Wrestling Forum banner

TDL XXXI: ANDRE COMIN YO - THE RESULTS

8K views 118 replies 29 participants last post by  Poyser 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
TDL XXXI: ANDRE COMIN YO

Andre

Oxi vs mr.socko2101
Which show had a better Divas Title Match, NXT TakeOver R-Evolution or NXT TakeOver Rival?

Oxi

Though both matches were by definition, exceptional womens' wrestling, the singles bout between Charlotte and Sasha Banks at R-Evolution is much more exceptional than Rival's fatal four way, for a few but very important reasons; the characters involved; the input of those wrestlers; and the detrimental, formulaic booking of a four way match.


THE CHARACTERS

Prior to the four way match, Becky Lynch had flip-flopped between an Irish jigging face, to a rocker chick face who headbangs... and... not much more, and then somehow to Sasha Banks lite, after being 'corrupted' by Sasha herself, similarly to how Summer Rae originally did the same to Sasha much earlier.

The fact that Becky went through many abrupt changes in her character and ring work, without fleshing out either, and then just becoming what seemed a lot like an Irish version of Sasha Banks (with the attitude combined with the corruption angle) made her participation in the match questionable. Even with storyline betrayal making sense kayfabe-wise, realistically, Becky just wasn't on par with the other three, and it was simply out of place.

Bayley and Sasha Banks are among the top of the entire NXT roster when it comes to portraying characters on screen. They understand that the little things in matches are just as important as the big spots and manoeuvres. From Sasha's well-timed grins of arrogance, grimaces of desperation, and consistent taunt-mocking, to Bayley's frowns of sadness and disappointment, to the AIR HIGH FIVE, these two women are leaps ahead of even some popular male stars in NXT in this category. Charlotte's strong fighting champion character at the time, albeit not as good as Sasha or Bayley, was also very fitting.

But, Bayley and Sasha were the four way match, so why is the singles better?

Simple...


THE INPUT

The strongest aspect of the women wrestlers in NXT isn't their MOVEZ, but their character work, and how they portray their characters in their matches with their manoeuvres and mannerisms.

In the singles match between Charlotte and Sasha, two extraordinary talent were given a fair amount of time to go all out in a great match. It was, at the time, the culmination of a rivalry that lasted months on end. With a fantastic story behind them, Charlotte and Banks both managed to show off their ability in-ring, as Sasha threw all she had at Charlotte, but was unable to be victorious in a fair singles match.

Sasha showed resiliency in her desparation to not only defeat someone she has had trouble with in the past, but also to win the championship she has coveted from day one. Sasha displayed her incredible heel ability (as well as looking the part - that hairstyle was ratchet!) with the aforementioned mannerisms, as well as the manoeuvres and execution.

Take a basic corner spot: Sasha does a typical diva spot - a hair pull - but uses it as a tactic to get ahead, and sells the anger and desparation in her face. Immediately after this, Sasha locks in Charlotte's signature headlock, and Sasha mocks her, shouting "WOOO!"", as well as mocking the fans cheering her on.

Sasha however, was not the only highlight. Charlotte managed to impress again, not by perfecting facial emotion, but by displaying great understanding of a 'never say die' fighting champion; overcoming the tactics of Sasha throughout the match, and not once giving in to anger or desparation; instead, competing fairly, and still winning.

The fact that Charlotte also utilised manoeuvres that we hadn't seen her use before - or much at all - in the top rope moonsault and the elevated Natural Selection finish, shows understanding in keeping the BIG MOVEZ in BIG MATCHES, which is lost on some these days. Especially in four way matches...


THE DETRIMENTAL, FORMULAIC BOOKING

WWE (and by extension NXT) have always had a problem booking the majority of four way matches the same way, consisting of multiple participants laying on the outside, waiting to come back in to either a) do a big spot, or b) break up a pin.

The four way bout, though decent, was a victim of booking, and was further hindered in quality because of it.

When the singles match at R-Evolution had twelve minutes of almost non-stop action that was well storied, the four way of Rival had a badly booked amalgamation of four performers, two of whom were often waiting outside of the ring.

Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b). And that's not good wrestling... it's bad booking.


Though there was a sweet victory for Sasha Banks, even the finish was nonsensical: The submission-into-pin lasted a lengthy time in the middle of the ring, with Becky Lynch being knocked virtually unconscious for almost half a minute from a single toe kick.



mr.socko2101

I would like to start my debate by commenting on the current state of women’s wrestling in NXT. Had you told me even just one year ago that I would be debating the merits of two WWE developmental system Women’s Title matches I probably would have assumed you were jesting. However, now we live in a time where these said matches not only deserve the merit of being debated but of being thoroughly enjoyed by a vociferous fan base also. Alas, in a debate such as this, much like my fellow participants and I, there can be only one winner. And that, my friends, is without a shadow of a doubt the NXT Takeover Rival Fatal 4-Way.

Firstly, the match at NXT Rival quite simply stole the show on a night where some of the greatest in ring workers of the past decade competed. Let that just sink in for a moment. On a night where world-renowned performers such as Sami Zayn, Adrian Neville, Finn Bálor and Kevin Owens competed, it was the foursome of Charlotte, Sasha Banks, Bayley and Becky Lynch that gave us the show stealing match of the night and all from a match format often criticized for being too messy and contrived at times.

In ring we were treated to a fantastic display of athleticism and psychology as well as wonderful use of the four-way match format. It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky. Whilst spots such as these may live long in the memory, it was the usage of the four-way match format that convinced me this was the better of the two matches. Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak. The selling by all four participants and the hard-hitting nature of the match, as seen in the ringside video board’s malfunction really helped engross me as a viewer in the ongoing struggle between the four competitors in a way that is hard to find in wrestling these days. To me this match was the epitome of what a fatal four-way can be when done right. Everyone was important to the match and played a vital role. Nobody was there just to eat a pin or take a crazy bump as is too often the case.

Not only did this match deliver in ring but it also accomplished the incredible feat of making each competitor appear stronger by virtue of their participation in this match. The fighting champion Charlotte made a valiant attempt at retaining her title only to be undone by the combined efforts of Becky, Bayley and finally her nemesis Sasha, a fitting end for a championship run such as this. The previously much derided Becky Lynch turned in an amazing performance in defeat to cement her place as one of the top female wrestlers on this NXT roster and move out of the shadow of her ally Sasha. The naïve but lovable fan favorite Bayley turned it up a gear and found the intensity and drive to further highlight her growth as a performer. Last but certainly not least, the magnificent Sasha Banks showed off the savviness and guile needed if one is to become the true Boss of NXT.

In stark contrast, the NXT R-Evolution match was merely a solid match between two competitors. It did little to elevate either competitor and it’s build if anything trivialized both Bayley and Becky as mere cannon fodder for Sasha and Charlotte. The match also suffered as a result of Charlotte’s conflicted status as a babyface who still flaunts being genetically superior. This was evidenced in the split, at best, reaction of the crowd with only a few scattered ‘wooo‘ chants thrown in occasionally.

This brings me to my next point in that, whilst this was a perfectly serviceable match, I felt the incessant use of Ric Flair tribute spots were to it’s detriment. These spots only served to trivialise this match in comparison to the battle of wills seen at NXT Rival. Whilst one match served to lay down a new foundation and help build up the legitimacy of the NXT Women’s division the other match was just another solid match on a wrestling card.

In closing, I would like to say I hope this debate has shown that the NXT Rival match was far superior to the NXT R-Evolution match from a storyline, in ring and historic importance point of view. For these reasons I believe the match at NXT Rival was superior.

Seabs
Oxi - How were both matches "by definition exceptional womens' wrestling"? It doesn't really matter but I didn't understand your choice of wording there. In an either or debate it's essential to not only present a convincing argument for your pick but to also do it at the expense of the alternative. You have some good stuff in favour of your stance but the knocks against the 4 way and more importantly direct reasons why one match was better were really lacking and as such you failed to convince me that one match was actually better, just that Charlotte/Sasha was good. The characters part I didn't really get because it came across more as positive than a negative for the 4 way because you were giving Bayley so much credit. Even with Becky you knock her booking in the build but don't really translate it back into a reason why it made the 4 way match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. The input section was very good at arguing the positives for Charlotte/Sasha but you needed to also show that this wasn't as good in the 4 way match to show why one was better than the other. Was the 4 way not full of great character spots too? Did the 4 way spam big moves and not keep them special? B actually countered you here with " It delivered some truly awe-inspiring moments from Bayley’s top rope Bayley-to-Belly Suplex to Sasha’s spectacular simultaneous Double Knee Stomp in the corner to a rope hung Charlotte and Becky.". With the 4 way knock you're only really saying what happened rather than linking it to why it made the match weaker than Charlotte/Sasha. " Instead of showing the world their GRINS and GRIMACES, they'd wait outside to a) or b)." absolutely needs examples to prove it. The last paragraph is a super odd way to finish a debate because it feels mid argument and what happened to conclusions to wrap up debates? So you needed to show what the difference between the two matches was quality wise. Just saying Charlotte/Sasha had this doesn't argue that it's better than 4 way unless you show it didn't have that.

mr.socko2101 - Your first paragraph was a waste bar the line where you state your stance. 800 words isn't much and using an entire paragraph that doesn't add anything to your argument will be costly for you. It's nice to read that but it adds nothing to your debate. Likewise for the 2nd paragraph. It's nice but it doesn't tell me anything about which match is better. This is a lot of your word count that could have been used to present an extra argument than can so often be the difference between winning and losing a debate. Not sure that the 4 way was the show stealing match over Zayn/Owens is a consensus opinion either. Once you finally get to arguing for the 4 way itself it gets very good and you do a better job arguing for your pick than your opponent does for me. Like A though you also fall short of convincing me that it was better at the expense of the other match. 3rd paragraph though is really good and does a good job and not only illustrating the strengths of the match with specific examples but also explaining why they added to the match. " Where this match harnessed the strengths of the much maligned fatal four-way to great effect was in utilising the extra participants to make saves at crucial times which helped preserve the integrity of the participants signature moves without making anyone appear weak." could have done with an example or two though and is an example of where your wasted words at the start can hurt you when you need to expand more on area that will actually help you win the debate. Following paragraph did a really good job of showing how the match managed to put over all 4 in some way. That was good stuff. Then you get to your counter arguments for Charlotte/Sasha and they're not very convincing. The reasons you do have feel pretty tame and you did nothing to really show why it was just a solid match as you said which felt like you were really selling it short even despite your stance but with no real explanation as to why other than a few minor spots it was just an empty statement. Also with an either or debate you really need to make direct comparisons between the two matches. Pros of one match and cons of the other match will only get you so far. You need to be showing why one was better not just with arguments for it but also why it was better at the expense of the other match too. For example both were well wrestled but the booking was much better in one match and analyse the good booking in one and what let the other down in that aspect. So if you're arguing that the 4 way had more memorable spots for example then you also need to show that Charlotte/Sasha didn't benefit from this strength as much as the 4 way did and then you not only have a reason why the 4 way was great but why it was better than Charlotte/Sasha.

mr.socko2101 wins as his arguments in favour of his pick were better both in terms of quality and quantity and he had a better attempt at countering the opposing stance too.

Winner - mr.socko2101

RealManRegal
Oxi

I like the format and structure of your debate, and I like the criteria/arguments you chose to base your decision on.

You border on being almost ‘evangelical’ at points, and I can’t decide whether this adds passion to your arguments in a positive way, or whether it makes them seem subjective and overblown. It’s perhaps a bit of both. Tightening things up and reigning in the more hyperbolic elements will make for better debates in the future.

I think you do a good job of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each match, albeit in a somewhat fragmented way as you jump around a little. More direct, organised comparison would be good.

My main problem with this debate is that it just ends. There should be something, even if it’s just a single sentence, to provide some sort of conclusion. The lack of this lets your debate down.

mr.socko2101

While I appreciate and agree with the sentiment of your opening paragraph, it’s a waste of word count for debate purposes.

Declaring the four way as the show-stealing match at NXT Rival is a touch too hyperbolic for me, particularly since it can be argued that R-Evolution was a much better show overall and thus it was easier for the 4 way to steal the show than it was for Sasha/Charlotte.

For a topic which requires comparison, you need to provide more actual direct comparison between the two matches - lay out some criteria and use them to break each match down. Instead you fall into the trap of simply speaking positively about one side and negatively about the other, relying too much on subjective hyperbole.

Your debate probably suffers from you trying to downplay the Sasha/Charlotte match too much - acknowledging it as a good match but making compelling counter arguments against it being better than the 4-way would help you out. Remember you’re not arguing one was bad and the other was good - just that one was better than the other.

Decision: Oxi wins it for me.

CGS

First time judging and I manage to get opposing stances. Yay me.

Oxi

Nice intro. It’s straight to the point, highlights your stance from the get go and outlines exactly what the debate is gonna be about. No complaints thus far.

The characters section was very meh. You never really get into why the R-Evolution match was better than the Rival match due to their characters. You try to dismiss Becky saying she “wasn’t on par with the other three, and was simply out of place” but also mention the logical reasoning for her being in the match which if anything is a stronger case for her than saying “she wasn’t on par with them which is a very opinionated statement to make. Then you heap praise for the other three. If you're gonna praise Bayley at least provide an argument against her too.

But Bayley and Sasha were the four way match
CGS level grammar right there tbh :side:

Frankly the characters section was pretty pointless as a whole since you never really got out of first gear with it. If you were gonna go with the TakeOver R-Evolution match there were better topics you could have discussed such as comparing storyline developments between the two matches, showing why the R-Evolution match was more heated and intense than the Rival match. Especially considering you actually said it was at the time a culmination of months of build up and how Becky was just “thrown” into the Rival match. Huge missed opportunity if you ask me.

“The Input” was your best paragraph for me and if you really were gonna use “characters” to show why Takeover R-Evolution was better than the Rival Match, half the stuff you wrote in here should have gone in that section instead. Still you did well to break down the match and show how both girls not only provided us with a good wrestling match but managed to mix good storytelling and implemented their characters into the match well to help sell it and also back it up with some good examples. Good stuff.

The formulaic booking paragraph falls flat for me though; I’m not really convinced you’re fully behind what you’re actually saying. You say the fatal four way stipulation suffered from booking and the quality was hindered by it despite the fact the general opinion on the match was that it was pretty well booked for a fatal four way. It's a pretty empty statement with no backing. Shame considering the first half was actually pretty decent.

mr.socko2101

Your opening statement is a nice shout out to the NXT women’s division but it’s not needed at all and frankly you wasted vital word count on it. Word count that easily could have been used elsewhere in your debate to back up some of the points you made. Same goes for your 2nd paragraph. It’s a nice read but honestly adds nothing to your debate. Those paragraphs wasted a lot of extra words you could have used elsewhere. Also like I said with Oxi, for a debate such as this it’s a good idea to have a checklist to help structure and focus your debate a bit more.

The next two paragraphs are decent but too descriptive for me. Be careful when using "match of the night", some people may have seen Owens/Zayn or Balor/Neville as the MOTN instead. You touch upon some decent aspects such as it creating some awe inspiring moments, The four way format helping to preserve the integrity of each girls signature move, moments such as Charlotte getting smashed into the ringside video board and having it malfunction to show the intensity of the match and how the match itself helped develop each girls characters going forward but never really develop any of these points. Let me take an example from Oxi. They spoke about Sasha showing off her heel mannerisms to help sell the match and then took it further using the examples during the match of the hair pulling and mocking Charlotte with the WOO chants to anger her while having Charlotte remain calm dismissing Sasha's tactics and competing fairly to win as a clean cut champ. What you wrote itself was fine and had potential but you needed to take it that little bit further.

As for your final counterargument on the R-Evolution match you make the claim that the match did little to elevate either different but at the same time you haven’t really said HOW the Rival match did. All you said is that the match helped elevate all four divas in one way or another but never how it did that. I could go on and on about it but yeah the key things is to focus on is depth and examples to back up your statements for your next debate. Outside that the debate actually is a good easy read so if there is one positive I can take from the debate is that you have a nice flow, just need to structure that flow to help give it some focus.

One last thing, never say “I hope this has shown…” your job in the debate is to PROVE that your choice is the right choice you have 800 words to convince the judge that your choice is obviously right. It’s a minor thing but it’s something many people have been criticized for in the past so just be careful.

Decision

Neither debate was really amazing. Both had some good aspects and both had a good amount of flaws. In the end I’ve decided to go with Oxi as the winner. Mainly down to the fact that they had a better structure, used their word count more efficiently and used better examples to back up some of their statements than mr.socko2101.

Winner via Split Decision - Oxi

Bearodactyl vs deepelemblues
Which Season of Orange Is The New Black was better, Season 1 or 2?

Bearodactyl
Season one of “Orange is the New Black” (OITNB henceforth) was a marvellous piece of Television. It first introduced us to the inmates of Litchfield Penitentiary and to the staff that run the place, from Piper and Alex and their tumultuous relationship, to Healey and the unforgettable Pornstash.

Yet when all is said and done, it’s season two of the award winning show that will go down in the historybooks as being the “better” of the two, as this debate will come to show you.

Season one of OITNB introduced us to a new world through the eyes of its main character. Piper Chapman, long after having settled down in real life, finds herself suddenly tossed into the deep end of the pool when she is sentenced to a jailterm at Litchfield Penitentiary. It is through her eyes that we first start to explore these new surroundings, the written and unwritten rules that govern day to day life, and start to acclimatize to our new home.

It was necessary to do so and done beautifully at that, yet in the grand scheme of things by focusing so much time (the first six episodes easily) on Piper settling in, it decidedly takes away from arguably the biggest factor that sets this series apart so much from other contemporary tv shows: the women (and the stories behind them) that inhabite this somewhat peculiar place.

Because for all the typical stereotypes we seemingly find ourselves confronted with at first glance (the butch lesbian, the cranky and fierce Russian woman, the crazy chick, not to mention several racial stereotypes) we soon find ourselves getting glimpses in people’s pasts that show us that more often than not, there’s more to these people than meets the eye.

Even though the first episode of the second season is once again firmly focused on Piper, it quickly becomes apparent that season two has been blessed with a much broader perspective on the larger prison family than its predecessor. Piper to a certain degree takes a step into the background (and with her her on-off love interest Alex), but what we get in return is plentiful. Four women previously described as “recurring characters” (1) now qualify as main characters based on the focus put on them and their stories. And as we get to know these four (Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to wit) in all their complexity as not just inmates but human beings, it is the depth of these characters that makes the overcompassing storyline come alive.

But it’s not just these four characters. The lessened focus on Piper gives us the opportunity to both get to know some new characters (the strangely positive and naive Brook Sono and her polar opposite, the dark and charismatic Vee) as well as become much more familiar with old favorites, slowly but surely building their characters up to main event status also through the show’s signature use of the flashback. Turns out Lorna is the real crazy chick, and Black Cindy is actually a better person inside the pen than out. I could go on.

Executive producer Jenji Kohan doesn’t stop here though. Not only is there much more focus on the cast in its entirety, but the storyline becomes a lot more complex than “the hardships of trying to make an unexpected holiday behind bars work out” also.

Season two, simply put, is about power. But it’s not just the larger power struggle between the latinas and african americans that bring this to the forefront, things are much more complicated than that. The struggle for power is ever present, even in the smallest facets of inmate life. Think about Healy and his mail order bride. Or the relationship between Bennett and his secret latin lover and her extended next of kin. Even within the rising tide of power masterminded by Vee, it’s the confusing relationship between both Pousey and Taystee and Taystee and Vee and the (power) struggle over Taystee’s loyalty and heart that firmly drives the momentum of these episodes forward. (2)

Furthermore, with an increased amount of hijinx (which the creative mind behind “Weeds” is known for) but without falling into the trap of overdoing it (he fell victim to this in the later seasons of the aforementioned show) Kohan makes sure the comedic side of this show is fully utilized this season.

Taking all this into consideration, is it really any wonder that on several critical review sites the average rating of the second season as given by the critics the world over is distinctly superior to the first? (3,4)

Concluding, the answer to this question is abundantly clear under anything more than the merest of glances. Season two has more charactergrowth, more humor and better and bigger storylines. It is the superior season. Period.



References:

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Is_the_New_Black
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orange_Is_the_New_Black_episodes
3 http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/s01/
4 http://www.metacritic.com/tv/orange-is-the-new-black/season-2

deepelemblues

ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK: 2 > 1

It can be hard to judge whether the first or second season of a show is the "better" season. The characters and plotlines are more developed in the second season, you are invested in the characters, etc. But in the case of Orange is the New Black, reasons don't quite reach up to the level of justifications. Season Two is better.

I'm going to start at the season one finalé, because this bothered me more than anything else: I thought it was totally unnecessary to have Crazy Eyes come out and beat up Piper. It was revealed during season two, but it happened at the end of season one. They make up after, but not really. There could have been a better way to check yet another name off the list of inmates naive Piper has to make good with. As to Pennsyltucky, I think it would have been better for Piper's explosion to be on someone else. She seems to exist as a role-filler: Piper has to prove herself violently eventually, so here's a religious freak who spouts off crazy visionary Bibletalk. I find Pennsyltucky pretty boring, despite Taryn Manning hamming it up just right. Good dialogue can't mask the fact that she's a cliché.

In season one, Piper swings between numbness, frustration, and when she finally gets some confidence by making lotion for Red's back, Piper continues on in her "college" ways. The reveal of Alex and their renewed relationship and eventual reveal that Alex did betray Piper could have been done to toughen up Piper by breaking her down some more the way it was done in season two: have Larry cheat on Piper. I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make.

Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett. Matt McGorry and Dascha Polanco turn in really good performances throughout. Aleida could have been a bit less prominent during the plot to frame Pornstache for the pregnancy, but she does need to remain fairly visible to remind of the threat Cesar poses.

I could do with less time spent on the people who aren't prisoners or guards or in flashbacks. There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole, and I think they're particularly prominent in season one. How many times do we need Larry's mom to ask the same kinds of questions about prison? What role does Piper's brother play, other opportunities for humorous dialogue with Neri, and to voice what little of a conscience Larry has?

Vee and Red and Piper showing emotional independence by refusing Larry and still investigating the prison's finances make season two for me. Mendez leaning on Red is the only season one storyline that moved briskly enough for me and had a payoff that I liked. That probably had something to do with Daya and Bennett getting involved. His return in season two is perfect. After getting caught with Daya he could never have had the same impact. Anyone could simply threaten to go to Caputo and give him just what he wants, enough reason to get rid of Mendez. What is Pornstache with wilted whiskers? I don't want to know and we didn't have to find out.

I would have liked to see Nicky end up doing something other than having to face her addiction again, but I guess you can't be a funny nympho forever, and whatever Natasha Lyonne does she does wonderfully. "A Whole Other Hole" is my favorite episode, despite Morello's story which I could not get into at all. I was having some 'everybody has to get their story' overload at that point.

Season two is smoother and more consequential than season one. And maybe it had to be that way, to set the stage for season two. But if a story like Vee's can be contained to a single season, then surely we could have got something similar in the first thirteen episodes. Plots developed too slowly, and the show really hit a stride in the second thirteen. Perhaps it was a deliberate decision, to evoke Piper's numbness at being in prison, and being a new fish who is really not important at all, by having events inside the jail stay mainly on a contained and, really, usually petty level. And maybe that was the right decision. But it, along with all the other reasons, make season two the better season of Orange is the New Black.

Seabs
Bearodactyl - Meh I've made my feelings known regarding word count cheaters. I don't think it's fair that you shorten Orange Is The New Black when your opponent types it out in full. You only actually used it once after though so you don't really save much word count. Personally I think in the interest of fairness everyone should be following the same rulebook which I've made known to be if you'd shorten it in an article for work or academic purposes (WWE or NBA for example) then it's fine but if not then spell it out. I know people groan at this and it's almost becoming a parody of itself but if some are following it then in the interest of fairness so should everyone else. Now that's out of the way this was a brilliant direct comparison debate. There's been a few of these direct comparison topics lately where nearly all of them have failed to master the art of arguing their stance but also arguing it at the expense of the alternative. Here all your arguments are not only in favour of your stance but also argued against the opposing stance. If you mention any factor then you look at it from the POV of both seasons which is perfect. I'll 100% use this debate as a reference in my feedback for those who don't get this right now. Character argument making Season 2 better was really good. I think you could have maybe given a bit more towards why the lesser air time on Piper made Season 2 better but for an 800 word debate there's enough. I would have used different names than Crazy Eyes, Nicky, Taystee and Pennsatucky to illustrate your point there. Pousey and Black Cindy would have worked much better because they truly went from nothing to fleshed out characters with backstory whereas all of those 4 got their fair share of air time and development in Season 1. All I could say could be improved here was a bit more explanation on how this made Season 2 better. It is there and I got it but adding in some lines about how it added longevity to the show, made viewers less likely to bore out on Piper and Alex and created some great episodes Season 1 didn't have Lorna's and Pousey's backstory episodes. Power argument is really good too. Again I think more focus on how Season 1 didn't fare as well on this factor would have bolstered it but is there and I appreciate that you can't expand on everything in 800 words. It was there though and you got your argument over so it did its job. The comedy point was a DUD without specific examples. There's maybe the odd sentence here and there you could chop but nothing really to free up enough word count to do that point justice. I'm glad you only used the reviews as a final supporting argument rather than as a main argument. It would have annoyed me as a main argument because it's more popular rather than better and it's up to you not reviews to argue it but as a final supporting sentence it added a nice final touch to your debate. Just make sure you don't rely on popular = better. Great stuff.

deepelemblues - Ok this is a review not a debate and thus I can't give great detailed feedback on it. Besides that last paragraph you do nothing to directly compare the two seasons and the rest is just your opinion written as that. You never really going into why one season was better, just which you prefer and it's written as a personal opinion review too. Second paragraph being used as a knock on Season 1 rather than 2 was odd because it happened in Season 2 no matter which way you twist it. Ways you think the show could be improved aren't really needed in this debate and are again why I call this more of a review than a debate on which season is better. "I would have loved to see Alex be the top heel of season two, perhaps taking part of Vee's role as the new top smuggler / prisoner overlord on the make." ultimately has nothing to do with Season 2 being better than 1. Same with "Perhaps it was unavoidable, as it usually takes me a good 7-8 episodes to start getting into more than 3 or 4 characters in a show, but the only real connection to the stories I felt during season one was the growing love between Daya and Bennett.". Yes the debate is your opinion but just stating your opinion doesn't turn it into a debate. You have to state why and you also have to show why it makes one season better than the other. Was there more of a connection to characters in Season 2 than 1? That's how you argue which is a better season. Same with the next paragraph. No arguments as to why one season is better than the other and no reason why "There are too many characters on the outside butting in the show as a whole" is bad for the show. Ok you say this is prominent in Season 1 but you don't show it stopped/slowed down in Season 2. Throughout all of this I'm just reading it as a review because I can't see actual reasons why one season was better than the other and what made it so. You tell me you like things, you don't like other things and you'd like some things improved in these ways but none of them have reasons linking them to a better quality season. Your final paragraph is what everything before it should have been. Direct comparisons between the two seasons and actual reasons for one being better than the other. I never got that in your debate before that final paragraph.

Winner - Bearodactyl

Headliner
Bearodactyl

This was good. I think you did a good job showing what season 1 was ultimately all about through it's introduction of the story and the drawbacks that came with it. Then you went into season 2 to show how they decided to explore more stories to add more variety and interest. It flowed well because it allowed us to clearly see how the show progressed from season 1 to season 2. Good job mentioning all of the new/extra characters & stories that made it big in season 2. You showed us what season 2 had, that season 1 did not have.

deepelemblues

This was ok. I thought you analysis of different storylines and events were ok, but eventually they seemed to lead to you wondering off about performances and individual actors like you were a movie critic. You seemed to get a little too caught up in your own critique of things that your focus seemed to lose it's way a bit.

What would have made this better was if you focused more on the focus on other characters in season 2. The expansion, the broader scope, the development, the growth and how it all came together.

Winner-Bearodactyl

Kiz
While both of these are good debates, I feel that Bearodactyl's is the superior debate of the two. With the question concerning which of the two seasons is better, Bearodactyl specifies why. There is no part about how the season could be improved to how you would prefer it. deepelemblues seems to discuss too much about how to improve the show instead of why they prefer it. Bearodactyl also feels a lot more succinct and to the point when it comes to describing precisely why Season 2 was preferred.

So overall, while both are good debates, I feel Bearodactyl does a superior job in terms of explaining why they feel that season 2 was the superior season of Orange Is The New Black. This is not the sort of debate that can really be backed up by statistics, and trying to convince based on personal opinion can be difficult, especially when both sides argue the same view.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Bearodactyl

RetepAdam. vs Stax Classic vs The Rabid Wolverine
Which player had a better playing career, Steve Nash or Jason Kidd?

Stax Classic
A Little History

Both Steve Nash and Jason Kidd played until their age 39 season, with Kidd starting at 21 and Nash at 22. Both are first ballot Hall of Fame point guards. Kidd was the 1992 USA Today, PARADE, and Naismith High School Player of the Year. Kidd was the second overall pick in 1994 and was the co-Rookie of the Year his first season in the NBA. 1 Nash, was a Canadian stand out before coming to the United States for college. Nash was the fifteenth pick in the 1996 draft and backed up Kidd before getting trading to Dallas two years later. Who had the better career though?

Miles on the Road

Kidd played 12,000 minutes more than Nash did over the length of their careers. While Nash played 18 seasons, he started ten games or less in his first two and last season. So while Nash only started for 15 years, Kidd had 15 years of averaging eight assists and six rebounds. 2 Kidd started 48 games in his 19th season, and in his career started almost 300 games more than Nash. Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center. 3 Kidd’s best modern comparison is Rajon Rondo, who is already falling apart at age 30, five years before Kidd started showing the age.

Stealing the Cake

Nash4 had career shooting percentages of .490 field goal, .428 three point, and .904 free throw percentages to Kidd’s5 .400, .372, and .785 percentages. Kidd was still an okay enough shooter that when matched with his longevity, Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th. 6 Nash only made about 100 more field goals, despite shooting nine points better than Kidd for their careers. Kidd had 40 more free throws, despite Nash shooting twelve points better from the line. Kidd was never a great shooter, but he was always one of the best defensive point guards of his generation, making 1st or 2nd all-NBA defensive teams nine years in a row. Even in the 2011 NBA Finals, it was Kidd guarding Lebron James in his prime at times. 7 Kidd has a championship ring, and lost in two more finals appearances. Nash never made it past the Western Conference Finals.


Kidding around With Numbers

Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.

Tripling Down

Jason Kidd is 3rd all-time in triple-doubles. 10 Kidd has 107 career triple-doubles, accruing at least ten of a stat category in three different categories like points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, etc. Nash has 3. That 104 triple-double gap would not only finish 4th all-time, but is over twice as many as Lebron James has in his career. Kidd has 11 career triple-doubles in the post season, 2nd most all-time tied with James. He is the only guy to average a triple double for a playoff series since 1991, and he is one of only three men to do it more than once. 11 Kidd was the second person to ever average a triple-double for an entire post season in 2007. 12

Kidd was Better

While Nash is one of the best shooters of all-time, Kidd was the better all-around player. Nash was a one dimensional player with superb court vision but Kidd’s nearly identical vision, his longevity, his health, his tenacious defense that is even carrying over to his coaching style, and his nose for the ball outweigh everything Nash brings to the game. Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds. Blame Magic Johnson’s illness, he never did it13, neither did Oscar Robertson14. When those two are your only contemporaries that come close to what you did, being compared to Steve Nash should be an insult. The Magic Johnson Era ended and we are in the midst of the Chris Paul Era, but that intermittent time can only have one name, THE JASON KIDD ERA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kidd
2. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/five-amazing-facts-about-jason-kidds-stellar-nba-career
3. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_career.html
4. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01.html
5. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kiddja01.html
6. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/fg3_career.html
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l605p9PUx9E
8. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_career.html
9. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/trb_career.html
10. http://www.sportscity.com/nba/records/all-time-triple-doubles/
11. http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news/series_triple-doubles.html
12. http://www.nba.com/games/20070518/CLENJN/recap.html
13. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsma02.html
14. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/roberos01.html

The Rabid Wolverine
Since there what a players "playing career" is defined as is open to debate, I'm simply choosing to reword this as "who was better? Nash or Kidd?". The answer, to me, is Steve Nash.


The easiest way to do this is to go category by category to find which player was better at the skills required by an NBA point guard.


Who was the better scorer?


This goes to Steve Nash in an absolute landslide. Kidd shot just 40% from the field for his entire career! That's unbelievably bad, especially when you consider that as the teams point guard Kidd was responsible for having the ball more than any other player. If you are constantly playing 4 on 5 on offense, no matter how good Kidd was at all the other aspects of the game, it's going to seriously damper your offenses effectiveness. Nash retires this year as arguably the NBA's greatest shooter from a statistical stand point. There have only been 3 players in NBA history to finish the season with 50-40-90 shooting splits and make the All-NBA team. Larry Bird, Dirk Nowitzki, and Steve Nash, and Nash did it twice. Nash's shooting was so good, if you even dared to sag off him and just cover the 4 other guys on the court, he would bury you like he did the Spurs in the 2007 playoffs when he hung 48 pts on them because they were daring him to shoot. Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.


Who had the bigger positive impact on his teammates?


This one is a bit more tricky, as both players were the model of unselfishness on the court and were historically great passers. Steve Nash completely revitalized the Suns when he arrived in 2004, they were a team without an identity and without any consistent post season success, Nash's arrival changed all of that nearly over night. Kidd had a similar impact when he arrived in New Jersey, in fact he took a Nets team that had won just 26 games in 2000-2001 to a record of 52-30 in 2001-2002. This Nets team, with ZERO other All-Stars, won the Eastern Conference before losing to the Lakers in 4 games in the 2002 NBA finals. You can argue that the Eastern conference was incredible weak that year, and you wouldn't be wrong, but still, winning DOUBLE the games you won the year before and advancing to the Finals is no easy task, no matter which conference.


Nash cannot claim to have ever taken a team to the Finals, but he was also in the historically great Western Conference, featuring the legendary Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, and Kings teams of that era. In the end, I'm going with Nash, and here is why: 3 different teams (the Mavericks, the Suns, and the Nets) all decided that they would rather trade Kidd than keep him on their team during Kidd's prime. The Suns would have NEVER traded Nash in his prime. Jason Kidd was indeed unselfish on the court, but all the evidence points to him being quite a head case off the court. Not the case with Nash, you will not find a more beloved teammate in the 21st century than Steve Nash.


Which player played better defense?


I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close. Kidd made a combined 9 All-Defense teams over the span of his career (4 of them 1st team) while Nash made none. Nash's defensive liabilities are widely known, it's no secret he had trouble throughout his career staying in front of faster point guards like Tony Parker and Mike Bibby. Kidd was able to put the clamps on opposing teams guards and use his size and strength to keep them out of the paint and wall off passing lanes. Nash however was an exceptional pick pocket, he had an uncanny nack for poking the ball away from opposing guards and taking it coast to coast before you even knew what happened. That's not enough to even contemplate him being the same caliber of defensive player as Kidd, however.


In conclusion, Steve Nash was the better overall player than Jason Kidd. As statistics have become more advanced, and people understand better what skill sets lead to winning basketball, the ability to shoot has become the single most valued skill an NBA player can have. If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd, because no matter how excellent Kidd was in all the other facets of basketball, his complete inability to shoot a basketball during his prime when compared to Nash's transcedent shooting prowess is an insurmountable obstacle.

