- Your first two paragraphs probably needed condensing a bit. You use up a lot of words before getting to your first proper argument and they're mostly just used as context setting words. Some context is good but your arguments are what will win you debates, not well written description of context. What you write is good but it just needs condensing down to give you a better balance with your word count and a better chance of winning a debate by allowing you to make an extra argument. The Sunny comparison I didn't feel packed much of a punch. First off there's a big difference between posing nude and do pornography. CM Punk'd brilliantly added the point that Chyna also ran WWE's name through the dirt at the same time as doing porn. Sunny clearly got back on good terms with WWE since that point too and as PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd both pointed out, Chyna isn't exactly on good terms with WWE and putting them over. Yes you can google and find both their boobies but there's a lot of differences in the two examples. Another is that WWE has become a lot more PG and a lot more PR
wary since 2011 when Sunny was inducted and that's another big factor you ignored in the comparison. Just because a precedent has been set in this case doesn't mean it can be scrapped going forward. Once someone is in they're in. If WWE decide now it reflects bad on them to have rapists in their HOF then just because they have Tyson in doesn't mean they can't reject a rapist after that because Tyson went in. Maybe when these names were inducted WWE were less bothered with the PR
side of it and are much more now? All this works against your argument here. " all they have to do is personally contact Chyna and tell her to “clean herself up”" is a pretty big assumption. As was argued against you Chyna is a mess and has been for years and hasn't show any willingness to clean herself up and get back on good terms with WWE. Ok it could happen and if it did then you have a stronger case for inducting her but she hasn't and hasn't shown any signs of wanting to do/doing so. You're dealing with assumptions in the future and dealing with what is true here and now is always better in a debate than assuming something might happen in the future and then basing your argument on that. The network argument again is a good idea in theory and pretty well argued but has too many easy counters to it. If they want Attitude Era alumni then to promote the network then there's countless other names they can go to before Chyna that don't carry the same baggage. Even if it needs to be DX members then why not Road Dogg and Billy Gunn? The argument is good for other people but it falls flat for Chyna given how it doesn't need to be this mess of a person who hates WWE right now. This isn't a bad debate by any means and with less easy counters to your debate you'd have a strong debate but counters will kill even a superbly well written debate and there's too many here that are exploited by PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd. Next time try counter arguing against your own debate and hopefully it will help to highlight some of the possible faults in your debate regarding counters against it.
- Did you type this on your phone? Because from the get go the lack of spaces after full stops and commas is alarming. Small i's for I, the wrong words used all together at times. Hopefully if you give it a better proof read at least some of this should appear to you and you can edit them out because it does disrupt the flow of your debate when they're so frequent and you're stopping yourself as the reader to work out what you meant to say. You spend too much time listing off what Chyna did as a wrestler after saying there's no doubt she deserves a spot on merit of what she did as a wrestler. Really the crux of this debate is the personal aspect to the decision and you needed a balance much more weighted to arguing that side of the debate. Paragraph about how WWE has changed and is much more PR
wary now is good. At this point I'm still not sure of your stance though which makes it hard for me as a judge when reading because I don't know if it's a good point or a silly thing to bring up if it goes against your stance. The Tyson paragraph is one long sentence which doesn't make for good reading. Break it up into sentences so the reader can catch their breath reading it. I couldn't get anything from it because after the brackets the sentence lost all focus. What is the point here? What's the difference between Tyson being ok to go in and Chyna not? Agreeing with both stances is a big no no. You're arguing for one side and one side only and you need to convince the reader that your side is the correct one and the other is the wrong one. You essentially argued both sides which doesn't do that. Pick a side, argue for it and then argue against the other side, not for both of them and then deciding which you agree more with. Argue for one and against the other. Anytime you're left saying you think it's pointless to argue anything based on that it's probably best to cut it from your debate. This debate is just you citing arguments in favour of BOTH stances and then saying you agree with one more than the other. Apologies if this sounds blunt that's 101 on how not to debate. If you were arguing for her to go in then you needed to say why the arguments against her going in are wrong, not agree with them yourself. Next time you get a question, decide which side you agree with before you write anything and then only argue in favour of that side and argue against the other side, never in favour of it.
