that had a small hole in it in the bad guys section by neglecting to compare Ned’s beheading, but that’s a relatively small flaw really. I liked the quotes use a lot, and you definitely know your stuff.

The Acquired Taste

Interesting opening. Unfortunately for you, I don’t fully agree with your way of reading into the question. I think it’s a bit of a stretch, to be quite frank. I can’t fully dismiss it but neither could I fault someone for not interpreting it as such, meaning that in the grand scheme of things your opponent is left with more topics to underscore his argument. Bit of a bad call there I think, but we’ll see.

Ok, so I see you’ve chosen Ned Stark. I wonder if this choice has anything to do with your denouncing of shock value and public impact because it would’ve been a hard sell if you hadn’t in those areas.

My first question, how is it pivotal? Robb was already in open defiance fighting the Lannisters, and the letter sent out by Ned earlier already meant that Stannis and Renly, a stubborn man and his incredibly popular younger brother, were both going to make a claim. How was him making a forced-looking claim and taking the black going to put out that fire? I hope you have an answer for this in the upcoming sections.

The storyline section.

“Before the execution, Robb had merely been prepping to rebel”. I’m sorry but that’s simply incorrect.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/War_of_the_Five_Kings
They were already 5 battles in at the time. The execution ended any remote chance of peace there was between House Baratheon/Lannister and Stark but it certainly wasn’t the starting shot to the entire war of the five kings, and its impact on Renly and Stannis’ claim to the throne especially we can only guess at, but my guess is it wouldn’t have been of determining importance. Either way, putting inaccurate facts out there is never going to look good, so that’s bad news for you there. And as your argument leans on this foundation of inaccuracy, I just can’t really afford you points for this section in general.

Characters section.

I could nitpick a lot of things in this section as you do a fair bit of assuming (for example, if Ned hadn’t been executed but “merely” outed as a traitor and sent into exile, with the open warfare in the North and two crown contenders in Renly and Stannis already starting to make claims Arya could still ill afford to be captured in King’s landing, and she still might’ve met Yoren) but all in all my main critique here is that for a topic that asks you to compare two possible “most impactful” situations, you don’t spend nearly enough time on actual comparison.

Events section.

Starts off by building on an example from the previous section I already found to be a bit too assume-ish for my taste.
The Tyrion stuff is actually the best point you make this debate, as I feel the assumption that he wouldn’t have become hand if not for Joffrey continuously fucking up under Cersei’s supervision is the least farfetched one of the lot, and actually holds quite a bit of merit. Again still, no real comparison is given..

.. until the very last section. Where you quickly dismiss the Red Wedding as impactful, but not THAT impactful, without any solid factual reasoning behind it.

All in all this debate felt a bit like a rushjob, and was let down in the research department which from the groundfloor up destabilized the entire reasoning behind this debate.

AND THE WINNER IS:

This was somewhat easy to decide. Irish Jet was by far the superior piece of writing, and deserves the win. Factually more sound, a better structured argument, fewer leaps and more convincing in its actual comparison.

Irish Jet

Winner via Split Decision - The Acquired Taste

RAB vs The Acquired Taste
Which episode of Breaking Bad was better, "Ozymandias" or "Face Off"

The Acquired Taste

"Ozymandias" or "Face Off"?

To decide which episode was better, I'm going to answer a few questions.

Why do people watch TV?

They want a quality TV show which entertains them by getting them emotionally invested.

How do people get emotionally invested?

By the show having characters and situations people sympathize or empathize with.

Breaking Bad had no problem being a quality TV show and getting the viewer emotionally invested.

With that said, "Ozymandias" was a better episode than "Face Off".

To explain how, I'll use the three-act structure(1)(2)(3).


ACT 1

The music in the exposition of "Face Off" was good for getting the viewer hooked. However the events from Jesse getting picked up by detectives (inciting incident) to the Walt/Saul conversation (plot point #1) were mostly tame. Jesse's interrogation was uneventful as it was just Jesse getting grilled about the ricin while the Walt/Saul conversation was just a setup to later scenes. It didn't compare to the emotional mindfuck in "Ozymandias"...

Exposition:

It took us back to a better time in Walt and Jesse's first cook with the RV in the desert. Back then the worst they went at it was just light bickering. Ahh nostalgia, even Walt and Skyler were cordial with each other. But then Walt, Jesse and the RV dissolve and all that's left is the desert...a saddening but riveting way for the viewer to snap the fuck out of it...

Inciting incident:

In the next scene Hank gets executed in the same desert. The same desert that was just giving nostalgia feels was ripping out hearts by being the place where a beloved character like Hank, after five seasons gets murdered. The reaction from Walt and the silence was haunting and just added to the emotional trauma of the viewer...

Plot point #1:

After this Walt and Jesse are no longer lightly bickering. Instead Walt sells Jesse out and makes a bone-chilling remark about his dead girlfriend to torture him which ends Act 1. No more nostalgia, the viewer had to accept the harsh reality of how far gone their "friendship" was...

Act 1 to "Ozymandias".


ACT 2

Act 2 in "Face Off" was straightforward. It followed Hector going through with a plan Walt devised, pretty simple. However "Ozymandias" was a little more detailed. It followed more characters that the viewer had an emotional attachment to.

Mid-point:

Act 2 started off with a brilliant piece of storytelling when Walt turns away the rear-view mirror. He's disgusted with himself. Does he say this? No. But the beauty of it is he didn't have to.

The mid-point was followed by Marie threatening to out Walt to Flynn, a highly anticipated event since Walt became a drug kingpin.