RetepAdam.
Steve Nash. Jason Kidd. Two of the greatest point guards in NBA history. Born less than a year apart, the two of them traveled eerily similar paths throughout their playing careers. Both helped revitalize dormant college basketball programs. Both carved out NBA legacies that included countless individual achievements. Most importantly, both helped create a championship mentality for franchises with little historical success. For all intents and purposes, Nash and Kidd left very similar footprints. However, at just about every turn, Kidd has held the advantage between the two. Even in spite of Steve Nash’s two MVP awards, Jason Kidd had the better overall playing career.

How They Measure Up

Though Nash and Kidd were both primarily known as floor generals, they each impacted the game in different ways. For Nash, his combination of preternatural court vision and insane shooting efficiency made him an offensive dynamo. Kidd, on the other hand, was a poor shooter for most of his career (though he later developed into a knockdown 3-point shooter). However, he excelled in every other facet of the game on both ends of the court. In spite of his shooting struggles, Kidd averaged roughly 16 points-per-game during his peak seasons and ranked in the Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.

On top of that, Kidd consistently ranked as one of the premier defensive PGs in the NBA, earning All-Defense honors nine times. There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight. Kidd may not have peaked any higher than second in MVP voting, but looking at the entirety of his career, his accolades stack up nicely.


#RINGZZZZ

Both Nash and Kidd were considered ultimate team players, so it’s only fair to dive into the amount of team success each enjoyed. It started in high school. While Nash led his St. Michaels team to a provincial championship his senior year, Kidd led St. Joseph-Alameda to back-to-back state championships in California. In college, this trend continued. Nash was scarcely recruited and ended up at Santa Clara, a small program that hadn’t seen much success since the 70s. Kidd, the nation’s top recruit, stunned everyone by opting to go to Cal, which hadn’t made the NCAA Tournament since 1960. As freshmen, both Nash and Kidd led their teams to the tourney and engineered shocking upsets, with Santa Clara taking down heavily favored Arizona while Cal knocked off defending champions Duke. However, in his four years at Santa Clara, Nash was never able to lead the Broncos further than the second round, whereas Kidd managed to take the Golden Bears to the Sweet 16 in his very first year.

In the NBA, the biggest disparity emerged. As a member of the Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns, Nash was the catalyst of many teams that finished at or near the top of the standings. However, Nash’s playoff track record is littered with disappointments. Four first-round flameouts, three second-round defeats and four losses in the Western Conference Finals. Zero rings. Not even a Finals appearance. This, of course, is hardly Steve Nash’s fault. The fact that his teams failed to climb that particular mountaintop isn’t an indictment on him as a player. But the question isn’t who was the better player, it’s who enjoyed the better career. Blame (Robert Horry) if you’d like, but Nash’s resume doesn’t quite stack up against Kidd’s which included three NBA Finals appearances, one NBA championship and two gold medals as part of Team USA.

Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring. In Nash’s retirement statements, he expressed disappointment over failing to deliver a championship to the fans in Phoenix and not living up to the expectations set for him in L.A. Ultimately, that’s where the line is drawn. Steve Nash accomplished so much throughout the course of his career, but the questions about what might have been will always continue to hang over him. Jason Kidd retired with no regrets about his career. All else relatively equal, that’s how you know he had the better career.

Headliner
Stax Classic

Good debate.

What I liked about this debate the most was that you really took us from the start of both careers to the end. While doing that you showed the necessary progessions, faults and achivements that painted a very clear picture in regards to who was better. I would have liked to seen you break down their skill sets a little more, but I think your focus on stats and the overall big picture outweighted any need for that. Good job.

The Rabid Wolverine

This debate was ok. You focused on key concepts that are vital to the point guard position. The problem is, you left too much doubt in regards to Nash truly being better. You broke down your debate into 3 areas. You picked Kidd in 1 out of the 3 areas, but then in the positive impact area you basically admitted that Kidd was a better impact player because he did things Nash was never able to do. Yet you picked Nash for reasons that can be argued easily.

If you think Nash is better, you should slam home how better he is without putting over Kidd as much. It didn't come off as convincing.

RetepAdam.

This was a solid debate. Your picture of the stats really cemented what you were saying in the frst half. The second half of the debate took a cliff dive. I didn't think it was necessary to focus on their college careers much. Because it's not a true accurate representation of who the better player is. Sure, you can use it to show characteristics of these two as players, but college has little value because so much can change from college to the NBA. Michael Jordan wasn't Michael Jordan in college. So if you were to compare Michael to some player on who had the better career, you wouldn't focus on their college careers. It's all about the NBA.

Instead of focusing on their college careers, I think you could have took the stat pic and ran with it a little more. Show more longevity, paint the picture and convince us.

Winner-Stax Classic

Joel
Stax Classic
This debate is very unbalanced. No mention of Nash’s 2 MVP titles. No mention that Nash was the leading assistant in 6 seasons compare to Kidd’s 2. Man oh man. Don’t get me wrong here, you are selling Kidd really well here, but by refusing to list some of Nash’s big accomplishments, you make this whole debate pointless. I mean, all I can take from it is that everything Kidd did was better than what Nash did, but that simply is not true. It’s just too unbalanced for me to even break down properly.

You’ve done good research into this to show a lot of statistics, which highlights Kidd’s overall ability. When it comes to this, it shows that Kidd had so much to his game and really was a fantastic player. The defensive statistics are mind blowingly good. But by going down a complete statistical route, you make this so robotic. I mean you could have gone more into how he made his team mates better, or how his leadership was vital in the finals victory over Miami and a lot more. Statistics are very important, but it only tells half the story of a player.

Nash’s best seasons earned him the MVP award twice (back to back) – the best player in the league. That tells me that when Nash was at his best, he reached a level that Kidd doesn’t have in him. You say he is one dimensional and that may be right, but at one point in time, that dimension was crazy good and it made him one of the best play makers the game has seen. Everything he did can’t always be told by a statistic. Sometimes making room for another player won’t get you the assist stat, but it’s clear what your presence caused. Honestly, if you’re going to list one players credentials, you have to list the other’s to give credibility to the debate.

I can’t say much more. This is a very one sided debate that is based purely on statistics which you cannot use as the sole example of a whole career.

The Rabid Wolverine
I guess the one thing this debate had was parity when looking at both competitors. You’ve gone down the route of giving your opinion on it, rather than basing it off pure evidence. I don’t mind some of that, but without any of it, I think this debate is lacking a lot of depth. As I said, I think you’ve been fair on how you have rated them and I like the way how you have structured it by looking at the position these two play in and then scoring them on what you feel is key to this position. The way you have rated the competitors in these three sections you have created when looking at a point guard is hard to disagree with. The attacking prowess and defensive steal sections bodes clear winners. Impact on teammates is give or take and you have done ok to explain why you feel Nash has the edge here – how he went to three teams and had a positive impact that made them better.

But all of this can only be the start of the debate. This alone just makes there feel like there is a lot missing from this debate. It just feels like it is so simple to sum up two careers that have nearly 40 years combined. It really isn’t.

There’s no real mention of the accolades these two have (and there is a lot that could have given you some substance). There’s very little statistical comparison. No mention of the great moments these guys have had. It just feels rushed and unfinished.

I honestly think this debate could have been something, but the lack of depth hurts it a lot. It’s like a really nice interior, but when you get to the centre, there’s nothing really there.

RetepAdam.
Now this is a good debate. It has both balance when looking at the two competitors and it also has depth, which is backed up by some good evidence. I think you have assessed both these guys pretty well. You mentioned both of their accolades from their entire basketball careers and identified both their strong points and their weak points pretty well.

What I’ve taken from your debate is that Nash was on another level when it comes to his attacking, but when it comes to overall abilities, Kidd excelled. I think this is backed up by a lot of things you have mentioned such as being voted in the NBA first team more times, making many appearances in the NBA all defensive teams and making the All Star team more times.

It’s always hard to count rings as an individual difference, but hey, we’re talking about better career here, so Kidd’s one ring obviously trumps Nahs’s. The fact that Kidd got to two other finals prior to winning as well, helps the argument, as Nash as you said has zero appearances.

Think you could have given Nash a bit more credit for his MVP seasons. I know there’s a bit of controversy for the second one (I believe), but to win the award back to back means he was playing some pretty high level bastketball, that Jason Kidd couldn’t match. But when it comes down to it, longevity and consistency matters when looking at a whole career.

All in all, I think this is a good debate. Well thought out, well structured, well balanced and the decision that you came to is backed up by a lot of evidence.

Verdict: RetepAdam. obviously wins, as it was the only complete debate in this match up.

Aid
Stax Classic

I don’t even know what to say. I’m struggling to find something to criticize. I guess let’s look at what I really liked. The longevity point was creative and a nice addition. Longevity in the career with minutes played and seasons where he averaged good numbers show just how long of an impact Kidd had. Loved this part. “Only two players have ever played more minutes than Jason Kidd, and of the top seven all-time, Kidd is the only non-power forward or center.” Fantastic point here. Going onto shooting, which looked to be a tough task to counter, I enjoyed how you did attempt to counter. “Kidd made enough three’s in his career to place 5th all-time to Nash’s 15th.” Good point. It’s hard to really say Kidd stands up to Nash in shooting, but this helps. It’s better than admitting defeat and not countering at all. I like how you included defense in here and mentioned just how good Kidd was. Nice use of stats. You also mention the finals here too. Nice use of word limit here fitting so much in such a tiny space.

The next paragraph is absolute gold though. Here’s the part I loved the most about this paragraph. “Kidd is 2nd all-time in assists to Nash’s 3rd8, Kidd averaged 0.2 assists more per game over their careers. Kidd had nearly three times as many steals as Nash and has the 2nd most all-time. The gap between Kidd and Nash in steals would be 18th best all-time for steals! Kidd is currently 60th all-time in rebounds for any position. 9 The gap in total rebounds between Kidd and Nash is equal to Kevin Love’s career rebounds! Kidd has 450 career blocks, which is not bad considering that is four and a half times what Nash had. Yes Kidd has more turnovers than Nash and is 3rd all-time, but coming back to the minutes played, Kidd turned it over at a 7.99% per minute rate to Nash’s 9.14%.” You’re damn right it’s the entire paragraph. The amount of numbers and great stats in the paragraph would even make Bill James blush.

I already used the posting the entire paragraph schtick, so I won’t use it here for the triple double point, but damn bro. This one is great too. Hell, I might as well just post the rest of your debate. I really don’t have any criticisms. If I were to think of one thing I would have addressed, it probably would have been comparing Nash’s TWO MVPs to Kidd’s none. But then again, the guy that argued for Nash didn’t even mention this part. So great job.

The Rabid Wolverine

I know this is going to look overtly negative, but you didn’t do a bad job. This is fundamentally how a debate should be written and how a debate should look. However, that’s not the issue. The issue here is the information in the debate and the little parts you didn’t argue.

Case 1: “Jason Kidd just could never be counted on to do that, if his teammates where not making shots his team wasn't winning.”

Here’s where I think you first really missed the counter-argument. The whole scoring part was nice, and factually correct, but you did not address the winning aspect. At least I don’t feel you addressed it enough. What would you say to those that think Kidd’s NBA title win over the Heat in 2011 trumps anything that Nash has done? What about playoff success and the fact that Nash never made it to the NBA finals? The Jason Kidd Mavs made it to the finals in the west. Also Jason Kidd played in the post-season in 17 seasons compared to Nash’s 12. This would have been good to address too. You did address this slightly with the fact that the West was tough, but I would have liked a little more here.

Case 2: “I'm going to make this easy and just say Jason Kidd, and it's not close.”

Alright. Never ever ever ever use this sentence. lol. What I mean is, how convincing do you think it is when you are arguing for choice A and you say choice B is so good at this, 1/3rd of your argument, that it’s not even close. So essentially, paragraph 3 is all about how the player you are arguing against is great and paragraph 2 is essentially a tie as you talk about how they are both good passers, without addressing numbers, and how Nash changed the culture in Phoenix but Kidd doubled the Nets wins and took them to the finals. See what I mean. At this point you are basically arguing for Kidd. It’s just not convincing language here. That’s the big problem. Finally, your conclusion has this sentence: “If you were trying to win an NBA championship, you would choose Steve Nash over Jason Kidd” I feel that’s a tough point to agree with when one man won a title and actually went to the finals and the other never did go to the finals. Also, how can you not mention the biggest thing Nash has over Kidd, his two MVPs? Like only 11 players have ever won the MVP more than once, and Nash is one of them. Like man, that argument practically writes itself. Hell, I might just have voted for you if you got rid of the defensive paragraph and wrote about Nash’s MVPs and how important those are.

RetepAdam.

“Preternatural”. Well damn. I think I might just try using this in Scrabble next time I can. :lol. Anyway, your opponent wrote one of the better debates I’ve ever read, so this requires a fantastic effort from you.

To get to the debate, I loved this point: “Top 5 in assists-per-game in every season from 1995-96 through 2009-10. Though Nash was primarily known for his passing wizardry, he only managed to accomplish that same feat in nine seasons. An expert rebounder to boot, Kidd ranks third all-time in triple-doubles, behind only Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson.” In fact, this point was pretty good too: “There is no question that Nash was the superior offensive player, but on the defensive end, it was simply no contest. That gap is a large part of the reason why Kidd was named First Team All-NBA five times to Nash’s three. Why Kidd was selected to the All-Star Game 10 times to Nash’s eight.” So good work here.

Now here is where you and Stax Classic differ. Instead of diving into all the stats, you go into career, starting from high school. While I loved reading the narrative here and seeing the point and including all aspects of their basketball life, I felt like you dedicated too much time to a part that started off similarly with high school success and similar college choices. This space may have been better used for truly mentioning Kidd’s stats over Nash’s, like steals and assists etc. That or why Nash’s two MVPs aren’t as good to have. I believe only 11 players have won multiple MVPs. That’s a pretty damn good accomplishment. A counter for this would be great. However, as I told Stax Classic, The Rabid Wolverine did not mention the MVP awards at all and he picked Nash. So I guess it’s hard to see the need to counter it when it isn’t even brought up. However, countering this would have been amazing.

Honestly, this is pretty good for a conclusion too: “Therein lies the biggest difference between the two. From an individual standpoint, their accomplishments are nearly indistinguishable. But in terms of team success, not only did Kidd lead the Nets further than Nash ever managed to get the Mavs or Suns (despite Nash having absolutely loaded teams)… he also got a ring.” In fact, the last part of your conclusion is pretty damn awesome. Like, fucking killer. It really resonates with me. As you see, I am having trouble truly expressing just how much I loved your conclusion. Damn. This was a pretty fantastic effot. I said you needed it and you delivered. Good work man.

Decision: Damn guys. This is really a difficult choice for me. Like, if Stax Classic and RetepAdam. was a tag debate, it might be the best TDL submission ever. Team up please guys. :side: Anyway, I really have to be nitpicky to truly make a decision. I loved Stax Classic diving deep into the stats, but I also enjoyed RetepAdam. diving into the post-season career and the regrets. Like, this is truly nitpicky as fuck, but I really did like the inclusion of this stat, “Kidd is the only player ever with 15,000 points, 10,000 assists, and 7,000 rebounds.” This and if RetepAdam. linked a source for the Kidd no regrets part are the very slim reasons for why I am picking Stax Classic. Like, even now I’m not sure of my decision. It is that close for me. Hell, if either of you just mentioned why Nash's two MVPs don't really mean too much, then I would have awarded you the win. RetepAdam. was close by actually mentioning the MVP awards, but maybe mentioning how many times Kidd was voted second or third in the race would help. Honestly, if you guys could just give me a best of three series, I’d be happy as possible.

Winner: Stax Classic with the ever so slightest of margins.


Winner via Split Decision - Stax Classic

BkB Hulk vs Curry
Which team is most likely to be relegated this season, Burnley, Sunderland or Hull?

Curry

Background:

After 32 games, Sunderland have 29 points, Hull 28 and Burnley 26.

Each team has 6 games to play:



Based on the current form, position and squads of these teams along with the fixtures remaining, Hull are most likely to be relegated from the Premier League this season.

Ruling out Sunderland:

Sunderland have the advantage of leading this group of teams on points. With a reasonable run in, a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games and a defensive unit that has kept 10 clean sheets this year, (the same number as defending champions and current 4th place team Manchester City and current 3rd place team Manchester United), Sunderland should have no trouble picking up the few points needed to keep themselves above Hull and Burnley, leaving them least likely to be relegated this season.

Hull:

If Premier League teams are sorted by form over the last 10 games, Hull are still to play 5 of the top 6. During that same period, Hull gained 9 points, 8 of which came across 4 games against teams in the bottom 6 places in the Premier League table. In fact, Hull have only won against teams in the bottom half this season and have taken just 4 points from teams in the top half. With Hull still to play so many in form top teams, they will struggle to gain points.

One of the reasons Hull will struggle is a lack of goals. With top goalscorer Nikita Jelavic potentially out for the rest of the season, Hull's highest scoring active players are Mohammed Diame (4 goals) who has played only 48 minutes of Premier League football this year, Abel Hernandez (4 goals) who has scored only once in his last seventeen games and Dame N'Doye (3 goals) who has played over 400 minutes of premier league football since he last scored.

Burnley:

Burnley have a better chance of surviving because they have two things Hull and Sunderland don't.

*An easy run in
*Goalscorers

Burnley are still to play 4 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League table and 5 teams in the bottom half of the Premier League form table. While Burnley haven't performed well over the past few weeks in no small part because their last 8 games have been against the top 8 teams in the Premier League.

Burnley's other great advantage is that they have players who have proven they can score goals this season. Danny Ings, George Boyd and Ashley Barnes have all score more goals than any fit Hull or Sunderland player this season.

Burnley vs Hull:


The key to this debate is whether or not Burnley will be able to make up the gap between themselves and Hull. To do this they'll either need to gain 3 points more than Hull or 2 points more than Hull while making up a 9 goal swing in goal difference.

The ideal time to make up these points would be when the two teams face eachother on May 9th at the KC stadium. This is the defining game of this debate, as a win for Hull could move them out of Burnley's reach while failure to win could be a waste of possibly their only opportunity to gain points.

Burnley's history against Hull gives a positive outlook ahead of this game:

*Burnley won the reverse fixture in November 1-0
*Burnley have won on their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium
*Burnley have won 8 of their last 9 games against Hull

Although Burnley should be going into this game looking for a win they are easily capable of getting, gaining even a draw from this game could conceivably allow them move them above Hull by winning just one of their 5 other games, all of which are potentially winnable against less than fantastic opposition.


Hull City have the hardest run in of these three teams, they have proven that they are unable to find success and gain points against top teams and have no one in their squad who looks like supplying the vital goals to keep them up.

All these factors will render them unable to surpass Sunderland's points total and leave them sitting ducks to a Burnley team who will be able to take advantage of an easy group of games thanks to the quality of their their front line and make up the points difference between the two teams.

Unable to catch Sunderland and falling victim to a late Burnley charge, Hull City will have the lowest points total and are most likely to be relegated.



Sources


BkB Hulk

There are many reasons why Burnley seem the popular choice as the club neutrals want to survive. They’re the ultimate underdog – they were a poor club by Championship standards last season, who were supposed to be closer to relegation to League One than promotion. They’re an even poorer club by Premier League standards. They have a squad that is full of British grafters, consistently featuring only homegrown players in their starting lineup in 2015. They, as a city, have a population lower than the capacity of Old Trafford.(1) They have a young British manager, who people want to see succeed if not for the national pride then for the sheer modern rarity of it. They also have a dedicated backing, none of which seem to be calling for any overhaul. It’s a shame that, despite – or perhaps because of all this – there’s no reason analytically why they will survive. Burnley will be relegated.

The Clarets currently sit two points behind Hull and three behind Sunderland, stuck in the quagmire of the relegation zone. They’ve been there almost all season, remarkably only getting as high as 17th at best at the conclusion of a weekend.(2) They show no signs of emulating that achievement now.

For all of their attempts to fight, Burnley are struggling against a rip. They’ll soon find themselves back in the Championship Sea. Their current form is as bad as it has been since the start of the season. With six games remaining, they need to win as many games as possible. In the last six games they’ve won one. A single game against a remarkably poor Manchester City. They’ve only had the chance to win once too, because they’ve only scored one goal in the entirety of those six games. A 0-0 draw has allowed them to snatch a fourth point in that time.(3)

No, Hull and Sunderland have not been in great form either. Hull have taken a measly two points from their past six games(4), while Sunderland have taken four.(5) The problem for Burnley is that, even while Hull appear to be standing still, their comparative formlines mean that at their current rate, they will only just catch Hull by point tally. Their goal difference is vastly inferior though.

On top of that, Hull and Sunderland actually possess the ability to occasionally score goals. They have the potential to win games. Hull have scored four goals in their past six games. Sunderland have scored three. If either of those teams scores those goals at the right time then the chase for Burnley almost makes insurmountable. A single three points seems enough to evade the Clarets, who haven’t seen a striker score in months. George Boyd was the last to do so, and seems to be the last to score for the foreseeable future.

While Sunderland have been able to enjoy recent local success off the back of Jermain Defoe, and Dame N’Doye has scored since arriving at KC Stadium, Burnley simply haven’t been able to reinforce their squad. There are no signs of a boost for them. Their ‘January arrival’ was Sam Vokes – a man who spent a year out with a knee injury after firing for Burnley in the Championship, and hasn’t scored since. For all of the hype surrounding Danny Ings, he hasn’t threatened of late, nor has Ashley Barnes. The only thing Lukas Jutkiewicz has challenged is for the title of worst Premier League footballer.

Burnley don’t have any favours in terms of fixturing in the coming weeks either. Only two of their remaining six games are at Turf Moor(6), meaning it’s highly unlikely that a landslide of goals would be incoming, even if any of their strikers were in any kind of form. Hull have four to come, while Sunderland get to host bottom-placed Leicester in their two remaining home games, favourably placing them with a winning opportunity.(7)(8)

Meanwhile Hull also host Burnley, in a game in which Hull have to be favourites because of their home ground advantage. It’s a game which potentially may, and probably will, seal Burnley’s fate. A win for Hull puts them out of reach, while Sunderland are almost out of reach for Burnley already. Their experience in surviving the drop – something Burnley don’t have – should see them home, even if the fixture against Leicester somehow doesn’t.

Burnley have fought a remarkably brave fight. It’s what you expect when you hear the gravelly voice of Sean Dyche. Unfortunately for Burnley, they’re clearly out of their league in terms of depth, talent, spending power, and just sheer size. And though they looked like the Championship was maybe even a level too high for them last season, they’re about to be in those familiar surroundings soon. That is their league. Burnley will be relegated.


(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...35caf2-e1fc-11e4-ae0f-f8c46aa8c3a4_story.html
(2) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html
(3) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true&paramSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(4) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true&paramSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(5) http://www.premierleague.com/conten...mp_8=true&paramSeasonId=2014&view=.dateSeason
(6) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=90&paramComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(7) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=88&paramComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason
(8) http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...amClubId=56&paramComp_8=true&view=.dateSeason

Seabs
Curry - I actually found the background part including the fixtures list in a table really helpful here so props for including that. The biggest flaw of this is definitely how quickly you rule out Sunderland like it's just a given they'll stay up. Your argument for them is fine but it hurts you when you're comparing Hull and Burnley directly but not Sunderland. I get that word counts make it tough but it's definitely possible to do better than a quick paragraph at the start and out. "a team filled with players like Connor Wickham and Jermain Defoe who are capable of scoring goals and winning games" feels way too empty with nothing to back it up. The clean sheets stat was a good way of manipulating the fact that their goals conceded stat is worse than Hull's and not much better than Burnley's so that was good. The Hull arguments are really good. The argument regarding their remaining schedule is real good and their lack of goals was really well done too. Maybe add a line about how at this stage draws won't be enough for Hull and wins require goals. Burnley part again is very good. I thought you missed a great argument here in that Burnley have a lot of fixtures against teams who won't have anything to really play for. Everton, West Ham and Stoke are all pretty much done for the season now and Villa likely will be the last day too which obviously helps Burnley a lot and is arguably better than facing teams around them also fighting for survival. Use of the form table was really good though. Point about Burnley having more goals than Sunderland and Hull was strong too and served really well as a counter against BkB Hulk. As did the very valid explanation for Burnley's recent poor form and quite frankly 5 points vs all of the top 8 in 8 games is a good return. The Burnley vs Hull part was definitely weaker. The H2H stats really don't mean much. The fact they won the reverse fixture is a fine argument but the rest of the matches are going back at least 2 seasons when it's fair to say both teams were very different and even in a different league. H2H's only really mean something if they're featuring largely the same team or managers going H2H with distinct ways of playing, e.g. A is able to counter B's style of play every time with whatever players he fields. For the weakest part of your entry this used up too much word count too and is where you needed to pay Sunderland more attention. You've convinced me Burnley will climb over Hull but will Hull climb over Sunderland? That part is still left a bit misty. Outside of that though this had a lot of very strong arguments and only really missed out on one good one that I mentioned. Good stuff.

BkB Hulk - That opening paragraph is really long. I assumed with how long it was that what you said would come into play during your debate but it really didn't so it was just a super long intro that wasn't at all needed. The argument against their form is really poor analysis and Curry counters it nicely by bringing up the obvious about the level of quality they're facing in that run. Because they lose to the top 8 they'll go down? That doesn't work when they don't face any more of the top 8 this season. It looks even worse when you then show how neither Sunderland nor Hull have picked up more points from their last 6 despite facing much easier competition. Curry had you countered here anyway but you then essentially counter yourself by showing how Burnley's current form isn't even bad relative to the other two picks. The idea that the points per game rate will continue given the disparity in who Hull and Burnley each face was a tad mad. The goal difference argument works but only if you show that Burnley won't catch Hull which you didn't. Goals argument is countered nicely by Curry too. Ok Burnley aren't scoring big right now but that's easily explained by who they're facing and Hull and Sunderland are both struggling for goals. Not sure what the January arrivals point made as Hull and Sunderland's form hasn't improved much since then. N'Doye going over 400 minutes since his last goal counters his effect nicely too. Using the fixture schedule against Burley was odd as it quite clearly favours them. If you're going to argue that Burnley's lack of home fixtures will be a factor then you need to show that their away form is just terrible regardless of who they face. Home fixtures are nice but are Hull more likely to beat Arsenal at home than Burnley are to beat a Villa/West Ham team with nothing to play for away from home? A win for Hull puts them out of reach of Burnley? It puts them 5 clear and they're favourites to lose every other game this season. Also 3 points ahead is already almost out of reach? What? It's just strange how little credit you give to Burnley and the remaining fixtures they have. It's almost like you thought they had Hull's fixtures and only saw one game they had a decent chance of picking up a win meaning one point for Hull would likely see Burnley down. The analysis here was poor and even if Curry hadn't repeatedly and effectively countered much of what you said, your reasoning didn't really hold up anyway.

Winner - Curry

Joel
Curry
First of all, I would have liked to see a little but more depth of why Sunderland is ruled out on going down, since you went down the route of saying why you don’t believe they will. You mention those key players, but the game after a morale boosting derby win vs Newcastle, they were hammered on their home patch by a side that were already safe and not really playing for anything. You cite Defoe and Wickham, but Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games, Wickham has 4 goals in 30 league games… They’re hardly showing enough to guarantee safety right now.

I like the research you have done that shows Hull's struggles in picking up points against the teams above them and that they have to play 4 of the most inform teams in their fine 6 games. This strengthens your case about Hull going down. However, you also mention they have trouble scoring, but then go on to say that one of the reasons Burnley have a better chance to stay up is because of their goal scorers. Yet Burnley has scored fewer goals than Hull…

Something you also say is that Burnley's struggles in the past few weeks has been because they have played top sides. But this season, Burnley have seemed to pick up quite a few points against the top sides; a win and draw vs Manchester City, a draw at Chelsea, a draw vs Manchester United, a draw vs Tottenham and a win vs Southamptopn. That's 10 points and they have 26 points, which means more than a third of their points have come against teams in the top 7. So it may be a bit inaccurate to say their current position is to do with the opposition they have faced in the past few weeks.

Abel Hernandez: 4 in 22, N'Doye: 3 in 9, Boyd: 5 in 30 and Barnes: 5 in 31. You simply cannot say these Hull guys are not scoring enough, while saying one of the reasons Burnley will stay up is because Boyd and Barnes score goals. You should have just used Ings as your example if you were going to go down that route and even he is struggling for goals currently.

However, I give you a lot of credit how you dissected the Hull vs Burnley game. With the history of the past games you have displayed, you have made an incredibly strong case that Burnley will be the victors in this tie.

Overall, you've made 2 very strong points against Hull and their chances. But they were also some contradictions and inconsistencies in this debate.

BkB Hulk
First of all, I wanted to test your theory that Burnley’s form right now is as bad as the beginning of the season where they went a while without finding a win. I did it on the basis of the first 6 games and the last 6 games (from when the debate was completed). In the first 6 games, Burnley grabbed 3 points (3 draws and 3 losses). In the last 6 games (from the time the debate was completed), Burnley have amassed 4 points (1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses). So they’re 1 point better off, but yes, the form is very similar. What is exactly the same is that they have only scored one goal in those two sets of six games, which is very worrying. Good research.

You made a rather good point in noting that even though Hull are in worst form, at the current rate, they’d still be ahead of Burnley. Hull have a +10 GD (the time the debate was completed) on Burnely, which in itself is an extra point in this situation, meaning Burnley would have to get at least a point more in the final six games of the season than they did in the last six games. So yes, when looking at the current form guide, Burnley would be the ones to go down.

I don’t think it helps you to mention Defoe and N’Doye’s as goal sources for Sunderland and Hull respectively. Defoe has 2 goals in 8 league games. That’s a goal every four games. By my calculations, that means if he keeps up the trend he will only score 1 or 2 more goals this season. That may not be enough. N’Doye has 3 goals from 9 games. That’s 1 goal every 3 games. That could mean he only scores 2 more goals this season if the trend continues. So I don’t think any of the three teams has a real advantage over the other one when it comes to goal scorers.

When you brought up fixturing, you failed to note that Hull have the most difficult run in. They still have to play Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool and Tottenham. That is a lot harder than what Burnley have left.
On Burnley’s fixtures you note they only have 2 games at home and 4 away. But this season they have won 14 points at home and 12 points away. Not a massive difference here, so is that a big slight against them? I'm not convinced it is.

You have also undersold Burnley’s chances in the Hull vs Burnley fixture. They have history on their side when it comes to this fixture. Burnley have won in their last 4 visits to the KC Stadium. They also beat Hull at Turf Moore this season. It was their first league win of the season after a run of 10 games without a win. Burnley have a massive chance of winning here.

Overall, they were some good bits and some that weren't so good. I would have liked to see you give more counter arguments for the other teams though. I get the angle of your debate is showing how slim Burnley chances are, but the other two are in such poor form themselves, that I think the balance of this debate is a but lopsided. Good effort though.

Verdict: After reading both debates, I was more convinced that Burnley would go down. I'm giving the win to Curry, because his points on why Burnley's slim chances to survive, trumped the other's debaters points on Hull's slim chances.

Andre
Curry:

I wasn't convinced by your Sunderland section at all. Claiming Wickham is a good goal scorer was odd, especially when you panned those with similar records to him this season. You also failed to dismiss their tough run in (excluding the Leicester game). Claiming Sunderland will have no problem scoring the required goals is generally baffling as that has been their problem all season. The clean sheets point is better, although they've only taken 16 points with those ten clean sheets, which isn't as great as you portray it.

The Hull dismissal is much better. Their run in is clearly awful, while they lack potent goal scorers (although N'Doye has 5 in 10 as I write this, so there's a flaw with your argument about goal droughts).

Burnley's run in is obviously much "easier", but this overlooks how two of Burnley's five wins have been against sides that are ninth or above. In fact, Burnley have the worst results in the league vs bottom half sides. Giving credit to Boyd and Barnes as goal scorers is just as odd as giving this to Wickham, especially when the difference is marginal compared to some of Hull's scorers. You also ignored how Ings and Barnes have had goal droughts, which is dodgy considering you lamented Hull for similar.

The Hull/Burnley match history was really cute, but deeper tactical analysis as to why Burnley will continue to be Hull's bogey team would have enhanced this. The point about Burnley maybe only needing to draw this game is okay, but overlooks the point about Burnley's form vs dross sides. B also countered this by pointing out Burnley only have two home games left.

This was pretty average overall. There were too many double standards involved, plus exaggerated claims. However, you at least managed to convince me that Hull have it tough.


BkB Hulk:

This is really well written, but the intro is long winded without really making a strong point.

Your suggestion that Burnley have never looked like getting out of the relegation zone would have been strengthened if you had pointed out they were just as poor against bottom half sides as top half sides. This would have also enhanced your point about their recent form where they've played lots of good sides (well, good in terms of the premier league, which is shit) which Curry showed. The point about Burnley's form line failing to catch up with the stagnant Hull would have also been improved by this, seeing as Hull have a rough run in and Burnley are playing supposedly easier fixtures. You failed to dismiss Hull's fixtures too, unlike Curry. They have four top seven sides left to face and have a dreadful record against these teams so far this season.

The use of goals scored in recent games isn't much better than Curry's similar arguments about which teams are more likely to score, if I'm being honest. All I've seen from the pair of you is that all three teams have shit "goal scorers". Four and three goals against mediocre opposition isn't really much better than 1 against mostly top half teams. Showing how both Hull and Sunderland strengthened in January, while Burnley didn't, is superior and at least shows how they've got potential to improve, unlike Burnley.

The point about Burnley only having two home games left is very good, but would be great with the added stats of their 18 home points compared to 8 away points. This would have also tied in to the idea that Burnley still have to go away to Hull, where a defeat might relegate them. Curry made a decent counter here by arguing Burnley are Hull's bogey team.


This had some good potential, but felt a tad hollow due to the lack of extra depth needed to solidify certain points that ended up being a bit throwaway.


Neither of these debates were great to be honest. However, I'm voting for Curry. BkB Hulk didn't really convince me that one team was definitely much worse off than the others, whereas Curry did with his arguments against Hull. It's funny, because I'm certain that Burnley are the most fucked, but that's just the way it goes :shrug

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Curry

M-Diggedy vs samizayn
Which is the more career defining role for Harrison Ford: Han Solo or Indiana Jones?

samizayn
The personal gain that comes from participating in a movie has means indicated far beyond monetary wealth. Intangible benefits such as recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining to any one actor’s career. While Harrison Ford is equally known in both famous movie roles, it is obvious that all of those intangible benefits were boosted significantly more from his time doing Indiana Jones than it ever was for Star Wars.

It’s very rare for an actor of any kind to ever fully move away from his first big role, and Harrison Ford as Han Solo is no different. The original movie is coming on to 40 years old, yet the fandom surrounding the whole series means it is still relevant, to the extent that filming for the latest installment in the Star Wars series is ongoing even today. While some actors hate being the persistent association between them and a particular character they play, Ford clearly relishes the fact, and is donning the role of Han Solo right now as he films for this latest upcoming installment. The role has plagued him in a sense, as he demonstrated in a spoof sketch during a Jimmy Kimmel live interview. Star Wars became so popular that it spawned an entire subculture, and while it is obviously exciting being a part of the universally recognised film series, it can also become a bit much.

To be fair to Indiana Jones, it too is a movie franchise that has likewise become a brand name of its own. Ford reprived the Jones role as recently as 2008 as the genuine leading man of the movie, and the $786m intake for the film showed that neither Ford or the Indiana Jones name had lost the ability to be legitimate box office draws. Indiana Jones is a staple of the adventure film genre, and it would not have become such without Ford’s input; to carry that responsibility for a series as well known as this is without question a significant feather in the cap of Harrison Ford. Accomplishing this gives more legitimacy to Ford’s career, even though the cultural impact of the films is nowhere near reaching the magnitude of Star Wars’.