- Yay another abbreviation rant. Not sure where this thing has suddenly risen from. Read the new FAQ that's stickied for where TDL stands on the use of them. You wouldn't say the WWE "heich-ohh-eff" in real life or as a reader so don't write it as that. WWE you would say as the letters only so that's obviously fine. When you're writing a debate imagine you're reading it on the news and only write what you'd say. If you'd say WWE instead of World Wrestling Entertainment without sounding like a wally then it's ok. If Michael Cole started saying HOF instead of Hall of Fame on Raw then it wouldn't sound right would it? You use HOF instead of Hall of Fame 11 times after the first one which is saving you 22 words which is quite a lot really and an unfair advantage to have over those like CM Punk'd who are typing it out in full everytime. Despite that your debate is actually 2 words over the 800 maximum too. I'm assuming you didn't count the dashes as words but if they count in the Word Count on Word then they count here too. First paragraph of the Porn argument is really well done and the link between why it would have a negative impact on WWE is brilliant. Behaviour argument is well done too with some great sources. Adding a point about having to trust her with a live mic in front of a lot of important people for their business would have topped it off. This was a strong well argued debate that very effectively countered arguments for the opposing stance. This may seem like a lack of feedback for your actual arguments compared to your use of your word count but with me that's a good thing because it means I have little to fault with your arguments.
- I think wording young children as being a key demographic to WWE would have been better than calling them their primary demographic. Maybe nit picky but I did umm and ahh a bit when i read that. A line about why the younger demographics are key for WWE to attract and then keep would have polished a good point off too, e.g. how they can create fans for life out of them as well as target their fans who may be lapsed fans and get back into the product through their kids. 2nd paragraph is a really great character assassination. I thought mentioning how all these incidents have been in the public eye through the media helped to top it off too and gave you a key edge over PoyPoy14 in making this point better. Next part is brilliant too and I'm really glad someone addressed these counters. This is where you really push yourself ahead of C's debate too. Problem 1 counter is great. You don't really waffle much so I'm not sure where you could have freed the word count to do this (maybe changing Hall of Fame to HOF
) but adding in a point about this leading to a lack of trust from WWE to represent their brand and have a live mic at the event. Problem 2 counter is in theory really good and basically what I said in KINGPIN's feedback but I thought how you worded it let you down a bit. The way you word it the parents just come off as hypocrites with double standards between their 2 children. Shouldn't you have worded it as they used to let the older one play with matches but then stopped because circumstances changed and they realised the issues with doing this so stopped it for BOTH of them from then on meaning the younger one never got to play with them? Differentiating between should and is it fair was good manipulation of the wording of the question too. This is a great debate besides the possibly fluffed parent analogy but I could still take the aim of the point which was great. Really the only comments I had besides that were suggestions to add stuff which is great for you to read. Seriously great debate. I don't think it's too hyperbolic to say this isn't far (if at all) off the standard needed to be in the Title picture.
PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd brilliantly counter KINGPIN and JamesK's stance on top of arguing their stance way better than either of them too so it obviously comes down to their 2 debates. CM Punk'd wins due to covering more ground by dealing with the counters better and he also argued the behaviour point better with the public eye point.
Winner - CM Punk'd
As a preface to my comments about your debate, I just want to say that your debate seemed very short in comparison to all the others so I checked all the word counts and yours came out at 657 words, which is pretty disappointing. I appreciate that the lower bound for the word count is 600 so you’re not breaking any rules but with another 150 words you could easily fit in another argument (or add a lot to one of your current ones). I’m not saying that quantity automatically translates to quality but to be honest unless what you’ve written is absolute gold then you’re not going to win many debates with efforts this short because your opponents will pretty much always be firing at you with more arguments/more counters/more evidence for their arguments which does not bode well for you at all.
Now that’s out the way:
Your introduction is maybe a little bit waffle-y and a touch on the long side but it sets up your debate well and is absolutely fine in terms of the points you make, which is the important thing. Good start.
It’s then a similar story with your second paragraph as in the points you make are alright but it’s just a little bit too descriptive and goes on for longer than it should. Could easily have shortened the first half of this and made room for some other arguments later on (although not that this would have mattered because you didn’t get close to 800 words anyway). As we reach the end of the paragraph you start launching into one of your main argument against your opponents which is how other people with bad personal lives have also been inducted into the HOF with minimal reaction from the media, which is a great argument to use against your opponents (provided if you pick a good example).
Then your main argument. Yeah you kind of countered yourself here and brought up the main issue I have with this which is I don’t think Sunny has anywhere near the reputation that Chyna has in terms of their involvement in pornography or misdemeanors in their personal life. Feel like the fact Chyna’s “personal life” bit on the Wikipedia page you linked is like twice as long as Sunny’s is pretty indicative of this. Also feel like you completely neglected to mention the other things Chyna has been involved in as it’s not all just about porn, and the fact your opponents brought this up worked against you and left you really exposed here. Point about the WWE asking Chyna to clean herself up is fair but considering the relationship Chyna has with the WWE would she want to do that?