Plot point #2:

The act ended with a close-up Jesse's battered face and the helplessness of being confined to a meth lab or else Andrea and Brock would be harmed. It was a more emotional way to end the act than a simple phone call like in "Face Off". Viewers felt sympathy and despair for Jesse and were yearning to know what happens next...

Act 2 to "Ozymandias".


ACT 3

Act 3 was the strongest Act in "Face Off". Gus decided to confront Hector and Walt was revealed as the one who poisoned Brock. I can't ignore that the climax and denouement were entertaining. But "Ozymandias" cut deeper than that.

Let's play a game called "WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL?"

Climax:

Walt eventually meets up with his family back at the house. A confrontation ensued where Walt had his family at knifepoint and ironically yelled "WE'RE A FAMILY!" He then proceeded to kidnap Holly. He looked like the villain...

B-b-but he's the protagonist...WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL?

Denouement:

We saw Walt being a caring father by changing Holly's diapers but when he called up Skyler, he tore her down with such viciousness in his voice. However he was remorseful, indicated by his tears and he ultimately returned Holly...

Is he good or evil?!?! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL?

Act 3 provided emotional depth by making the viewer question their emotions. They experienced more complex emotions for a protagonist that they may have never experienced before. Perhaps they put themselves in Walt's shoes to try and make sense of his actions...

Act 3 to "Ozymandias".


"OZYMANDIAS" IS THE WINNER

While Act 3 in "Face Off" was a great meal, the previous acts were merely setting the table and didn't really have any hard-hitting scenes compared to "Ozymandias".

"Ozymandias" attacked the viewer's emotions from start to finish by using gripping events that have been built-up since the show began (Hank's death, the entire family finding out Walt's secret, Walt leaving his family). While negative emotions were experienced, eyes were glued to the screen every second the episode was on.
___________________________________________________

Three-act structure - Basically, a beginning (Act 1), a middle (Act 2) and an end (Act 3).

Exposition - Introduces the background within a story (characters, setting, context) before introducing the inciting incident.

Inciting incident - An event that changes the protagonist(s) life from the norm to adapt to the story and sets off the chain of events to follow.

Plot point - An event that changes the direction of the story and denotes the end of Act 1 and Act 2.

Mid-point - A setback/reversal/turning point that the protagonist(s) experience and overcome which connects the plot points.

Climax - The highest point of tension/drama/intensity.

Denouement - Wrapping up story with the series of events that follow the climax including a resolution of the main issues.



RAB

“You’re the smartest guy I ever met… but you’re too stupid to see… He made his mind up ten minutes ago.”

Ironically, and rather appropriately, this was the quote which sprang to mind when I saw the question “Which episode of Breaking Bad was better, “Ozymandias” or “Face Off”?” It’s ironic because the quote which I thought of was from the episode which is the answer to this question: ozymandias.

To answer this question properly, first we have to look at what makes a good episode of a TV show. There are so many factors but I’ll stick to the key components.

RIGHT OFF THE BAT

When we look at the name of episodes, it’s not often that it jumps out to us as having significance. When we look at ‘Face Off’, it’s blatantly obvious that this is going to be a showdown of some sort, and that that’s what we should expect in that episode. Whilst it does have meaning, it’s also incredibly fucking BORING. ‘Ozymandias’, on the other hand, is more cultured, it’s deeper, it’s more intricate and plays to the more alert watcher: Ozymandias is a poem, first published in 1818, which tells the story of a traveller who comes across half a statue of a king in the desert. The symbolism of the statue is massive, as inscribed on the pedestal of the statue is a message which states that the king was once a mighty and powerful being. This is absolutely genius when put into the context of Breaking Bad, as the main scene of ‘Ozymandias’ takes place in the desert, with Hank dying and more importantly Walter losing most of his wealth. Imagine the statue of the king is Walter White. At the end of ‘Ozymandias’, when Walter is sitting with a single barrel of money waiting to begin his new life under a new identity, we can truly compare the statue to Walter, as we are reminded that all great kings, regardless of their power and their might, will eventually be cut in half by time, becoming only a fraction of what they once were. While ‘Face Off’ has a decent name, there can be no denial that ‘Ozymandias’ blows it out of the water completely. The incorporation of the name into the very plot of the episode is absolutely genius, and this is one of the key compositions of a great TV episode, which ‘Face Off’ simply doesn’t have to the extent that ‘Ozymandias’ does.

THE STORY SO FAR…

One of the most important things in any episode of any TV show is the storyline. The storyline which precedes an episode is also important because the better that is, the better chance that the storyline of the actual episode has of being great. The story line immediately before ‘face off’ is great, there’s no denying that, with the impending showdown between Gus and Walter and the fiasco with Brock, Jesse and the ricin going on, but it’s simply unable to match what ‘Ozymandias’ had. The culmination of five seasons: Hank vs Walter. This was probably the second longest running storyline in the entire series besides the story of Walter White himself, which is what made this episode so god damn special. I mean, sure, the lead up to the death of Gus is great and all, but it has nothing on the Hank and Walter saga… Five series of deception, brotherhood and near misses (remember “what’s in the bag?”… “half a million in cash”?) all come to a head in this epic episode. This episode is very important too in setting up the series finale, with the ending showing Walter getting ready to depart for his new life. The episode is filled with absolute gems, such as Walter ‘clearing’ Skyler of any wrong-doing during his phone call and of course his heart-warming gesture of leaving Holly at the firestation. ‘Face Off’, too, has some good moments, like Hector spelling out obscenities to Hank in the DEA office, but they simply don’t match what ‘Ozymandias’ has, which is a stream of consistently amazing scenes, and consistently amazing scenes make ‘Ozymandias’ a much better episode than ‘Face Off’.