The overwhelming popularity of Star Wars would then indicate that Ford’s role as Han Solo is unquestionably his most career defining. However, that fails to consider the crucial contingent factor of pecking order. The concept is very common in the entertainment industries: pro wrestling sees upper midcarders play second fiddle to main eventers and eventually faces of the company as a rule, for example. The movie industry is no different, and this is where the pecking order comes into play. Han Solo to Star Wars is Randy Orton to WWE. A reliable star that floats around in the #2 or #3 spot, but always secondary, and never a John Cena, and never a Luke Skywalker.
In contrast, Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. He is the franchise, and he is that face of the product. A product which, thanks to Ford, became one of the top twenty highest grossing film franchises of all time.

Star Wars is even more successful as one of the top ten all time, but Harrison Ford did not carry the franchise as Han Solo and that is the reason why the role of Han Solo is not as defining to Harrison Ford's career as Indiana Jones was. When looking on the career of any actor, the individual accomplishments always trump the group efforts. This is especially true for two series where the gap in success is as relatively negligible as it is here: had Ford spearheaded the Revenge of the Nerds series, for example, it would be more difficult to make that claim. But the lead role of a legendary film series would be anyone's career defining role, and Harrison Ford is no different in that regard.

sources
http://www.filmsite.org/series-boxoffice.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0vs9gYydo

M-Diggedy
Han Solo vs. Indiana Jones - the two popular culture heavyweights of Harrison Ford’s career. As both characters are synonymous with the 72-year-old actor, opinion will always be split between fans over which character best defines Ford’s legendary acting career. Is it the whip-cracking, fedora-adorned Indiana Jones? Or is it the wise-cracking, spaceship-flying Han Solo?

These debates are often tedious affairs, with emotion and opinion taking centre stage over facts and statistics. Admittedly, the concept of legacy can never be entirely objective, but that does not mean that statistical analysis should not assist the use of logic and reasoning in answering the question.

With that in mind, I hope to use the overarching concept of legacy together with statistics to illustrate why it is Han Solo, not Indiana Jones, that most defines the career of Harrison Ford.

I believe that there are two important factors that help define an acting career; having the opportunity to influence the masses as well as how that opportunity is used. The three criteria shown below largely show that the original Star Wars trilogy was more successful than the four Indiana Jones movies. The point this emphasises is that the character of Han Solo therefore had more of a chance to become a career defining role than that of Indiana Jones.

1) The first criterion that supports this assertion is the box office performance (all figures adjusted for inflation) for the films containing Indiana Jones and Han Solo. The four Indiana Jones films have made a combined total $1,952,622,000 at the box office. While this remains one of the most lucrative franchises of all time it still suffers in comparison to the three Star Wars movies that Ford starred in. The original trilogy of Star Wars movies made a staggering $3,073,358,300. In simpler terms, three Star Wars movies made 1.574 times the amount of money as four Indiana Jones movies.

2) Beyond the financial success of the movies, it is clear that the Han Solo films are better regarded than the Indiana Jones films. According to IMDb, the four Indiana Jones films have an average rating of 7.675. Again, this is impressive but it is overshadowed by the 8.63 average rating enjoyed by the Star Wars original trilogy.

3) To complement the above statistic, it is pertinent to add that the Star Wars films have been reviewed far more often than the Indiana Jones films. The latter series has been reviewed 1551702 times at an average of 387925 times per film. Yet again this is dwarfed by the original Star Wars trilogy which has been reviewed 1929835 times, or an average of 643278 reviews for each Han Solo film – a clear indication of the larger platform Star Wars represents.

While I appreciate that this does not definitively answer the question of which character defines Ford’s career, I do believe that it goes a long way towards it. By showing that the films involving Han Solo were more successful financially and in popularity, it is clear that Han Solo had a greater chance to define Ford’s career than Indiana Jones.

At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not. While true, I feel that the importance of this fact to the debate is negligible; and here’s why. Firstly, history has shown that a so called supporting character can steal the show. Take Heath Ledger, for example. He starred in Brokeback Mountain and Casanova but his supporting performance as the Joker will always defines his career. The list goes on, with Christophe Waltz, Javier Bardem and Christian Bale showing that a supporting performance can be career defining if it is sufficiently acclaimed; surely true in the case of Harrison’s performance as Han Solo.

Ford’s portrayal of Han Solo within an ensemble cast makes the character’s enduring popularity all the more remarkable. Not only is Han Solo embedded in modern pop culture (Han shot first), he is also widely considered to be the standout character in the Star Wars series alongside Darth Vader. So much so, both Huffington Post and Empire magazine have named Solo as the best character of the entire franchise.

That said, I am willing to admit that there are many people out there who find Dr. Jones to be the more relatable/enjoyable character. However, even the most ardent Indiana Jones fan would likely admit that the two characters are closely matched in public opinion. Thus, the larger platform available to Solo via Star Wars must negate any hypothetical benefit Indiana Jones would receive through his popularity.

In the end, it comes down to the simple premise of; the more you are seen, the more you will be remembered. For that reason, above all else, Han Solo defines Harrison Ford.

References

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=indianajones.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm

www.imdb.com

http://www.empireonline.com/features/30-star-wars-characters/p30

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/24/star-wars-character-rankings_n_6368818.html

Bearodactyl
Debate A

I like how you try and fleshen out the term “career defining role” right off the bat. On repeated reading I’m not fully sold on the remainder of the paragraph though. Simply stating that Indiana Jones did more for his further opportunity than Star Wars, to me at least, isn’t a given. So although it reads away nicely, I’m missing a “why”. Hopefully though, this will be made clear in the remainder of the debate.

The second paragraph is very well written but you spend an awful lot of time in the windup seemingly bigging up Star Wars, and even though you get around to the downside of Ford’s Han Solo role, what stays with me after reading repeatedly is that it indeed WAS a big deal.

The third paragraph in that respect does a lot more for solidifying the clame that Indy was the career defining role, but you experience a “liar, liar” moment in the last sentence when you again big up Star Wars for what seems to be no particular debating reason other than to be unnecessarily honest.

I think the point of a “pecking order” somewhat hits home, though I’m not sure about the WWE themed comparison tactic. Movies aren’t Wrestling, and I can name a TON of movies where leading characters are a lot less praised than their male or female supporting actor.

You then almost hit it fully home with me by pointing out the success of Indiana Jones, but for reasons unknown to me you immediately start the next paragraph pointing out Star Wars was even bigger. Why the repeated self sabotage?

Anyway, it all eventually seems to come down to leading role vs supporting role in this debate. I like the concluding sentence, but I’m not fully convinced. That being said, you haven’t fully lost me either, so I guess the ball’s in M-Diggedy’s court.

M-Diggedy

I’m slightly less impressed by this intro than samizayn’s, and I’ll tell you why. You’re not making an immediate impact. The first two paragraphs in, and all I really know is you’re trying to use logic and reasoning to answer a debate question. You then finally reveal your pick, but 137 words just to reveal a choice is a tad much for me, especially compared to samizayn’s quick opening stance.

The first sentence in what is the main part of your debate, and it must just be me but I don’t really.. get… what you’re saying at first. You talk about two factors that help define an acting career (note: not the same as a career defining ROLE) and then immediately start talking about three criteria right after which is slightly confusing. I do kind of see the connection, but it’s far from hammered home, until I start reading the following parts and it all eventually comes together for me. I end up agreeing with the point you realistically make of “it might not be the bloody knife with fingerprints on it, but it certainly makes it more likely”.

You then do yourself a giant favor by taking on the bread and butter of samizayn’s debate, namely the leading role vs supporting role conundrum. Your examples are spot on, and by the end of this paragraph I’m really starting to lean your way debate wise.

The end of this debate is a bit of a letdown for me unfortunately, in that I don’t see the point of your “negated benefit” argument (What benefit? I’m honestly not sure why you would postulate Indy being the more relatable character. Shades of samizayn’s selfsabotage all over again). And the final sentence somehow takes my “well I guess it IS Han Solo after all” mindset and breaks it down to one (fairly unconvincing on its own) argument, namely “the movie was bigger, more people saw it, therefore that was the part”. I honestly would’ve been more convinced without it, which is a shame.

Final Verdict

Both of these debates seem very convincing at first read, but then upon closer inspection somewhat fail to fully deliver. In the end however, after more than just a few readthroughs, it’s M-Diggedy that convinces me of its premis the most (be happy you added that Ledger/Waltz etc comparison) so I’m going to go with M-Diggedy.

BkB Hulk
samizayn:
This debate had good bits, but it also felt like you strayed away from what your crucial arguments were at times.

You gave criteria that you seemed to be using as crucial to your argument, but the further opportunity point never came back up, and recognition only just reappeared at the close of the debate.

I also thought the paragraph about how big Star Wars was didn’t really serve you well. It kind of put a point forward for Star Wars, but didn’t really do anything for you.

The face of the product argument is probably your strongest, as the other one is decent, but also recognises Star Wars’ strong points in the argument.

The conclusion was solid too, but I think you would have been overall better served by sticking to what seemed to be your original structure.

M-Diggedy:
The stats you used to show Star Wars had a greater reach were okay. I’m not sure it’s entirely convincing, as you would say the reach between the two movies probably doesn’t differ that much, and that most people would certainly be aware of both. They did work for your argument though.

I think what was better was you explained why Jones being the title character wasn’t as important as it could be seen. It doesn’t completely negate your opponent’s point, because it still feels like a factor and this is all purely opinion-based, but it does provide a counter.

I wasn’t overly convinced by this debate either – although you tried to eliminate opinion, it’s still very hard to factually back up what you’re saying, and the amount grossed doesn’t really seem to directly relate to whether something is ‘career defining’ when both films have such reach. This was the main premise of your argument too.


Not overly convinced either way, but samizayn narrowly wins for me on the back of their recognition argument.

Anark
samizayn
I liked that you established the wider indicators of a career-defining role, “…recognition, legitimacy and further opportunity are equally as important in determining which roles have been pivotal and career defining…” but you don’t really do enough in the rest of your debate to justify Jones over Solo according to these indicators. The first one you mention is also an issue, recognition, as there’s no way Ford would have got the Jones role had he not previously played Solo.

Your second paragraph didn’t really help your stance in any way. It began well and with a potential argument that could have had huge impact in this match (that an actor’s first big role is hard to move on from, but Ford managed it) but you don’t actually tie this in to Ford managing to escape the Solo role via his efforts in the Jones films. You shine a little light on the possible negatives the Star Wars fandom can bring, but that doesn’t really help your stance, and it shows the Star Wars role had more cultural impact if anything.

The third paragraph again lingers on issues which don’t really advance your case all that much. Sure, the Indiana Jones franchise is one of the best and Ford had a lot to do with that, but it’s not more successful than the Star Wars franchise which Ford also had a lot to do with. I don’t really see the relevancy to your stance in bringing this particular point up. Where you could have gone with this paragraph, and you very nearly did go, was to show how much input Ford had with both roles, assuming he had much more influence on the Jones character than he did on the Solo character. You just mention it in an off-hand manner though without backing it up with further information regarding his input into both characters.

Your next point is good, though now I feel like the previous two paragraphs were just a set-up for this point about Solo being a secondary character to Jones’ main character. It’s a good point, but you took a long time to make it. In fact, it’s pretty much the only argument you make, that Ford was the leading man in the Indiana films and thus that’s why it’s his most defining role. It’s a very good argument but I can think of so many counters to it already (lead roles do not always define an actor, and supporting roles often steal the show regardless of billing order, etc), though it’s up to your opponent to make them.

The debate was a good read though, it just could have done with a lot more focus on supporting arguments rather than setting of the scene and supplementary information that is ultimately irrelevant to your chosen stance, which was all the first half of your debate consisted of. Really good effort though, you just need to focus on including more relevant arguments that back up your stance.

M-Diggedy
Quick note before I get into it, with only 800 words to put your arguments across, I felt that your opening paragraph was a complete waste. It didn’t advance your stance or even declare your stance. It was a nice paragraph, don’t get me wrong, but you would have been better served to get your stance declared earlier allowing you to beef up an argument with additional information or even include an extra argument supporting your stance. Having said all that, it didn't damage you this time as your opponent left their debate open to an attack you executed perfectly.

Your main argument is that Star Wars is the bigger franchise and thus is the more defining role, and this debate would have been a lot harder to decide on if you had left it at that. However you did include some additional arguments, including a sexy counter for your opponent’s only argument of note.

Your definition of how to define an actor’s career was a bit wishy-washy in so far as it didn’t make it very clear what the defining factors were. “…having the opportunity to influence the masses…” is fairly obvious I suppose but “…as well as how that opportunity is used.” Doesn’t really tell me a lot. Do you mean how well the actor acted once given the opportunity to influence the masses? How well the PR company promoted the movie? It’s not a major issue as your debate really takes off after this, but it stuck out to me as a little underwhelming and might have been punished by an opponent with a wider variety of arguments than yours had.

The three criteria section was pretty good, laying out exactly how much more successful the three Star Wars films were to the four Jones films was fine, but was also well supplemented by the additional information regarding viewer ratings and review ratio. It painted a grander picture of Star Wars’ impact rather than just the money made at the box office (which, as we know these days, is not undeniable as an indicator of quality). You then tie in this information with your original definition of what defines an actor’s career which is something your opponent didn’t quite manage.

I chuckled heartily at your next paragraph, beginning with, “At this stage, I suspect many people would counter that Indiana Jones is the titular (and most prominent) character whereas Han Solo is not.” Because that’s exactly what your opponent did. You picked pretty much the perfect example of a supporting role that can define an actor’s career above their lead roles with Heath Ledger. Your next point about Ford shining brightest among an ensemble cast was also spot on.

This was pretty good overall, though had a few dodgy moments that I mentioned. Not a lot of criticism to make as you cut off your opponent’s main argument and surrounded it with multiple arguments which he failed to counter. Good job.

VERDICT
The winner is M-Diggedy. To summarise reasons stated already, samizayn only really offered one argument supporting their stance while samizayn countered it perfectly and added a few extra uncountered arguments on top for good measure.

Winner via Split Decision - M-Diggedy

TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Qualifying Match
PoyPoy14 vs MichaelDD vs sharkboy22 vs Soul Cat

Which Wrestlemania main event was better, Lesnar vs Reigns @ 31 or Undertaker vs Edge @ 24?

sharkboy22
Although they are both great matches, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns was a better main event than Edge vs The Undertaker.

Going into Wrestlemania 31, there was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding Reigns/Lesnar. Many questioned whether the match would have exposed Reigns’ limited abilities as a worker and if he was just too green to hang with Lesnar. Furthermore, the lack of a proper build really hurt it and many felt as if Roman Reigns did not deserve the spot. Needless to say, the match super exceeded expectations and was worked so well that Roman’s greenness was a non-issue. The end result was a match that made both opponents look very strong and arguably one of the best Wrestlemania main events of all time.

With Taker/Edge, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone that these two would have knocked it out the park. However, this match didn’t have the aura surrounding it like Reigns/Lesnar did. While one may argue that, in addition to it being a World Title match, the Undertaker’s (at the time) undefeated streak is more than enough to enthrall an audience, their match just did not boast the uniqueness of a modern-day Brock Lesnar match.

A substantial portion of Edge/Taker was Edge wearing down the Undertaker. This was your basic, but fantastically executed, wrestling match. The fact that Edge was able to do so much damage to ‘The Deadman’ made the Undertaker seem, well, mortal. The aura of the Phenom was slowly chipped away at. Lesnar, on the other hand, was just a bad-ass, suplexing, beat the fuck out of you war machine. The reason why a Lesnar match feels so special is because he is able to maintain this image of badassery throughout the entire match. Even when he’s getting his ass handed to him!

Once the Undertaker started to make a comeback the match was pretty much 50/50 as the two went back and forth. Reigns, however, had to work for a comeback. He had to throw everything at him and when he did, it still couldn’t knock him down (once again Lesnar maintains that aura about him). Busting Lesnar open wasn’t enough to get the Beast wobbling. Three superman punches and two spears later and the Beast was still moving. It was such a display of brute tenacity that Reigns’ offense is taking just as much out of him as it does Lesnar. Lesnar/Reigns had such a unique feel to it whereas Taker/Edge was worked like your typical WWE main event- a la trading punches.

Perhaps the one knock against Lesnar/Reigns is that it’s near-falls, while heart stopping, were a bit unrealistic. Three F-5s in ten miniutes (especially when the third was preceded by two German suplexes) was overkill. In fact, it’s the one thing that Edge/Taker may have done better than Lesnar/Reigns. While at no time, except for the shenanigans at the end, did it feel like Undertaker’s streak was in jeopardy, the near-falls were at least believable. There would be some sort of a pause after hitting a signature move, adding credibility to the kick-outs. Also, there was a gradual build rather just spamming finishers. The first fall occurred because of neckbreaker, the next by an Edgecution and the last by a streak-threatening spear.

However, the belief that the streak might actually end is needed throughout an entire Undertaker Wrestlemania match for it to really be special (as exhibited in the following year against HBK). Every near-fall needs to serve as a constant a reminder that there is something greater on the line than the title or a mere loss. The fact that this match only had one true moment really brings it down.

Roman Reigns kicking out of two Germans and an F-5 in rapid succession may have been unbelievable but it is easily forgiven. It made Reigns look strong plus he needed something to balance out the immunity Lesnar would have had for his offense later on in the match. It also gave the few Roman Reigns fans in attendance hope that he stood some chance.

In terms of the finish, Lesnar/Reigns is no doubt one of the most memorable Wrestlemania endings of all time. This match saw the very first Money In The Bank cash-in at a Wrestlemania. It was a finish that many did not see coming and those that had a hunch were dubious about it actually happening. Undertaker catching Edge in the Gogoplata may have gotten a huge pop, but the interactions among Lesnar, Reigns and Rollins was just sheer chaos, excitement and unpredictability.

In the end, Taker/Edge simply marks the Undertaker’s 16th victim at a Wrestlemania. Lesnar/Reigns is a milestone in the company’s history.

PoyPoy14
To decide which Wretlemania main event was better; Undertaker vs Edge or Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns, you must first explore what criteria a main event match on the biggest show of the year should be judged on. The three main categories are:


  • Star power
  • Entertainment value
  • Match quality


After carefully considering each of the above criteria, it becomes apparent that Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 31 is the better main event. Both were very good for different reasons, but Lesnar/Reigns beats its counterpart in two of the three listed criteria, as well as more than holding its own in the third.

Star Power

Both matches were similar in that they had one established star facing somebody participating in their first Wrestlemania main event in an attempt to create a new star. Whilst Undertaker was the biggest star in any of the matches, due to being around for so long and being a household name around the world, Brock Lesnar pushes him close. Lesnar's star is so bright following his time in UFC, that WWE put their World Heavyweight Title on him despite knowing that the champion wouldn't appear on the majority of their shows. Even though he has only been around for a fraction of the time Undertaker has, Lesnar certainly rivals him in terms of name value.

Where the Wrestlemania 24 match 'edges' this category is when comparing Edge and Reigns. Despite being in his first Wrestlemania main event, Edge was already a legitimate main event calibre superstar and had spent years earning his reputation. In contrast, Reigns was thrown into the main event after just two singles matches on PPV. He certainly hadn't proved himself deserving of a match of this magnitude and the fans made that opinion known. Therefore, the win in this category has to go to Edge/Undertaker.

Entertainment Value

The problem with Undertaker being involved in a Wrestlemania match is the predictability of the outcome (especially in 2008, when Undertaker was 15-0) which hurts the entertainment value of the match. To illustrate this point, the crowd struggled to get into this match and only became invested towards the end, when the match transitioned into its high spots. Compare that to Lesnar/Reigns and the crowd were emotionally invested from the start because the result was always in doubt. As soon as Lesnar announced that he'd re-signed with WWE, the result was up in the air.

Predictability is hard to overcome because knowing who's going to win makes it hard to suspend your disbelief. If you conpare the reactions of the crowd, particularly at the end then you'll see a marked difference. Although happy to see Undertaker win, the pop was weak because everybody knew it was coming. In contrast, when Rollins pinned Reigns, the crowd gave such an big, organic reaction that many spectators were jumping around in celebration. The investment into that match by the fans gives Lesnar/Reigns a massive win in this category.

Match Quality

The match quality in both of these bouts was very high and both told very different stories. Undertaker/Edge was that of Edge being one step ahead of Undertaker until his one, fatal mistake. Lesnar/Reigns was that of Reigns never saying die in the face of a hellacious beating by the beast.

It's important to consider that Undertaker/Edge got 7 minutes more than Lesnar/Reigns to tell their story and didn't do anything with that extra time to make their match better than Lesnar/Reigns. The start was slow and the crowd really struggled to get into it until the end. With the predictability factor, it was really important that they counteract it by having multiple spots that created doubt and suspended the crowd's disbelief. Unfortunately, this wasn't accomplished and even after a spear, the crowd failed to get excited as kicking out of at least one finisher each is basically mandatory at Wrestlemania.

Lesnar/Reigns took the crowd on a rollercoaster and had them in the palm of their hands for the duration. It first looked like Lesnar would squash Reigns, only for Reigns to make his comeback and have most of the crowd sure that his win was inevitable, drawing deafening boos. Add the shocking ending to that and Lesnar/Reigns emerges the clear winner in this category due to accomplishing more with their match in a much shorter amount of time.

Conclusion

Lesnar/Reigns takes two of the three categories and a comfortable victory in this contest. Whilst both certainly lived up to being the main event of Wrestlemania, Lesnar/Reigns succeeded in getting the crowd emotionally invested on a much greater scale. This, combined with having a better match in a shorter amount of time, seals Lesnar/Reigns as the greater Wrestlemania main event.

MichaelDD
Ever since I was a little jimmy I had two favourite guys, Edge and The Undertaker. But it’s clear to anybody when looking past fandoms that Lesnar vs Reigns was the better of the two of these matches.

Firstly let’s look at these matches from a technical standpoint. Undertaker vs Edge was a great back and forth match including many false finishes, lots of great spots, a ref spot and even interference by the edge heads.

Lesnar vs Reigns on the other hand was 80% one sided the entire time with Lesnar absolutely dominating Roman until the near final moments where Roman finally managed to startle the beast and get him on the ropes.

Now sure Taker hit all his trademarked spots in his match that always deliver, but I’d give match quality wise to Roman and Brock. It was filled with absolute dominance from Brock delivering suplex after suplex after suplex only for Roman to shock Brock and come back swinging and get him shook. It was a unique style beat down match that was reminiscent of the match Brock and Cena had at SummerSlam, but this time it included a comeback that actually made you think, is Roman going to do it?

Next let’s look at storytelling.

Taker and Edge’s story was pretty much a streak match, can Edge end the undefeated streak of The Undertaker? There was also the added bit of information that Taker had never beaten Edge in a match. But this was never really a good example to get us thinking that Edge may end the streak.

Their major documented match at Armageddon didn’t even have a clean ending. The only reason Edge actually won the match was due to using heel tactics such as interference and weapons. So this never really proved that Taker couldn’t beat Edge in the first place so it was a ridiculous selling point. Not to mention it also took Edge cashing in his Money in the Bank to originally beat Taker for his belt.

There’s also something very integral to this matches story. The streak arguably didn’t become actually important until the following year where Shawn Michaels targeted The Undertaker in attempt to end his streak. Up until this point The Streak was mentioned in the way that Edge talked about ending it, but it was never glorified in such a way until Shawn Michaels stepped up to try and end the streak.

Moving on let’s look at Brock vs Roman.

This story for this match was that Brock Lesnar after defeating The Undertaker he’d become an unstoppable killing machine. He tore through opponents such as John cena crushing him like he was The Hurricane, something that’d never been done before nor was expected.

This coupled with his dominant victory over Taker set the tone for Lesnar’s year where devastated anybody that stood in his way. Until one man stepped up claiming “I can and I will” This man was Roman Reigns. Unfortunately Roman wasn’t booked completely dominant like he should have been but a Rumble victory paired with a clean victory over Daniel Bryan at least brought the man some credibility.

Their lead up to the match wasn’t booked as greatly as it could have been but from a storyline perspective the match absolutely delivered. You had the beast incarnate dominating, suplexing, f5ing, and simply besting Roman all throughout the match. But Roman Reigns never gave up; he kept getting back up no matter what and even smiled as Brock beat him down.

This all lead up to the matches climax where we’d see roman take advantage of the ring post and send Brock hurdling head first into it busting him clean open. From here we could see Brock was shook, he was out of it and didn’t know what hit him. This was Roman’s moment and he ceased it. Superman Punch and another and another all to follow up with multiple spears, only for Brock to kick out.

Both men left bruised and lifeless on the mat only for the twist in our tale, Seth Rollins.

Seth’s association in this match is what put this over the edge as great storytelling. You had two men absolutely decimate each other in the middle of that ring only for the slimy corporate heel to come down and take away everything Roman earned. Not to mention through this it kept everyone looking strong where as Edge and Taker only really made Taker look strong in victory and Edge weak, as he couldn’t win even with interference and a shot with the camera.

As much as I dislike Roman, he and Brock hands down had the better match, believe that.

Soul Cat

The Undertaker vs. Edge at Wrestlemania 24 is a better main event than Lesnar vs. Reigns at Wrestlemania 31.

What makes a good main event? It starts with the story behind it. The buildup is as important as the match itself, and the feud between The Undertaker and Edge was beautifully crafted.

THE BUILDUP

It had months of progression, bitter hatred, and it was filled with great matches. It was a long journey that ultimately led to these two at Wrestlemania: Edge cashed in his Money in the Bank briefcase, then suffered an injury, forcing him to relinquish the title, but later in a surprise return, he assaulted The Undertaker when Taker was seemingly about to recapture the World Heavyweight Championship. Edge regained the title at Armageddon, and The Undertaker won in an Elimination Chamber match, granting him an opportunity at the title which culminated with these two finally facing off at Wrestlemania. The intrigue was there. Edge had never lost at Wrestlemania in a singles match much like The Undertaker, and it was for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was a must see main event.

THE MATCH

They also delivered in the ring with not only a good technical bout, but it featured a well-told story. This match humanized The Undertaker. It showed The Undertaker struggle against Edge. Edge countered him repeatedly, reversing finisher attempts, later bashing him with a camera, and having Ryder and Hawkins interfere to gain the upper hand. On the grandest stage of them all, The Undertaker felt vulnerable, and there was an honest danger of him finally losing. All of these small aspects contributed to the bigger picture. It had multiple layers that gave the spectacle a more complete experience compared to the one dimensional storytelling in the Lesnar/Reigns main event.

LESNAR vs. REIGNS

Now Lesnar vs. Reigns is an entirely different beast. The buildup was hollow because Lesnar rarely showed, and when he did, he merely stood tall in the ring, basking in Heyman's praises and recycled promos. There was no animosity. Even Reigns only had a few, short promos directed at the champion. The men involved had two confrontations: the first being on Raw following the Royal Rumble and a tug-o-war for the championship before Wrestlemania. It was poorly written on all fronts. Sure, Reigns won the Rumble, and Lesnar was champion. But that's it? In the remaining few weeks, Reigns' heritage entered the equation, and we learned he was doing all this for his family. It honestly felt like that angle was thrown in to spark the feud, but there just wasn't any fire at that point. The buildup wasn't in the same realm as Undertaker/Edge. Nothing really happened.

The Road to Wrestlemania for Edge and Roman Reigns was much different. Edge was white hot in this feud with The Undertaker, while Reigns had dwindling reactions because of the poor booking throughout his feud with Lesnar. Edge had already solidified himself as a main event talent, but Reigns was being presented in short segments mostly in the midcard. He was booked dominantly, but it was inconsistent due to the lack of spotlight he received. It never felt like a big time matchup while Taker/Edge did.

The match itself was entertaining, sure, but it was mostly a one sided affair compared to the back and forth nature of the aforementioned Undertaker/Edge main event. Lesnar threw Reigns across the ring viciously, and the challenger laughed at his assault, garnering sympathy and showing he can take whatever the champion dishes at him. It was a good story. It accomplished that much. The most memorable moment of the match though was Seth Rollins cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase, and that had nothing to do with the feud between Lesnar and Reigns. The question asks whether or not Lesnar vs. Reigns was a better main event, and the moment Rollins cashed in, it stopped being Lesnar vs. Reigns, and it became a triple threat.

IN CLOSING

Looking at everything, it's apparent that the main event between Edge and The Undertaker was simply better. It was built for months with title changes, attacks, and injuries, and when they clashed, it was intense with back and forth action and moments of doubt for The Deadman. It had it all. Lesnar/Reigns had a shoddy buildup, but the match told a great story. It wasn't a bad main event by any means, but everything it did, Undertaker/Edge did it better.
Seabs
Okaaaaaaaaaaaay. If MichaelDD and Soul Cat are both typing out Lesnar vs Reigns then sharkboy22 and PoyPoy14 should also. Irrespective of if you agree or not it's unfair on the ones who do type it out properly for obvious reasons.

sharkboy22 - Your 2nd paragraph very likely could have been cut entirely without losing anything from your debate. Read your debate back and if there's even just a line that you don't feel would take away from your argument for your stance if you deleted it then take it out and swap it with someone with does, for example introducing a new but short supporting argument or expanding more on something that is an argument. Unless you were arguing that the fact that Lesnar/Reigns exceeded expectations made it better (you didn't and it would be silly to do so anyway) then this paragraph didn't add anything to your overall debate. Aura argument is good and on point. 5th paragraph was really good at illustrating the benefit that Brock's unique aura and style brought to Lesnar/Reigns. Could have done with a tad more expansion on why "Taker/Edge was worked like your typical WWE main event- a la trading punches." such as recalling specific spots. Bringing up counters is fine as long as you actually counter them effectively. I didn't feel that you countered the near falls argument you raised which was a definite knock on your debate. The 6th paragraph is pretty much just conceding defeat on that argument and then inadvertently arguing for the opposing stance. In the following 2 paragraphs you do a better job at it but it didn't feel strong enough relative to how much you talked it up in Taker/Edge's favour beforehand. I guess don't be so complimentary to the counter and just get straight into countering like you did after. Actual counter was fine. Again a few examples illustrating the big pots that the crowd didn't truly buy and the one(s) they did in Taker/Edge would have helped. When you're comparing specific matches then referring to specific spots is usually very helpful for your debate. 3rd to last paragraph is a very good defence of the finisher spamming though. I think adding that it wasn't even that ad by modern WWE standards where kicking out of 1 finisher is just the norm for any PPV match even in the opener now and how Brock has spammed F5s against Cena, Hunter and Taker before so relative to the era it wasn't all that much overkill. Final point about the finish to Lesnar/Reigns being better was a good argument to end on but it did need about another short paragraph of expansion and is why that 2nd paragraph cost you. Go into why the finish was better from both an entertainment/spot POV and a booking POV. Taker/Edge was a good finish in terms of the spot but Lesnar/Reigns had a much tougher and complex finish that managed to make all 3 guys look great when it seemed impossible for both Lesnar and Reigns to come out of that match strong beforehand. The bulk of this is good. Just be careful wasting word count on paragraphs that don't add to your argument and don't give too much credit to the opposing stance and just go straight to countering the counter argument.

PoyPoy14 - I like that you laid out a criteria for your stance but I'd also like to see explanation for why they're relevant, especially star power. Why is so star power so important in determining the better main event? Not to toot my own horn here (but toot toot anyway) but look at how I laid out pleasing UFC as one of my criterion for my Rousey debate but then also explained why keeping UFC happy is needed. Do something like that with your criteria. Only needs to be a brief sentence or two but when you have one that maybe raises an eyebrow then it's good to have, as was the case with star power here. Using up so much of your word count to essentially argue for the opposing stance was a mistake imo. It's fine to argue Lesnar/Reigns wins in 2/3 so wins overall but spend the majority of your debate arguing for the 2 it wins. It was even more odd because I don't really think star power is relevant here or at least not very relevant. You just ended up spending too long talking up the opposing stance. Entertainment value was ok. You needed some specific spots to refer too throughout most of it though to back up your claims and help you illustrate your point better. Match quality part was better. I think wording your criteria better could have helped you. You say match quality but that's super vague and you focus on which match was essentially more unique so using which match was more memorable might have been better and imo would have made more of an impression on your debate wording it like that. Similarly rewording entertainment value to fan involvement and then you can argue their importance a bit easier too imo. Point about Lesnar/Reigns being as effective in much less time was really good I thought. As is the argument for the unpredictability of Lesnar/Reigns. I think you could do with better explanation and evidence that Taker/Edge didn't have these factors as much as you do rather just state that they don't than prove that they don't. The finisher point I wasn't sure on though as finishers were protected much better at the time of Taker/Edge and you don't really show that Lesnar/Reigns were able to do the opposite. The extra lack of expansion needed here is where using so much of your word count arguing for a factor against your stance cost you. A good point to make about the finishers may have been that Lesnar/Reigns got people to buy into the finisher kickouts better EVEN in an era where they're so poorly protected and the norm is for the first finisher to never win much more so than it was at the time of Taker/Edge. Not sure about 2/3 being a "comfortable victory". Your arguments for your pick are generally strong, just lacking some specific evidence to really bolster them. Ultimately though they were still thin due to how long you spent arguing for the opposing stance essentially.

MichaelDD - You're making it tough for yourself when you only focus on one factor which was storytelling. Obviously there's more factors here to consider and with 800 words you should be able to touch on 3 or at least 2 in great detail. You mention the technical standpoint but you don't argue it very well and it's in part down to not having the word count to do it justice. You spent way too much of your word count just on storytelling so you really need to try and be more concise with your wording as you'll need to do that to compete with the stronger debates as it allows them to get in more arguments and likely beat you just on pure quantity of arguments if you're near quality wise. Technical part wasn't good tbh. You just state what happened in each rather than specific reasons why Lesnar/Reigns was better. Additionally, you also don't show why Taker/Edge paled in comparison too it. In fact everything you say about Taker/Edge is positive and you only talk about both matches in individual context's, not as a comparison. Storytelling part is better but it really should be given the word count disparity. It was good but it definitely wasn't "I can rest my entire stance on this one factor" good. You talk a lot about the pre-match build but why is that a factor in deciding the better match? Does that factor once the bell starts? I'm not saying it does or doesn't but a reason why it does would have helped the importance of them points. For example your point about Edge not beating Taker clean is valid but is that countered if they do a convincing job selling the story within the match? You never mention how well they told that story within the match which was odd. The 3rd paragraph of this part I was a bit so what at. You don't really link it to a knock on Taker/Edge, you just state something. A better approach would have been arguing that the story they told didn't have the fans as emotionally invested. Then you have a reason for arguing your pick over that one. The first 2 paragraphs of the Brock/Reigns part I would have cut as they're covered imo by the first line of the next paragraph when you say despite that they still told an engaging story within the confines of the match. You finish it off well and do a good job arguing for your stance. I'm not really convinced you argued it at the expense of Taker/Edge enough though. Point about the finish being great booking for all 3 guys is strong. I think you undersold the good Taker/Edge did to validate Edge as a legit top guy even in defeat but the argument that one finish worked better works and is the peak of your debate as you actually argue not only a benefit of Lesnar/Reigns but you also do it at the expense of Taker/Edge. That's what you need to do more in direct comparison debates like this one. Overall though you just don't have enough to compete here because of the poor use of your word count.