Then onto actual arguments for your stance where I thought the Network thing was a great angle to take. Instead of just saying what she’s accomplished in her career and why she should go in ‘just because’, you actually tied that into something and raised a point about using her to promote one of WWE’s most important revenue streams. Could maybe have said why the need to push her on the Network is important but overall this bit was strong and probably the best part of your debate.
Then a conclusion which was OK but tbh (and I’m sorry if I’ve missed the point of this) I’m not entirely sure why the Benoit thing is all that relevant as he’s such an extreme case. Fair enough Chyna’s exploits are nowhere near as bad as that of Benoit but as CM Punk'd excellently pointed out that doesn’t make all the things she’s done OK or warrant an induction for her.
Another thing about your debate as a whole is that I felt you were a little light in terms of actual arguments as to why she should go into the Hall of Fame, I appreciate there’s only so many ways you can say “she was a great wrestler and accomplished a lot in the WWE” but at times I felt like this read like a debate about the morality of inducting people with questionable personal lives into the HOF rather than a debate about putting Chyna specifically in there. Thought your debate was a little bit odd structurally as well as traditionally you’ll present your arguments for your pick before the counters to the opposition, although to be fair in this particular instance the counters (i.e. why her porn career and shady personal life don’t matter) are more important than the arguments (i.e. why her career warrants a HoF place, which is pretty much indisputable) so this isn’t really an issue, more just a point I’m raising so that you don’t make a habit of this.
Also I was quite disappointed in that at the start of your debate you wrote "I still believe that such arguments rely too much on assumptions rather than what has already transpired" in regards to the effect inducting Chyna would have on the WWE, but then didn't really go on to capitalise on this or hammer this point home because it's such a great argument to use. You kinda touched upon it with the Sunny stuff but didn't really feel like you used this point as well as you should have which is a shame because if you had you'd have got your opponents crushed here.
I feel like I’ve slaughtered this quite a bit but that honestly wasn’t my intention because overall this was a really solid effort, unfortunately I just think you lacked the arguments (both in terms of for your stance and counters) to really compete with PoyPoy14 or CM Punk'd. Keep going and don’t be disheartened though, because there’s undoubtedly a lot of potential here.
+ Great point about using her to promote the Network
+ Well written throughout with good spelling and grammar
+ Even if you didn't capitalise on them as well as you should have, you put in place the foundations for some really strong arguments
- A bit on the short side
- A little light on arguments for your stance
- Botched the Sunny counter argument
If I’m being blunt then I wasn't a big fan of this. Not just in terms of your structure/spelling/grammar but also some of the arguments you presented and the fact you randomly started debating against yourself(?!) halfway through. You did some stuff well but there was also a lot that wasn't great about this.
Firstly I sincerely apologise if English isn’t your first language, but if it is then please sort out your grammar in future because this was really poor. Not capitalising your I’s, not having a space between commas/full stops and the start of the next word plus some appalling sentence structure isn't great. Don’t get me wrong stuff like this isn’t going to single handedly cost you a win and just the odd mistake is fine, but when literally your entire debate is like this then it definitely starts to work against you.
Spelling and grammar aside your first paragraph is fine. You state your stance and set up one of your main arguments which is basically what any debate introduction should do. This was good.
Then you start going into your reasons why you think Chyna should be inducted into the HoF. Not really much to comment on here as all of this was absolutely fine and pretty much standard in terms of any pro Chyna debate. Particularly liked the bit about her paving the way for Divas like Lita and Victoria. Definitely think you covered this aspect better than Debate 1 who also argued the same stance as you. Literally everything up to "Yeah Chyna became an adult movie actress..." is good and if you'd have carried on in this vein and successfully dismissed the dodgy personal life arguments then you'd have a good debate on your hands...
...but unfortunately this is where things take a turn for the worse and start to go a bit tits up for you. Not sure who told you to start arguing against yourself but yeah, no. Not a good thing to do. If this was a post in the WWE section then it'd be OK but it isn't, it's a debate. You're trying to convince someone to agree with your opinion so just pick a stance and roll with it. You said at the start of your debate you think she should be inducted and then spent a good chunk of your debate talking up her career so then going on to say how she could potentially hurt the WWE's (now critical) family friendly image doesn't help support your stance at all. Pretty much just shut down your own stance here and did your opponents work for them which is a shame as if you'd have carried on like you were doing at the start you'd have been in contention for the win in this one.