MEMORABLE MOMENTS

‘Face Off’ has one truly memorable moment – Gus’s half blown apart face whereas ‘Ozymandias’ has many. “My name is ASAC Schrader and you can go fuck yourself”, and the quote at the start of this debate but to name two.

A RECAP

‘Face Off’ and ‘Ozymandias’ are both formidable episodes of Breaking Bad, both with the ingredients for TV gold, but there are many reasons that ‘Ozymandias’ edges out ‘Face Off’.

• The name is more thought out
• ‘Ozymandias’ is preceded by an amazing storyline
• ‘Ozymandias’ is crucial to the series finale
• ‘Ozymandias’ ties up Skylers storyline
• ‘Ozymandias’ is next fucking level television gold.

Seabs
The Acquired Taste - I thought this was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too descriptive to effectively argue that one episode was better than the other. Your structure was nice but I think it may have hindered your debate in that it seemed to cause you to be so descriptive. A lot of it was this happened here when you needed to argue this was better than this because. I never once felt like you argued contrasting elements of one episode were better in one episode. At the end of each act you decide Ozymandias won but I was left scratching my head as to why. Sure you show why Ozymandias was so great and that's good but what about in comparison to Face Off? You didn't really compare them enough directly. It was like Face Off was good but let's go through Ozymandias and talk about how great that was. In a debate like this you really need to be showing why X > Y not just X is great but so is Y and I think Y is a bit better. Show the elements that create that difference. I won't like halfway through Act 2 I was pretty bored reading this because of how descriptive it was.

RAB - First off I love the fact that you got Perd Hapley to write your intro. Awesome. I didn't think this was all that convincing at arguing one episode was better either but it made a better attempt at doing it. Really meh on the episode title argument. I just felt it was pretty insignificant in comparison to what actually happened in each episode and as such felt like a waste of your valuable word count here. By the end of it you were halfway through your debate and all you talked about was the episode title. Your argument for it is good but I just think there were much better criteria to be a difference that mattered. Yes I do agree with what you said but honestly how many people are arguing in this in a conversation on this topic? Maybe it's just me but I'm guessing very few. I don't even know the names of most episodes without looking them up. I guess this is fine if you cover everything else like storyline and character development, excitement factor, impact on the rest of the show, etc but you didn't. You get back on track with the second part and finally it feels as though someone is at least attempting with some substance to argue X > Y. Memorable moments deserved a lot more word count than it got because this was your strongest criteria for the difference between the two. I just felt you focused too much on factors that were secondary to more important factors that you largely neglected. Now if you argued why the factors you chose were more important then you cover that but you didn't.

Both debates were disappointing and honestly below average if I'm being brutally honest. RAB wins for making the best attempt at directly comparing the two and finding a difference and at least having one convincing argument in there even if he only dedicated 5% of his entire debate to it.

Winner - RAB

WOOLCOCK
The Acquired Taste

I liked the cross comparison throughout the debate in theory, but I felt a few of your points were under-developed and introduced potential arguments which were then abandoned in favour of moving onto the next argument. This allowed you to cover many areas but it also meant your points were brief and concise and struggled to say as much as they could with such little words applied to them. I also felt your opponent explored the meaning behind the title of Ozymandias and its implication on the storyline in a more profound way, as well as touching on the key plots of the episode and their wider implication on the final episodes of the series.

I think you needed to really explore the plot and significance of major themes in both episodes to improve your answer, as without this elaboration your points felt brief, basic and lacked an authoritative edge that made them convincing.


RAB

I felt you explored the origin of Ozymandias and its importance on the story of Walter White very well, and your main argument centred around this really surpassed your opponents' imo by breaking down the story of the episode and how this had great relevance to Walter's gradually decreasing power and inability to lead a double life and keep his family together. I also liked how you drew attention to the episode concluding Skyler's storyline and forshadowing Walter's future which in turn drives the plot of the series finale and preceeding episode. You covered less points than your opponent, but where their arguments felt concise and lacking in sufficient detail, I thought yours were stronger in communicating the importance of the plot, its intelligent use of the ozymandias poem to document the downfall of Walter White and drive the eventual conclusion of the series.


Winner - RAB

Hollywood Hanoi
Well this was interesting, no real surprise that Ozymandias was the popular pick, an episode wrapping up an entire show will typically have more to chew on and more satisfying resolutions than an episode just meant to wrap up a season (and set up the next). That being said Face Off is a great piece of television too with one of the most iconic images in the shows history so I was glad to see both debaters give it props even while not picking it. Lets look at the arguments.

The Acquired Taste:
This was cool, normally Id be a little sceptical about comparing act to act to choose a winner as a lot of my fave episodes of BB and other shows tend to be those weird, untypical, slow burn episodes but in a head to head like this its as valid a decider as any. Most importantly it was handled so well in terms of episode flow, character motivations, setups and payoffs , I like that you didn’t just focus on the main plot points but the small details that add as much to the storytelling (rear view mirror). Wrapping up the third act by playing on the viewer’s expectations and investment was a nice touch, it put the argument above a simple “this act is better cos more happened” and it played into your points of structure leading to payoff. While Face Off has the more visceral climax, its slow burn setup to shock ending was no match for the emotional climax of Ozymandias coming at the end of a fully enthralling episode. Good debate.

RAB:
I liked the opening quote, nicely apt for the debate. The title comparisons was a good idea, some nice info on the background and how it plays into the episodes, however my only problem was spending a little too much time and space on it, its an interesting idea but in a debate about which is the better episode Im not sure it warranted such a big chunk of your piece. From there you hit similar points as The Acquired Taste, the singularity of Face Off versus the all encompassing series finale of Ozymandias. I thought it could have been expanded a little more and would’ve made the recap better, its like you were just getting started and ran out of space, again cos of spending too much on titles comparison.