Soul Cat - You really need to explain why "The buildup is as important as the match itself," as it's a big part of your stance. Like with an argument you need to argue why with your criteria rather than just stating. Something all 4 of you missed out on was how the question was worded as main event rather than match. You could argue that the wording of main event thus includes more than just what happened bell to bell. Sadly though none of you actually argued that and even those who assumed it didn't state why. The buildup part is a bit too much about what happened without arguing how it was effective. I get that some of that is needed with an argument like this but you needed to at the end be able to show how it was effective. For example you argued it created intrigue in the outcome of the match (something that was definitely there for Lesnar/Reigns too) but you needed more of that. Similar with the next part albeit done better. Here you needed some evidence from the match to prove your points such as if the crowd were truly invested in the near falls. This half was pretty decent but needed some more evidence to back it up. The first paragraph of your Lesnar/Reigns dismissal really hurts from you not saying why the build up is important. For a factor you focus on so much that the importance of isn't a given this was essential. You do do a good job directly comparing both picks so that's great. I thought you totally undersold the story within the match though and didn't really have a counter for the story that Brock and Reigns told together which was one of the best parts of that match. I thought "The most memorable moment of the match though was Seth Rollins cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase, and that had nothing to do with the feud between Lesnar and Reigns. The question asks whether or not Lesnar vs. Reigns was a better main event, and the moment Rollins cashed in, it stopped being Lesnar vs. Reigns, and it became a triple threat." was really clutching at straws personally. You ask nearly anyone who watched that match and they include the cash in as part of Lesnar/Reigns. Extra so too when you seemingly take the main event approach rather than the bell to bell match approach but you then want to stop directly when Lesnar/Reigns stops. You do a good job arguing that Taker/Edge had a better build but less so that the match itself was better and at the end of the day the match is a big part of "the main event" even if you want to argue that the wording of the question includes more than just the match. On a more positive note though you probably make the best effort at directly comparing the two matches and arguing for one but also at the expense of the other.

This is tough. Neither debate really broke out in front and all of them had some positives going for them. sharkboy22's was the debate with more positives and far less/less important weaknesses.

Winner - sharkboy22

Rigby2
sharkboy22
---
You're sabotaging yourself. The purpose of a debate is to make the single most convincing argument you can formulate in favor of your position, leaving no doubt that your argument is infallible, so why are you making a case for Edge/Undertaker in several paragraphs here? A cursory nod to E/U's merits can fit in your debate, but you need to make it UNDENIABLE that Lesnar/Reigns is better, and playing up to E/U's strengths is providing plausible deniability.

Furthermore, you constantly expose weaknesses in R/L that don't need to be brought up unless you're going to provide a counterargument. Yes, R/L had bad build, you mention this, but what people will remember down the line isn't necessarily the build, it's the storyline presented in the match itself. That's how you bring up a valid weakness of R/L while countering it. Right now, you're drawing attention to a weakness not only in the match, but in your debate.

The intro would've been better suited if it introduced your key arguments, which were basically the aura/uniqueness and memorability/significance of the match. I appreciated the point that Undertaker looked so weak as to chip away at his aura, and comparing it to Lesnar's once-in-a-lifetime factor made sense, but your explanation that Lesnar is special because of his image as a badass fell rather flat. Heyman selling the urgency of Lesnar getting his ass kicked is a bigger factor, but you literally never mention Heyman. That's an unforgivable oversight.

The bit about Reigns' brute tenacity was a well-phrased point, but you spent a lot of words getting across that two-word phrase. Brevity is key. The argument about the MITB cash-in being historic was undersold by not mentioning that it kept both competitors strong while solidifying Rollins as a permanent main event fixture in the WWE.

A well-intentioned effort, but you need to put your energy into getting over your position. I should come out of this gawking at the idea that E/U was the better match, but you made that impossible for me. That's unacceptable.
---

PoyPoy14
---
I don't understand why the criteria had to be introduced first. It didn't. That was a waste of words tbh. Nit-picking, but words are a value currency in a debate.

Undertaker is a more recognizable name, but Lesnar could easily be argued a bigger draw, which is more valuable in terms of star power (which you should have done, tbh). Also, if you're going to pick criteria where you have to give that category to the match you're arguing against, maybe it's not a good idea to lead off with this category, or use it at all, for that matter.

You have fine evidence for the unpredictability of R/L over E/U, but the argument is unfocused and doesn't really get "entertainment value" across. The booking of the match and the performance of Heyman/Lesnar made the match a thrill to watch. If there's no investment in the wrestlers or the storyline, it doesn't matter how unpredictable the match may be. You mention investment, but you never analyze the investment from one to the next, when that would've been a better focal point than unpredictability.

The match quality argument felt like you tread ground over previous arguments, spending plenty words in the process. Yes, E/U was predictable, but did the action of the match live up to the athletic standards of theatrical confrontations of Wrestlemanias past? You could have said a lot about the ineffectiveness to craft a memorable, compelling story in this match. You did do a fine job talking up L/R though.

You had three main points, the first went against L/R, the second was mildly fleshed out, and the third tread a lot of ground from point two. You missed numerous aspects of both matches that would've worked in your favor, such as Heyman's phenomenal role, "suplex city, bitch", the ability of L/R to solidify a massive star and have longer lasting positive effects on the WWE, and the inability of E/U to take the build for the match and tell it through the match itself.
---

MichaelDD
---
First off, you give Lesnar/Reigns the point for the technical standpoint, but you're mainly discussing the booking of the match. I understand that wrestling terms can easily be confused when there's no wrestling term dictionary and it's transmitted through forum posts, but if you should get some of these sorted out for debate purposes. I'll be a little forgiving though, since the essential facts are more important than the arbitrary semantics.

You have a decent point about the booking, but you struggle to make it into an argument. Edge/Undertaker had a lot of gimmickry, but what of it? Tell me impact that has on the match's quality. Is it contrived and overbooked? Was it an intriguing struggle between the ultimate opportunist and the insurmountable force of the Dead Man? You might not be able to give it the most linguistic flair, but when you state the facts of how E/U was booked, draw it back to your central argument. That's necessary for a comparison debate. You did this for R/L, although not to the best effect.

The point about E/U's match at Armageddon was completely impotent. As you mention, Edge tried using similar tactics at Wrestlemania to score the victory, as he's expected to do, so mentioning it was a good plot point on WWE's part. Also, the streak was the focal point of Undertaker's Wrestlematch with Orton three years prior. You were misinformed on that point. Then you waste plenty words going over the backstory and plainly stating the facts of L/R's match. It's so many words for no argumentative effect. Brevity, please.

You're not here to tell me what happened, you're here to pick out key reasons why this was the better match, and then focus only on the elements of the match that back up that point.

When you do get to the point, Rollins' association in the match, you emphasized something other debates sort of overlooked. If only you looked at the long-term effects of Rollins getting involved and cementing him in the upper echelon of the WWE's contemporary main event scene, whereas E/U have no massive implications beyond that one night.

A rough effort, meandering for too long on the backstory of R/L, but you've got the basics of a debate down. As a final take away, to keep your arguments from getting lost in a sea of explanations, utilize the bold function. Bold key takeaway sentences, italicize key terms, etc. It'll only help your debates. Examine how Andre and other great debaters like Seabs and Anark use these techniques.
---

Soul Cat
---
Ambitious effort, taking up Edge/Undertaker as the better match, I just wish you had made a better case for such an interesting choice. Many plot points you mention in E/U's build-up fails to build much of an argument, and you don't have the storytelling down to make out to be as interesting as it was. You didn't even mention Undertaker nearly crippling Edge's love interest! You should have gone straight into comparing this to Reigns/Lesnar's build-up instead of going into the match too, to touch upon the differences while that information is still fresh instead of putting it off.

I take great issue with you calling Heyman's promos recycled when he constantly approached the dynamic from multiple angles, belittling Daniel Bryan, insulting Reigns' family, his dramatic declaration that you must break into Lesnar's home, claim his wife, his food, and his child in order to win. He had memorable lines week in and out. Poorly written on all fronts? You're either being disingenuous, which is a big mistake, or you're exposing yourself as a poor measure of quality. Big misstep. However, "hollow" was the right word to describe it with so few Lesnar/Reigns confrontations.

Then you compare Edge to Reigns, but why? Edge was the heel champion, Reigns was the babyface contender. This comparison is completely backwards. Reigns wasn't booked very strongly either, losing to both Big Show and Rollins in the build, who weren't even involved in the main event build. I also don't buy that everything after Rollins entered the picture can't be factored in. A new competitor entered the match, changes have been made to a match during the match in the WWE, but R/L didn't end once Rollins involved himself in the match. That aside, you didn't bring much to the table to show it was weaker than E/, the whole purpose of the debate.

Awkwardly put together debate that didn't do enough to compare the matches and reach a well-justified conclusion.
---

Decision
---
No debate was particularly strong, while MichaelDD and Soul Cat were particularly weak. The most disappointing aspect was that every debate neglected the impact that came out of the match instead of the match itself and its build. Coming down to sharkboy22 and PoyPoy14, sharkboy22 has a notable edge in that while it argues in favor of the match it's supposed to be arguing against, at least it didn't give one of its main points to Edge/Undertaker. sharkboy22 wins.

Curry
sharkboy22

Couldn't ask for a more clear statement of stance, clean start.

Your first main section, raising points about the uncertainty of Reigns/Lesnar and the expectiatons being exceeded is accurate but you needed to follow this with why it makes for a better main event than a predictably good Edge/Undertaker match. Thankfully you followed this quickly with the key point of a unique match, setting the Reigns/Lesnar match apart from the standard WWE match and went on to expand on this well in your 4th paragraph.

“This was your basic, but fantastically executed, wrestling match.” would seem to contradict with “The aura of the Phenom was slowly chipped away at “. This was a story, as Soul Cat pointed out of The inhuman phenom being humanised by a foe who could counter him at every turn, bringing a different dimension to the Undertaker's streak.

I was a bit confused on first reading by your near-falls section as it seemed like an overly large argument against yourself. Even once I'd read on to the good rebuttal that the near-falls need to feel genuinely near in a streak match, I feel you could've cut this section down a bit rather than spending ~15% of your wordcount to define a counterargument. Nevertheless, this point was well made.

Your last paragraph emphasising the importance of unpredictability, a first-ever mania cash-in and the effect these had on the crowd compared to an inevitable Undertaker victory was strong and read almost like a sensationalised conclusion to an article designed to convince readers to watch the match. Follow this with a black/white, dismissive/laudatory contrast in your final conclusion and you have a very good finish to a good debate.

PoyPoy14

This is a very good opening, straight to the point and it sets up your debate well with the clear criteria. However, I feel you backed yourself into a corner by bringing up the star power as one of your three main points.

When I saw your criteria I was wondering if you'd try and somehow argue that Reigns/Lesnar had more star power or if you'd try to backpedal a bit and skim that point. Dedicating ~25% of your debate to a point that you, by your own admission, goes against your stance. I don't want to discourage bringing up arguments against your stance but I'd only look to do that when I could then go on to counter them. Spending that many words arguing against yourself without any real rebuttal really hurt this debate for me.

Things pick up massively for your Entertainment Value section, which was very well done. Hammering home the genuine uncertainty of the outcome in the Reigns/Lesnar match which was only amplified by Lesnar's public contract announcement (which you were the only debater to mention) was great. I could have done with a little more on Rollins' part in the match but the comparison of reactions to the finishes was nice.

Your Match Quality section was again good, in particular the second paragraph. Time is an important factor and when watching the matches you notice those extra seven minutes, especially in the very slow build. Coming back again to the overpredictability of Edge/Undertaker and coupling it with the lack of realistic moments where the streak could have been over reinforces what became your central concern of the lack of entertainment value in the match.

A simple conclusion rounds of a good debate, but one which could have been a great debate without the Star Power argument. Outside of that section there are many positives to take and a lot of well made points.

MichaelDD

I like the simple start launching right into the stance and your first major point. Despite the odd word choice in calling the match styles “unique” yet “reminiscent of...” this was a very good point to bring up,

I'm not sure about your analysis of the story behind the Undertaker/Edge match. Reducing the story to nothing more than a streak match with the added tit-bit of Undertaker never having beaten Edge might help your stance but it can be countered by an effective look at the story behind the match like Soul Cat's “The Match” section could quite easily counter this point. Though you do go on to give a good summary of why Undertaker never having beaten Edge wasn't a huge deal, calling the streak unimportant at the point of Wrestlemania 24 doesn't work that well given that it was shortly after the release of Undertaker's 15-0 DVD. Yes the match with Michaels might have pushed it to another level but “The Streak” was well and truly “The Streak” by this point.

While I wasn't a huge fan of the dismissal of Undertaker/Edge's story, I felt your section on the storyline for Lesnar/Reigns was much stronger. You did a good job in quickly covering the idea that a lacklustre buildup was quickly overshadowed by the overall storyline of the match; The unstoppable force against against the young upstart who just won't quit, taking the beating and biding his time for the moment to strike.

A point I'd make about a few of the parts of this debate is that it feels like you've been telling me about the matches too much, giving me more play-by-play and move calling than the WWE commentary could even dream of.

I don't know how intentional it was but keeping the “twist in the tale” until right at the end of your debate, mirroring the match itself was a very nice touch. Your final point about the lasting impact of the main event on how strong it kept the competitor was then a great point that no one else picked up on.

As much as I don't really like “believe that” as a catchphrase, that was a strong finish to a strong debate.


Soul Cat

“The buildup is as important as the match itself “ - Okay, you've got my attention with a clear and interesting stance here, now follow up with why. Why is your stance that the buildup to the match is more important than the quality, storytelling or peak of the matchs itself? I'd agree that the Undertaker v Edge feud was very well done and you do a good job putting that point across throughout your debate but what makes this so important and why is that what pushes this main event above Reigns v Lesnar? This argument was the basis of almost half of your debate but for me there wasn't enough to back up your reasoning. Even a short note on the purpose of a MAIN event being the most prestigious match on the card and the ultimate attraction to draw viewers would really have helped you.

These few paragraphs comparing the buildups are good points but don't answer the question at hand as much as “Which Main Event had the better buildup?”. Had that been the question these would have been very good sections, but in this debate I can't help but feel that they miss the mark slightly.

Your section on “The Match” itself is very, very good at concisely deconstructing the wonderful storytelling in play during the Undertaker/Edge match and probably does a better job that your opponents at putting across how Edge having an answer to The Undertaker's every move and the humanisation of Taker added to the (admittedly limited) jeopardy of the streak and counters some of the arguments made by your opponents well. This was the kind of section that can have a huge impact on winning a debate.

I'll admit that I didn't see the “the moment Rollins cashed in, it stopped being Lesnar vs. Reigns “ argument coming and while I can kind of see your point that the question didn't explicitly account for Rollins' involvement and I do like an out-of-the-box argument, I just can't buy into this.

I admire you for trying it and you did have me doubting myself for a minute but the Lesnar/Reigns match that turned into a triple threat was still the same main event so I'm treating Rollins' cash in as a joining into that match rather than the creation of a new match, sorry.

Though you have a great section on the match itself and some well-written arguments throughout, the bulk of this debate strays too far from the topic for me.



Decision:

All of these debates have some good areas as well as some flaws to be picked on. Overall I felt that despite one dodgy section, PoyPoy14 gave the best arguments and covered a good range of points in order to effectivelt back up their stance. In choosing to focus on the excitement and unpredictability of the matches to show Reigns/Lesnar as the clear where the difference rather than the storytelling where compelling arguments can be (and were) made for both matches, PoyPoy14 set themselves apart from and above the competition.

Winner via Split Decision - sharkboy22

TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Qualifying Match
PoyPoy14 vs MichaelDD vs Jupiter Jack Daniels

Who should have won at Wrestlemania 31, Undertaker or Bray Wyatt?

PoyPoy14

Without a doubt, Bray Wyatt should have walked away victorious in his match with Undertaker at Wrestlemania. Whilst some may argue that wins and losses aren't particularly important in the fictional world of professional wrestling, in this case, a superstar that has struggled for momentum and relevance over the past year was desperate for a big win on a big stage to cement himself as main event calibre and take his career to the next level.

Learning Past Lessons

Last year at Wrestlemania, Bray was in a similar position when he came up against John Cena. Bray was riding a wave of momentum, with fans hanging on his every word and singing along with every song. He was becoming a big deal and most thought he would walk away with the win on his debut at Wrestlemania. However, in typical WWE fashion, it was Cena that defeated the newcomer.

The reason people don't put much stock into wins and losses is because with the right booking, you don't need a win to look strong and remain over. It's possible that WWE will keep Bray strong after losing to Undertaker but there's no past evidence to suggest that this will happen. Using this example, Bray suffered some poor, cartoon booking (with the big matches he actually won, being down to a cheesy finish) following his big loss and as a result, floundered in the midcard. People stopped caring about Bray to the point that he was getting 'what?' chants during his promos, the very thing that had gotten him over in the first place.

What does Undertaker gain?

Nothing. Undertaker lost his streak last year and therefore had no stake in the result of this match. He has nothing to prove after a long and illustrious career and it's not like this win will in any way elevate him. The only reason he would have needed 'redemption' for last year is if WWE wanted to keep him strong to face Sting next year, but considering Sting lost to HHH earlier in the night, that renders the win pointless! Besides, a much more interesting story between those two would have been that of two legends questioning whether or not they still have it. Is Sting still the icon? Is Undertaker still the phenom? As it is, Undertaker is 22-1 at Wrestlemania and Sting is 0-1. What possible motivation would there be to have a match? Who would believe that Sting has a chance? It doesn't make any sense.

What would it have done for Bray Wyatt?

Solidified him as a legitimate main eventer. Bray not only would've had his first win on the grandest stage, but it would have been over the legendary Undertaker, the man that was undefeated there for over two decades! Bray's main character trait is the way he talks himself up as a monster, trying to convince you that he is more than a mere mortal. However, this isn't working and that's because he keeps losing when it matters. He is currently (still) calling himself the new face of fear, yet he failed to beat the (very) old face of fear... It doesn't make sense and it's no surprise that fans don't buy it. How can Bray be the new face of fear when he's lost to John Cena, Dean Ambrose, Chris Jericho and now Undertaker, all in the last year? A year in which he hasn't even been wrestling on a lot of shows. If WWE were trying to tell the story that he was a delusional joke that can't even come close to backing up what he preaches, then this would make sense. But it's not, and it doesn't.

Conclusion

Bray's loss to Undertaker at Wrestlemania was the latest in a long line of failures to back up what he says. A win here could have overwritten a year of lacklustre booking and really cemented Bray in the main event scene. Who would care that he'd been stumbling for a year? He'd have just beaten Undertaker at Wrestlemania! Only one other person, in over two decades, could lay claim to that and Brock Lesnar is not bad company to be in. As it is, his past promos have all been rendered useless and so have his promos in the immediate future and after he carried the whole program so effectively by himself, without Undertaker ever even showing up on TV, that's a shame. He deserved to be put over.

People saw Bray Wyatt as a modern version of the Undertaker character that could go on to produce another stellar career over the next decade or more. Sadly, he just got disposed of by the real thing and is now nothing more than a cheap knock-off. A missed opportunity.

Jupiter Jack Daniels

The build up to Undertaker vs. Bray Wyatt at Wrestlemania 31 was awkward, at best. The streak was over. Undertaker hadn't appeared on TV in 352 days. This left the match to be built solely by Bray Wyatt. He declared himself the new face of fear, based on the destruction of the Undertaker the year prior. And while the argument may be that, since he's a younger talent, Bray should've won, I don't agree. I think Undertaker was the right choice.

I understand it's about creating stars and investing in the future. What I don't understand is the justification of giving a guy so much in 1 night, in spite of giving him so little in 12 months. The issue with Bray, not just in this match but his booking, in general, is that he's lacking something big enough to truly thrust him to the next level.

I know, the way to do that is a win over Undertaker, right? Let's pretend Bray won. Where does he go from there?

Is he placed in the title picture? Seems like that's going to be occupied by some combination of Rollins, Orton, Reigns and Brock for the remainder of the year. And they all have a more valid claim being in that picture, via rematch clauses.

Do you keep him hot till Money In The Bank and have him win the briefcase? That's a possibility but the beauty of it is he doesn't need to beat Taker for that to happen. Plus, I look at Sandow. He won the briefcase in 2013 and had no momentum at all. As a matter of fact, by that point, he hadn't wrestled on pay-per view in 6 months.

Or do you put him back in the mid card? That undermines the whole point of putting him over Taker in the first place.

Now what else is there? What else can result from Bray beating Taker that doesn't involve the crowded main event scene, the forcing of getting to a destination you can reach regardless or the undermining of beating Taker anyway?

The problem is, since he's debuted, WWE has done so much WITH Bray Wyatt, without doing much FOR Bray Wyatt.

Your reason for this feud is the same reason for the Kane feud. The Cena feud. Daniel Bryan, Jericho, Ambrose, the list goes on. The shared backdrop is Bray vowing to show that none of these guys are who they say they are. They're either not as evil as they claim or not as nice as they claim. But the end result, even when they lose, is that nothing changed. With a character like that, winning is irrelevant if he's not able to accomplish his mission. Especially since he never talks about winning and focuses only on his mission.

Now, as for Undertaker, you presented a picture, last year, that wasn't hard to paint at all. The idea that the Undertaker is done. He's not coming back. And he did, which begins the Back From The Dead saga that's been a recurring theme throughout his career. Thru all the returns from Buried Alive, Casket Matches and getting stretchered out of Wrestlemania, there was one constant. One thing Taker continued to fight for and defend. The streak. From the beginning, the concept was he's immortal. That changed last year.

Or did it?

Last year wasn't about showing Taker to be mortal. It was about showing Brock to be a legitimate beast. And as a result of that, you can't have Taker lose back-to-back against a guy who isn't presented in the same fashion as Brock.

Plus, you gotta think about the Undertaker's future. How can you sell his program if he lost again? He's not defending the streak. He's not defending his immortality. He's just there. A story of redemption and returning from the dead is a strong selling point. He has to win in order for that to happen. There ain't a grave that can hold his body down. What was thought to be dead has risen again and in convincing fashion. That introduces the next guy who can attempt to kill off the Deadman forever. And it also gives you 12 months to solidly build somebody towards accomplishing that feat.


The only justification for changing the outcome of that match is if you change the previous 12 months of Wyatt. Otherwise, trading wins with mid carders isn't enough to suddenly say you should beat Undertaker, streak or not. But even then, how do you follow it up? The win doesn't solidify Wyatt on it's own. It has to be followed up with something as big or bigger and anything less than the WWE Title would be beneath that and completely undermine the win over Taker. Why would you do that?

MichaelDD

“At WrestleMania there will be no redemption, there will be no shield for you to be carried out on. The only thing you will receive is your fate sealed by sister Abigail’s kiss. Then against your will and against you stand for I will take my rightful place amongst the gods as the new face of… jobbing.”

You have one man on your roster that can kill it on the microphone, captivate the masses and build an entire feud all by himself and you know what the WWE decide to do? They job that motherfucker out. Bray Wyatt should have absolutely gone over Taker at WrestleMania.

By having Bray lose you’re cementing one stone cold fact about him that’s been building and building from all his feuds. This man is a LIER.

Every single feud Bray has been in has shown us that he’s filled with nothing but unfulfilled promises. With his promos from this year’s road to WrestleMania we’re shown nothing different.

At this point why should we even care about Bray Wyatt? He comes out in every feud promising us something new and every single time he fails. Daniel Bryan? He went heel for a week or so and then straight back to normal. He told us we’d see the monster in Cena, nothing happens and John boy goes back to being his smiley goofy self. He told us he’d make Dean just like him, it didn’t happen and Dean’s still Mr. whacky faces. He told us he’d finally put the spirit of the Undertaker to rest and become the new face of fear and guess what? IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.

Look at it like this, If I watch Batman and in the first hour of the film he stops The Joker several times only to have to stop him again at the films climax, are the audience actually going to care that Batman stopped The Joker? Sure he’d get his small victories here and there but every single result is the same in the end, he losses. Bray has become The Joker and if we keep seeing him lose, why should we believe any of his lies?

Bray’s entire career on the main roster so far can be compared to trying to push a boulder up a hill. They give him a small win here or there, they show signs of maybe giving him a little momentum so that he can stand against a bigger name only for him to go onto fight the big name and lose. Then he starts the damn process all over again, beat lower card wrestlers - lose to main eventer. There I just described every single feud Bray Wyatt has had as a singles wrestler and it’s absolutely tragic.

This all could have been corrected with one simple victory over Taker at WrestleMania. But no for whatever reason a fifty-year-old Undertaker just has to go over twenty-seven year old Bray Wyatt because I forgot, The Undertaker is the future of this company and needs to look strong dammit.

I’m not even saying Bray is the future for the WWE, but it’s like they don’t actually want any new stars excluding two or three. Instead they’ll recycle the same old wrestlers over and over again because that worked out so well for WCW right?

This win was integral for Bray’s career. Right now you’ve got him on RAW cutting the same old promo about being the new face of fear, without even acknowledging the fact that he lost to taker or that the match even happened. Does nobody see what’s completely asinine with that? And it’s all because Taker just has to look strong because he lost to an unstoppable monster.

If Bray got the win against Taker you’d have instantly made that man streak rub or not. The man won twenty-one years in a row and it took BROCK LESNAR to beat him so a win against Taker at WrestleMania is still monumental. From here he could have gone on and actually do something meaningful.

TAKER NEEDS TO LOOK STRONG FOR MANIA 32. No, shut up. Taker is always going to be Taker and two losses are not suddenly going to turn him into Scotty 2 Hotty. You could have followed the story that is Taker good enough to go anymore? And then give him his big win and send off at 32 but no, Taker MUST go over that old timer Bray.

At the end of the day what did Taker get from this win? Oh he’s not a loser anymore because he beat a midcarder? This win would have been so much more meaningful for Bray’s career and would have established him for years to come but now he’s back to spouting false promises.

Seabs
PoyPoy14 - On one hand you do a really good job arguing why Bray needed a big win but on the other hand you never convince me that it should have come at the expense of Taker and that he could also afford to lose. There's two sides to every result remember and just arguing one side well only gives you so much of a shot of winning the debate. Obviously you do address what you feel Taker had to gain but truthfully I thought that section wasn't all that good. The idea that Taker had nothing to gain from the match was pretty bad imo. I mean it's one thing to try and argue against the idea that Taker would still mean something next year if he lost his annual match 2 years in a row after his gimmick was that he never lost at Mania but to just say he has nothing to gain and no stake in the match was just too short sighted. It's not even ignoring the main counter argument to your stance but it's saying that it doesn't actually exist when it quite obviously is a valid counter argument. Now if you try to actually argue against then fair enough, even if you don't do a great job of it you at least tried and didn't harm the credibility of yourself as a debater by ignoring the counter argument. After 31 there was no indication at all that Taker wasn't coming back for 32 so it's a totally fair and valid argument to say that if you want Taker's only match each year to still be an attraction then he needs to look strong for it. You just ignore it and say well Sting lost so who cares about Taker now? What if he faces Cena at 32? Then he'd need to look strong for Cena. The idea that Taker/Sting would still be big sold on who's the least past it losing geek was really bad too. This section was pretty bad at addressing valid counter arguments to your stance which Jupiter Jack Daniels then managed to exploit somewhat. If you're going to argue that people will still feel that beating Taker at 32 and other future Wrestlemanias is a big deal that they'll pay and be excited to see then you needed much better arguments than you had here including considering the fact that he can still face more than just another washed up legend. Like I said though, your argument that Bray needed the win is good but obviously you have to also be able to argue that he needed it more than Taker which you didn't. "The reason people don't put much stock into wins and losses is because with the right booking, you don't need a win to look strong and remain over. It's possible that WWE will keep Bray strong after losing to Undertaker but there's no past evidence to suggest that this will happen.". These two sentences contradict each other. You can still look strong in a loss but there's no past evidence to suggest Bray can look strong in a loss? I guess you mean it hasn't happened when Bray has lost before but that doesn't mean it can't happen? Bray did go toe to toe with Taker and took his best and was essentially booked on par with Punk and Hunter in recent years who did the big near fall spamming match with Taker at Wrestlemania. Ok the Bray match probably wasn't as good but he was booked in a better position then he's usually in and losing to UNDERTAKER at Wrestlemania is hardly being jobbed out geek style. One win doesn't cement anyone as anything unless it's followed up and Jupiter Jack Daniels did a pretty good job showing how difficult that would be for Bray given the picture coming out of Wrestlemania. What I took from your debate more was that Bray should have been booked against someone he can beat rather than against Taker. That doesn't mean he should have beaten Taker though just because he needed a win. It's fair to say both of them needed a win but who needed the win more? By basically refusing to even concede valid arguments for why Taker needed the win too you made it near impossible to argue why Bray needed it more. That's what you need to try and master with either or debates. Yes argue why one needs it but it also needs to be argued why one needs it MORE than the other. You kinda attempted it with the Undertaker section but it wasn't near good enough to be convincing that Bray needed the win MORE than Taker so you should just had a good debate arguing that Bray needed a win. And that was indeed very well argued, it was just that the Undertaker part of the question let you down.

Jupiter Jack Daniels - Don't ever put that you THINK your stance is the right one, be sure of it and say IT IS the right stance. Argument that the title picture is crowded for the foreseeable future was good and countered PoyPoy14 nicely. The rest of the year seems too far ahead but the point is valid. Wasn't really convinced by the MITB paragraph. Sandow had no momentum so are you arguing that Bray SHOULD have momentum going into that? So wouldn't beating Taker be that momentum? I do think it would be easier than you suggest to give Bray non-title programs he can go over in following beating Taker though. Next point kinda seemed to be more arguing that Bray needed to finally back his words up and win rather than arguing Bray shouldn't have beaten Taker. You get pretty rambly building to the argument for Taker not losing but once you get there it's good. Would have liked to have seen reasoning for "And as a result of that, you can't have Taker lose back-to-back against a guy who isn't presented in the same fashion as Brock.". This actually would have opened up a really strong argument for Taker taking a big hit by losing to someone who has lost as frequently as Bray which also uses your opponents' stance against them. If Bray is going to beat Taker then he should have momentum going into it. Ok Brock got better booking AFTER beating Taker but he was still BROCK LESNAR before and had that threat and that aura which Bray just doesn't have. When a big babyface faces Brock there's fear. There's none of that with Bray. It's a shame that you missed out on a great argument you so closely touched on with Bray not being booked well enough since he's been here to beat UNDERTAKER. You build someone up TO beating Taker at Wrestlemania not FROM beating Taker at Wrestlemania. If Bray looks like a geek going into facing Taker then it definitely hurts Taker. Penultimate paragraph is definitely your strongest one and you make the argument for Taker needing to win pretty well. Strong point about if you do a returning from the dead build with Taker he has to win off the back of it. An extra sentence clarifying why here would have helped too. Also just mention that it's very likely that he'll be wrestling at 32 too given there was no sign of that being the end of Taker. Point about Taker's next loss being the one that kills him once and for all and it being a feat that someone should be built up for is good. I guess you loosely touch on Bray's build being a reason against him winning here. Most of this is good but there also feels like too many wasted paragraphs that are either weak or add little. They needed making more concise and less rambly and your stronger arguments needed expanding on more. For example expanding on why Taker should only lose once more and adding why Bray can take the loss and maybe why he can be build up to that big defining win after with some proper momentum behind him.

MichaelDD - Ok so the feedback I gave for PoyPoy14 is pretty much the same to you as your debates have the same strength and the same weaknesses. Your argument for Bray needing to win a big match because he always loses when it matters is good but you don't do the other half of the debate very well either which is arguing why Bray needed the win more than Taker. Instead like PoyPoy14 you largely just ignore any valid arguments for Taker winning which is nonsense because they definitely exist and were even provided by Jupiter Jack Daniels. That hurts you going directly against someone arguing for Taker as they can make arguments you don't really counter because you're just denying the fact that they exist but it's also bad debating practice to only for your stance. In an either or topic you need to also argue why in this context Bray needed the win MORE than Taker, not just Bray needed the win and then not really deal with valid arguments for Taker. You definitely argue well for Bray needing a big win but I'm never convinced he needed it more than Taker, whereas Jupiter Jack Daniels managed to argue why Taker needed to not lose and why Bray wasn't the right person to beat Taker at this time. It's not just his arguments for his stance but also his argument against Bray's momentum at the time and what you do with Bray after that went uncountered by either of you. I went into more detail in PoyPoy14's feedback so just read all of that. Opening paragraph I liked. FYI if you're going to put a word in capitals then spell it correctly. LIAR nor LIER. I would have taken the lengthy Batman analogy out and focused more on other arguments you hadn't covered because while it was good it was just making a point you had already made. And there definitely were other areas that were left unaddressed as Jupiter Jack Daniels exploited. "This all could have been corrected with one simple victory over Taker at WrestleMania." just isn't true because you have to actually follow it up for it to mean something. Also Taker does need to look strong. I'm fine with you arguing for Taker losing but you don't show why Bray needs the win more than Taker because you don't even acknowledge that Taker needs the win in any way which is madness. Taker is still a big selling point of Wrestlemania as 31 proved and if WWE want Taker to continue to be a selling point for Wrestlemania then of course they need to start protecting him again after he finally lost. The only real direct counter to this not mattering at all like you suggest is if Taker isn't coming back which there's no signs of and there would be signs of it he was done at 31. The WCW comparison was off base too because Taker quite clearly still has value to WWE and Wrestlemania. If you don't think that's the case then show it. They did the story that Taker might not still have it this year. There's only so many times you can do that same angle before people stop caring. Is twice in a row too much? If not then say why rather than just stating it.

Jupiter Jack Daniels wins. Definitely not a faultless debate but one that acknowledged both sides of the debate the best and had the best comparison between both stances and countered the opposing stance the best. PoyPoy14 and MichaelDD had good arguments for Bray needing a win but never convincingly argued that it should come at the expense of Taker and their lack of acknowledgement of valid counters against their stance left Jupiter Jack Daniels open to use that against them.

Winner - Jupiter Jack Daniels

Andre
PoyPoy14

This wasn't convincing at all.

The first couple of paragraphs are overly narrative based and don't argue much. Admitting Bray suffered 'what?' chants isn't convincing me that Undertaker's potential big money drawing retirement Mania match should be scuppered and cheapened with a loss to a perceived geek. "It's possible that WWE will keep Bray strong after losing to Undertaker" is a weak admittance without making a convincing argument that WWE definitely won't. Use comparative examples to make this work. Your closing paragraph wasn't bad, but Jupiter Jack Daniels did a great job of countering this with the lack of a follow up argument. This was reasonably well written, but the arguments lacked analysis, evidence and examples.

Jupiter Jack Daniels

This was terrific. Possibly a top ten wrestling division debate. You expertly broke down why Wyatt going over Taker would have been wasteful and pointless in so many ways, including the idea that Bray had nowhere to go to build on the win and how it would have undermined Brock's feat, especially as Bray has been booked so weakly the previous year. Your use of language was very persuasive and the story flowed perfectly without ever losing momentum. The only issue I had with this is that MichaelDD somewhat countered your point about Bray not needing to win the matches to complete his mission, because he hasn't actually followed through with any of the claims he has made. Otherwise this was fantastic.

MichaelDD

I love the passion in this debate, which comes across in frenetic doses. The strength of this debate was the whole "LIER" (lol at that spelling btw) segment which showed that Bray can't continue to keep dishing out empty promises. The problem with this is that Jupiter Jack Daniels countered this partially, pointing out that because Wyatt's credibility was so poor in the previous months, it could undermine Brock's feat of ending the streak. He also made a convincing argument that Bray had nowhere to go after beating Taker in terms of momentum, as all the other viable options from there on were either a backwards step or didn't require winning at Mania. This was a decent effort, if a bit one dimensional. Keep the fire in your writing though, because that came across really well.


Jupiter Jack Daniels wins my vote with an excellent effort

RealManRegal
PoyPoy14

I liked the structure of your debate, examining the gains to the two men, the comparisons to last year etc.

You could have argued that Taker losing this year would potentially add more to his match next year (if he has one) since it would make people question whether Taker really was done rather than making the loss to Lesnar look like a “hiccup” or a fluke. With two losses in a row, that match next year truly becomes “do or die” for Taker; but by having him essentially get back on track by beating Wyatt this year they’ve lost that factor now.