Conclusion is fine but I'm a little bit eh at you basically having 2 conclusion paragraphs, just having the first the one would have more than sufficed.
Also a quick note on your formatting; I'm not sure how other judges feel about this but I'd try to avoid having so many paragraphs in your debate in the future. Fair enough it's better than a massive wall of text but having this many paragraphs in your debate (some of which are literally 1 or 2 sentences long) really hurts the flow of things and makes your debate a bit annoying to read, structurally speaking. As a rough guide you want to be aiming for paragraphs about the same length as PoyPoy14's. To be honest this isn't a huge issue but just something I thought I'd point out.
Feel like I've already gone over everything that needs to be said; this was a fine debate until you started arguing against yourself by saying about how inducting Chyna will hurt the WWE's family friendly image. If you'd have just carried on like you were at the start then you'd have been OK but the fact you basically just nullified all your own arguments in the second half of your debate rules you out of contention for the win here.
+ Good rundown of Chyna's career and why she should be inducted
+ Solid points made throughout (even though they didn't always support your stance!)
- Randomly switched stances halfway through
- Poor spelling/grammar
- Having 2 conclusions was odd
Firstly: your debate is 801 words long so you're risking a DQ here. Seabs said he's going to talk to Zombo about what to do when people are only 1 or 2 words over the word count (as people who go over nearly always go over by much more than this) but yeah whatever happens this is sloppy on your part. Won't spend too long lecturing you on this as I'm sure it was just accidental/down to using a word count tool that gave you a number under 800, but please don't put yourself in this position again...
Now that's been said:
Overall I thought this was a really good debate that with a few tweaks has the potential to be genuinely excellent/an early DOTY candidate.
Your introduction paragraph is top notch. You just get stance out straight away and set up your debate by making the point that in the modern day WWE superstars and divas have to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner away from the ring as well as in it. Great start.
You then talk up her career and although I’m not always a fan of people acknowledging the opposite sides of the argument and showing some strength in the opposition, in this case I think I think this was fine to do as I doubt anyone could argue she doesn't deserve a HoF induction based on her career. Sometimes in debates like this it is just better to acknowledge the inevitable strengths in the other side rather than try to come up with stupid arguments against them and this was definitely one of those cases. End of this paragraph then leads into the crux of your debate.
Next is a few paragraphs detailing her shady personal life and yeah I thought this bit was absolutely superb. No need for me to break these down bit by bit because everything from the word "Porn" to the start of your last paragraph was pretty much flawless. You did a really really great job of presenting all the things she's been up to and how these would negatively affect WWE in this day and age. Not much more to it than that. Think the sentence "inducting Chyna into THEIR HOF just isn't worth it for WWE" was pretty key as well as it highlighted that any benefits of inducting her outweigh the PR
headache she'd give the WWE.
In your conclusion I feel like you went over some stuff you'd already gone through but this was strong as well in terms of concluding your debate in a definitive manner. Really good stuff.
My biggest issues with this are more with what you didn't have rather than what you had. Although I thought you covered it brilliantly I feel like you spent pretty much all your debate covering the Porn/Behaviour arguments and left little room for anything else/any real counters. Feel like you could have rolled the Porn/Behaviour thing into one paragraph and then had another paragraph countering the "other people have done worse and still got into the HOF" argument that was offered up by KINGPIN. Although you crushed everyone else in this debate with your coverage of Chyna's personal life and how her being inducted would affect the WWE, the lack of counters to other arguments left you badly exposed here.
Also a note on the abbreviation of Hall of Fame to HOF: I think in this case it was fine but Hall of Fame to HOF is pretty much the boundary of what is acceptable imo. Seabs' thoughts towards abbreviations have been well documented over recent cards and for the most part myself and (I assume) a few other judges are in agreement with him, so if the abbreviation isn't super obvious like WWE/NBA/NFL then try not to make a habit of shortening things. This isn't a gripe as like I said HOF is acceptable but more just something to take note of heading into future cards.
Overall though I thought this was really good and a debate that wouldn't look out of place much, much higher up the card. If you can keep doing the things you did in this debate then you'll be rising up the card and be in contention for a title opportunity in absolutely no time at all. Well done.