Verdict:
Some good points and ideas in both debates but I gotta go with The Acquired Taste for the superior use of structure and criteria for comparison.

Winner via Split Decision - RAB

TDL Sports Division Championship Match
Aidan vs Curry

Should Paralympians be allowed to compete with regular Olympians at the regular Olympics?

Curry

Paralympians should absolutely be allowed to compete alongside regular Olympians in the regular Olympics.

The Stance


Any person, paralympians included, should be allowed to compete in the Olympics if they meet the requirements (both of the International Olympic Committee and their nation's governing body for athletics) to compete and can do so by performing the required actions in their event in the same manner as the existing Olympic athletes.

This would mean that any paralympian wishing to compete in the Olympics would have to do so using the same parts of their natural body that regular Olympians do.

People Are Like Snowflakes

Humans are not born equal. Some are born taller than others, some are born stronger than others, some are born with differences that are categorised by the International Paralympic Committee and that make those people eligible for the Paralympics.

Throughout the sporting world, these differences create advantages. Those people born taller than others may find themselves with a natural advantage over shorter jumpers in the High Jump and those born with perfect vision may find themselves at an advantage over S12-category swimmers. These advantages are only advantages though, just as a shorter High Jumper might outjump taller competitors, an S12 swimmer could easily be capable of beating swimmers competing in the regular Olympics.

Divided Competition

The Paralympics are so named because they run parallel to the Olympics. Parallel to but not equal to. In almost all comparable events, the Olympic World Record represents a higher level of peak performance that the Paralympic World Record does. This continues when looking at the gold medalists' times in comparable events during the same Summer. Though this common gap between the two competitions is clear, it is not a large one. During the last summer games, Paralympians such as Ireland's Jason Smyth, a T13 runner and Ukraine's Maksym Veraksa, an S12 Swimmer were competing at a level that would have been competitive in the earlier stages of the Olympic version of their event. For the past two Olympic Summers Natalia Partyka, who was born without a right hand a forearm, has competed in both the Paralympic and Olympic Table Tennis.

At the 1924 Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin introduced the official Olympic motto: “Citius, Altius, Fortius“, the Latin for “Faster, Higher, Stronger”. These words were introduced to represent the Olympic Games as the peak of physical performance in humans. If that peak has been reached by someone the IPC has classified as having a disability, if it is a Paralympian who is the fastest, the highest or the strongest, there is no reason they should not be allowed to prove it to the world.

The Paralympics are the second largest sporting competition in the world, behind only the Olympics and feature over 4000 athletes representing over 160 different countries. Despite this, the attention given to the games was severely lacking. In the United Kingdom, viewing figures for the 2012 Paralympics peaked at 4.5 million viewers, less than a quarter of the same Summer's Olympics' peak of 20 million viewers during Usain Bolt's 100m victory. This coming in a country where the paralympics were supposed to be taken more seriously. While Channel 4 may have given the Paralympics their full backing by broadcasting over 400 hours of coverage, the games' American broadcaster, NBC, gave the entire 2012 Paralympics, an event lasting 12 days in which their nation would win 98 medals including 31 golds, less than 6 hours of coverage.

The Naysayers

Those against Paralympians competing in the Olympics have claimed that athletes competing in both competitions lessens the importance of the Paralympics. While some athletes who are given the chance to compete in both may choose to prioritise the Olympics over the Paralympics, the attention that this would garner for Paralympians in general could bring greater focus to the games and give those athletes competing in only the Paralympics a grander stage to perform on and a wider audience to perform to.

This could be seen at the 2012 Paralympics where the most watched event from the games was the T44 200m, with the audience no doubt being boosted by the fame Oscar Pistorius found competing in the Olympics earlier that Summer. Though the audience might have been drawn in by “the fastest man on no legs”, that nickname proved inaccurate and they left with another man's name on their lips as Alan Oliveira took the gold. Without the added attention brought by Pistorius' Olympic appearances, Oliveira's victory would not have been the spectacle that it was and you or I might not even remember that it happened.

An argument that would be made specifically against my proposed system would be that it treats certain groups of athletes, such as those T44 runners, unfairly. The reasoning behind paralympic runners who use blades not being allowed to compete alongside regular Olympians in the Olympics is that the use of blades is advantageous. While much research has been done to show that the blades do not give those runners an outright advantage during the event, they do mean that the athletes using them do not have to worry about stress fractures or tendinitis. The blades also mean that the athletes using them can train longer and harder than regular Olympians due to exerting less pressure onto their body and the lower energy expenditure that running with blades offers.

Any Paralympian who possesses the skill and physical prowess compete with the athletes in the regular Olympics using their own body in the same manner as those regular Olympians should be allowed to compete in the Olympics because that will mean that the only advantages athletes will have when competing against each other will be natural differences between the two, the differences in the product of the immense effort the two put into training and preparing for the Games and who can push that little bit harder, run that little bit faster and find that little bit more strength on the night.



Aidan

Should Paralympians be allowed to compete with regular Olympians at the regular Olympics?​
The Olympics were created because of the spirit of competition. The spirit of competition is based off of competing on a fair and level playing field. Allowing Paralympians to compete in the Olympics violates this rule. So when wondering if paralympians should be allowed to compete in the Olympics, the answer is absolutely no.

Fairness is a sensitive topic with sports. There are issues with PEDs, the type of equipment allowed, and even if someone is the right age to compete. Paralympians being able to compete in the Olympics is just like this. The most obvious connection is equipment. Let's look at a few examples.