Your last sentence sums it up well - a missed opportunity - a sentiment that applies not just to the match, but to Wyatt as a whole.

Overall a good debate, well structured and organised, with your arguments broken down well and kept concise.

Jupiter Jack Daniels

I’m not completely sold on the win being more than Wyatt deserves in light of his past 12 months, but I thought looking at which direction a Wyatt win could go in was an interesting path to take - if lacking a little in imagination/creativity. The Sandow example is a terrible one for arguing why someone doesn’t need momentum going into a MITB win, considering how that ultimately turned out.

Funnily enough your argument that Wyatt’s feuds ultimately mean nothing because nothing changes could easily be used as a reason FOR him beating Taker - since Taker’s part time status is an opportunity to show a Wyatt win actually having consequences.

I think the line about how we need to think about Undertaker’s future kind of sways me against you - because at this point in his career, protecting Taker’s future should be far lower down the list of priorities than it is.

A more organised structure, ordering your arguments and making them tighter and more focused would have helped strengthen this debate.

MichaelDD

It’s “liar”, not “lier”.

I do like that you show how neutered Wyatt has become as a character due to poor booking and never being able to make good on the same old threats; but you expend far too much of your word count making this point, and your debate suffers for it. The argument that a Wyatt win could have reversed all that is a reasonable one, which could have been strengthened by looking at how the Wyatt character specifically could leverage a win over Taker in a way others couldn’t.

We kind of veer off into borderline smark bitching rather than concise debating at some points, and you could benefit from using more structure in your writing. Look at some of the top debaters and how they lay their debates out for an idea of what works.

I like that you touch on the idea that 2 losses in a row would make for a more compelling match at 32, which is rumoured to be his retirement match; and also that you point out that Wyatt is continuing the “Face of Fear” schtick in spite of his loss - observations the other entrants didn’t make.

There’s a good debate in there, it just needs a bit of refinement to be really good.

Decision: PoyPoy14 takes it for me.

Winner via Split Decision - Jupiter Jack Daniels

TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Qualifying Match
CGS vs A-C-P vs obby

Who should have won at Wrestlemania 31, Sting or Triple H?

A-C-P

Who should have won the match at Wrestle Mania 31 Sting or HHH?

I actually believe that the WWE made the right decision in having HHH defeat Sting at Wrestle Mania 31. I know the majority here on Wrestling Forum, as least from what I have seen, have thought HHH winning was not the right decision, and at first I did think along those same lines, but now, after having some time to really think about it, I think HHH winning was the correct decision. HHH’s in-ring appearances in 2014 were all to put over full-time talent (Bryan and The Shield), so at some point he needed a win to re-establish some credibility so he can put over more younger, full-time talents in the future. In addition to my first point; HHH is younger and should be around much longer than Sting, so him looking stronger for the purpose of putting over other talent going forward made more sense. The way the match ended, HHH winning by hitting Sting with a sledge hammer, also somewhat protected Sting in the loss. Also, for the most part any future Sting matches in the WWE would sell themselves regardless if Sting had won or lost his match to HHH at Wrestle Mania 31.

HHH is one of the few big name, part-time in-ring performers, the WWE has that can draw legitimate enough heel heat to properly put over a younger, full-time talent face. Seeing as HHH in 2014 put over talent in all his matches, the win over Sting definitely helps to build up his credibility so he can now at some point put over more face talent in the future. If HHH would just keep losing matches at some point any credibility he would have to put over younger face talent would be gone. For this reason alone I think a win for HHH over Sting was a better choice than HHH ever winning over a young talent that is over as a face in the future. I do understand that you could make the same argument for Sting and eventually putting over a younger heel talent, but HHH will be around MUCH longer as an in-ring performer than Sting will be in my opinion, so there is more value in HHH being more credible going forward.

The ending of the Sting vs HHH match at Wrestle Mania 31 is another reason I think HHH winning was the correct decision. Having HHH win, but only after hitting Sting with the sledge hammer does protect Sting in the loss somewhat. I know one of the biggest arguments against HHH winning is that it makes Sting look weak going into any future match he has in the WWE. I would argue that the “dirty finish” protected Sting enough from looking to weak, and I would also say that losing only b/c of being hit with a sledge hammer actually gives the Sting character more of a reason to want another match in the WWE to prove his loss to HHH was only a fluke. In addition, as I said earlier that any future match involving Sting in the WWE will still sell itself at this point, regardless if he had beaten or lost to HHH at Wrestle Mania 31. Now I will say that if Sting just keeps losing matches in the WWE, yes he will eventually los ALL credibility, but at 56 years old how many matches does Sting even have left? Also, resumably Sting’s next match may not even be until next year’s Wrestle Mania, which by then the outcome of his match at Wrestle Mania this year means even less.

In conclusion, it may be against the popular opinion, but I believe that HHH beating Sting at Wrestle Mania 31 was the right decision for that match. It just made the most sense to me for the future prospects of each individual, as I have outlined throughout my entry. I have admitted that there are some valid counterpoints, to my stance of HHH winning being the correct decision, but as I have also outlined in my entry I do believe the positives of HHH winning outweigh any negatives of Sting losing the match at Wrestle Mania.


obby

The concept of a part time main event star is still a relatively new one in the annals of wrestling history. While the WWE's reliance on wrestlers that aren't on the road for the company year round has it's many detractors, the one key word that could be used in it's defense is "money". Guys like The Rock, Brock Lesnar, and The Undertaker are proven marquee stars, and building the biggest shows of the year around them can make sense on paper, as they can take place in dream matches that are sure to fill the biggest of stadiums. And then there's Triple H. While the 13 time world champion can undoubtedly be a "money" performer in the right circumstances, he's never been quite on the level as the biggest stars of the industry, and as a result has generally been the weak link in all of the programs he's worked as a part time star. Which is why, after Sting finally made his long overdue arrival in the WWE more than thirteen years after the death of WCW, his immediate affairs with Triple H were quite perplexing. The feud made little sense considering many fans had been clamoring to see Sting and The Undertaker finally face off, and while it would have been a dream match on the heels of WCW closing up shop, it held little relevance in today's wrestling world. What was even more perplexing than that was the ultimate decision to have Triple H walk out victorious at Wrestlemania.

Obviously there are more implications to both the existence of the match and the end result than would first meet the eye. Triple H may not be among the companies top draws, but he is perhaps a bigger representative of the brand itself than anyone else on the roster, being the heir to the corporate throne and a McMahon in law. The match we got was clearly supposed to be something of a "final battle" between WWE and WCW, and Triple H could perhaps represent the former better than anyone else could. The problem, however, is that no one cares. As previously stated, it’s been far more than a decade since WCW folded, and in turn almost as long since the idea of an interpromotional war between the two companies held any relevancy amongst the fanbase. A large percentage of the current WWE audience weren't even alive when the Monday night ratings war was on, and those that were experienced the WWF killing any momentum a battle between the two sides may have had with it's "Invasion" angle long ago. At it's core, this was a match between a veteran of the company and a newcomer who, although legendary in his pursuits outside of the WWE, needed the win to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with.

Of course, it must be said that the end result of the match was really little more than a political effort to put the WWE over their former adversaries once again. Despite the fact that the WWF were indeed the winners of the war, and despite the fact that it's been such a long time since anyone really debated between the two, Vince McMahon still couldn't look past the opportunity to squash WCW once again without looking at the bigger picture. It really doesn't matter how many guys they threw out there, or how muddled and confusing the finish was. When all was said and done, the final conclusion of the bout was yet again another way of WWE telling us they were better than their competition ever were. By doing so, the higher ups have ironically lived up to their on screen personas, as the choice has been made to stroke their own egos instead of doing what would be best for business.

While Sting's career with the WWE hasn't been rendered completely dead in the water by this finish, it's certainly taken a blow. The decision not to put sting over here, especially with rumors of a match against the Undertaker next year, was simply an error on the part of the company. A petty grievance with a long dead corporation has left the WWE with a slighted view of the future, and as such has prevented them from seeing the potential consequences of their actions.


CGS

Since the demise of WCW fans have wondered, speculated, hoped that the day would come when Sting would finally step into A WWE ring, So when Sting showed up at Survivor series last year, that dream was only a few months away from becoming a reality. With such a huge superstar, probably THE biggest superstar in North American wrestling history not to wrestle in a WWE ring, it only seemed right to ensure that he won his first and possible only WWE match on the biggest stage of them all right? Wrong.

Before we begin, let’s just track back and look at the story going into the match. No I’m not talking about the whole WCW/WWE Monday night wars crap that Vince gets a hard on over, I’m talking about the pure basic story. Sting almost costs Triple H the company back when he debuted at survivor series and then a few months later he helps get Rowan, Ziggler & Ryback their jobs back (three men who helped almost ruin the authority) once again making Triple H look like a bitch. Not to mention he continued to play mind games with Haitch right up to Mania making him look as if he couldn’t control one simple threat to his company.

Triple H was made to look like a fool time and time again and had to prove to everyone that he is still the boss and no one can take that from him. It pretty much called for Haitch to get the upper hand for once.

Not to mention going into Wrestlemania nobody knew the status of Sting, for those to who had the joy (and I use that term lightly) to watch him in TNA over the few years, it was pretty clear that the dude was getting on a bit, even to the extent of coming out and wrestling in a T-shirt to hide just how out of shape he was. This may or may not have been his final match.
What a loss did for Sting was end the story in a logical fashion, provide a platform for sting to get some revenge if he felt up to another match in the future and protect the COO Triple H character all in one swoop.

One thing I can’t argue however is that a win for Sting certainly would have gone down as huge Wrestlemania moment to look back on down the line. But that’s pretty much is the only major benefit to be gained from the whole thing. Even looking at the other criteria many give in favour of a Sting win, many are very opinionated and emotionally driven. For Example:

It was his first ever WWE match
So what? That doesn’t mean he has to or even needs the win. Not like there’s a wrestling handbook that states a wrestler must win their first WWE match.

Triple H didn’t need to win that match
And Sting does for what reasons exactly? What logical sense does sting winning make? How does it continue the story? Will the story even continue or is this the end? It truly is a statement which creates more questions than answers.

Not to mention, After going 1-3 in recent Wrestlemania’s (since the COO character took off) Triple H needed a huge win on the grandest stage of them all in order to continue looking like a man to be feared. Imagine him going 1 in 4 and then trying to command respect from the roster as someone not to cross. At least the losses to Taker & Bryan made logical sense going forward. A Sting win accomplishes nothing and makes Haitch look like an even bigger bitch considering how the match was built.

But he would look weak if a match with Taker at Wrestlemania 32 is happening
Two points I wanna raise in regards to this

1) While Sting did say he felt great after the Wrestlemania 31 match there is currently no guarantee that another match is indeed on the card.

2) Even if another match does happen there is no guarantee it would be against Taker. Even if a match between to two was to ensue, how would one loss suddenly make their potential future match worthless? Similarly how does a win against Triple H automatically make a match with Taker more or less worthwhile? The answer, it doesn’t.

While many fans may believe that Sting should have gone over it what was his first and potentially only WWE match, it would have been the wrong decision for the company to make. Sure it would have created a feel good Mania moment but there were other ways to generate this (i.e. the NWO/DX stuff). From a logical standpoint the company made the correct decision.

Seabs
A-C-P - I'll get this out of the way now but I don't think "HHH" looks great in a debate. I get why you did it but you also rendered it pointless when you spelt Wrestlemania as two words for god knows what reason. You could also be a bit smarter and just use Hunter instead of Triple H. I guess it's not a big thing but I really don't think it's too much to expect proper formal writing standards for something like a debate that is written like a formal piece of writing and not a casual forum post. Intro is a good overview of your debate but relative to the length of your rest of your debate is probably too long. If your intro is roughly 1/4 of your overall debate then you should think about cutting it right down and using the words to make your arguments instead. Long well written intros are nice but they shouldn't come at the expense of your arguments as that's what wins you debates, not long intros. Ok you actually have 100 words spare to use which is a tad annoying and makes all the HHH's a bit more grating. You've got the words so use them. By not using them you're only putting yourself at a disadvantage and there was plenty of extra ground you could have covered. Argument that Hunter needs to pick some wins up to mean something for the next guy he puts over was great. I don't think many were really thinking wow Hunter just keeps on losing like a geek now but it's still a good point, even if it's only to put Rock over. You could have expanded a bit more on why Hunter giving that rub is better than Sting such as Hunter being in better shape to work a Wrestlemania epic and meaning more to the WWE audience than Sting. You covered it but with 100 extra words there was more expansion you could have made to improve your debate further. Try and avoid presenting your arguments as your opinions and present them as statements of truth instead. So stop using "I think" and use "it is" for instance. The sledgehammer argument is definitely weakened by the fact that it was a No DQ Match making it legal. It's not like Hunter cheated to screw Sting out of the win. It was legal and everything cheap that Hunter pulled Sting did it too. Both had interference to help them and both had weapons to help them. I get the point you're making and it does hold some weight but it is weakened by that fact. Not totally convinced on Sting's next match still selling itself on his name value alone. He's appeared and wrestled in WWE now. That omg it's STING moment isn't there anymore and as happens with just about anyone, their appeal lessens the more often they appear. Brock when he first came back drew huge and then as he became more familiar again he started to draw a bit less. And you could also use that as evidence against beating someone straight away. I did think you pulled it back around well enough by making the point about Sting's longevity though. Don't agree with the idea that all will be forgotten by 32. The big argument for Sting needing to win was him looking a threat if he faces Taker so arguing that Sting/Taker is unlikely to happen would have helped your debate. Something like arguing if WWE wanted to do that then wouldn't they have done it this year? Taker only faced Bray Wyatt and Sting lost anyway. This was a good debate overall but there were parts that needed that touch more expansion and the annoying thing is that you had the word count left unused that should have gone towards that expansion.

obby - Another entry almost 100 words under the word count limit. Pretty frustrating truth be told because it only hurts your chances going up against a longer debate. So often in debates that one extra argument can be the difference. A makes 3 good arguments but B makes 4 good arguments and B wins just on quantity if they're matched on quality. First paragraph is too long given it doesn't make any arguments for one guy winning. Read over your debates before you submit and ask yourself does this part add anything towards answering the question? If it doesn't then it should be replaced by something that does. Hunter being a draw and being the right guy to face Sting don't matter to answering this question. It's over 1/3rd of your debate too which is way too long even for a good intro. As it is you're left with so little of your word count to actually make arguments for your stance compared to how much word count your opponents have to accomplish the same thing. Naturally someone with more words is far more likely to produce a more convincing debate. Second paragraph isn't really convincing either besides the last sentence. Ok it shouldn't have been about WWE vs WCW but you're not linking that to who should have won well enough and your opponents are making arguments much closer linked with the actual outcome and the consequences of that outcome. Until you say " needed the win to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with." you haven't really given me any reasons for either winning be the right decision and by then we're nearly at the end of your debate. Next paragraph is pretty much the same, just arguing against the story of the match rather than the outcome. There's just not much here at all in terms of arguments for who should have won to give feedback on. What about looking at the consequences of one winning and one losing? There's odd single sentences about the consequences but they aren't arguments. Lines like " needed the win to establish himself as a force to be reckoned with.", " While Sting's career with the WWE hasn't been rendered completely dead in the water by this finish, it's certainly taken a blow." and "The decision not to put sting over here, especially with rumors of a match against the Undertaker next year, was simply an error on the part of the company." were what you needed to expand on and make arguments from.

CGS - Odd use of capitals and commas in the first sentence. Gotta be CGS' debate! The storyline argument is really good and probably the best single argument over all 3 debates imo. Good argument but really well explained. Maybe even list every Sting appearance and show how he always got the upper hand just to really illustrate the extent of the build up. You could even use your reference list just to reference them all and then just say every single time in your debate. Do people really call Hunter Haitch? If they do then they should really stop because it sounds awful. Sting's status argument wasn't all that strong. You never seem convinced in your wording about if Sting would come back and for what so it left me unconvinced too. If you're going to argue this then you need reasons and evidence why rather than just it's unlikely. Like I said to A-C-P you could argue the only match Sting would need to be kept strong for is Taker and then argue why it's unlikely that match will happen. I went into more detail on that in A-C-P's feedback so read that. Admitting a benefit to Sting winning was fine because you had more benefits to Hunter winning but I would have made this a bit clearer just to be safe that the reader got it. I thought the argument that Sting didn't need to win because it was his first match was weak. Obviously he doesn't have to win BECAUSE of it but that's not really tackling the reasons for him winning such as keeping him strong for a future match, protecting his legacy, etc. Personally I would have left this part out and expanded more on why if Sting did wrestle again a win here wasn't essential or expand more on why he's unlikely to face Taker and doesn't need protecting for Taker. Likewise the next quote counter I think just repeated your first argument and could probably have been taken out for expansion on new ground rather than repeated ground. Argument for Hunter being due a big win and why it was needed was good and done about as well as A-C-P did. A-C-P did add on the fact that keeping Hunter protected for a rub is better than doing the same for Sting though. Fortunately for you though you had the storyline argument which made up for it and was easily better than A-C-P's second argument second point about the supposed dirty (but 100% legal) finish. You bring up the Taker scenario next but don't deal with it very well truth be told. No guarantee doesn't feel like a convincing reason when you could argue why it's unlikely to happen now. Also Sting losing definitely does make Taker/Sting less appealing in the sense that after this there's far less reason to buy into Sting beating even a post-streak Taker if he doesn't even go over Hunter.

Like I in CGSs feedback, both A-C-P and CGS had a great argument each but CGS then matched A-C-P's great argument to a slightly lesser standard but that came on top of his other argument that A-C-P didn't also match. A-C-P 's second main argument was then too weak to match up with CGS' two top arguments. A-C-P could have stood more of a chance using those extra 100 words to create a 3rd strong argument as CGS didn't really capitalise on getting a 3rd convincing one in but at least used the words to attempt to. So yeah in the end those unused 100 odd words did, at least potentially, end up costing A-C-P and could have been used to be the difference between a loss and a win.

Winner - CGS

Anark
DEBATE A
Good points about HHH being younger and being around longer to put over future talent. Nicely pre-ambled with the fact he has put over plenty of young talent recently. You make another very good point about Sting being protected by the finish. It’s also true that if there is a massive time-lapse between WM and his next match then the result becomes less significant, plus you are right that the dirty finish does indeed give Sting an angle to come back and want to fight again (though we’ll have to ignore the whole hand-shakey thing he did after the match).

DEBATE B
Your intro was a nice piece of writing but didn’t have a lot of impact in terms of being convincingly persuasive. You never really get into convincing me why Sting should have won at all, only really explaining that presenting the match as a WWE v WCW final battle was pointless, which I agree whole-heartedly with. There are also big arguments that your opponents made which you fail to counter, especially the one regarding Triple H being a more regular part-timer who will be around far longer than Sting with the intention of putting over younger talent (as he spent much of 2014 doing). There’s just not a lot here to convince me that Sting should have won, other than the fact that Monday Night Wars are long forgotten and needn’t have been revisited, which doesn’t really determine who should have won anyway as there are arguments that Sting should have won even if the WWE v WCW thing was worth revisiting, but you don’t really make any of them yourself.

DEBATE C
Nice opening argument regarding Sting having got the upper hand throughout the feud so it was necessary for Trips to triumph at the end for the credibility of his authority character. You back this point up nicely enough with the argument that Sting’s future status was still unknown and Triple H winning served as either a suitable ending to the story (which could only have carried on with a Sting win) or as a set-up for a revenge or redemption angle in the future should Sting have another match. You also make a similar point to Debate A regarding Triple H needing to look strong to put over future talent. I thought your point about why Sting losing doesn’t negatively affect a potential match against Undertaker was a bit lazy in its execution, though it was still a worthwhile point you raised (though could have been written a lot more convincingly).

VERDICT
Close call between A-C-P and CGS. Unfortunately obby just didn’t include enough persuasive arguments and some of his points raised more questions in my head then they answered. I’m going to say CGS is the winner as it just about edged out A-C-P by pretty much covering the same points A-C-P made but also supplemented them with additional arguments such as Trips winning being the logical finish according to how the feud had been played out prior to WM. I also liked that he countered the Wrestlemania Moment argument, which perhaps wasn’t necessary according to what his opponents produced, but again helped make CGS more convincingly presented overall.

BkB Hulk
A-C-P:
I think you have the beginnings of being quite good. There was quite a lot to like about this debate.

Firstly, you’ve approached the question right. You’ve read it and answered it. Simple, but it doesn’t always happen (heck, it kind of didn’t happen for one in this match). Secondly, you’ve made some valid points, and gone about it logically.

What I think you need to work on is maybe adding a bit of personality to your debates. It feels a bit wooden – almost like a submission for an academic journal in a way. You’ve gone over the same things a few times too, which maybe isn’t necessary and means you could use the words a little better.

I’ve been a bit critical with that last paragraph, because I actually thought this was quite good. I just think you could probably get much better still with a bit of constructive criticism.

obby:
You had my interest with the beginning. The problem is you moved from the part-time discussion onto how you didn’t want to see the H/Sting feud. That doesn’t answer the question. By the time you finally got to answering the question, you weren’t actually able to do much because you’d run out of words.

Really, to win, you need to answer the question properly. I’d also have a look at proof reading for grammatical issues, because you’ve used the wrong form of ‘its’ a few times early in your debate.

CGS:
It’s narrow, but this is my winner. I think what you’ve done best is you’ve addressed the most to do with the question, while also not having your arguments really be any weaker than anyone else’s.

The early parts of your debate are what really separated it from the other one that argued the same stance. No one else really addressed the context of the feud, so that earned you points. I thought your later points matched the way the opposition argued them, and the debate read well.

CGS wins.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - CGS

Put The Fuck Up or Shut The Fuck Up Non-Title Debate
Seabs vs Rugrat

If Ronda Rousey can work one match at any Wrestlemania, what should it be?

Rugrat

If Ronda Rousey can work one match for the WWE, it should be at Wrestlemania 32. This is because Ronda is a star in a non-scripted sport, so it’s difficult to gauge how long her momentum will last. Therefore, if WWE have the intention of booking a feud involving Ronda, the best time to book it would be the present. Her opponent should be Eva Marie.

But UFC won’t allow Ronda to fight...
Rousey doesn’t actually have to take any of Eva’s offence. It can just be a straight forward squash match, with Ronda winning with the armbar. This finish would look very credible, particularly given the way that Ronda has dominated her UFC opponents both in short time and with an armbar.

There’s seeds planted between her, Rock, Hunter and Steph though.
The brawl we saw at Wrestlemania 31 is as much as we’re realistically going to get from Stephanie in terms of putting over Ronda. Steph demonstrated that she was unwilling to m take a bump for Rousey, despite being provided with the ideal platform to do so. Furthermore, Stephanie showed zero fear of Ronda, even barking orders at her in the ring, as though she was Heath Slater. She took a lazy armlock and that was it. Simply put; Stephanie is too protective of her character to take a beating.

A singles match v Stephanie could work, as given the situation, she may be willing to bump for Rousey as she allowed herself to be embarrassed v Vickie.
That incident followed years of continual embarrassment of Vickie Guerrero far beyond what any other female performer’s had to endure. She had been humiliated by Stephanie and HHH for many years, it was just a consolation prize. Even in the Steph v Brie match at Summerslam, Stephanie dominated the match before convincingly pinning Brie. There’s also the idea that like her husband, she may have issues putting over talents from a rival company.

What about being in Rock’s corner v HHH?
Realistically what can she do? Stephanie won't take a bump for her and it would just be damaging for Hunter to get his arse handed to him again, with no pay-off. Ronda can’t take a sledgehammer shot or pedigree because of WWE’s policy of no violence against women and that she may get injured selling them.

What about a mixed tag match?
Again this would fall into identical issues as her being in Rock’s corner v Helmsley. It’s possible that the idea of a tag match would just dilute the concept of a Rock appearance, as evidenced by the relatively tame buyrate of Survivor Series 2011.

Why Eva Marie?
Ronda will be going into the bout as the babyface, as is the case with nearly every celeb appearance. Eva would be the perfect opponent she has a natural heir of arrogance and gives off the impression that contact sports are beneath her, in contrast to Ronda who is the face of the UFC. Unlike Sasha or Charlotte for instance, Eva is a heel disliked by the majority of the smarks, so there won’t be a scenario where Eva is being cheered and Ronda is getting booed.

What if things go tits up, as Eva is brand new to wrestling and Ronda is a non-wrestler?
The match would go on for less than a minute, so this would not be an issue. Even then WWE have some highly trained referees to deal with issues in ring. For instance, they have Scott Armstrong who refereed Show v Mayweather at Wrestlemania 24 and Mike Chioda who has been contracted to WWE for over 20 years.

Would this not kill any chance Eva has of making it in the WWE like Butterbean and Bart Gunn? It might be slightly unfair on her as she’s trying to improve.
One loss didn't kill Bart Gunn's career. Being the Curtis Axel of 1998 killed Gunn's career. He was a low-carder before Butterbean and would have been a low-carder after.

Even John Cena for instance got annihilated by Brock Lesnar and pinned as clean as a Klansman’s sheet. He didn’t lose any momentum, as WWE kept booking him strongly. Given how little wins and losses mean in American wrestling in 2015, particularly in the women’s division, there can be no doubts that Eva would be able to regain her credibility.

In closing; Eva Marie is the best opponent for Ronda in terms of attracting prospective Network subscribers, which is something WWE desperately need.


SOURCES

Survivor Series 2011 buyrate
http://wrestleheat.com/survivor-series-2011-buyrate-adjusted-downward=16167

Seabs

Ronda Rousey should wrestle Heath Slater at a Wrestlemania.

Ok bare with me here.

Any WWE match involving Ronda MUST keep UFC happy. That means WWE can't risk injuring Ronda or making her look weaker than she does in UFC, meaning she basically has to annihilate whoever she faces.

Pissing off UFC wouldn't be wise as a successful working relationship with UFC benefits WWE by allowing WWE:
access to genuine draws
to market their network/wrestlers/etc at new fanbases


So, Ronda can't work a competitive match and whoever she faces, she has to kill, and quick. Therefore, WWE need to feed Ronda a heel (the non-WWE fans Ronda draws aren't paying to see her lose) who can take a humiliating no-offence (meaning she can face men) squash defeat. So that rules out anyone that WWE might have any desire in giving a serious push in the preceding foreseeable future.
With that we're left with Ronda beating anyone:
who can exit in-ring action for a long time following
who is a geek4lyfe


The two rumoured options somewhat fit this criteria but there's also an out-there pick who fits the criteria perfectly and that's Heath Slater.

The Authority vs Rock-N-Rousey

This option fits the criteria. However, Ronda & Steph is only one spot and doesn’t even require them legally being in the match. Steph tries to interfere, slaps Rock, Ronda stops her. Simple and in no way warrants them being added to a marquee match to harm the finisher-spamming peril-selling dynamic when they're just glorified corner(wo)men. Plus, there’s no way that match can end without Rock involved in the fall. Ronda being in Rock's corner promising to stop Steph if she tries to get involved isn't any less of a draw than her doing the same as Rock's partner.

Ronda vs Stephanie McMahon or Heath Slater?

Ronda vs Steph definitely has its benefits. You get to utilise Ronda as a draw to improve business for the event and bring the WWE Network to a new fanbase along with creating a great "Wrestlemania moment". You get all of that with Ronda vs Slater though. Ronda is a huge draw all by herself, regardless of who she faces. That's why UFC 184 promoted entirely on the main event with Ronda facing an opponent with no name value or drawing history drew massive projected buyrate numbers1 in the region of what two megastars like Jones and Sonnen and Silva and Diaz can draw together2. Therefore, Ronda facing even Heath Slater will be a big draw to her fanbase.

But what about the myth that Steph would draw so much more against Ronda? For starters she wouldn't draw enough extra to negate the other negatives that come with that pairing. The extra fans Ronda draws are coming to see Ronda fuck someone up and truthfully it doesn't matter who it is because most of them won't know/care who's who and how much heat Steph has built up. Steph getting hers in the ring does mean something but it's to WWE fans who already have the Network and that's not who Ronda's drawing.

Imagine you do give Ronda the big Steph payoff match (Steph can't get hers to the same effect again afterwards). Then what? You've wasted years of heat building that should create a valuable asset for WWE not even on a part-timer but on an outsider. There's no benefit to it outside the business which Ronda draws, which can come without giving her the Stephanie match.

With Ronda vs Slater you get all the benefits of her facing Steph. She's still going to draw a different fanbase, WWE will still get mainstream media coverage and they'll still get their big “Wrestlemania moment” with Ronda. What makes Slater a better pick than Steph is that he doesn't bring the negatives that Steph does. For starters he can actually bump properly for Ronda's armbar, Ronda annihilating Slater looks much more impressive than a nearing middle-aged mother and WWE aren't wasting a significant rub on an outsider.

Why Slater over other geeks? He’s in WWE for the long-term3 and is a proven success in the role4.

Ronda vs Slater doesn't need to happen at 32 either, it can happen at 33. With no threat to her dominance and her growing stardom through movies, Ronda will still be hot by then and you get the bonus of using Ronda's drawing power for another easy one spot Wrestlemania appearance. Add to that you can give Slater some easy heel shtick after claiming he lasted longer than 14 seconds with Ronda or credit himself for drawing the Wrestlemania attendance.

Ronda’s fans are watching to see Ronda, not who she faces, so her opponent should be the one that has the best net positive impact for WWE. That opponent is Heath Slater.

References:
[1] http://mmapayout.com/2015/03/preliminary-reports-indicate-a-strong-ufc-184-buy-rate/
[2] http://mmapayout.com/blue-book/pay-per-view/
[3] All the jobbers released post Nexus and Slater always survives
[4] http://www.wwe.com/videos/playlists/heath-slater-vs-wwe-legends

ZOMBO
Coming in as a last-minute sub here, so I'll keep my comments very brief.

I enjoyed that both of you took choices out of left-field. It was a refreshing read. I felt that you each handled the negation of the obvious alternatives (Steph / HHH) well, so no real complaints about a good chunk of your entries.

I did feel that Seabs did a better job selling me on Slater's attributes than Rugrat did for Eva Marie. Yes, it has to be a squash and Eva shouldn't be expected to do much, BUT she'd still have to make it look good. We KNOW Slater excels at this, based on the squash matches with the WWE Legends referred to in Seabs'.

I did enjoy Rugrat's point that one squash loss wouldn't hurt Eva in the long run, which was needed. Seabs was also smart in addressing the elephant in the room about violence against women and how that could be achieved with Slater.

Both solid entries, but I felt that Seabs' arguments in favour of Heath Slater (of all damn people) was sound all the way through. For that reason, Seabs is my pick.

Andre
I'm going to keep this brief as both debates were at least very good.



Rugrat did a very good job of explaining why it shouldn't be Steph, at least as good as Seabs. I thought Rugrat's dismissal of having Ronda in a mixed tag was good too, but Seabs also did this well. Pointing out that Eva has little to lose from this was okayish, but Seabs went further with their pick Slater, by showing how he could actually benefit from it and really had to be an experienced jobber. Seabs also showed how Ronda can draw by herself and can face anyone, whereas Rugrat lacked this.

Where Rugrat lost me was the argument about having to capitalise on Rousey's "momentum" right now, because this wasn't explained at all well. She has no credible competition so is unlikely to lose her status any time soon, while her drawing powers have shown no real signs of waning despite her ease of killing bitches. Needed more explanation there. I was also dubious about having Eva in the match, seeing as she has been well known for taking shit bumps and forgetting to sell in the past. Those are two key aspects to a squash with Rousey, otherwise it kills the point of the match. Seabs did a better job of convincing me their pick was suitable for this.

Seabs' pick was weird, but he did enough to convince me this wouldn't wreck his career, seeing as he is already a bonafide jobber and could actually get some mileage out of the angle. Amusingly enough Rugrat played into your hands by putting over the fact that Slater isn't someone who will have a problem putting over Rousey. Only issue I have with the pick is that you didn't convince me that the PG WWE would be willing to promote potential man on woman violence. Yeah I get that the match wouldn't be booked like that, but doesn't advertising the bout raise some issues?

My vote goes to Seabs, but only just. Both debates had good counter arguments, but Seabs showed more depth and analysis for why their pick would work from most aspects.

RealManRegal
Honestly I found both of your choices to be a bit odd at first read, and even now after several re-reads I’m not sure whether they’re batshit or genius. They’re certainly, erm, interesting though; but I don’t think either of you did an effective enough job in dismissing the more compelling/obvious choices involving Stephanie (either single and/or as part of something with Rock/Triple H). Certainly not enough to convince me of your own picks - both jobbers who are barely, if ever, on TV.

I couldn’t shake the feeling that you were both trying too hard to go left of field with your selections, and while you both made interesting cases for your own picks, either debate could have easily been beaten by an average quality debate that argued competently for the safer/more obvious choice.

That all being said, here’s some specific feedback…

Rugrat

Eva Marie is such a weird choice for me considering that outside of Total Diva’s she’s a complete non-entity, and I can’t recall her having a singles angle to date. It’s a fair assumption that if Rousey was given clearance to be in a match, she’d likely still have limited availability leading up to it; so whoever she’s against would have to carry the lion's share of the build. Absolutely nothing I’ve seen from Eva Marie would suggest she has the competence to do this effectively.

I think you make a massive leap in claiming that Steph is unwilling to bump for Ronda, so for me your dismissal of the more obvious Rousey/Steph match falls apart. Rousey has said in an interview that their spot didn’t totally go to plan, and that she improvised the bit with Triple H; so it’s perfectly feasible that something else was planned for her interaction with Steph. Even if not there’s a big difference between not bumping and being unwilling to bump.

“barking orders at her in the ring, as though she was Heath Slater” - brilliantly ironic.

Your reasoning for picking Eva Marie is wafer-thin. Not sure where the whole “she gives the impression that contact sports are beneath her” comes from - though that might explain why she never wrestles. You’re basically saying she’s the best choice because she’s an arrogant heel - that’s pretty much it. You’ve not convinced me that she brings anything to the table other than being someone Rousey can squash - and if your viewpoint is that all the match needs is a bottom of the totem poll jobber to bully, and that it doesn’t really matter who the opponent is, so Eva Marie is as good a choice as any then that’s fine, but you need to state that and argue it.

You could have made a far better case by suggesting Rousey face 2 or 3 heel diva’s in a handicap match - at least that would bring some level of intrigue to this match. Rousey destroys trained, skilled nobodies on a regular basis in one on one matches; so where’s the appeal in her destroying an untrained nobody? At least by putting her in a handicap match you’re presenting something completely new to her fanbase that might pique their interest.

Seabs

While I maintain that your choice seems like you’re trying to hard to be “out there”, at least you give a logical explanation into your thinking in terms of the relationship between UFC/WWE and how the required nature of the match and protection of talent relate to your choice.

Your dismissal of the tag match was a bit thin for me, and your arguments against the 1 on 1 with Steph fall down due to 2 major flaws:

1 - Ronda being a draw on her own, therefore it doesn’t matter who her opponent is. Not saying this isn’t true - but the reason Rousey faces no-names in UFC is precisely because there are no other big name female talents in UFC; so the logic doesn’t really transfer to WWE (where “big name” opponents do exist).

2 - You basically that the match with Steph would only appeal to WWE fans, and as they already have the Network the match has no value; this ignores the fact that a large percentage of WWE fans don’t actually subscribe to the Network. Unless your point was that the match only appeals to the segment of WWE fans who are subscribers, in which case you don’t make this clear or back this up.

Because the drawing/fanbase arguments are a bit tenuous for me, I’m glad you have that follow-on paragraph about “wasting” the rub on an outsider because that at least adds an extra layer to why you’re dismissing Stephanie.