+ You NAILED all the arguments for your side of things
+ Very engaging and superbly written
+ Great structure and flow
- Didn't counter other key argument(s)
- Over the word count (albeit by only 1 word)
I was seriously like ‘what the absolute fuck’ when you started defining what the WWE was but thankfully you it turned around well and effectively set up one of the main arguments for your debate. I definitely think the "negative impact upon WWE's family friendly image" is definitely the best way to go with this debate.
Next paragraph you give a rundown of Chyna's misdemeanors and I although I thought this bit was good I didn't think you covered it as well as PoyPoy14 (although that's possibly because they devoted nigh on their entire debate to this). If you read through PoyPoy14's bit on Chyna's personal life you'll see that they thoroughly explained why all the things she's done will impact the WWE (e.g. PR
headache, reputation damage, displeasing sponsors, potential for problems in future if someone annoys her) where you kinda just spent most of the paragraph describing what she's done and then gave a quick summary at the end about it hurting the image of the WWE.
Second half of your debate scored you big points here as you shut down the arguments of KINGPIN and JamesK and also did something that PoyPoy14 didn't do (but was important to). Not sure if it was intentional or not but think your points worked well together as you could probably argue your second problem by saying that the other people with bad personal lives who've been inducted didn't have much impact upon the WWE's image but then you kind of negated this with your first point by stating they didn't drag the WWE's name into the controversies.
And then your conclusion is sound. Not much to really comment on here.
Overall this was a really good effort and like I said to PoyPoy14 a debate that wouldn't look out of place much higher up the card. My feedback for this is super short for this in comparison to the other debates in this match which speaks volumes about what I thought of this, and that is that this was a really good, solid effort with not an awful lot wrong. Good job.
+ Successfully counter argued the "other people have been inducted with worse" arguments
+ Solid paragraph about her personal life
- Perhaps a tad descriptive in places
- A few minor spelling/grammar mistakes
Think this was definitely between PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd and after much deliberation I'm giving the win to CM Punk'd
. Even without PoyPoy14 going over the word count and potentially getting DQ'ed, I feel like although PoyPoy14 nailed the personal life stuff and did it more justice than CM Punk'd, that was pretty much the sole focus of their debate and the fact CM Punk'd properly explored other arguments to a good standard (i.e. why other people with worse personal lives in the HoF doesn't give Chyna a reason to be inducted) just gives them the edge in this one. Think PoyPoy14 can definitely consider themselves unlucky that they ran into as good an effort as CM Punk'd's though as like 95% of the time this sort of debate would have strolled to victory here. Also think that KINGPIN showed potential at times and if JamesK can sort out the spelling/grammar issues and manage to not argue against themselves in the future then they can go on to succeed in TDL aswell. Overall this was a really fun match to judge and definitely one of the best lower card matches I've seen since I first got involved in TDL. Good stuff everyone.
Your first paragraph is all over the place, to the point where I had to re-read it a couple of times to actually determine what your stance is. I’m still not sure to be honest. You initial say your answer is “yes”, but it’s provisional, and then you further muddy the waters on what your position is.
Based on her career she should be in… but that mightn’t be a smart move… but that relies too much on assumptions…
So what’s your answer? “Probably”? “Yeah but”?
Interesting comparing Chyna to Sunny, I can see why you went there but it doesn’t work for me, sorry. Having some nude pics is one thing, getting gangbanged on video by parodies of John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Mean Gene, Sgt Slaughter and Triple H himself - among others - is another thing altogether.
There are arguments to be made for not allowing the porn to preclude her from the Hall of Fame, but a comparison to Sunny is not the way to make that point in my opinion. Similarly the “cleaning up” comparison to Jake Roberts/Scott Hall is apples and oranges.
Far stronger examples could have been used such as the allegations against Snuka, controversy over Carlos Colon etc.
Another issue with this debate is the assumption that the porn stuff is the only thing working against Chyna - there are other black marks against her that deserved a mention too.
The ‘notable accolades’ and historical significance arguments for her being inducted were okay, but just okay - I think there’s a big difference between allowing her to be entered into the HOF and actively promoting her on the Network, and I don’t think the arguments in her favour are enough to traverse that gap.
Your debate is seriously lacking a strong stance on your part, and that makes it seem like you lack confidence in your position, exemplified with the closing line of “There’s still hope for her”. See the opening to JamesK's debate - “I am firmly behind the idea of Chyna being inducted” - that’s the clarity and confidence in the stance being argued that yours is missing.
Like that you get straight to stating your position and jumping right into the core argument, pinpointing that arguments against are solely based on her personal life.