Technology plays a big part in society today. Technological advances cover many fields, including athletics. This was noticeable in swimming at the Olympics. The Olympics had to ban polyurethane swimsuits because athletes were setting world records while swimming in them. These suits were made from an extremely thin layer of foam-like material that enclosed tiny pockets of gas that made the swimmer wearing the suit to be far more buoyant. As a result, swimmers floated higher in the water and were subject to less drag. The suits in effect pushed water away from the swimmer’s body and were therefore dubbed hydrophobic. Equipment like this ruin the integrity of the sport and the goal of the Olympics, to find the best athlete on an even playing field. This type of technological advances on equipment are what could potentially give paralympians the unfair advantage. Track is the most obvious example with Pistorius. Look at his legs, or lack there of. His prosthetics are scientifically designed to run. Normally, all track athletes just have control of their shoes and spandex. They find equipment that are scientifically engineered to provide the least amount of friction and resistance. The shoes need to be created with the ability to return as much force as possible. Runners like Pistorius on the other hand, not only decide the spandex, but their entire legs. This is the big issue. Paralympic runners have the ability to choose their legs. They can choose the best prosthetic legs for running whatever event they need. Able-bodied athletes can't pick their legs.

The ability to choose their legs bring in interesting advantages and disadvantages. Scientists are still trying to figure out whether these limbless sprinters are advantaged or not. Some argue that the lighter alloy legs allow the runner to run faster because he's lighter. Some point out that the metal legs do not return as much force to the hamstring as regular legs, thus making them slower. Eventually though, like the polyurethane swimsuits, the alloy legs will eventually be superior to the flesh of able-bodied sprinters. As for now, it is unproven if they fully compete with normal legs. That's how Pistorius was able to compete in the Olympics. Whatever it is, being advantaged or disadvantaged in either manner ruins the point of the Olympics, to find the best athlete on a level playing field. At what point does it go from being the most skilled to having the best equipment? It just isn't fair.

Speaking if fairness, it feels a little unfair for paralympians to be able to compete in both the Olympics and Paralympics. Abled-bodied athletes can't hop into a wheelchair and compete with paralyzed wheelchair athletes in the 100 meter roll. How is it fair that our peg-legged heroes like Pistorius can double dip on Olympic gold but LeBron James can't drop 30 in wheelchair basketball? The Olympics are defined by the rules of the IOC as a competition between able-bodied athletes and since Pistorius and other Paralympians do not fit that description, they should not be allowed to compete. If you think that sounds like a completely arbitrary rule then you would be correct but that it fact is the source of it’s strength. The rules of sport are and always have been completely arbitrary. Why aren’t you allowed to use you hands in soccer? Because then it wouldn’t be soccer. The Paralympics were created for these folks to shine. They don't need to intrude on the glory of able-bodied athletes. It may be harsh, but you have to be as fair as possible.

The biggest argument here is if they are good enough, why not let them compete? As I touched on before, equipment is a big deal. Being able to technologically upgrade your limbs for optimum performance is unfair. For guys like Pistorius, we will never know if he would have been good enough to compete with Olympians and win if he had real legs. Pistorius, while, the best sprinter in the Paralympics. didn’t medal at all in the Olympics. While being one of the most decorated Paralympic sprinters of all time, he was only able to get 16th place in the 400 meter race at the London Olympics. So if that’s the peak for Paralympians in the Olympics, it’s just not worth the time to add them to the race.

Like shoes for basketball player, swimsuits for swimmers, and wheelchairs for wheelchair racers, technology plays a great deal in sports. When an athlete is able to technologically replace body parts with parts that are scientifically designed to win, it becomes unfair. It becomes not about skill, but about technology. That’s not what the Olympics are about. The Olympics separate genders, limit ages, and ban equipment in order to create a fair environment. They have to separate able-bodied athletes from Paralympians too. Note, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t allow a runner with only one to compete in a race. His disability doesn’t influence the ability to win. But runners with metal legs do. Whether the metal legs are better or worse than flesh legs, it still affects the sport itself. So no, they shouldn’t be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Citations:

1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...msuits-a-scientist-explains-polyurethane.html

2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...2012-technology-giving-athletes-the-edge.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralympic_Games

4. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2009/07/28/phelps-loses-at-world-championship.html

5. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rius-prosthetic-legs-disqualify-him-olympics/

Seabs
Curry - This was well argued for your stance but the difference between the debates is Aidan had an answer for your stance and many of your arguments whereas you didn't for his. The asterisk stance is always a tricky one because I think it makes your stance harder to explain and you're almost creating more counters for yourself that you then have to deal with. You say "This would mean that any paralympian wishing to compete in the Olympics would have to do so using the same parts of their natural body that regular Olympians do." so what about Pistorious for example with his fake legs? Aidan did a brilliant job showing how what is essentially his equipment can be improved to provide an advantage with technology which isn't possible with human body parts. Based on your quote I'm assuming you're disqualifying him but it needs clear clarification. If you're drawing a line then where does it start and end and is it easier to just have a hard and flat line between Olympians and Paralympians? The first part I think is totally countered by Aidan arguing how it's more than an advantage. I was already for calling you out on "The Paralympics are so named because they run parallel to the Olympics." but you're actually right. The first 2/3rds of the Divided Competition point is good arguments for your stance. Again, I think Aidan's arguments are trumping it and you're not addressing his arguments either. The 3rd paragraph I thought strayed too far off topic and started answering its own question about media coverage rather than if they should be allowed to compete against Olympians. First Naysayers paragraph is good although I think the fairness of competition point was far more important to address. This is a good argument though but some arguments carry heavier weight than others and this was a good example of that. You do briefly get to the technology based advantage but I didn't feel that you dealt with it very well. First off you say "While much research has been done to show that the blades do not give those runners an outright advantage during the event" you have no evidence to support this and I couldn't find any in your sources list either so that was a DUD point essentially. Even if I did somehow miss the link you need to incorporate it directly into your debate and at least explain it a little with it being such important evidence. Aidan also directly countered this. Then you go on to talk about the advantages they have conditioning wise but you just left it there without countering it in favour of your stance and I was a bit confused because I left this paragraph thinking they did have an unfair advantage even if just through conditioning because the advantages you mentioned are still big advantages and create an unfair playing ground that isn't just through something you can't alter like height. If you faced a debate that argued your same stance you'd probably have a good shot but Aidan had a better argued debate and more importantly had a debate which took marks off yours as well as added marks to his own stance. This was good though.