You do realise you only used a single sentence to give your reasons for why Health Slater specifically was the right choice for Rousey’s opponent, right? Up until then you could replace his name with “insert jobber here” or “someone other than Stephanie” and the debate would read exactly the same. It’s a little cheap slipping “All the jobbers released post Nexus and Slater always survives” into your references. That’s not a reference, it’s an attempt to bring your word count down.

It’s hard to really analyse your arguments for Slater since you’ve not really made any. You missed a trick by not at least arguing that facing a male competitor rather than a female gives Rousey fans something that so far UFC haven’t given them (and which has been talked about a lot).

Decision

Neither debate convinced me of their choices - they were both similar in that it really boiled down to saying that Rousey needed to squash a jobber, and essentially any jobber would do.

Seabs, however, did a better job of arguing against the more conventional choices; and while they didn’t necessarily make a compelling case for their specific selection, the decision to go with a male jobber over a female jobber pushes their choice slightly ahead of Rugrat.

So for better arguments against, and a somewhat better choice of opponent, Seabs is my winner.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Seabs

TDL Social Division Special Attraction Match
Rigby2 vs SPCDRI

Which acting performance was the best, Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight?

Rigby2
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A MADMAN

Acting is the process of painting a compelling portrait of an individual in a given narrative.

While the final portrait must stand up as more than the sum of its parts, every hue, brush stroke, and layer of paint is as vital as the composite image.

Acting techniques, such as emotional expression through gestures, timing, and diction, the chemistry between actors, and bringing themes to life are what forms that whole portrait.

Jack Nicholson's portrait of R.P. McMurphy is, both technically and as a whole product, more compelling and skilled a performance than that of Heath Ledger and the Joker.

SPECTRUM OF EXPRESSION​

Joker's emotional color scheme covers a limited spectrum compared to McMurphy, but even within that parallel range Nicholson has a more expressive performances.

When McMurphy first meets Dr. Spivey, he adopts a restrained, monotone voice and cleverly rebuts every allegation against himself, timing his reactions accordingly. Dodging every point brought up, the doctor outright asks him if he's feigning his insanity to avoid work. McMurphy hesitates for a smile and puts the onus on the doctor to dignify that allegation.

Through his pacing and collected interactions, he establishes an uneasiness about himself while expertly satiating preliminary questioning. This scene portrays the landscape vibrantly; McMurphy needs to keep the doctor from being too curious while feigning enough madness to prompt further analysis, and Nicholson brings a broad spectrum to this landscape.

Joker finds himself in a somewhat similar situation when confronted by mob bosses. When his sanity is questioned, he gives his own response: "No, I'm not [crazy]." A response as one-dimensional as the delivery, it's as vibrant as a stick figure on a blank background.

This parallel is the clearest comparison the two films will offer, and the comic book character, known for colorful wordplay, blandly delivers three words, whereas McMurphy trailing his doctor at a comfortable distance with off-kilter rambling. The artistry through the timing and diction is self-evident.

JESTER'S GESTURES​

Joker habitually gestures throughout conversations, miming along his lines. He mentions "something little", thus he gestures his index and thumb together, because the distance demonstrated is little. He references pushing someone off their mental brink, thus he mimics a push. He foreshadows an "aggressive expansion", therefore he clenches his fists aggressively, and then expands his arms.

His gestures exist solely to belabor the literal. No movement further illustrates the emotions behind his words.

ACTING IS REACTING​

The chemistry between an actor and the other players in a scene is the true test of their mettle.

Take McMurphy's group therapy sessions for instance; Nicholson's ability to tell a story by sitting back and simply reacting is mesmerizing. His amusement at the antics of Taber fades into disbelief and eventually disapproval when he watches Harding belittle Cheswick. Finally, as the scene breaks into chaos, he's fixated on Ratched, acknowledging the ease with which she's manipulated these men.

During other sessions, he desperately navigates the session persuading another man to vote on his behalf against Nurse Ratched. He bounces around the room, waving his arms with dejection, exasperation, and trepidation as his prospects falter. His presence envelopes the environment, parading about with urgency, his mannerisms pacing the scene wonderfully.

Parallels in Ledger's performance are rare, but present. Interrupting a mob meeting, gets called a "freak", a label he would BLOW UP HOSPITALS to dispute, and all he can muster is a low growl.

A tense encounter where he murders a man and nearly resorts to suicide bombing, and his reactions are flat, lackluster, in response to the situational stimuli.

Putting them side-by-side, it's easy to forget which man is playing the comic book character! McMurphy, for such a cold, calculated character, is fleshed out through his colorfully animated reactions. On their own, a basketball player might be a fantastic shooting guard, but if they can't coordinate with their team and react accordingly, they're holding everybody back. The same holds true for actors.

THE BIG PICTURE​

Great performances not only put the actors fully into their roles, but will also illuminate greater truths of humanity through their performance.

Both films provide clear themes to allow this from Ledger and Nicholson; The Dark Knight revolves around escalation, while One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest examines madness.

The destruction unleashed by the Joker escalates, aggressively expanding from a bank heist to demolishing hospitals and police stations. However, these scripted plot points cannot be conflated with his performance. Joker's performance itself shows little escalation. He unleashes barking intensity during the fake Batman torture scene, but this is only a quarter through the film. The urgency and sadistic nature of the performance fails to elevate the themes to a fitting climax.

Nicholson's madness rises and falls perfectly for the film's themes. The grotesque abuse of authority sparks mad bouts of various shades. From the infectious enthusiasm while pretending to watch the World Series, drawing joy from the miserable patients, to the climatic strangulation of Nurse Ratched, he exposes the misguided effects of Ratched's emasculating techniques.

ACCOLADES VS. ARTISTRY​

Ledger received great acclaim and accolades for his performance, but biases borne through circumstance can't be ignored. With the best timing in his acting career, Ledger passed away shortly before the film's release, and there's few better ways to honor a young actor tragically lost in his prime than to pass the award his way. The bias cannot be separated from the decision.

That's the dubious nature of constituting accomplishments purely as quality. Performances stand upon their merits, despite hype or accolades. Regardless, Nicholson's performance earned its share of critical awards.

The Dark Knight is fine cinema, Heath Ledger gave a worthwhile performance, but Nicholson outclasses him at every turn. He brings forth human truths in his performance that accentuates his film's themes while technically crafting a compelling portrait that will stand the test of time.

SPCDRI
Both performances are exemplary, Academy Award winning tour de forces but Jack Nicholson as R.P. McMurphy in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is superior. His chemistry is electrifying and his presence on the film is dominant and flawness and not even surpassed by many gifted actors to include a Best Actress winner. His character is not an interpretation of decades-old material but is the definitive portrayal of R. P. McMurphy. Nicholson is integral, not just the "cool part" and has not had repeat viewings degraded by a Halloween Costume and Internet Meme vibe as Nicholson portrayed McMurphy with anarchic goodness and dignity.


Both actors brought their all but Ledger had an advantage. The Joker has existed since 1940 and even Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in a darker and more realistic fashion had already occurred in celebrated works like The Killing Joke. Nicholson, with his portrayal of McMurphy and the Joker himself in the 1989 Batman film, are acknowledged by Ledger as informing the voice of the Joker. By contrast, Nicholson was working off a book and a few Broadway runs. He is also the film originator as McMurphy. The originator and influencer should get more credit than even a brilliant re interpreter.


It is fallacious to say that Nicholson had it easy in comparison to Ledger on film, did not improvise as well and was carried along by tight direction and script. Many memorable moments are totally improvised such as Nicholson's brilliant interview scene with a real life mental health worker who had no clue what Nicholson was going to say. The interview and Ledger's interrogation scene are close parallels but I give the nod to the smooth, cocky delivery of Nicholson who gets you to root for a career criminal and statutory rapist.

Nicholson was not battling the mental demons that Ledger was, but that is not to say his role was a cakewalk. The film was shot at a genuine mental institution with mental patients as extras and even had an escapee! Ledger worked well with director Christopher Nolan, at least in comparison to Nicholson and Milos Forman. Those two had such a contentious relationship that Nicholson walked off set for a week. The supposedly "easy" therapy scenes were hour long grueling slogs and shot for days on end to capture the perfect reactions and statements. Much is made of Ledger directing, writing and acting his hostage video scenes but Nicholson bests Ledger at his own game by insisting on a pivotal boating scene. This scene caused many actors to get violently ill and took over a week to film. Talk about suffering for your craft!

McMurphy's rebellion on behalf of others and subsequent tragic lobotomization is a selfless act that hits a heroic emotional high point through Nicholson's performance that Ledger simply does not. The Joker character is far from realistic and is a force of chaos without purpose or end. Like a dog, even if he caught the tire with a character arc, he would not know what to do with it. As a consequence, Ledger's Joker is a truly supporting actor. Unlike Nicholson's vital role as McMurphy, it is all too tempting to divorce the Joker from the story and watch his "cool parts."

Nicholson's more nuanced and restrained character meant he needed to work well with others as he did with Louise Fletcher's Nurse Ratched. A hero is only as good as the villain and a villain only as good as the hero which means both wildly succeeding in getting the others over. Nicholson's rapport and love of the inmates, his excellent defiance towards brutal authoritative evil, resistance to electroshock therapy and wild partying to help Bill are all acted impeccably. When Nicholson's McMurphy is strangling Ratched after Billy commits suicide, you are so emotionally invested that you are truly marking out! The retaliatory lobotomy is an outrage and Nicholson's death is a goddamn tear jerker. Ledger fails to really "put anyone over" and does not hit these emotional home runs. Ledger, though magnetic, even lets Aaron Eckhardt's portrayal of Two Face steal scenes and has no chemistry the way Nicholson has with Fletcher's Nurse Ratched.

Culturally, his portrayal of the Joker is one of many. If you feel that Ledger surpassed Nicholson's 1989 performance, who is to say Ledger's Joker will not be surpassed? The internet's embrace of this character is likewise to its detriment, making it seem childish, faddish, a goofy "meme" and sapping it of its genuine fierceness and emotional impact. Some of Ledger's own choices and improvisations, such as the iconic Joker Clap, are inappropriate, Nicholson as McMurphy hits fewer sour notes.

Both brilliant, but Nicholson has the chemistry to carry his film and win.

Hollywood Hanoi
Both these debates were great and totally authoritative and would be sure fire winners against lesser competition, however Im awarding the W to Rigby2 for its superior use of breaking down the technical intricacies in each performance and stacking them up against each other, I loved the pin pointing certain mannerisms in specific scenes and how they elevate the films themes, it brought up things I hadn’t even noticed and stayed within the context of the topic. SPCDRI took a similar approach with the bonus of some nice back round on both parts, a lot of the key points of comparison of the roles were the same and well executed, I loved the enthusiastic praise for Nicholson’s performance, that stuff was great to read. I just feel that Rigby2 shaded it when it came comparing the actual roles and how they advance the movies around them, while always keeping on what gives one more worth than the other. SPCDRI was close but Rigby2 takes this one.

BkB Hulk
Rigby2:
What you’ve done really well is actually compare the two performances in order to make Nicholson’s performance seem vastly superior. It looks like a lot of preparation has gone into it, because the comparison in particular of the descents into madness by the respective characters is done really well.

I was glad you kept Ledger’s award to the end, because it was probably the least important of your arguments. Your direct comparisons worked much better, and the last part just kind of served as an extra spanner to throw into the works for anyone doubting you were arguing the right way.

Although at times it seems almost too critical of Ledger as a performance, I think you’ve done a really good job here.

SPCDRI:
I thought there were parts of this that were good, but I think it also had some glaring weaknesses. To me, you spend a lot of time focussing on the character itself rather than the portrayal of the character. There are criticisms of the Joker throughout, but is that as relevant in comparison of performances? I wouldn’t think so.

You also spend a lot of time dismissing Ledger’s performance as easier because of the past portrayals of the Joker, but it seems aimless when you’re not really comparing the performance with Nicholson’s. Is it a valid point to use? Certainly, but I wouldn’t focus so much of a debate on it, particularly early. It’s far from the most important point, yet it seems to almost take centre stage.

That’s not to say all of this is bad, but even some points like the ideas put forward don’t really answer the question of acting performance. While it’s not a bad piece of writing, it’s not a winning debate.

Rigby2 wins.

Anark
Rigby2
Your opening was very elegant and it worked really well exactly because of the subject matter up for debate. Your intro style helped focus the debate on the artistry that was to be discussed, although I didn’t like the underlined bit. That was ugly (also irrelevant to this judging, but still ugly). The Spectrum of Expression section was good, though I could positively compare Adam Sandler to Daniel Day-Lewis if I cherry-picked one line from each of their best films. It’s a good overall point though and it holds up with your further explanation. The Jester’s Gestures section felt very flat in my opinion. What you say is true but there are other justifiable explanations for Ledger’s acting style utilising the gestures as he did. His Joker was a very literal guy and thus those gestures signify that, plus they helped paint the picture of a very agitated mind. Remaining calm and still portrays a calm and relaxed state of mind, which Ledger’s Joker certainly doesn’t have (and isn’t meant to have) at any point during the film.

The Acting is Reacting section describes Nicholson’s excellence admirably and does a good job belittling Ledger’s performance, though the direct comparison of scenes again makes me feel a bit iffy about the whole thing. Though madness is a theme of both, they are completely different characters in completely different situations which is going to result in completely different acting techniques. Ledger’s Joker was meant to be on edge all the time, brooding menacingly when silent and on the verge of toppling over that edge whenever he spoke. Nicholson’s McMurphy was a much more calculated character whose mental state was meant to evolve throughout the story. I understand the approach, but directly comparing one scene to another scene makes me ask more questions than it answers.

The Big Picture section is your best section by far. The points about Joker not really evolving throughout the performance compared to McMurphy rising and falling etc throughout Cuckoo’s Nest were excellently executed. One issue is that this wasn’t really Ledger’s fault as his Joker was presented to us already out of his tree. He wasn’t required to show us his journey from sanity to insanity. Having said that, your points are still perfectly made and there’s no denying the truth of them.

The Accolades part was okay, though there was massive hype about Ledger’s performance before he died as well. Remember there’s that scene when Joker invades the party where Michael Caine’s Alfred just stares at him silently. Caine apparently had a line in that scene but completely forgot it when he saw Ledger as Joker for the first time. Sure, the death did add something to the whole business, but the performance was rightly applauded regardless of that. Personally I don’t care about awards but they can add substance to a debate. With both guys winning awards for their performances, it’s a fair point you make regarding the additional hype that came about because of his death. A bit harsh on Ledger perhaps, but just about worthy all the same.

I like the human truths points you make a couple of times throughout this debate as well, showing that the McMurphy character simply had more to say despite Joker’s often more enthusiastic way of saying it. Again though, is that an acting issue or a script issue? It seems a bit unfair to directly compare the cultural weight of their roles as Nicholson had a script based off of one of the most human-condition-examining and influential novels of all time, whereas Ledger had to play a comic book character with little to no scripted depth. I suppose these are points that an opponent who chose the pro-Ledger stance would have to make for it to make an awful lot of difference though.

SPCDRI
Your second paragraph has an insightful point regarding what each of the actors had to work with. Ledger having a huge history of Joker work to draw from, including similarly gritty renditions such as The Killing Joke is important when you compare it to Nicholson having just the original book to work with. Is there perhaps some praise for Ledger here though for being able to create a relatively original Joker despite so many having gone before? Nicholson had less inspiration, sure, but also the freedom to establish McMurphy his own way. Ledger had plenty of inspiration, but was also somewhat restricted by it too. Despite that, he still made it his own.

This point, “The originator and influencer should get more credit than even a brilliant re interpreter.” Was spot on though I might have liked it even more with some additional information as to why this is the case. There are plenty of occasions where an originator has been outclassed by a re-interpreter. Still a good point though.

I liked the paragraph about their improvised scenes. Nicholson’s ability to get you to root for what was essentially a pretty bad guy was indeed awesome. That was his job though, and it wasn’t Ledger’s job to get you to root for him. It was Ledger’s job to get you to feel uneasy about him, to feel like anything and everything might happen when he’s on screen. I made similar points to your opponent that I think their performances needed more comparing with regards to what was required of each of them from their scripts and director.

The boating/hostage scene comparison section didn’t do a lot for me. It wasn’t bad at all, but didn’t really advance Nicholson’s case over Ledger’s. The argument about Nicholson’s McMurphy being more realistic is a good point okayly made. I feel like there was a lot more to work with here though. However, the section about Nicholson’s ‘more nuanced and restrained’ character requiring a lot more emotional connection with the audience as well as requiring a greater rapport with his fellow performers was excellent. It’s an area Ledger undoubtedly falls behind Nicholson in so really this was a required argument for this debate (and stance) that your opponent didn’t include.

VERDICT
Holy fucking shit this is tight. This was a real heavyweight battle and I wish I could hold both your arms up in victory and send you both home happily to never ever return to debate against me. Alas, I must pick one of you, and I can find more reasons to declare SPCDRI is the winner over Rigby2. I wasn’t fond of the direct scene comparisons in Rigby2's as it would be easy to select certain scenes to support a particular stance. SPCDRI had a little more depth in this regard, especially with the section regarding what each of their roles required from them in terms of connecting with the audience and working in greater tandem with their fellow actors. That part really nudged SPCDRI ahead and Rigby2 didn’t quite have enough to haul it back. Jaysus, what a match though.

Winner via Split Decision - Rigby2

TDL Social Division Special Attraction Match
Andre vs Rigby2

Does America as a Country have a racist culture?

Rigby2
BIRTH OF A RACIST NATION

Warning: Graphic images.​

They tell you:

Blacks are thugs.

Mexicans are dirty.

Arabs are terrorists.


And most importantly:

Stereotypes exist for a reason.

That's the root of a racist culture: Cultural stereotypes that rationalize discrimination. Through arts, language, government, the social, economic, and legal aspects of life, our culture is permeated with racism.

Disclaimer: Not all Americans are racist individuals, nor need they be. No cultural fixtures are unanimous.

America's racist culture revolves around the white/black dichotomy; various ethnic groups fit into the picture, but America's racial caste is historically black/white. The sickness of America's racism began as solutions to problems. Indentured servitude was colorblind, poor whites and blacks suffered equally under plantation overlords. Eventually, economic tensions birthed rioting. To quell this uprising, seeds of racial contempt were planted.

Illiterate, unintelligent, and uncivilized African slaves were brought in, while poor whites were given meager privileges, including access to the savage Indian's lands. This drew a racial line, and racial caste was born.


Slaves were mercilessly beaten, stereotypes dictated that Africans registered less pain. Not even female slaves were spared, being routinely raped and exploited for scientific experiments. Special techniques were devised to whip pregnant slaves without causing miscarriages.

Slaves were barred from reading, but it was justified. Their thickened skulls and subpar intellect were subhuman, apelike. Early encyclopedias proclaimed it as fact that African slaves were of lesser evolutionary stature. White men held in contempt their very humanity.

Poor whites still suffered, but at least they weren't whipped, raped, or tortured like slaves.

Some argue slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation an the Civil War, but the truth is slavery evolved under the criminal justice system. Vagrancy laws turned lazy, unemployed ******* into jails, where they were leased back onto plantations. Lazy ******* should've been thankful for the work opportunities.

In 1871, Ruffin v. Commonwealth ruled that "He is for the time being a slave of the State." They had no rights, only privileges, which could all stripped away without cause, and they were. Soon thereafter, prisons became blacker, sentences longer, and prison populations grew tenfold.

Stereotypes old and new reinforced disgusting attitudes towards ******* that revived discrimination following slavery. They were illiterate and unintelligent, and would corrupt voting procedures through ignorance. Legislatures prevented corruption through literacy tests designed for failure, for example:


One wrong answer meant you couldn't vote. Grandfather laws guaranteed most whites could circumvent these tests, almost exclusively disenfranchising *******. ******* that passed still faced poll taxes and KKK intimidation.

They were now aggressive and unruly, and wanted to rape white women.


The Ku Klux Klan nobly rose to restore Order, systemically lynching an estimated two unruly ******* per week for even looking at white women. Whether lynched, burned alive, or castrated (and their genitalia kept as trophies), terrorism maintained social dominance for the whites.

Poor blacks/whites coalesced once more due to economic discontent, now as the Populist Party. Their prevailing message was, "[We] are deceived and blinded that [we] may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates [an economic] system which beggars both [white and black].”

New problems necessitated new solutions. Thus, Jim Crow segregation was implemented. They were literally torn apart, with whites being awarded with access to superior libraries, hospitals, and schools. Populist members soon became victims of KKK lynchings and bombings. The party mercifully dissolved thereafter.

Poor whites still suffered, but at least they weren't terrorized, incarcerated, or disenfranchised like *******.

Jim Crow would soon end, in the interim however, racism thrived. During World War 2, America demonized its sneaky Asian population, approximately 120,000 forced out of their homes from 1942 to 1945 under suspicion of spying.


Only ten people were convicted of spying for the Japanese. They were all white.

The immediacy with which this racial suspicion was spurred still persists. Following 9/11, hate crimes towards terrorist Arabs soared 20x, and they remain 5x what they were pre-9/11.


All it takes is one spark to light the volatile xenophobia in America aflame.

POST-RACIAL SOCIETY​

With Civil Rights defeating Jim Crow, America became "colorblind". Racism was dead! Or so the white moderates believed.
As Obama wasn't unanimously elected, Jim Crow wasn't unanimously repealed. Its supporters are alive well into their 70s today, their children are alive, their grandchildren are alive. The cultural echoes cannot die when the mouths that birthed them still breathe by the millions.

Children, born well into the "post-racial society" still express racial prejudices. Even without the racist cartoons of yesteryear, explicitly racist attitudes are instilled in our children.

For brevity, skip to 6:15.


Racist imagery, caricatures exaggerating stereotypical features, remain mainstream.


Blackface stereotypes refuse to be forgotten, through careful archival documentation.


The arts continually document contemporary racial relations and attitudes, particularly through hip-hop. The narrative is perpetuated through the perspective of the oppressed.


Registered hate groups emanate throughout the nation. The KKK, neo-Nazis, Skinheads, neo-Confederates, and Black Separatists still linger.


The economic imbalance that places ethnic minorities into poverty steadfastly remains.

The racial wage gaps remain virtually identical to post-Jim Crow gaps.

Through privately owned prisons, prisoners continue slaving away for private sector gains. It's no surprise that our prison populations continues to explode, just as it did under Jim Crow.

America imprisons more of its ethnic minorities than any other developed nation in history, and its black prisoner population's ten times that of South Africa's during apartheid. Black prison sentences are roughly 20% longer, too.

Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment; while approximately 4x as many crack cocaine users are white than black, stereotypes persist notions of black crack use, and blacks contribute 79% of crack-related arrests.

Lynching spiritually lives on with the public murder of blacks by poor white vigilantes acting as judge, jury, executioner.

WARNING: Morbid images.


Every aforementioned puzzle piece forms a lucid revelation: Racism hasn't died. The "post-racial society" is a myth and contemporary culture continually echoes the racial caste of our past.

CITATIONS
---
http://pastebin.com/eszVvqmg - DEBATE TRANSCRIPT FOR WORD COUNT PURPOSES
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html - Bacon's Rebellion, first prominent poor black/white riots pre-slavery
http://www.socialpsychology.org/pdf/jasp1995b.pdf - "partly as a consequence of these presumed anatomical differences, they were thought to be less sensitive to physical pain"; "the entry for '*****' in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1884, p. 316) stated authoritatively that the African race occupied 'the lowest position of the evolutionary scale'"
http://www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/shaping_the_constitution/doc/vagrancy_law - Analysis of vagrancy laws
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3451700123.html - Ruffian vs. Commonwealth
http://spartacus-educational.com/USAlynching.htm - "It has been estimated that between 1880 and 1920, an average of two African Americans a week were lynched in the United States."
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2050472.Thomas_E_Watson - “You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both.”
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm - "Some 120,000 people of Japanese descent living in the US were removed from their homes and placed in internment camps"
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/japan_internment_camps.htm - "During the entire war only ten people were convicted of spying for Japan and these were all Caucasian."
http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Trends_in_Corrections_Fact_sheet.pdf - US prison population growth, comparisons to other countries
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/report-suggests-black-men-receive-longer-sentences-45089/ - "Sentencing Commission report shows black men receive up to 19.5 percent longer terms than white males."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-disparity-in-crack-sentencing - "According to the commission, 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic."
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Cocaine#sthash.Pbv9TDgv.dpbs - Table 2, whites = 6,002 lifetime, African-Americans = 1,449 lifetime


Andre
For ‘a country’ to have a racist culture, the ideas, customs and social behaviours(1) of its majority race would have to involve feelings of discrimination, or prejudice, against people of other races, or a belief that their race is superior to another(2).

As a country, ‘America’ (USA) has been BUILT upon a racist culture.

A DARK history :


(1619-1865) Africans slaves taken to America

(1865-1866) Black Codes restricting freedoms

(1877-1954) Jim Crow Black segregation laws

(1934-1960) National Housing Act redlines black neighbourhoods as credit risks

(1960-1964) Civil Rights Act ends laws requiring segregation


"51 YEARS AGO! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

This history is entirely crucial in understanding the current racist culture. Without financial reparations(2) from HUGE US companies who benefitted from slavery, such as J.P Morgan(3), post-segregation blacks were left in extreme poverty, making the past 51-year effort to keep up with white educational and financial progression problematic. In 2012, 35% of blacks lived in poverty, compared to 13% of whites(4). In 2013, 7% of Whites were unemployed; Blacks almost doubled that at 13.8%(5).

"MODERN CAPITALIST CLASSISM! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

Maybe it is though?(7):


Obviously, it’s ludicrously racist to blame an entire race’s lack of employment on laziness, but here’s 2011 evidence for unconvinced RACISTS(8):


So why such high rates of black unemployment?

Studies in Chicago/Boston and New York revealed matching conclusions regarding job applicants with similar cvs. In the former, applicants with white sounding names were 50% more likely to receive an interview than those with black sounding names(9). The latter showed “black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer"(10). By combining the lazy black stereotype with this study and contrasting it with the disparity between black job seeking and employment, the penny starts to drop…

"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

The aforementioned stats prove this isn’t a complete safeguard. The bigger point to consider is that affirmative action wouldn’t even remain a concept without America’s inherent racism.

…the penny has finally landed, but not into black hands. “The typical black household now has just 6% of the wealth of the typical white household”, largely produced by “the gap in the home values in white neighborhoods versus the neighborhoods where people of color live”(11).

"POOR PEOPLE POOR HOUSES! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

This would make sense… if banks didn’t discriminate with mortgage loans. In 2012, Wells Fargo even confessed they had “steered black and Latino households into subprime mortgages but had offered white borrowers with similar credit profiles prime mortgages”(11). It’s easy to SEE how the 1934 National Housing Act lives on in spirit(12)…




This “housing discrimination” TRAPS black families and “plays a role in school segregation”(13), with blacks generally shunted towards underfinanced schools in poor communities, hence less black and white students sharing classrooms now than in 1970(14). This contributes to poor social mobilisation for blacks(15):


"BUT BLACKS LOVE CRIME CULTURE! NOT SELF-IMPROVEMENT! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

It’s obvious that poverty leads to widespread crime(25) and drug use(26) for escapism in hopeless situations. However, discrimination still exists within these scenarios. Blacks account for one-third of drug arrests, yet bizarrely make up 46% of convicted drug felons(16). Even worse, black men have had 20% longer prison sentences than white men for similar crimes(17). These issues are exacerbated because “The media perpetuate ideas linking race with criminality”(18).

"GOT BLACK JOURNALISTS! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

In 2012, Black journalists made up just 4.65% of the 40,600 US newsroom employees(27), with the total 13%(32) of American blacks underrepresented. However, they’ve ALWAYS been underrepresented in the media. Since 1997, the presence of black journalists has decreased at a higher rate than all other races(33), steadily declining since 2004:


MORE black watchdogs are needed, to inform and protect black communities, regarding discrimination and corruption. In 2005, news of Government flood defence cuts to the predominantly black hurricane risk area New Orleans didn’t reach the mainstream media’s attention until post-Hurricane Katrina. Reports lacked balance during this crisis, overlooking the desperate need for clean bottled water and food in favour of racist “looting” angles, portraying blacks reverting to their supposed criminal ways(28). Immediate investigative journalism regarding the horrific police MURDER(29) of Henry Glover in the aftermath of the New Orleans storm was also in short supply.

"SOME COPS ARE JUST POWER CORRUPT! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

Type ‘white police’ into Google, look at the first suggestion. Maybe Google’s racist? Not as racist as killing a defenceless black man with multiple gun shots to the back, before planting a Taser next to his corpse(19). Riots over the Scott(21), Brown(22) and Martin(23) cases suggests a huge problem, with young black males having a 21 times ‘greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts’(29). Unsurprisingly, Black Americans’ confidence in cops is at an all-time low(20):


Following Brown’s death, black journalist Jonathan Capehart commented on his Momma’s lessons: “How I shouldn’t run in public, lest I arouse undue suspicion. How I most definitely should not run with anything in my hands, lest anyone think I stole something”(24).

What the actual fuck?

How can this type of thought process be comprehended as normal in rational thinking societies? Well… racist cultures aren’t rational.

"BLACK PRESIDENT! CAN’T BE RACIST!"

*Sigh* This stupid argument. With just white votes, John McCain would have won the 2008 presidential election with 55%(30). In 2012, Mitt Romney would have won with 59%(31). This isn’t evidence that white Americans are racist, but it also does little to disprove the overwhelming evidence:

America: A white capitalist country with foundations forged on black slaves’ backs, which has NEVER financially compensated them or their descendants, yet ironically stereotypes them as fuckern lazy.

America: Systematically holding blacks down, through subconsciously encouraged segregation, leading to generally poor education and workplace discrimination.

America: Pushing blacks towards poverty, crime and drugs, before using the media, police and courts to finish the job and create a capitalist Marxist black underclass.

America: Has a racist culture as a country.


Sources:

(1)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/culture

(2)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racist

(3)http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

(4)http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/08/26/17-major-companies-never-knew-benefited-slavery/2/

(5)http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...nt-black-culture-its-american-culture/359937/

(6)http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/wealth-gap-grows-between-black-and-white-us

(7)http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bo...ttitudes_social_trends_in_american_life_0.pdf

(8)http://www.americansunitedagain.org...nt-statistics-debunk-the-blacks-are-lazy-myth

(9)http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html

(10)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/#R41

(11)http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurash...ehold-has-16-times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/

(12)http://www.wired.com/2013/08/how-segregated-is-your-city-this-eye-opening-map-shows-you/

(13)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/separate-and-unequal-segregation-making-comeback-in-u-s-schools/

(14)http://asr.sagepub.com/content/78/5/828.full#sec-1

(15)http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/soci...08/28-social-mobility-race-opportunity-reeves

(16)www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf

(17)http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002

(18)www.sagepub.com/gabbidonstudy/articles/Welch.pdf

(19)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ting-ran-away-saying-did-felt-threatened.html

(20)http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/police-killing-videos-white-black-people-trust

(21)http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-demand-justice-walter-scott-north-charleston

(22)http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/01/michael-brown-fallout-protesters-walkouts-die-ins-us

(23)http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_sybrina-fulton-trayvon-martin-martin-family

(24)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hael-brown-shooting-the-war-on-whites-and-me/

(25)http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html

(26)http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction/poverty-and-substance-abuse/

(27)http://www.nabj.org/news/88558/

(28)http://www.globalissues.org/article/564/hurricane-katrina

(29)http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

(30)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...als-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html

(31)http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...white-voters-on-par-with-other-democrats?lite

(32)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

(33)http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...hit-the-number-of-black-journalists-declines/


Anark
Rigby2
Wow. This was a fucking relentless examination of racism in America. Showing its historical origins and following its rise, faux-fall and rise again and again was a relentless round of powerful punches to any possibility that you have the wrong stance. The opening was bold, and how you set about showing the origins of racism in America was nicely done. One issue is that you briefly mention the Native Americans and I’m surprised neither you nor your opponent mentioned them more. Pretty sure there was a fair bit of meat in that casserole.

I thought for a brief moment that you were going to discuss the ill-treatment of slaves a little more than this debate really required, but you jumped forward at a good time with the evolution of slavery section. Describing the birth and progression of racist culture in America is an interesting angle and despite your opponent taking the same stance, you both opted to come at this from entirely different angles. The two different approaches make this a fascinating match even though you’re both arguing the same side.

From the KKK to Jim Crow, you have left me in no doubt that America was built upon a racist culture, whereas your opponent merely stated this as an accepted fact and quickly moved on. I’m in something of a quandary as to which approach was the best. Yours would definitely be better if there was a third debater involved who took the opposite stance, but as you don’t have an opponent who is questioning the validity of the claim I wonder if Andre was better off skimming over the historical origins to focus on more current issues.

I’m leaning towards Andre as the winner when you introduce racism beyond the black/white dichotomy, which I believe to be a very worthy element of this debate as there are a lot more racial issues in America’s historical and modern culture beyond just the black/white thing. The Japanese spy point was short but sweet and you executed the argument with significant impact. The rise of hate crimes on Arabs drove home the point about America only needing a small spark to ignite racial hatred that simmers beneath the surface. However, you then embark on a series of extremely brief mentions of modern racist culture which felt a little lacking while reading through. Perhaps this is where you could have cut out a bit more of the commonly known suffering of slaves you described earlier on in the debate and used the wordage to pad these parts out a little more instead.

Having criticised that series of modern racism mentions at first, on further reading I think I understand what you were trying to do. This is the relentless Mike Tyson thing I mention in my VERDICT. Yes, the points are brief, but it feels like they are meant to be. These points are more of the relentless punches pounding again and again, ultimately knocking any potential opposition to your stance completely the fuck out. This is all confirmed with your conclusion where you put the ‘puzzle pieces’ together.

I hated your formatting though. It made it difficult to collate all the information you were imparting and with so many images and spoiler tags already breaking up the text, your debate would have read a lot better if you’d laid off the extra colours, bold and underlined parts. That’s just me though, someone else might have loved it.

Andre
The opening was simple but effective, bringing into focus the various elements that contribute to a country having a racist culture. You then use a bullet-point history of American racism rather than talking us through it like your opponent, which while a lot more succinct obviously lacks the impact that Rigby2’s thorough narrative has. However, it does allow you to expand in more depth on some of the more modern aspects of racism in America – something I will have to weigh up the worth of compared to the content of your opponent’s debate.

Good idea to bring in the lack of reparations from the companies who benefitted from slavery and how that has had a sinister knock-on effect to modern times, as this added some historical context which was otherwise missing. Also, very nicely played with the lazy stereotype juxtaposed with the job seeker stats. Excellent point excellently made.

The housing discrimination parts were lacking depth but I suppose there’s not a lot more to say once the point has been made. You made good use of images and graphs to do a lot of the talking for you here.

You do meander through the next couple of sections throwing percentages and stats at me without much explanation behind them and how they tie into the debate question. I understand what they mean because I have a brain but I did feel a bit like you were being a bit presumptuous, in terms of relying on me being a right-minded soul rather than actually explaining why those crime/drug/prison stats represent a racist culture in America. Along with the following part regarding the media and black representation in journalism, it felt a lot like you were steering me towards reading the sources to flesh out your arguments rather than merely confirm them. Though, to be fair, I’m picking up on this kind of thing because there’s not a lot else to criticise so far.

I did like how you expanded the media part when you started discussing the media’s attitude toward Hurricane Katrina, and this bit is a good example of what I was after regarding the previous parts on crime and drug stats. The part about the racist police obviously had to be included but it would have been better to directly equate it to the culture of racism in America by describing potential or substantially backed-up reasons why white police act like they do.

One thing I’ve noticed is that you have focused entirely on the white/black relationship which, while totally understandable as a dominating factor in this debate, does mean that you don’t address any of the other racism that America is good at.