The section about Chyna’s contribution in terms of what she did for women falls a bit short for me. She was very much presented as not being like the other women in WWE, mostly worked with men until the tail end of her time with WWE at which point she primarily squashed other women on the roster. As such I think it’s her contribution to furthering the cause of females in WWE is negligible. I struggle to see her as paving the way for the likes of Trish, Lita etc - others before Chyna did far more on that front.
Her breaking new ground in terms of the extent to which she mixed it up with male talent, however, is the real standout aspect of Chyna’s career. Is she the only woman to have ever held the IC belt? I think she is - that and things like the Rumble involvement work more as arguments for her career being HOF worthy than being a trail-blazer for other women in the company.
Like debate A you limit the arguments against to her pornography career, and in doing so failed to counter the arguments put forward by debate C for other issues within her personal life that work against her.
Using Mike Tyson as an example of someone who has done worse yet has been seemingly ‘forgiven’ is good, there are other examples you could have piled in there too to show the hypocrisy in WWE denying Chyna entry based on her porn career.
A key point you could have made was the time factor - which you hit just at the end of your entry when you say “some day down the line” - you could have massively strengthened your debate by honing in on the fact that the question posed doesn’t come with a timeline - it’s easier to make a case for her being inducted in several years time, further removed from her indiscretions, than being inducted sometime over the next couple of years; so this could have been a good angle for you to take.
I think both this debate and KINGPIN missed a HUGE opportunity by failing to address the idea of Chyna being inducted as part of DX. That was a massive, massive open goal that unfortunately you both missed.
Really like your introduction, hitting your stance strong and early and making a very convincing initial argument for the part someones personal/out of ring behaviour plays in all of this.
Considering your opponents essentially argued that personal life should count - you pretty much smash this out of the gate by pointing out that WWE personnel are supposed to be role models who should set an example.
Sure we can find plenty of examples of hypocrisy, but ultimately that’s the ideal WWE strive towards so just saying “X’s bad history isn’t as bad as Y’s bad history” doesn’t make everything okay.
Like that you acknowledge the positives of her career, this section is so well worded.
“She will forever be considered a legendary female in the business of wrestling. However, her behaviour and career choices after her retirement from wrestling will always overshadow her accomplishments” - Excellent.
I think you address the porn elements well enough, though you could strengthen this with counters against others who have been inducted despite having unsavoury personal history. The inclusion of the likes of Tyson, Colon, Snuka etc does present a problem for this argument so this does need to be addressed.
Your points about her behaviour and whether WWE would actually want to be in business with Chyna are excellent, as is your use of her recent allegations against Triple H as well as serious past allegations she’s made. You rightly point out that she’s extremely volatile and prone to public outbursts. I think the “it’s just not worth it” angle is spot on, and you do well to show why inducting Chyna would simply be more hassle than it’s worth.
I think your definition of what WWE is and who their demographic are is a bit off. It’s easy to say WWE’s main audience is children but there’s plenty out there that shows this isn’t the case. I get what you’re trying to do but you can make that sort of statement without something to back it up.
You could have highlighted the PG content, need to be child-friendly etc another way without making those claims about the demographic.
Anyway, I like that you make your stance known early, and the specific examples of Chyna’s public struggles work well. Even though you say they pale in comparison to the porn, it’s smart to include them as it shows that this is someone who is a bit of a mess, rather than someone who otherwise has their shit together and just happened to decide to do porn.
Excellent coverage of others in the HOF who have had past transgressions, and I think you do a great job of addressing this, a really great job. The matches example really works for me, simply but effective, and I thought the bit about the question not being “is it fair to exclude Chyna while other people with bad shit are in the HOF” really smashes it for me. Well done.
Also big thumbs up in actually addressing the nature of the porn she’s done, particularly the wrestling parody - that’s a key argument for me, and shuts down anyone saying “it’s just porn” - in this context, the content matters.
I think this debate is missing any acknowledgement of what Chyna actually achieved in the ring, but to be honest I don’t think it’s hurt by it; you do such a good job in burying the notion of inducting Chyna that it negates discussion of her career achievements.
KINGPIN and JamesK both missed the opportunity to potentially sway this with an argument for inducting Chyna as part of DX. This would have largely negated much of what PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd covered since you’d be able to argue for the lessened spotlight of a group induction making the personal issues less important.
It’s a tight decision between PoyPoy14 and CM Punk'd - while PoyPoy14's is better written and is more well-rounded, CM Punk'd makes the stronger arguments on a variety of fronts, and for me more effectively argues against Chyna’s induction.
My winner is CM Punk'd