Aidan - Talked about it a lot in Curry's feedback so long story short, I thought this was great because it not only argued your stance really well but also killed much of Curry's stance at the same time and had counters for his arguments that he had no answer for. The polyurethane swimsuits example is money. The level playing field point is probably one you could have focused on more in terms of making the connection between your arguments and that being what the Olympics should be. I would have also added a line about how although the effect now is questionable it's not worth letting them compete only to later say no when the technology advances and I absolutely agree that it will advance far enough to create an uneven playing field. The vice-versa crossover argument I thought was great and I chuckled maybe a bit too much at the idea of Lebron just hopping into a wheelchair and Team USA just chuckling to themselves as he rolls out onto the court and Team Mozambique just look kerfuffled. Then at the end he just gets bored and leaps up out of his chair, runs up the legs of some poor disabled guy and dunks over the guy knocking him to the floor as he beats his chest. Ahh at least I amuse myself if nobody else. Penultimate paragraph is weaker and felt like a paragraph you added because you had already put all the good stuff you had down. The good stuff had already won you the debate though. Great debate.

Winner - Aidan

Anark
Curry
Fair opening gambit. I like the setting out of the stance by qualifying exactly what you mean straight away. The Snowflakes section was okay. It was a good point, but I think you could have made it a bit more forcefully. No real complaints so far though.

I think the ‘Divided Competition’ section is very good. I like your examples of Paralympic athletes who would have been competitive in the early stages of the proper Olympics, and the fantastic example of the table tennis player who competes in both events. The second point you made regarding the peak of human physical performance is one I made myself in an Olympic debate about under-18s being allowed to compete, so obviously I think this bit is brilliant. The last point regarding coverage and media attention was also excellent and very convincing regarding why Paralympians often desire to compete at the Olympics as well as the Paralympics.

The ‘Naysayers’ section began very well, and your example of Pistorius bringing more attention to the Paralympic event by having competed in the Olympic event was spot on. I think there are counters to be made here, but ultimately it’s up to your opponent to make them.

Your mention of Paralympians competing with extra technology to help them, such as blades, was a little confusing, in that you didn’t directly draw a line between those guys and the other Paralympians who can compete without additional tech to help. You pretty much left that bit up to me to figure out, which is always a bit risky in high level debates, but I’ll give you a pass for the previous mentions of the swimmers and amputee table tennis player. A call back to the previous mention of those folks though would have made your good conclusion a very good conclusion.

Aidan
I appreciate the firm opening, though hopefully you back your claim up that it’s not a level playing field. Curry already showed that even with disadvantages, some Paralympians can fairly compete with fully able-bodied Olympians, not counting athletes using technology such as blades.

Great points regarding the likes of blades being an unfair advantage due to design etc. Both paragraphs dedicated to this point were spot on and unarguable with. I can’t shake the feeling though that the sprinters and runners are just one small section of the Paralympics as a whole and there are plenty, perhaps a majority, of sports where technology has no influence whatsoever and the Paralympian simply must do their best without technological help regardless of any sight impairment or lack of limb.

I don’t know exactly what it says about me as a person but I genuinely cackled like a old witch at ‘hundred-meter roll’. I’m not sure about this section as a whole though. In my previous research on Olympic subjects, I haven’t encountered anything that declared the Olympics to be defined as competition between ‘able-bodied athletes’. It’s possible that this definition is out there somewhere, but I would need a source to confirm, which you don’t appear to have provided for me. Your opponent made a excellent counter to this by citing the actual definition of the Olympics, and declaring that (aside from blade runners and the like) the best competitors should be able to compete at the Olympics regardless of whether their sight is impaired or they are missing an arm. I must agree with that point from a neutral point of view because it is far more convincing, especially viewed with the true spirit of the Olympics (rather than a made-up spirit that suits your stance).

Your closing paragraphs are again very good, but also again focus only on Paralympians such as sprinters who replace body parts with specifically designed prosthetics. Your opponent mentioned these too and made no claims for them to be included. But the debate question is not solely focused on blade runners. There are a myriad of Paralympians who don’t use prosthetics and compete at Olympic-standard levels (not gold-winning necessarily, but enough to qualify and compete in the early stages). You needed to mention these because your opponent based his entire stance around them and he was far more convincing because of it.

Verdict
Curry did make similar points about the blade technology but steered toward some Paralympians being allowed to compete, rather than all. I think this fits under the question’s umbrella in terms of interpretation, as the question doesn’t specify ALL Paralympians. Aidan focused too much on the blades runners, and while he made excellent points about them, they are not the only Paralympians involved in the question. Curry wins for having a wider scope, more arguments and more convincing arguments, plus large parts of Curry's serve as a direct counter to the majority of Aidan's.

Winner: Curry

ZOMBO
Curry

I like how you identify / classify the "same parts" notion early on, which helps define the parameters that need to be set for what's allowed into the Olympics. I thought that pointing out the differences that exist between people, generally, was a nice touch too.