VERDICT
The differences in content make this quite a difficult one to judge. On the one hand, we have Rigby2 with a strong historical narrative which leads us by the hand through the developing culture of racism in America, eventually reaching its destination for a comparatively brief glance about at the current state of affairs. Then we have Andre who skips merrily over the historical narrative and takes us on a much more detailed tour of the current climate of racism in modern America.

I feel like the cultural aspect of this question needed that historical foundation, as a country’s culture involves infinitely more than mere current events or status quos, so Rigby2 moves out ahead in that regard. However, Andre pulls it back by being presented better and making good use of the word count saved on skimming over the history of racism by beefing up the arguments for the existence of current racism in cultural aspects of modern America.

Both debates inspire boxing analogies to me, with Andre being a quick-footed but lighter-hitting Joe Calzaghe type, dancing around the ring, dodging everything thrown at it and always landing just enough points-scoring punches to take the judges’ decision at the end. But Rigby2 is like Mike Tyson; an uncouth but unstoppable heavyweight, relentlessly battering the living fuck out of me in search of the KO.

Here’s the breakdown: Rigby2 presented a far superior historical context behind the racist culture of America, while Andre had a much greater description of the modern elements of racist culture in America. Andre was also a thousand times prettier and easier to read and absorb. But Rigby2 had a certain power and a tension that built and built and built and then suddenly unloaded in an unrelenting succession of body blows to any kind of opposition to his stance. At this point, both debates are fairly equal. However, I have to factor in that Rigby2 also had a wider scope with regards the racist culture, showing an understanding that it goes much deeper than just white on black racism. That nudges Rigby2 ahead again, and I’m struggling to find a reason for Andre to pull it back to level terms again, let alone nudge out ahead itself. On first read through, I had Rigby2 as the winner, but there was a niggling doubt. On my second sit down with the debates, I read through them a couple more times and had Andre as the winner, again with a niggling doubt. This is my third and final sit down and after writing out all my notes, I have to change my mind again though I still can’t shake the niggling doubt. If there was ever a drawn TDL match, then it is this one, butthe winner is Rigby2.

Seabs
I'll keep this brief because I'm low on time and filling in for another Judge but there's really only a need to talk about my decision rather than each element of the debates themselves because they're both brilliant and you both "get it". Honestly I can think of valid reasons to vote for either debate and both carry virtually equal eight imo. Rigby2 does a much better job going through the historical aspect than Andre who very quickly summarises it. If the question was Is America Racist then that detail isn't really needed but as we're talking about a culture it is. On the other hand though Andre does a much better job arguing the present tense side of things. I assume you didn't realise but the headings in white text while I'm assuming was smartly intended didn't work at all and I almost missed them entirely on the white background before I wondered what was with the big gaps. I think an area where one of you could have really pulled ahead was looking at more than just the one race. It is touched upon but the primary focus is definitely on blacks. Either debate concentrating more on how America is racist to more than just the one race could have stolen this one. I really don't know because I can use either of them reasons as justification for voting either way and be content with my decision. My gut reaction after reading both was that Andre's debate argued better with the use of stats and analysing not just what the stats were but how they came to be and what they meant. Due to Rigby2's longer historical analysis it then meant that he was more just throwing similar arguments out in short bursts without that added explanation and analysis and relying on images and videos as the evidence. Not that there's anything wrong with it but Andre's approach argues and explains the evidence better imo. This part of Andre's debate was the peak of either debate for me personally and probably why my gut was siding with Andre after the initial read. I'm gonna stick with my initial reaction on this one but I could quite honestly redo this and say Rigby2's historical context gave him the edge in showing how the culture was built not just that it exists. Heck of a debate and it sucks than one of you has to "lose" it. Pretty sure if we got 9 Judges to vote then it would still come down to a 5-4 decision.

Winner - Andre

Clique
First, I thank Seabs for inviting me to step in to judge this pertinent debate. Although I have enjoyed retirement I realize even Shawn Michaels and Stone Cold Steve Austin have to return every now and then to make a special appearance. This is my moment to get a glimpse of the game without fully stepping back into the game. And man the competition in this debate is remarkable! I'm going to be succinct here (mainly because I'm winging this shit iPhone) so if any of the competitors in this highly topical debate have questions for me just mention me in a post. My decision is Andre. Both debates were effective in providing a historical perspective on racism in the United States in a multitude of ways. That piece was required in this debate and even if one of you decided to argue the United States does not currently have a racist culture, you cannot deny history. Both debaters wisely took the historical perspective and brought us up to modern times for us to see some connections. The difference in the two debates came in this aspect. Rigby2, I felt did not wove his current climate argument through the history, through the present systemic issues as well as Andre. Rigby2 had some striking imagery and built up his argument for the final point, but Andre's constant connection of past-present-present-past forced me not only to impossibly deny the history but to face it in today's mirror. You both had it but Andre gave it from start to finish in such an intelligent manner that was more than a history lesson but an indictment of the times - The white quotes/voices/blind eye to racism was money. The covert, the overt, and the systemic racism in America's culture was, to me at least, debated at A+ level. Fantastic work!

Winner via Split Decision - Andre

TDL Sports Division Championship Match
Baxter vs Aid

Which sport requires a higher level of sporting IQ, Basketball or Football (Soccer)?

Baxter

Which sport requires a higher level of sporting IQ, Basketball or Football (Soccer)?​

Here we’ll be defining “Sporting IQ” as the level of overall intelligence and understanding that a player has in regards to their game; not necessarily in a literal sense (e.g. being able to recite the winners of a particular trophy), but rather how well they understand the intricacies of their game and HOW it works; e.g. knowing what the best thing to do in an unfamiliar situation is, knowing not just where your teammates and opponents are at the moment but where they’ll all be in 3 seconds time when you plan on playing that killer pass, and fully understanding what roles you’re expected to fulfil and what you need to contribute to help your team win are all examples of qualities that contribute to a high Sporting IQ.

So which of the two sports requires a fuller understanding of the game in order to play it well? Which requires a higher Sporting IQ? The answer is football.


GETTING PHYSICAL​

Basketball players are able to depend on their size and strength to a much greater degree than footballers, who HAVE to be good at the technical and “Sporting IQ” side of things in order to get to the top.

An example of this is a player like Adebayo Akinfenwa. He completely obliterates every other professional footballer on the planet when it comes to fitness and physicality, and even has a pretty good goalscoring record. But he doesn’t even come close to being good enough to play at a good standard of football.

Why?

Because of his low Sporting IQ. His entire game is based around his physicality; just look at his highlight reel in the references, virtually everything he does comes around solely because of his big muscles. If you watch him play a full match it’s easy to spot his deficiencies. He doesn’t make intelligent runs and rarely gets himself into smart positions; instead he just lingers around in the box and waits for the ball to come flying through the air. Defenders with a high Sporting IQ have such an easy time against him because although they may not match him physically he’s so predictable that they’re always one step ahead of him.

Compare this to someone like Dwight Howard, another very physical player, and like Akinfenwa he doesn’t have a particularly great sporting IQ. But nonetheless he’s regarded as one of the best centres in the NBA. Why? Because there’s so much more importance placed upon the physical side of things in basketball than there is in football.

Yes, these are isolated examples but the over-riding point stands regardless; very few (if any) footballers make it on physical merits alone whereas this isn’t the case in basketball. An NBA team will almost certainly refuse to draft a player with the Sporting IQ of LeBron SOLELY because he’s only 5’6/59kg, but a player with the Sporting IQ of Zidane will undoubtedly get signed by a good club, irrespective of his size.


SPONTANEITY​

There is much more spontaneity and freedom involved in football compared to basketball. In basketball plays are mostly ‘recited’ from a playbook whereas in football there is much more pressure on players to actually think for themselves and produce their own moments of brilliance, rather than just perform pre determined plays. A football manager will set his team out to play in a certain style but when the players get out on the pitch the pressure is all on them to pick the right passes and make the right moves; this isn’t the case in basketball which in a slightly crude sense is almost like one, long, football set piece. It’s more important to have a good Sporting IQ in football because you’ll find yourself improvising more.

The importance of these individual moments can also not be understated; in football just one single positioning mistake by a defender can be the difference between a win and a loss but the high scoring nature of basketball means that one moment of brilliance often has little impact upon the overall result of a game.


TEAM PLAYER

Team cohesion in football is critical, virtually every player needs to be on the same page in order for that team to be successful; something heavily linked to Sporting IQ. This isn’t the case in basketball where often one single player is literally the sole difference between a good team and a bad one. Unless the other people on their team are COMPLETELY inept at basketball then players like LeBron and Durant can shoot 3 pointers for fun, make 40 points a game and win things for their team virtually by themselves, but Lionel Messi can’t score a hat-trick every match and carry Barcelona to title glory because football doesn’t work like that. Unless the likes of Xavi, Iniesta and Neymar are demonstrating their high Sporting IQ by working coherently as a team and providing him with the type of goal scoring opportunities that he can thrive on, then Messi would struggle to have as much impact as he does. It’s easier to hide and get away with a low Sporting IQ in basketball.

But all basketball players need to attack AND defend so they need to learn two different jobs? Does this not require a high Sporting IQ?
Defence in basketball isn’t that difficult or varied and requires a far lower Sporting IQ than defence in football; in basketball it’s as simple as following around one player or patrolling a certain area and stopping the ball. Nowhere near as complex as football when you’ve got to be aware of what about 6 different opponents (plus your teammates) are doing and be prepared to make an impeccably timed run at any moment to stop any one of them.

Even someone with a low IQ can figure this equation out; More pressure on players to think for themselves + Physicality being less important + Team cohesion being critical = Football clearly requiring a higher Sporting IQ than basketball.


Aid

Which sport requires a higher level of sporting IQ, Basketball or Football (Soccer)?
Height: 7’0”
Wingspan: 7’6”
Max Vert: 32.5
Weight: 241 lbs

Strengths: Physical specimen. Excellent skill-level, Huge upside, Athleticism, Excellent hands.[1]
Reading the pre-draft notes from this player probably has you thinking that a guy like this is a multi-time all-star that every team would die to have.

Weaknesses: Decision making, Shot-selection, Basketball IQ[1]
JaVale McGee ladies and gentlemen. Basketball IQ is extremely important. It doesn’t matter how much of a specimen you are or your skill level, if you are a basketball dumbass[2], you’ll be teamless by the age of 27. Time and time again you see that the intelligent players last much longer in the league compared to the physical freaks. Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Dennis Rodman, Larry Bird. Skill is great, but IQ is greater. So why is basketball IQ more important than soccer IQ? Here’s why:

The Numbers Game

Teams are built with the idea in mind that the collective unit covers the individuals faults. The bigger the team, the easier it is to cover the individuals fault. For basketball, there are five players per team. Mathematically, this means that each player is to cover 20% of the responsibilities. Soccer has 10 not including the keeper, resulting in 10%. So what happens when you have a sport IQ challenged player in basketball? You have 20% of your on-court lineup at risk. One less intelligent soccer player hurts. One less intelligent basketball player maims your team.

Soccer fields are bigger, so players have to cover more on their own.
Statistically correct. Soccer fields are bigger. However, the size also means there are many times where they are not moving or not involved in the play. Yes, soccer players will have to make the right cuts, but there could be minutes at a time in which a back defender doesn’t have to do much because their strikers have the ball on the opposite side of the field. In basketball, the small size means that everyone is in range to make a play. No one is really taken out of the game and every one must watch their man on defense. You lose your man, you give up an open shot. Just ask Otto Porter[3].

Likewise, if you have a player that takes bad shots all the time, then it allows the defense to double the good shooters and leave the dumbass open. If you have one player making poor passes, then you lose offensive possessions and give up fast break points. A stupid offensive player will leave potential points on the floor with turnovers and dumb shots. A stupid defensive player will give up easy shots and make it harder to win. It’s a lose lose situation for a basketball team that has a player that is intelligently inadequate, even if it’s on either offense or defense.

He’s a Keeper

The goalie is certainly unique for soccer. This position requires quite a bit of IQ and the intelligence to predict where the ball is likely to go. A phenomenal keeper is not only highly skilled, but intelligent. So surely this means soccer requires more IQ because the goalie requires a lot, right? I’d argue no. The goalie is only one position. One of eleven. While it arguably is the most important position and requires a lot of intelligence, defense is only half the game. A game has two parts to, offense and defense. For soccer keepers, your main objective is to be a defender. For basketball players they must be both offensive and defensive in a matter of seconds. Goalies don’t score. Every basketball position is in charge of defending and scoring. From guard to center. Every player on the court must be fundamentally intelligent on both offense AND defense to make it to the pros and remain in the NBA. A player that is flawed in either offensive or defensive IQ will not play a lot in the game. He’s a liability if he does. But really, even if you have the most intelligent goalie in the world, you won’t win the game if your offense is dumb as rocks. Meanwhile, if you have the smartest Small Forward in the world, you will probably win a lot of basketball games. You can’t win if you don’t score, and winning is the reason you compete.

One Bad Decision

There’s the argument that one bad decision that gives up a goal is much worse than any poor decision a basketball player makes because scoring is so low in soccer. While that sounds correct, there are many clutch plays in basketball that can come down to one mistake. Ask the Spurs about the Chris Bosh rebound in the 2013 Finals[4]. There are many times a game can come down to one play. Any mistake in the last two minutes can be incredibly costly. While it’s not one goal could kill you, every possession and score matters in basketball. Turning over the ball and giving up two fast break points when you lose the game 98-99 is just as important as giving up the goal in soccer and losing 1-2.

Epilogue

Let’s get one thing straight, both sports require sporting intelligence. Players in both sports need to make good decisions, need to be able to read the offense and defense of the other team, and need to know which skill to use and what situation. The difference though is the importance of the intelligence, the amount the need to know, and who makes the biggest impact. Basketball players need to have good intelligence on both sides of the floor. They have to be in their spot all the time and the size of the court means they will be involved a lot. Due to the smaller teams, basketball have more responsibilities. You can’t hide their flaws as well. So because of all of this, basketball requires greater sporting intelligence.

Sources:

[1] http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/JaVale-McGee-1197/links/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et3LTKx2OaA
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqlanK8BMI
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r-ivyuxOnI

Seabs
Baxter - No real major complaints with this debate so good stuff. Sporting IQ definition was good. Maybe a tad wordy for what it was but the rest of your debate didn't massively suffer from parts being under developed either. Physicality part was good and using Akinfenwa as a case study worked well for you. Would have liked to have seen you broaden your argument to a larger sample size than just one lower league example though. Maybe argue how you can't become an elite player without great IQ of the game. Whereas the same would be true in Basketball I do think there's a good argument that you can get much higher in the NBA being a genetically superior but boneheaded player than you can in the top European Football leagues. I thought the Howard comparison almost worked but I thought saying he doesn't have a great sporting IQ was doing him a disservice, especially if you're not going to state why. Ok he's hardly a playmaker but neither is a great CB. Like a great CB though he's great at his role and has a valuable effect. I'm not really sure who would be a great Basketball example to show someone who can make a decent career in the NBA without having a great sporting IQ. Maybe using Aid's McGee example would work although he is without a team now but he did have some longevity at the top level. Last paragraph rounded this point off well though. Just felt that you needed a better example on the Basketball side. The spontaneity part I don't know about. Thought you undersold the importance of it in Basketball too much. Yes there's much more opportunity to call plays right before they happen and to tell players what to do on that possession but that's really not the majority of plays. The majority of possessions are down to the players on the court much the same as in Football where the Coach can plan plays in training but ultimately it's up to the players to have the IQ to create them and pull them off. Yes the Coach input is much less during the actual game in Football but on the other hand PG's especially have to come up with far more plays per game than Football players do due to the fast paced up and down nature of Basketball. You have enough of a case here that it doesn't work against you but I also don't think it was strong enough to be a strong point over the opposing stance. The second paragraph was much stronger though and I wish it was the more expanded on argument as it's a much stronger case for your stance. If you make a dumbass decision in a Football game then it's very likely it can cost your team the game. If you do it in Basketball then it's possible it costs your team the game but the chances of a Basketball game coming down to a one possession game are slim and one bad possession isn't enough on its own to be a huge momentum swinger unlike in Football. I don't know if stats like this are easily available but showing an actual stat that shows how many Football games are decided by 1 goal compared to Basketball games decided by 3 points either way or less would have made it a 10/10 argument. The team cohesion point is ok but I think Aid came out on top in this one and argued that it's more important in Basketball due to the smaller number of players on the court/pitch. Obviously a dumbass on any team can be detrimental but Football teams can minimise the impact a single player can have on a game whereas it's really tough for a Basketball player to have a game totally pass him by on the court. The individual star point I don't really think applies more to one than the other. Having an elite star on any team obviously helps but an NBA team can't reach Barcelona heights without a great supporting cast either. You made it sound like a team with Lebron or Durant only need an average supporting cast to achieve significant success which isn't the case. Durant has had Westbrook and Ibaka who are both All Star calibre players and likewise Lebron had Bosh and Wade and even now has Irving. Great NBA teams have great teams not one elite player and a decent supporting cast just the same how Barca have Messi but also excellence elsewhere. To use a recent example Westbrook has been shooting crazy numbers and 40+ point games as you put it yourself for OKC this calendar year but it still wasn't enough to even get them to the Play Offs which just goes to show how neither can rely on just one elite player. Defence being easier in Football I'm not totally sure on either. Again I thought you undersold the Basketball side too short. Basketball defence really isn't as simple as you put it here. In the same way in Football defence you need to be aware of not just the player you're marking but other players making runs around your zone and what your fellow defenders are doing if you have to cover them or double up and help them, the same is true for Basketball. Defenders have to be aware of offensive movement going on around them, if other defenders need to double up on a player or if you need to swap who you're marking and be aware of screens from players you're not marking. It's definitely not as simple as following a player or patrolling a zone as you put it, just as it's not that simple in Football. I don't think any of your points were argued badly where it made me favour the opposing stance more than the one you were arguing for but there were some arguments that I felt applied to both sports that you were arguing only applied to one which weren't true. Fortunately though you also had some arguments where you stance definitely came out on top on to give you a net positive over the points that felt more like a tie. The big for me was this argument; "The importance of these individual moments can also not be understated; in football just one single positioning mistake by a defender can be the difference between a win and a loss but the high scoring nature of basketball means that one moment of brilliance often has little impact upon the overall result of a game.".

Aid - Intro is good at illustrating the importance of Sporting IQ in Basketball with a good example to back it up. The Numbers Game section was really good and did a brilliant job arguing your stance over the opposing one. Totally agree with the argument here and no complaints with it. Point about Basketball players needing to be great both ways whereas Football players can get away with just being great on one was great. The Keeper section I didn't think added anything new that you didn't cover so well in the previous section so I wasn't really sure of the point of this section. It was a great point already made and the Keeper element didn't bring anything different to your debate. Keepers only need to worry about defence whereas Basketball players all need to be smart on offence and defence. You had already made this point. Next section isn't very convincing to me and I thought Baxter countered you here to great effect. The frequency of a single error being costly to the outcome of the game is always going to be in Football due to the lower scoring nature. Yes it can happen in Basketball too but you only showed it can happen, not that it happens even as much as in Football.

Aid's argument about Basketball requiring two way IQ whereas Footballers can get away with just having good IQ on one end was great. As was Baxter's argument about errors being more costly in Football. So you both had one great argument each. Where Baxter edges ahead is that the rest of his arguments were better. Some felt like draws where he didn't really have an argument good enough to convince to side with his stance rather than sitting on the fence regarding that argument. Aid however fell behind with the rest of his arguments, using one that didn't bring anything new and one that was countered very well by Baxter. So after the great point each Baxter stayed on a fairly straight line whereas Aid dropped down.

Winner - Baxter

Andre
Baxter:

Good definition for sporting IQ, if a bit long winded. I'm not sure that it was absolutely needed, but at least you made yourself clear in your intro. Your points about big Akinfenwa are good (not sure the fitness claim is sound barring strength though, he lacks pace, agility and stamina), but Aid made similar points about JaVale McGee. The difference is that Aid showed how McGee isn't even in the sport anymore, whereas you've unintentionally showed how Akinfenwa has found success in football. Remember, the question doesn't ask "Which sport requires a higher level of sporting IQ at the highest level?". However, the point about Zidane was well made.

The spontaneity section is your best and generally covers ground which your opponent didn't touch. However, he had a good counter for the big errors costing goals argument.

I wasn't completely sold by your team player segment, because I can easily pull up examples that go against what you claimed, such as Suarez at Liverpool last year, Bale at Spurs and Maradona at Napoli. Okay so they weren't/aren't "bad" teams without those players, but there's still clearly a big difference there that you're underselling (particularly at Liverpool, who lack sporting IQ in defence/defensive midfield and tend to rely on skill rather than great tactical awareness and on pitch decision making), while claiming it exists in basketball. Aid also made a good counter to your claim that it's easier to hide in basketball.

Your final counter against bballers having to attack and defend was decent, arguing with clarity how the sheer number of different options to cover for defensively means there's a phenomenal level of responsibility in football which isn't as apparent in bball. This was effective in eventually equalling Aid's 10% vs 20% claim.

An okay debate, but could have done with less Akinfenwa storytelling and more detailed analysis that was displayed in the spontaneity section and closing argument.


Aid:

The McGee counter is pretty strong, although there is a flaw in your argument seeing as he played a fair number of games, despite claims of sporting retardation. This at least equals Baxter's Akinfenwa and Howard arguments which also had flaws.

The 20% vs 10% point is good, but Baxter has a good counter for this by showing how footballers have more players to mark due to overlapping runs.

The argument about football defenders not having to do much for long periods shows naivety or ignorance, as they're constantly moving without the ball in order to hold defensive lines which is necessitated by the offside rule. If anything, this is one of the most crucial aspects of sporting intelligence in either sport. The points about bball player involvement holds merit, but you damaged your credibility with the other stuff.

Your points about double marking in bball also apply to football so I'm not really sure what the point of that argument was. You really needed a detailed analysis to show why this isn't a level playing field.

The keeper section overlooks how shot stoppers are also counter attack starters. A keeper rushing off his line to intercept a cross during a set piece is relied upon to quickly pick out team mates in offensive positions so they can exploit space and score goals on the break. Btw (*and this is probably being very pedantic*), some keepers do score goals. Should have reworded that to keepers aren't relied upon to score.

I think the one bad decision section was the best segment you came up with, because this effectively nullified a direct claim that Baxter made.

This wasn't great, but you made a couple of good claims about Basketball. Yet, I'm really disappointed that you didn't deeply cover the aspect of how quicker decision making is required in the sport.

VOTE:

To be honest, both of these debates have similar positives and flaws. Baxter scored a pretty bad OG with the Akinfenwa argument, while Aid did similar with McGee and also showed a lack of knowledge with certain claims regarding football. Baxter's spontaneity section was the money argument that really separated both debates for me. I'm voting for Baxter.

Anark
Baxter
Good explanation of what’s involved in sporting IQ to kick things off. Good examples used with Howard and Akinfenwa, though I’m glad you pointed out yourself that cherry picking examples isn’t even nearly conclusive, but I suppose it worked well enough to emphasise your overall point about the physical side of things being more important in basketball. The LeBron/Zidane IQ supporting point was well made. It would have greatly helped your point to list off a bunch of successful players who differ massively in size here, from Messi to Crouch to Owen to Ibrahimovich etc. Bit of a missed opportunity.

I liked the points about spontaneity and how individual moments can win/lose games more in football than in basketball, though your opponent used a similar point to support his own argument. The Team Player section seemed to have good points, but the ending where you state it’s easier to hide on a basketball team didn’t quite ring true to me. I have questions in my head regarding that section and you don’t address any of them. Your last paragraph was based around a very solid argument, though you might have done well to spend more time on it. Nevertheless, it was a good point made well enough.

Aid
Nice enough tip-off which had charm if not a lot of convincing prose. I’m struggling to agree with your point about the bigger a team meaning the less responsibility the individuals have. I’m pretty sure that’s nonsense tbh. Football players are assigned positions and if they are weak in that position then they will be exposed easily by the opposition. I do commend you on how you finish the section with regards to the poor player weakening a football team, while it maims a basketball team. It is true that in football a weaker player can be supported and helped out by his team mates more than in basketball where the exposure is more immediately punished.

The Keeper section was pretty good in the end. I didn’t think it would be when I first started reading it but you turned it into a good argument for your stance. You managed to adequately diminish the importance of a single goal in football compared to the points system in basketball, and your summary at the end helped round off the points you made very convincingly.

VERDICT
To be honest, there isn’t a lot of difference between the debates regarding the worthiness of arguments put forward and the general quality of presentation, despite the opposing stances. I think the truth of the matter is that the answer is subjective and each stance is correct depending on the reader. My decision is based on convincingly the arguments were presented, and for that reason the winner is Aid. Baxter raised some eyebrows with one point and raised more questions than it answered with another, while Aid was more convincingly presented throughout.

Winner via Split Decision - Baxter

TDL Social Division Championship Match
Anark vs SPCDRI

Should freedom of speech be an absolute right?

SPCDRI
Freedom of speech should be an absolute right. Constraining this right limits humanity and can lead to violent backlash, radicalization and oppressive governments. Arguments to limit speech for fear of negative social consequences intensify censorious and tyrannical behavior as well as provide credibility for threatening fringe belief.

Our power of expression separates us from animals. Censoring art is therefore dehumanizing and would rob the world of brilliant works that have elevated it. Speech censorship is not limited to what people would consider something like terrorist recruiting but to the entire panoply of human expression. Works of unparalleled genius would be harmed or banned outright and this stifling environment would curtail further brilliant achievements.

First off, if speech is not absolutely free, who makes the decisions for the rest of us? Is it religious extremists? Is it potent governments who can fine, jail and kill people for speech? I am not comfortable with ceding something so fundamental to human existence to censors of any kind. People must be free to maturely and rationally make their own choices.

One recent case in which the freedom of speech was challenged was the Charlie Hedbo shooting [1]. Two brothers, offended by the publications of that newspaper which they deemed blasphemous against Islam, killed 12 people and wounded 11 and inspired other attacks that killed 5 more victims and wounded 11 more. Some organizations, such as the Catholic League, said that language which “provokes” such an attack should be condemned and explicitly blamed people at that newspaper, such as Stephane Charbonnier, by name, for being killed by terrorists [2]. Such victim blaming is revolting, tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing “provocative” clothing. The real problem is not with the speech, but with the heinous actions. Anybody who wishes to curtail speech rewards such violent outbursts. People are not stupid. They do what is rewarded. Rewarding terrorists is not something I am comfortable with. This incident inspired Je Suis Charlie, “I Am Charlie,” [3] in which people who support freedom of speech stood with Charlie Hedbo in solidarity. This was supported by almost every major Western political leader. They are Charlie, I am Charlie…Are you?

Another case of speech that people feel should be prohibited is “hate speech” but this presents its own troublesome problems. A subset of hate speech laws includes revision and denial of the Nazi Germany Holocaust and these laws are on the books in many countries [4]. However well-intentioned such censorious curtailment of speech may seem at first blush, it is wrong-headed and counterproductive. Laws which imprison people for Holocaust denial and hate speech make martyrs out of such speakers. This only serves to embolden purveyors of hate speech. Censoring speech also lends credibility to it. If it is censored, there must be something to it, right? That is the reasoning, at any rate. What do these people have to hide, reason hatemongers? These laws that abridge speech lend credibility to it, visibility and publicity to it, and lend it a rebellious, “bad boy aura” that it may not have. Forbidden fruit tastes sweetest, and even well-intentioned laws against terrorist recruiting and hate speech become powerful recruiting tools for these organizations. Laws and countermeasures to speech seem counterproductive, at least in the United States, where hate groups are at all-time highs in number [5]. The best tool against speech is more speech, not silencing of it.

Laws that silence speech drive it underground, where it is easily radicalized. Curtailment of speech, particularly when it is related to race, “treasonous” politics and religion, is a potent recruiting tool and limiting speech is a double-edged sword. It makes it more difficult to combat with debates and the free exchange of ideas as it is less visible. It radicalizes speech, intensifying its virulence and violent backlash as the laws themselves can be argued to be tyrannical and worthy of violent overthrow. Censorship is therefore one of the most dangerous and stupid things any government can do.

Historically, such government censorship has led to brutal abuses. The Soviets and their Cheka [6], the Nazis and their Gestapo [7], the Communists in China and other groups [8], imprisoned and killed people by the millions. Where is the limit for censorship and how far is a government willing to go to stop speech? I for one do not want to find out and relive those nightmares. I do not want secret police, retaliatory and potentially dishonest snitching and worse!

Freedom of speech is fundamental to what it means to be a human. Censoring speech hurts our expression and artistic creativity, rewards violence, inspires violence and can lead to repressive and violent governments. No matter how well intentioned, it always ends in a brutal, deadly fashion. As the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_suis_Charlie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_secret_police_organizations#China

Anark
Fair enough, on the face it, no? Freedom of speech being an absolute right seems like the type of thing a fair-minded person would think. Unless of course that fair-minded person happens to have the slightest inkling as to what an absolute right is, because then they would realise that the right to freedom of speech shouldn’t be anywhere near being absolute.

An absolute right means a right without limitation with no qualifications and no restrictions. Nothing that can potentially damage society should be without limitation. And words, along with the ideas or emotions they inspire, can be as damaging as they can be inspiring.

Consider that no qualifications on freedom of speech means there is no legal difference between normal speech and speech with harmful intent (such a difference would constitute a qualification). This means people can make threats, even death threats, without any kind of legal recompense. That’s why there must be certain qualifications as to what is and isn’t protected by the right to freedom of speech. Some things which consist wholly of language can infer a strong implication of physical action and thus must be legislated against to protect the greater right of people to live without fear of harm or malice. It is therefore justified that we determine what kind of speech is protected by the right to freedom of it and which isn’t, and that means the right to freedom of speech should never be absolute because of these qualifications that determine exactly what it is in the first place.

A more focused argument is that there should be protection for children from the grooming thing paedophiles do. That starts with a limitation on how adults interact with kids. It’s not a huge limitation we have to check before speaking to a child, just one that gives the law something to work with should it encounter a paedo-ring co-ordinator grooming a youngster for whatever nefarious purposes. With no restrictions on his freedom of speech, that scumbag can say what he likes to his potential victims with impunity. Obviously we must enable the law to act in situations such as a paedophile grooming a child, but this means that freedom of speech should never be absolute because of these exact kinds of restrictions that we must place upon it to protect the vulnerable.

For a fair society to prosper there should also be professional and legal ramifications for malicious slander which someone spreads in an attempt to destroy another’s reputation. Imagine the slightly extreme example of a news anchor whose wife left him so he decides to use his live broadcast to declare her a rancid whore with a vadge like the sleeve of a wizard. We really can’t endorse a world where such a thing can happen without professional and/or legal comeuppance. Thus, freedom of speech should never be absolute because of the justifiable limitations we must place upon it in order to protect innocent people from malicious slander.

There are always reasonable qualifications and justifiable limitations to protect against these extreme abuses of speech, of which threats, slander and inappropriate conduct with minors are but three prime examples. There is also incitement to violence or criminal behaviour, which the law should be able to act against to maintain peace and order. Then there are people conspiring with others to commit criminal acts, such as the bombing of civilians for example, which absolutely need to be intercepted and prevented. In a particular situation, absolute freedom of speech could entitle the bombers to legally plot as much as they liked, possibly endangering lives.

Additionally, a right to absolute freedom of speech would have to apply to literally everybody (‘tis without qualification after all), which includes members of the press and the government. A press unfettered by the legal ramifications of telling lies would be… probably not all that dissimilar to what we actually have now. But at least now they are accountable for their discretions because of the restrictions placed upon their right to freedom of speech.

The government is another who has special restrictions placed upon their speech freedom, such as the Constitutional Law on Government Speech in the United States for example. But imagine now with me, a country where the leader doesn’t even have to pretend to tell the truth.

LEADER: Citizens! We built a million hospitals for you last week so don’t forget to vote!

CITIZEN: Where are these hospitals?

LEADER: They’re invisible. Invisible hospitals are the future of medicine! Also I’m Jesus.

CITIZEN: You’re not Jesus, you’re just trying to distract me again. Yesterday you were Batman.

LEADER: I’m Bat-Jesus. Don’t forget to vote!

CITIZEN: Nobody’s voting for you again after you failed to deliver on your promise of delivering a free Ferrari to everyone of legal voting age.

LEADER: We delivered on that promise one hundred percent! Just look at all the Ferraris.

CITIZEN: That’s a post box.

LEADER: Nonsense, it’s a Ferrari. We’re a nation of Ferrari drivers now. Vroom-vroom! Don’t forget to vote!

Wait, my bad. You don’t actually have to imagine because those places really exist. They’re called dictatorships and include the likes of North Korea among their number. Kim Jung Un is one of the few people in the world who actually has absolute freedom of speech. I won’t label the point too much, but it’s pretty damn obvious that it is a far better system to have restrictions and limitations on what our leaders can and can’t get away with saying. And that, folks, means absolute freedom of speech is a non-starter.

And while I might have rolled out a few extreme and exotic examples where restrictions on freedom of speech are not only justified but actually necessary to maintain a fair and just society, it should be remembered that speech is not just stuff we say or write. Speech can be extremely powerful in a large number of ways both positive and negative, and such great power should never go unqualified or unlimited.




REFERENCES:

What Are Absolute Rights: http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProte...ectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Absoluterights.aspx
US Law on Child Grooming: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/child-grooming/
Threats of Violence Outside First Amendment: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html
Guide to Libel and Slander Law: http://www.hg.org/defamation.html
Interesting Thoughts on Consequences of Absolute Freedom of Speech: http://freedomofspeechisnotabsolute.tumblr.com/
Restrictions on Freedom of Press Speech: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
US Constitutional Law on Government Speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_speech
Human Rights in North Korea: http://www.hrw.org/nkorea
The Power of Speech: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-consciousness-question/201301/language-and-the-power-speech

Andre
This one is very cut and dry, so I'll keep it brief.

SPCDRI:

There's nothing particularly wrong with what you wrote, as you included a lot of good examples of why freedom of speech is important. The problem lies in what you failed to include. By failing to define exactly what "absolute" is, you easily let in your opponent with his stance, which proved that the absolute right to freedom of speech would be problematic. So while you showed why we need freedom of speech, you didn't argue why this HAS to be absolute, which means you kind of missed the point of the question. If this was a debate about "should we have freedom of speech" then yeah this would have been phenomenal, but the words "absolute right" really changes this aspect. Maybe if you had convincingly defined "absolute right" as meaning everyone has the right to some freedom of speech then this could have worked, but you didn't, while your opponent nailed the "proper" definition.

Anark:

This wins fairly easily due to the definition of absolute, accompanied by the grooming and defamation arguments, which were both well made. You didn't really need to do much more from there on in because of your opponent's one dimensional approach to the subject which overlooked "absolute". You entered murky waters with the whole "we should restrict what leaders can say" mantra, because that's suggesting there's an objective truth to everything. Obviously this can be altered by perspectives. The same applies to the media. Thankfully the ridiculous example you gave showed that this did have some merit.

My vote goes to Anark for actually answering the specific question.

Rigby2
SPCDRI
Structurally this is a good debate, except for one element that bothered me, a constant lack of examples. Examples of genius works of art hindered by censorship would've emphasized that unparalleled genius can, and has, been suppressed. James Joyce's Ulysses came to mind as I was reading this, but I wish you'd have mentioned it. You were barely within the word count too, so you had plenty to briefly mention examples.

A little more of an explanation of how human condition requires freedom of speech would've been nice, but you still have a fine argument regardless. It was more weak when you got onto "potent governments". Power to govern hopefully derives from the consent of the governed, within reason. Fines/imprisonment are reasonable penalties in some instances, while capitol punishment obviously isn't. A 40 year old man talking lewdly to per-pubescent children deserves either fines or jail time, and the governed tends to agree that limits such as these are obtainable without corrupt governments shooting people in the streets.