The Olympic motto area didn't do much for me personally, BUT bringing up various sports that Paralympians have competed in (swimming, table tennis, running) is effective particularly in creating a counter to the crux of your opponent's debate. Where Aidan looks at the equipment advantages, how much of an equipment advantage would a Paralympian have over his able-bodied counterpart?

The portion about Paralympians bringing more eyes to their own games by participating in the Olympics was okay, as did your rationale for disallowing blade runners. I think you make a solid, well-rounded argument for your take on this debate.

Aidan

This is a well-written debate, in that it's grammatically fine and well-structured for the reader. The problem I have with it is the argument is, at a base level, oversimplified. It comes down to equipment being the reason that Paralympians should not be able to compete at the Olympics.

This leads you down a narrow path where you bring up issues regarding fairness of the metal blades used by Paralympic runners giving them an unfair advantage - a fair point! However, the issues that come out of this, for me, are two-fold.

First, that "advantage" got one of the best Paralympian runners no further than 16th place, which you dismiss as irrelevant in your argument. If their "best" (they being disabled athletes) is nowhere near threatening the top, even with this ILLEGAL ALIEN SUPER-TECHNOLOGY, then is it that big of an issue?

Secondly, what about the sports where special equipment doesn't have a direct impact on the competition? What about the Paralympian sprinter with legs but one arm? What about the table tennis guy with one leg and one prosthetic leg?

The technology argument is a slippery slope as well, because EVERY sport has undergone dramatic technological change to improve athletes' results. From the shoes or clothes worn by runners, the bikes and helmets by cyclists, the skates worn by skaters, EVERYONE is seeking out advantages. What's the line between blades to run on that may reduce time to a shirt that is aerodynamic and blood cell treatments to maximize muscle activity?

Really, I'm left with a whole boatload of questions that I want to probe at this debate, as opposed to being convinced by the arguments you're advancing, which is problematic.

THE DECISION

Ultimately, I'm siding with Curry here simply because it presented a more convincing argument to back up the points raised, and did a nice job handling counteraguments, whereas Aidan opened up a bunch of counters in my mind that were left unresolved.

Winner via Split Decision - Curry
 
See less See more
7 10
#3 ·
Congrats to Curryman for the big win. Honestly had no idea who wrote which debate when I was judging. An excellent standard, and I can appreciate Seabs' standpoint for voting the way he did. Tears for Aidman though. A worthy champion who will assuredly return to the top one day.

Some really impressive showings from a lot of the new blood in TDL as well, which is always wonderful to see. The NEXT WAVE of talent is fast approaching. I know I wasn't around for the original iteration of TDL, but I already feel like I'm part of the "old guard" as the writing is on the wall of who really has potential to do very well in this league for some time to come.

Speaking of that. RealManRegal. Your debates on the last two cards...

 
#5 ·
Big congrats to Curry. I think the difference comes down to if you think Aid's argument applies to all Paralympians. I thought he did enough to show that some would have an unfair advantage and I don't think it's fair to have some be allowed but others not. Aid did need to push that point home stronger though.

I don't disagree with JM's judging. I do think that the meaning behind the words is important as well though but I get where you're coming from. One day you'll vote for me :jose

Superb debate from RealManRegal. Standout debate on the card for sure.

Some really strong debut debates from A-C-P, Bring Back Russo (ok not technically but first proper one) and sharkboy22. Well done.
 
#7 ·
This is funny because I again, after reading, thought you were debate A and RetepAdam was debate B. This happened in your last debate I judged too.

I really need to stop trying to guess lulz.
 
#8 ·
Really disappointed with that. Disagree with a lot/most of the judging but for now I'd like to ask Magic about the "inaccuracy" I apparently included.

This is very much incorrect as the North has stated many times that it does like getting involved in the wars of the South and not only that but the entire reason Cersei and everybody else wanted to keep Ned alive as a prisoner was so that the North wouldn’t revolt against them. So, Ned’s beheading did in fact entirely lead to the Red wedding as they wouldn’t have gone to war with him still alive nor could Robb declare himself King when Ned was still the true lord.
The North had already risen up against them and was already at war. They'd already won a battle! That was my point. The alternative was Ned going to the wall. Rob was going to be Lord no matter what.

When I said it didn't directly lead to the Red Wedding, I effectively meant that it didn't solely lead to it. It was one of many things that had to happen for it to go down. I would say Walder Frey making the decision to do it was what directly lead it it.

I don't like the idea that simply because Ned's death was the preceding event, it was the more impactful, that's like saying Bran's fall was more impactful than both. Or Jon Arryn's death. Ned's death didn't directly lead to the Red Wedding any more than they did.

Congrats to TAT anyways, thought I had it though.
 
#12 ·
Really disappointed with that. Disagree with a lot/most of the judging but for now I'd like to ask Magic about the "inaccuracy" I apparently included.

The North had already risen up against them and was already at war. They'd already won a battle! That was my point. The alternative was Ned going to the wall. Rob was going to be Lord no matter what.

When I said it didn't directly lead to the Red Wedding, I effectively meant that it didn't solely lead to it. It was one of many things that had to happen for it to go down. I would say Walder Frey making the decision to do it was what directly lead it it.

I don't like the idea that simply because Ned's death was the preceding event, it was the more impactful, that's like saying Bran's fall was more impactful than both. Or Jon Arryn's death. Ned's death didn't directly lead to the Red Wedding any more than they did.

Congrats to TAT anyways, thought I had it though.
I mentioned that too about earlier being bigger but I don't think that was the major basis for Magic's vote when I read his feedback.
And I do agree, the meaning behind the quote and what lead to him saying the quote is important. I think you should have just asked "Is Derrick Rose right or wrong to miss games because he's worried about long term health" or something like that. I think there's a lot more there to be said. You would have won in a wash if that was the question.
Sort of a vote :yay

Pretty chuffed to win an NBA debate against a great debater regardless. Shame everyone will overlook what an achievement that was :evil
 
#9 ·
And I do agree, the meaning behind the quote and what lead to him saying the quote is important. I think you should have just asked "Is Derrick Rose right or wrong to miss games because he's worried about long term health" or something like that. I think there's a lot more there to be said. You would have won in a wash if that was the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seabs
#11 · (Edited)
To Woolcock, who said my bodypaint and lightup jacket argument was silly and unproven, it came out of Balor's mouth in a wwe.com interview:

http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwe-signs-fergal-devitt-26515616

Whether the WWE Universe will ever see Devitt sporting some of the flashier elements that made him stand out in Japan — the Chris Jericho-esque light-up ring jacket or sprawling, comic book-inspired body-paint designs — remains to be seen.

“I’ve always got a couple of tricks up my sleeve, so I’m going to come up with something new before then,” he said. “But yeah, look out for the light-up jacket, look out for the body paint. Look out for a new Devitt.”
 
#24 ·
I've always thought about judging the judging but never get around to it. But I'll do it now.

“Before the execution, Robb had merely been prepping to rebel”. I’m sorry but that’s simply incorrect.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php...the_Five_Kings
They were already 5 battles in at the time. The execution ended any remote chance of peace there was between House Baratheon/Lannister and Stark but it certainly wasn’t the starting shot to the entire war of the five kings, and its impact on Renly and Stannis’ claim to the throne especially we can only guess at, but my guess is it wouldn’t have been of determining importance. Either way, putting inaccurate facts out there is never going to look good, so that’s bad news for you there. And as your argument leans on this foundation of inaccuracy, I just can’t really afford you points for this section in general.
The five battles you mention never happen in the show. Seabs specifically mentioned anything pertaining to the book would result in a ban. So in the scope of the show, it's not really inaccurate. No battles had been portrayed or even mentioned. :draper2
 
#27 ·
Fair play Regal. Not really much else that needs to be said other than that was a cracking debate and I don't think there's an awful lot I could have done about that. Well played man, it won't be easy dethroning Zombo but I'll be genuinely surprised if you've not held the belt atleast once by TDL 30.

And my boy Curry :mark:. I'm well made up for you man.
 
#28 · (Edited)
I'll be amazed if this isn't the line of the show:

"Santa Claus, that fat bastard, is around to get people to lie to children when children cannot differentiate fact from fantasy"

:lmao


Thanks for making sure that my second sports title reign remains GOAT, Curry (Curried GOAT? Can't be, Magic has never won the sports title :evil)

Will read the rest later.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Hey, seabs. You might want to re-read Magic's judging on the Rooney Rule debate. I don't think it was a split decision...

----------

It bothers me a little that Joel's judging of my/Seabs's debate reads as though he just voted Seabs because he personally agreed with her viewpoint and not because her debate made stronger points.

That having been said, I think Aid's judging hit the nail on the head across the board, so it doesn't bother me that I lost.

Re: JM — I don't know what you were really looking for in either of our debates. The question is whether or not D-Rose was wrong to say what he said. There's simply no objective, data- and fact-based way to look at it. Seabs and I took different paths to suggest that it was justified because of X and Y or wrong for him to have said because of A and B, but all the points that you seemed to view as tangential were just part of placing his comments into a larger context — both historical and current — in order to show why he was or was not wrong. Just thought I'd elaborate on that.
 
#34 ·
Re: JM — I don't know what you were really looking for in either of our debates. The question is whether or not D-Rose was wrong to say what he said. There's simply no objective, data- and fact-based way to look at it. Seabs and I took different paths to suggest that it was justified because of X and Y or wrong for him to have said because of A and B, but all the points that you seemed to view as tangential were just part of placing his comments into a larger context — both historical and current — in order to show why he was or was not wrong. Just thought I'd elaborate on that.
If it was a good idea to speak so candidly to the media (ie. THE WORLD). You did that with the point about fan trust, that's why I voted for you. Seabs had no point any where close to this simply because he focused on the benefits to the Bulls and Fans of him missing games which wasn't the question at all.I was looking for you guys to say it was good or bad for him to be honest like that since that is what the question asked. I can't really rewrite the question based on the debates I get.

Both of you spoke more about the actual actions that lead to the comments, not really the comments themselves.

Honestly I think it just wasn't the right question to ask, which I alluded to.
 
#32 ·
For something I started and completed in the space of around 2 1/2 hours right before the deadline while being tired as fuck to the point where I couldn't even be bothered to really proofread it I can't complain with a split decision. Good one Bear.

Also congrats to the man himself Curry :hb. Always great to see a new CHAMP in this place.
 
#33 ·
Holy shit, when I did some editing I didn't proof read properly. That's how I had that awkward sentence in there :lmao

Oh well, it was a nice experience and I never would have even taken part if it weren't for a random PM from Seabs one day. I don't know how this works but I hope I get another opportunity one day.

Congrats to my opponent, Bring Back Russo, and all the other winners.
 
#37 · (Edited)
Now I regret not talking about Itami's shitty run as GHC champion compared with Balor's awesome run in Bullet Club. I was gonna say that there was more hype surrounding Balor within recent times but I wasn't sure how to link that to Balor=more successful as everything changes once they're in WWE. I was gonna say though that with the smarky NXT crowd that sort of stuff does matters much like with the signings for Generico and PAC and how their popularity there led to matches on RAW and Main Event. It may have worked in my favour seeing as my opponent had no knowledge of what an Itami was prior to NXT. Why the fuck did I edit my shit :cuss:

Oh well, hopefully there will be a next time.
 
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