Pedophilia tends to be massively overlooked as a factor in this debate. The works of Peter Sotos (I don't recommend looking into them) seriously pressure your stance that ANY limitations will assuredly suppress otherwise unobtainable artistic achievements. Another oversight is you focus purely on content of speech, and not time, place, or manner. Yelling "GOD IS GOOD" repeatedly in a public library isn't going to be an issue content-wise, but the time, place, and manner is wholly inappropriate, and again, the governed tends to agree. Your perspective is too narrow.

Back to your arguments, the underground speech and hate speech sections are as fantastic as your debate yields, especially the analogy with forbidden fruit. Again though, examples would've been nice to show how censoring speech attracts greater attention, such as the Streisand Effect, or another that came to my mind was two art shows held in Nazi Germany, one of state approved art and the other of "censored" art, displayed to be mocked. The second show yielded far greater public interest, understandably. Once again, I wish that extra 200 words pointed this out with real world examples.

Lastly, you mention that counterarguments would mainly come from the perspective of negative social consequences, and yet you never provide real counterarguments to this other than piling onto the oppressive government pile and then some remarks about good intentions. It feels very deflective, that's not much of a counterargument. A one-dimensional debate in terms of content over time/manner/place, and more examples/counterarguments would've gone a long way, but you still raise some good points in a well-structured debate.

Anark
This debate was a great approach to the subject, both in terms of the debate's terms and the different dimensions of the issue. You managed to touch upon everything I felt your opponent ignored. Presenting the terms of an "absolute" right, that there's no qualifications or restrictions, laid a firm groundwork early for the rest of the debate, giving yourself something to return to in order to tie individual points back to the main crux of your argument. I did wish that you made the damaging effects of speech upon greater society more apparent. There were a couple here and there, but they weren't tied back as well and most of your examples focused on smaller scales, whereas this would've made for stronger arguments on the whole. You're already at 1,000 words exact though so something's gotta give.

The greater right to live without fear of harm was a superb point and showed that more important priorities exist for the human condition than free speech, which countered the opposing debate very well. Speech implying physical action also showed how treating all speech with impunity is foolishly arbitrary when it closely relates to actual action. Following with criminal conspiracy was another superb argument about how intervention needs to come before speech progresses to action. Tying this into child grooming only further strengthened your debate and provided a clear counter to your opponent.

The slander argument was still good, but didn't have as much oomph as the aforementioned points. That leaves a poorly delivered argument. There's great value in restricting government's speech to the truth, but I'm very cold on this script between Civilian and Leader. Remember how I said something's gotta give? This is what should've been given (to the recycle bin). That hiccup aside, fantastic debate that gave the subject the examination it deserved, looking at it from many angles with compellingly exotic examples.

DECISION
Anark clearly had a greater perspective of the subject and put forth stronger arguments that nearly obliterated SPCDRI's naive position. Anark wins.

BkB Hulk
SPCDRI:
I think parts of this were good, but unfortunately I think your opponent has addressed the question a little better with use of the key word ‘absolute’.

I’m going to get out of the way the artistic argument first. It comes up quite often in social debates, and I feel it’s a bit of a lazy point. Granted, yes, use of words is an art. But you haven’t expressed any works which would be hindered if not for free speech. It’s one of those arguments that’s always thrown out there, but there’s no real backing to it here. The logic is sound, but it’s not a great point.

The Charlie Hebdo case is a good one to bring up. The ‘underground’ argument I’m not so sure of. You bring up the usual argument for the lack of filtering, but you don’t really counter the usual argument for filtering (it reaches more people, can corrupt more people etc). Record numbers are a valid point, but that's not necessary a causal relationship.

The censorship argument isn’t quite right for mine, because the question is about ABSOLUTE free speech. You’ll not find a country in the world that has absolute free speech, so these examples can easily be countered by, well, everywhere. Death threats, which your opponent pointed out, are a restricted form of speech in the laws of pretty much every country I have a basic knowledge of.

If your opponent had argued the same side and thus not countered by sticking very tightly to the wording of the question then I think you could have gone close. I think your opponent has countered you though to a point where it makes it difficult for you to win. Parts were good, and parts were a bit general and the type of stuff you expect to hear out of most people without any research.


Anark:
As I said in my feedback for your opponent, your close adherence to the wording of the question pretty much wins you this.

I think your debate in parts suffered from a bit of ridiculousness. The freedom of press and parliamentary script both kind of took away from what was a strong argument.

The North Korea argument in particular was quite poor, because absolute free speech doesn’t really apply there. It does for Kim, sure, but not for everybody else.

Your opening few paragraphs win you this, with the examples of death threats and child grooming being really good. It’s a bit of a shame how you ended it, because this could have been a really good debate. Instead I think it’s just a winning debate, which is due to close attention to the question.

Anark wins.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Anark

TDL Social Division Special Attraction Match
Andre vs Anark

What was more important to the success of Alice in Chains, Jerry Cantrell’s song-writing or Layne Staley’s voice?

Anark
I’m tempted to bow before the altar of hyperbole and spend this debate shovelling unrelenting praise upon Layne Staley’s incredible talent. Alas, the question posed is quite a pragmatic one requiring a much colder view of the facts. Unfortunately for Staley fan-boys like myself, those cold, hard facts reveal Jerry Cantrell’s song-writing to be far more important to the band’s success than Staley’s voice.

Cantrell’s song-writing birthed the band and later continued their success during and after Staley’s involvement. It is also Cantrell’s song-writing that can be credited with evolving Staley’s voice from the ordinary glam rock squealer he once was into the mesmerising doom blues crooner he is fondly remembered as now.

Sure, Staley’s vocals might be some of the most magnificent icing there has ever been, but Cantrell’s song-writing is the cake. Jerry Cantrell is Alice in Chains.

THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF (A ROCK) GOD…​

Prior to Alice in Chains, Staley sang for unrelated glam/funk nobodies Alice N’ Chains (ANC) where his vocals were similar (though often inferior) to most cock rock singers of that mid-to-late-80s era. Staley then joined Cantrell’s band but had to modify his voice to better suit Cantrell’s song-writing style. To witness the seismic influence that Cantrell’s song-writing subsequently had on Staley’s voice, just compare Staley’s vocals from the opening tracks of ANC’s demos with the opening tracks of Alice in Chains’ debut album:

BEFORE CANTRELL:

Vocals@0:44


Vocals@0:34



AFTER CANTRELL:

Vocals@0:07


Vocals@0:30


It was only with Cantrell’s melodically morose and dirge-like song-writing did Staley’s voice begin to evolve. Cantrell’s preference for down-tuned guitars and methodically slower-paced riffs enabled Staley to explore his lower vocal range beyond his previous high-pitched cock-rockery. Cantrell’s fondness for vocal harmonies also meant he used his own simpler vocals to provide platforms from which Staley could launch his voice and discover the true extent of his talent.

A very cold and very hard fact is that prior to joining Cantrell, Staley was a cheap Sebastian Bach knock-off and only went in the new musical direction because Cantrell led him by the hand with his song-writing. Cantrell masterminded the band’s direction so he is fully responsible for Alice in Chains emerging from the hairspray and spandex era to conquer the maelstrom of emotional turmoil that was early-90s alternative rock.

Cantrell’s music-writing contributions comprise 30 of the 33 total tracks from their first four releases, up to and including Dirt (the peak of their success), so it’s literally no exaggeration to say there’s hardly any Alice in Chains music without Cantrell. In fact, remove Staley from their first three releases (without which there is no Dirt), and they still have fourteen full songs and a further seven instrumental tracks. But remove Cantrell from the first three releases, and Alice in Chains are left with seven poems about heroin. Clearly, there was far more potential for success in the band without Staley’s voice than there was without Cantrell’s song-writing, especially considering talented singers are much easier to find than visionary song-writers.

Cantrell also wrote the majority of the lyrics (especially in the beginning), which is important to the previous point about Cantrell helping evolve Staley’s voice because lyric-writing involves constructing the vocal arrangement to which those lyrics are sung, and it was Cantrell’s vocal arrangements which helped Staley’s celebrated voice to emerge during the band’s early days.

It’s cold but it’s a fact that they still could have been a very good band without Staley, but they wouldn’t have been any kind of band without Cantrell.

ABOVE & BEYOND​

Staley did later achieve relative success with Mad Season, but they included song-writing talent from Pearl Jam and Screaming Trees while Staley applied the same vocal style he’d previously mastered singing to Cantrell’s arrangements. In contrast, Cantrell succeeded without members of other popular bands helping him. His first solo release received some praise while his second solo album, Degradation Trip, received massive critical acclaim. Now, I know their endeavours beyond Alice in Chains are not the most pivotal of arguments here, but it’s noteworthy because they offer up no evidence that Staley’s voice could make it without talented song-writers helping him, while providing irrefutable evidence that Cantrell’s song-writing didn’t actually need Staley’s voice to be successful.

Absolute evidence of that fact occurred three years after Staley’s death in 2002, when Cantrell reformed Alice in Chains to play live with vocals performed by singers as wide-ranging in style as James Hetfield, Billy Corgan, Phil Anselmo of Pantera, Ann Wilson of Heart and Scott Weiland of heroin, I mean Velvet Revolver. The reunion gigs were hugely successful and after installing William DuVall as permanent successor to Staley, they spent the next three years touring and selling out venues across the world - success achieved without Staley’s voice because it was the songs the fans wanted to hear; songs written and still performed by Jerry Cantrell.

They then recorded the first Staley-less Alice in Chains album which sold over a MILLION copies worldwide, and this was FOURTEEN YEARS after Alice in Chains were a relevant force in rock. It was voted the 2nd best album of 2009 by both Kerrang and Metal Hammer, was nominated for two Grammys and won the Revolver Golden Gods Award for the 2010 Album of the Year. Their next album in 2013 topped the rock charts again as well as entering at No.2 in the Billboard 200 and getting nominated for another Grammy.

No Layne Staley? No problem.

It was Cantrell’s song-writing that harnessed and developed Staley’s raw potential. It was Cantrell’s musical direction that got the band signed by providing them with songs directly on the pulse of the post-glam rock movement. Then there’s the post-Staley success of the band, achieved in a world that had long moved on from the so-called grunge era, which again proves beyond any doubt that even with different vocalists and spanning multiple eras, Cantrell’s song-writing was, is and always will be the most important factor in the enduring success of Alice in Chains.




REFERENCES:

Alice N’ Chains (ANC) Demo Track Listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_N'_Chains#Discography
Staley Joins Cantrell (Alice N’ Chains Wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_N'_Chains#Post-Alice_N.27_Chains
Writing Credits for ‘We Die Young’ Promo EP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Die_Young#Track_listing
Writing Credits for ‘Facelift’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facelift_(album)#Track_listing
Writing Credits for ‘Sap’ EP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAP_(EP)#Track_listing
Writing Credits for ‘Dirt’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt_(Alice_in_Chains_album)#Track_listing
Mild Praise for Cantrell’s 1st Solo Album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boggy_Depot#Critical_reception
Allmusic Review of Degradation Trip: http://www.allmusic.com/album/degradation-trip-mw0000214646
Other Critical Acclaim for Cantrell’s 2nd Solo Album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degradation_Trip#Critical_reception
Alternative Alice in Chains Singers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Cantrell#Alice_in_Chains
Alice in Chains Reunion Gigs Without Staley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Chains#Reunion_shows_.282005.E2.80.9308.29
Black Gives Way to Blue Sells a Million Copies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Gives_Way_to_Blue
Metal Hammer Best Albums of 2009: http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/metal.htm#2009
Kerrang! Best Albums of 2009: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/news/11987/Kerrang!s-Top-20--Albums-Of-09/
2010 Revolver Golden Gods Award Winners: http://www.metalinjection.net/latest-news/revolver-golden-gods-awards-2010-winners
2010 & 2011 Grammys Nominations for ‘Black Gives Way to Blue’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Gives_Way_to_Blue#2010_Grammy_nomination
2014 Grammy Nominees for ‘Best Engineered Album – Non-Classical’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_for_Best_Engineered_Album,_Non-Classical#2010s
James Hetfield sings ‘Would?’ with Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSquY3bPNo
Billy Corgan sings ‘Down in a Hole’ with Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWHwgZoydY
Phil Anselmo sings ‘Would?’ with Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umeM2CcWB6k
Ann Wilson & Pat Lachman sing ‘Rooster’ with Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Y0-2LsD6w
Scott Weiland sings ‘Angry Chair’ with Alice Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2Y0-2LsD6w
William DuVall sings ‘We Die Young’ with Alice in Chains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1FEWruLRZ8


Andre
Layne Staley is my favourite vocalist, dead or alive.


His ability to convey bleak introspection through intense wailing dragged me through years of chronic depression. It’s kind of ridiculous to call a deceased smackhead a hero, but… in a very strange way, he really is to me.


If the concept wasn’t restricted to ‘song-writing vs voice’, then my endearment and empathy towards Layne would be overwhelming. Yet, due to the wording of the question, it would be incredibly biased of me to pick him.


Let me make this clear; it would be completely disingenuous to claim that Alice in Chains would have been quite the same without Jerry’s song-writing or Layne’s voice (all apologies to William DuVall). If Jerry was the heart then Layne was the soul. But you can’t survive without a heart.


To put it bluntly, grunge’s popularity was through connecting with a generation of fucked up teenagers and young adults that had previously been ignored. This is why Cantrell’s lyrics were so important to Alice in Chains’ success. From the “us against the world” sentiment of 'Bleed the Freak', to the horrific vicarious experience of his Father, the ‘Rooster’ in the Vietnam War, which spoke to the anti-war mentality of early 90’s alternative America. Jerry knew the grunge audience to a tee.





However, he also knew how to connect with a larger mainstream audience, shown in the bitterness of drifting apart from the love of his life in ‘Down in a Hole’. Cantrell’s genius was speaking to an alternative generation with his lyrics, whilst also tapping into the mainstream.





Retaining credibility during such a crossover was crucial to Alice in Chains’ success artistically, but selling records with such morbid outputs made this more remarkable. Every Chains studio LP released from 1990-1995 went at least double platinum in the US.


Contrast that with the brilliant in its own right, although not as critically acclaimed 'Above', the modest gold record by the Staley fronted super group Mad Season, then the brilliance of Cantrell’s lyrics and music during the height of grunge becomes far clearer in a commercial sense.


"I’m more like a Chevy truck. I kind of just plod along”– Jerry Cantrell


It’s also evident that a technically great vocal range wasn’t necessary in grunge, as proven by Kurt Cobain. Lest we forget that the “plodding” Cantrell picked up a large amount of vocal duties for Chains, carrying the verses on classics such as 'Would', radio hit 'Grind', and successful singles ‘No Excuses’ and ‘Heaven Beside You’.





However, the consistent vocal highlights from Chains’ records were the beautiful harmonies between Layne AND Jerry. It’s blatantly obvious that Layne was a FAR superior singer to Jerry, but the importance of Layne’s individual voice to Alice in Chains is overstated, paling in comparison to Cantrell’s expertise of crafting songs with dissonant, raucous riffs.


Debate rages over whether Alice in Chains are truly a grunge or metal band, but that particular can of worms, or Jar of Flies, would find it undeniable that the band’s roots were metal. The instantly identifiable staccato riff, which spearheaded ‘Man in the Box’, chugged Chains to mainstream attention, months before Metallica’s black album shifted units faster than James Hetfield could ride the lightning.





Cantrell’s ability to weave metal and grunge sensibilities together was a huge part of making Chains so unique, while again giving the band a huge crossover appeal for that era. The atmosphere Cantrell later created with the metallic grime on 'Dirt' accentuated and encouraged Layne’s tortured vocals, as “the style suited Staley’s artistic sensibilities and his voice.”





It was Cantrell’s lyrics which brought the best out of Staley during the creation of the classic Dirt album. By understanding and conveying Layne’s issues in written form, Jerry was able to add sincerity to the woe is me vocal stylin’, adding believability. For comparison, this was lacking in turgid “DADDY DIDN’T BUY ME A PONY!” style post-grunge metal offerings such as Staind’s 'Layne', despite the rich beauty in Aaron Lewis’ voice.





While ‘Dirt’ covers other subjects, “Jerry Cantrell's solo-written contributions effectively maintain the thematic coherence” of what is essentially a concept album about heroin. If this wasn’t just ‘writing vs vocals’ then I’d give Layne more credit for his tragic downward spiral as a bizarre barometer of ‘success’ for the quadruple platinum album. However, those are the limitations; therefore Cantrell’s influence on Dirt’s success is more obvious.


Fortunately, Cantrell was (still is) far from limited with song-writing, as shown on the acoustic Jar of Flies. Staley’s vocal performance on the classic 'Nutshell' is timeless, but it was the intelligence of Cantrell’s composition which allowed Layne to stand out so much. Avoiding an overcomplicated backdrop, Jerry elected for one repeated yet unforgettable riff, allowing Layne’s cries of resignation to breathe, instead of fighting them.





Similar goes for the simplistic yet heart-wrenching guitar solo, which successfully avoided butchering the song like a Kirk Hammett masturbation session, instead adding an extra depth to Layne’s emotive performance. Without Cantrell knowing when to hold back in his song-writing, this haunting song would have lost its earnestness, becoming rather ham-fisted.


"What’s my motivation?”Layne Staley


Such flexibility created a fitting back catalogue for Chains’ legendary MTV Unplugged performance. Even more importantly, the raw depth of those songs carried Layne. Forgetting lyrics on 'Sludge Factory' and repeatedly ‘nodding out’, his voice was weakened due to long term heroin abuse, lacking his usual power and ability to reach high notes.





Thankfully, the melodic dynamism of Cantrell’s song-writing shifted Layne into the recovery position until he managed to find his second gear, making the gig a success.


Due to life experiences, my instant association with ‘Alice in Chains’ will always be Layne. Cantrell will always be secondary. That’s fucked up, but I’m not blind. I can see Cantrell’s faded, UNDERRATED, but not out of my mind…


Even I can admit that Cantrell's song-writing was more important to the success of Alice in Chains.







Hollywood Hanoi
Stellar debate topic here so its good to see two stellar debates do it justice. Both taking the same stance with fairly similar arguments so hard to pick a winner, so after a few rereads Im going with my gut feeling that Andre made for a better debate and thus takes the W.

Anark:

I loved the breakdown of Staley’s voice pre and post Cantrell’s arrival, it pinpoints how if Staley’s voice was to be the most magical element of the band that it was only able to become such as a result of Jerry’s (highly prolific) songwriting and harmonies, its little things like this that stick out to me in a close debate. I like how you mention a similar thing could apply to Mad Season. Degradation Trip mentions always scores points with me, great album. Im not really into their post reunion material myself but you can’t argue with results, theyre still a massive band and meet anyones criteria of ‘success’, theres no argument against it (although im not sure Kerrangs second best album of 2009 means much… wait Kerrang still exists???)

Andre:

Again a straight tribute to the power of Cantrell’s songwriting. I like the personal touches . My favourite thing about this debate was it took my favourite parts of Anark's and expanded on them, the range in Jerrys writing and how that range was directly responsible for Layne becoming such a great vocalist in the first place thus making it the most important element. At first I thought this debate might have made a mistake by not really talking about the post Layne success of the group or the wider scope of success/numbers used in Anark's but the more I think of it that doesn’t matter hugely, the topic is really only referring to those years Layne and Jerry were making music together, by doing this it was able to get more in depth on it was Jerry’s genius that got the best out of Layne.

Anark had the wider scope, it hit a ton of salient points and was a great compact history of the band and Jerrys importance, I gave it the win on first read, however on closer inspection I enjoyed more Andre’s deeper exploration into how Jerrys influence shaped the group as well as Laynes vocals and thus was more important, it made me want to listen to the music, no higher praise, I gotta go with Andre.

ZOMBO
Two extremely well-written debates, both offering plenty of pun-tastic references throughout. I thought it was an incredible mid-card match or something, so I went an checked the card after being halfway through the second debate. AHHHH that explains it. Top quality on both counts.

All in all, I don't exactly have any "critiques" towards either of you, really, hence the short feedback (also, time constraints on my end). There is one area that I felt a subtle edge is gained. Although Andre tries to give some deeper analysis into a wider array of AiC songs, I really felt that Anark's argument concerning AiC's sustained success in recent years was a great touch.

The "success achieved without Staley’s voice because it was the songs the fans wanted to hear; songs written and still performed by Jerry Cantrell" line was powerful to me, in its simplicity and message.

By devoting a little extra time to the sustained success of AiC after building up Cantrell's importance to the band's development gives you the edge in two wonderfully written debates. For that reason, Anark is my pick.

Rigby2
Anark
---
Loved the intro, great use of colorful language to get across the nature of the debate, your personal feelings on the matter (disclosing bias is always appreciated), and a concise, clear declaration of your position. The cake analogy was effortless and put forth the most potent motif of your whole debate. This was a superb intro!

The video comparisons were a great contrast to demonstrate the impact of Cantrell on Staley. You also provide insightful analysis into what was different about Cantrell's style that facilitated such a shift. The idea that Cantrell provided platforms for Staley's harmonies was another well articulated assessment between their musical roles in the group.

From there, you make it clear who deserves the credit for Alice in Chain's output, and tie it back to the bigger picture of the debate well. I loved the remark about how they could have been a band without Staley, but they wouldn't have been AiC without Cantrell, and then use their work outside AiC to demonstrate this as truth. The reemergence of AiC 14 years later to great success was a good point, but it could be countered that the band had such an established fanbase that the name value alone played a major role.

Even then, you squash those doubts with the three years of touring with different vocalists and all the sold out venues of fans who wanted to hear the songs. Good humor with the joke about Scott Weiland.

Expertly crafted debate. The flow is organic, each piece of evidence has a logical place in both the point its making and how it builds the main argument, and its done in an economic fashion without feeling rushed. For me to give this anything other than praise would be nitpicking. Fantastic work.
---

Andre
---
Intro was paced rather roughly, I appreciate the use of your affection for Staley as a vocalist, but I had a minor nag that it might be overshadowing the debate itself. Then the metaphor was a little awkward in nature and delivery, forcing me to reread to figure out who you're calling what and the significance, as opposed to the simpler, more effective metaphor employed by your opponent.

However, you did benefit from analyzing more of the psychology behind why Alice in Chain's music connected with its audience. The way album sales are brought up is lukewarm, as the way it's presented doesn't undoubtedly attribute its success as a metric to the songwriting over the vocals; there's potential for that to be countered. Mad Season having less success could've been a matter of marketing and having a lesser brand than that of Pearl Jam or Alice in Chains. Again, more room for a counter.

When you bring up the vocal harmonies, it's true it's a factor in their success, but there's not nearly as much insight put forth here, compared to your opponent who demonstrates how Cantrell arranged vocals to allow Staley to develop confidence as a lead with a strong harmonic basis. Nor do you explain how Cantrell's riffs facilitate Staley's vocal style. You touched upon the right elements in their music, but lacked the analytic adhesive to attach it to your main argument.

At this point I should note that the formatting with the videos is a bit cumbersome. It disrupt the flow, which is already bumpy at best, and are too long to properly digest alongside the fragment of the debate that ties it to the argument. At times, they might have been related to a point raised, but they rarely seemed necessary to get that point across. They did get points across in cases where you employ robust wordplay, such as the Nutshell example, because it gives sufficient food for thought to go along with the song.

What ultimately places you at a disadvantage is that your debate begins and ends with Staley-era Alice in Chains, with two minor exceptions. There's plenty of argumentative gold to be had beyond with the greatly successful reformations of Alice in Chains, the success of Cantrell in his solo ventures, and so on, but you completely omit this. That's a big mistake.
---

Decision
---
Both debates are obviously crafted with care and genuine admiration for the band, but the short-sightedness of Andre to only look at Staley-era AiC, along with Anark's being generally better paced and technically written, leaves Anark to sweep the debate. Anark wins.

Winner via Split Decision - Anark​
 
See less See more
18 21
#4 ·
Had to replace RetepAdam. as Judge for the NXT debate but someone is on it now and that will be unhidden when it's in which should be sooner rather than later.

Anark proving himself legit :drose Seabs' best creation yet :evil

Racist America debate was absolutely fantastic and it's so harsh on either to have had to pick up a loss in that one. At least Rigby2 got to pick up a win against SPCDRI.

The era of Aid as Sports Division Champ is well and truly over now :mj2 Baxter's a deserving replacement though.

sharkboy22 nicking that last Eliminator spot after originally being off the card lel. PoyPoy14 one vote off in both debates lel. Confident you'll get a title shot soon though.

Rugrat can pipe down now :hendo (he won't though). Definitely took a risk with my stance but it was much more fun to argue for that then either Steph match which I wouldn't have believed in at all. Died when I saw he argued for Eva Marie after that too. Seemed like you were thinking along the same lines as me at least so good try with the thinking even if the actual choice was a bit dubious. Maybe we'll meet again soon?

Stax gets his biggest win yet on the day he gets perma banned :mj2 Farewell brother. Sports Division is getting wafer thing now with Retep maybe having to sign out. Recruits pls.

Impressive debut win for M-Diggedy. Congrats!

Bear with a great eventual return to form too :drose

Thanks for being patient for these results too. Been super low on Judges available this show so it's been a bit of a pain sorting loads of replacements out.
 
#14 ·
Well done Anark. I said I thought you were the top guy in TDL. You've proven that now, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What Hanoi suggested in the feedback about 'was' not including modern AIC is exactly why I didn't cover that area. Thought the topic would have stated "overall success" if that was the case. Doesn't matter though because Anark defined the question really well. Put it down to rust on my part. Just happy to have taken a decision off the undisputed King of social in a debate with a topic he created.

Thought some of Rigby's feedback displayed a lack of reading comprehension (not all of it mind, made lots of fair criticisms). Oh well, fuck him, I won our match :brodgers

A few debate/match of the year candidates on this card? A potential card of the year too? Social division certainly looks amazing atm.
 
#35 ·
I tried so hard

Got so far

But in the end

It doesn't really matter~

The better debater won today and I have no shame in that.

Thought some of Rigby's feedback displayed a lack of reading comprehension
yeah, this "lack of reading comprehension" just took your ass to 1-2 so :Shrug But really, if you feel any of my feedback was unclear or off-base I'll own up to it, that goes for any of the debates I've judged.

A guy who has been known by the name TRIPLE H (that's 3 x Hs btw) and who has repeatedly AGAIN AND AGAIN AND FUCKING AGAIN been abbreviated as HHH should not be abbreviated as HHH even though it is a widely accepted abbreviation in all forms of literature where HHH or Trips or Triple H or Hunter might be mentioned?
And let's not forget, he wore it on his fucking trunks for years:

 
#6 · (Edited)
Before the events of TDL XXI: ANDRE COMIN YO ...

Andre: I'm goin' hard after Anark.
WOOLCOCK: No point in trying to talk you back down, I suppose.
Andre: You been my bank for how long gonna ask me something like that?
WOOLCOCK: How you gonna get at him?
Andre: I don't even know, SI. I'll take some time and think on it. One thing for sure, though. The man got to be got, you feel me?... What you see, SI?
WOOLCOCK: Too much, boy. Too damn much.


*cue sudden store scene*...
 
#13 ·
eh?

Just finished reading Andre's debate and all I can say is that I would not have been ashamed to lose to that. I don't mind admitting to being a bit miffed that Hanoi changed his mind at the last minute to deny me the big U, but that's cool.

Andre's style is actually perfectly suited to the Social division. This 'new' adventure of his isn't him spreading himself out to see what else is out there. It's him coming home. Andre is now where he belongs. It's where he has always belonged. You wrestling and sports jobbers were just stepping stones. He came to visit with you, but now he's home...

With the best, swapping Ws, sharing Ls, fighting to the fucking death.

Welcome to the jungle, Andre.
 
#15 ·
I'll get this out of the way now but I don't think "HHH" looks great in a debate.
:lmao omg

A guy who has been known by the name TRIPLE H (that's 3 x Hs btw) and who has repeatedly AGAIN AND AGAIN AND FUCKING AGAIN been abbreviated as HHH should not be abbreviated as HHH even though it is a widely accepted abbreviation in all forms of literature where HHH or Trips or Triple H or Hunter might be mentioned?

Don't worry people, I will end the tyranny. I will end the horror of the Seab in an Abbreviation on a Pole match.
 
#24 ·
Your failure to beat me unanimously is karma for denying me the U in what was probably match of the year :bigron (also, Hanoi was the most credible music poster on the judging panel :side:)

No, seriously though, you're right. Wouldn't have been fitting if either of those matches ended with a unanimous decision. Those were two absolute WARS.

BTW, this honestly might be my favourite TDL card so far. There was definitely some filler in the undercard, but most of the top matches delivered big time. Special shout out to @Rugrat and Elipses (or whatever silly name he has now) who I personally thought stepped up to the plate. Unfortunately for RR, @Seabs is DA (WO)MAN in the pro graps ranks. Gives him time to digest the feedback and prepare for another possible shot, though...
@Clique Thanks for the A+ comment, made my day :eek:

Times like this I really miss @The Lady Killer and @WOOLCOCK being around. I'm proud of some of these new boys, but I've had some great times with the old guard in this arena :mj2 Makes me realise I need to stick around to keep that FIRE alive, regardless of being a novelty.
 
#29 · (Edited)
"(lol at that spelling btw)"



That'll teach me to actually read through what i've written more carefully.

Other than that I got nothing.

Edit:



"tell seabs he needs to destroy the monster that is Anark, tell him he is the only one who can end the tyranny" - Anark.

Well you heard the man :evil
 
#30 ·
Btw, are we getting a banner for this one? Or are we just going to have to be patient in waiting for Champ's masterpiece? Maybe involving Andre The Giant spaffing out the words 'Andre Comin Yo'?

Either that, or I can knock out (hee haw, get it?) a black market smiley gif, with Anark's *** smokin' head spinning on my grave, rather than the etch-a-sketch title :shrug

Also... @Seabs assuming we're not going to have that wrestling division rematch this year. It's happening soon enough sister, you had better believe that.

I'M HERE TO STAY, ya bad bumbaclots.

I might be in my HBK post back injury second run, where I don't actually win shit, but I'm planning on producing a few WrestleMania match of the year contenders (and given time the TDL dvd geek thread will denounce everything I do during it. Yeah2015). This return has made me regret ever going away, because TDL really is the best damn part of this site.

This veteran has still GOT IT... and next, I'm going to be giving it to...

BAXTER. The new King of sports vs THE GOD of sports. This torch can be passed again, but the FIRE still burns within me. Let's do this. It's going to be unbelievable emotional, Jeff!

...but what about the social division??? Oh no, I ain't done with ya'll, not by a long shot...
 
#39 ·
I have the same dilemma that every debut victor has; retire undefeated or soldier on? :hmm:

I got some helpful feedback, some I don't agree with but I guess that's all a part of the process. Although I can agree with all of you that my intro was too long. It will probably continue to be a problem for me in this format. I'm usually a very expressive writer. I had a clear intention for the intro but I won't ramble on.

I enjoyed how differently Samizayn and myself approached the debate though, I hope all my debates can be as head-to-head as this one ended up.

I've also only ever seen the first Indiana Jones film so I got away with that a little bit!
 
#57 · (Edited)
Just finished reading the card. Definitely agree with Andre that this is one of the best TDL cards to date (if not THE best). Just so many top quality matches and individual debates right throughout the show. The racism debate in particular was absurdly good, it's going to take something very special to beat that in the MOTY award at the end of the year.

wahey at keeping the red for another few weeks at least. A little bit disappointed that I couldn't keep the run of unanimous Sports division wins going but you know you're nitpicking when your main complaint is that you 'only' got a split decision win against someone of the caliber of Aid. Going to be a mammoth task to keep this winning streak going against Andre, but I'm quietly confident of putting in a very respectable performance.

Sincere apologies to all debaters on this card btw, I was one of the main culprits in the "judges dropping like flies" saga and hence was one of the main reasons why it took longer than usual for the results to go up. so yeah if you have any complaints about the timing of these results then direct them at me and not at Seabs, as he does a genuinely fantastic job in keeping this thing running as smooth is as humanly possible (Y)

also if it's any consolation to you Rigby I was originally meant to be judging the racism debate and despite not doing anything more with it than having an initial read through, my gut instinct was that I was going to end up picking yours to win. Likewise RugbyRat I think that if I did have the time to get around to properly judging the Rousey debate there was a fair chance that I would've picked yours for the win.
 
#61 ·
@Seabs @Dr. Ian Malcolm ( @Andre if you're still involved) as TDL runners and @Anark @Baxter and @Seabs again as champions...

With the last couple of cards having some quarrels about the usage of abbreviations and such, maybe it would be better to come to a complete agreement so that people actually DO follow it and no one gets the upper hand for either agreeing or not agreeing with whoever or whatever.

Bearo's usage where he said it first and explained the abbreviation is what I would go with because that's the norm, but alas it doesn't matter what I think about that.
I think it should be left up to both the people who run TDL, current champions and former multi-time champions, but again it probably doesn't matter what I think there either. :brodgers
 
#78 ·
I didn't use AiC, though I abbreviated Staley's first band (Alice N' Chains) to ANC by bracketing the abbreviation after the first full mention (which should be fine for EVERY SINGLE TYPE of abbreviation barring text speak). That mostly happened because I had ANC mentioned several more times in the original draft, and I also wanted to make the difference between the two bands a lot clearer as a quick reading judge might mistake my mentioning Alice N' Chains for Alice in Chains. Wasn't actually that necessary in the end as I cut most of the ANC mentions out.

If it's an uncommon abbreviation, as Seabs and someone else said WWEWHC is (in reference to the title itself, not the champion), then abbreviating it in brackets after the first full mention should always be fine. This should be the case for pretty much everything.

The other one I noticed this card is criticism of using Reigns/Taker as a way of mentioning a match between Reigns and Taker, other than saying Reigns v Taker. Using names side by side rather using 'versus' or 'against' is in common usage in sports and should be fine too. If you're talking about the United/Liverpool rivalry for example, or the Chelsea/Man City dominance of the league, or the Albion/Rovers match on Sunday. It's commonplace.
 
#84 · (Edited)
Split decision loss and than a unanimous loss in the title match. Fucking awful showing for me. Oh well. I won't try to excuse it. I didn't think either debate was that good for me. Pulling double duty and missing the deadline extension really hurt both debates and they weren't topics I was that strong in I don't think. Capitalism vs. Communism I hope fares better for me. If not, I'll probably just hang up the boots.
 
#87 ·
Plus, enforcing unique and/or customised grammar rules takes away people's freedom to debate however they like. If you can write in an unorthodox style but still make it work (as in, win votes) then let debaters do that rather than be punished because of pre-arranged grammar rules that aren't even actual grammar rules.

Everything is actually just fine as it is. There's only one change that needs to happen, and that's Seabs' attitude toward abbreviations.
 
#106 · (Edited)
Quite the dilemma, I don't really know yet what my official stance is, never participated in this yet so I've never really encountered the problem, but guess that I'll just go with the flow when it comes to abbreviations and if people have a problem with how I use them then I'd expect of them to address that.

I don't know if rules for how to use abbreviations, I personally hate it when rules get set up for me because others don't know how to act or doesn't listen when they get told they should not do this or that.

Guess I'll just go with the flow and change how I do things as they come.
 
#2 ·
I have one bone to pick, and that's the criticism of me not explaining why the buildup is as important. I did. That's the whole point of The Buildup paragraph. Now whether or not I did that well is obviously up for argument. I thought this debate was my best one, and go figure, it's the one I lose. Handily, I might add. I'll take this loss as a humbling experience and bring forth a better effort 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