TDL XXXII: WHERE THE FUCK IS WOOLCOCK? - THE RESULTS - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 06:27 AM Thread Starter
Seabs's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ----->
Posts: 29,887
Points: 8,282



TKOK vs Joffrey Baratheon vs Perfect Poster
Who is the bigger first month surprise: The Astros or the Mets?

Hidden Block (you must be registered and have 500000 posts):
You do not have sufficient rights to see the hidden data contained here.

Winner via ??? Decision - Perfect Poster

Abreu Bomb Alert System vs The Rabid Wolverine
Were the Tampa Bay Buccaneers right to draft Jameis Winston first over Marcus Mariota?

Spoiler for Debates:
The Rabid Wolverine
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers absolutely made the correct call in drafting Winston over Mariota.
You might be asking yourself, why draft Winston over Mariota? Why take a risk on a guy with well documented character concerns over a regular old boy scout like Mariota who you KNOW will be a great leader, especially when Winston’s best season (2013) is not noticeably better than Mariota’s best season (2014)? Let’s start with fit.

Mariota at this time has not developed the ability to take a snap from under center, drop back while quickly going through his route progressions, then deliver a perfect strike to his receiver before the rush gets home. This is the offense that Tampa Bay currently runs, a traditional pro-style offense. It takes YEARS to learn to play quarterback this way, a lot of guys NEVER learn to play this way. This is not some skill I believe can be taught in 1 training camp or even 2 training camps. It takes a long, long time to get comfortable doing it.

So you might ask, why not just install the offense Mariota ran at Oregon until he gets comfortable? It worked in Oregon, it works in Philadelphia, why not in Tampa? Well, there are 10 other players on the field with Mariota, and they have all been drafted and signed based on their ability to perform in this pro-style offense that Tampa Bay runs. Tampa used a top 10 pick last year drafting Mike Evans, the 6’3 210lb wide receiver whose best skill is catching the deep ball. Slotting him in a read option offense were all he does is run bubble screens and short slant routes would be a terrible waste of his skills. Then you have the running back, or lack thereof, in Tampa. In the read-option offense, you need a high quality running back who exhibits patience and also decisiveness when using his blocks and getting up field. Tampa doesn’t have a player like that, and currently there are no running backs on the free agent market that can do that, either. You also need quick linemen who can make blocks up field, again something Tampa Bay does not have.

So now that we have explained why Mariota would not be the best pick, let’s look at why Jameis Winston is. Winston has played in a pro-style offense nearly identical to what Tampa Bay ran last year for his entire career at Florida State. Winston has a good, strong arm and has exhibited comfort in taking the snap from under center, making a quick read, and driving the ball downfield to his receivers in a timely fashion. Winston is not nearly the caliber of athlete that Mariota is, but Winston is athletic enough and strong enough to evade the pass rush when necessary. The bottom line is, if it was not for Winston’s off the field troubles, he would have been everyone’s unanimous pick for #1 overall. My belief is that, Tampa should have a much simpler time of reigning in Jameis’s off the field issues, which let’s face it were not overly troubling in the first place if you consider what most 18-20 year old boys do during their college years, than building a QB from scratch with Mariota. If Tampa employs someone to mentor Winston, help him make the right decisions when he’s away from the team, and have that person stay with Winston until he shows he has matured fully as a player and leader of the team, they should see serious returns on that investment. The Dallas Cowboys did this exact thing with Dez Bryant, and look how well that has worked out for them.

In summation, the best way to state my case for Winston over Mariota is this: the history of the NFL tells us it is MUCH more likely that an immature, extremely talented player will grow up and fulfill his potential if surrounded by the right team/organization than it is for a quarterback who doesn’t know the traditional NFL quarterbacking skills to suddenly develop them once he is already in the league.

Before I go I just want you to ask yourself this: if you had to bet your entire life savings on either an immature 20 year old, an extremely talented player with all the necessary skills to play the position at the highest level, maturing and becoming a franchise QB in 2-3 years; or a regular boy scout of a player that any mother would be proud to call her son, that seriously lacks the 3-4 most important on the field skills a NFL QB needs, developing into a franchise QB, which one would you bet on? I thought so.

Abreu Bomb Alert System
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers made the wrong choice by going with Jameis Winston for the first pick in the NFL draft. Why was it the wrong choice? Mariota is better in pressure situations, in no pressure situations, and overall. I will be arguing just from their last year in college stats, because this is where they learned the most and were able to display their best skills at the peak of their college careers. All the stats I will be writing about come from

Mariota (375) attempted 53 less passes last year than Winston (428), but still had more total passing yards, a better completion percentage, and 14 more touchdowns thrown. Mariota only threw 2 interceptions all year, while Winston threw 17 of them. The NFL is turning into a passing league and by these stats Mariota is a better and more accurate passer. This is what you need in the NFL, an accurate passer, because defensive players “zoom” in faster on the football on passes than in college. Another aspect of passing is how quarterbacks react and pass under pressure.

Mariota under pressure only attempted 59 passes to Winston’s 112, but had only 157 less yards of passing. Under pressure Mariota didn’t throw a single interception while throwing 3 touchdowns. Winston on the other hand threw 5 interceptions to 3 touchdowns. Quarterbacks are under pressure a lot faster in the NFL than they are in college and Mariota proved that he can play while under pressure. Winston was throwing interception after interception while under pressure and you can’t have this in the NFL, because that is just giving away points. Now, how about when both quarterbacks are not under pressure? Mariota STILL performed better than Winston. They both had the same amount of pass attempts while not under pressure. Mariota (3285) had 427 more passing yards than Winston (2858). While not under pressure Mariota threw 35 touchdowns and only 2 interceptions. Winston threw 21 touchdowns and 12 interceptions. Part of being in the NFL is to take advantage of opportunities and for a quarterback not being under pressure is a major opportunity. Mariota takes way more advantage of this and it is by a long shot.

Another aspect in a quarterbacks performance is how they perform against the blitz. In Mariota’s last year in college he was not blitzed that much, but while he was being blitzed he completed 70% of his passes, with 11 of those completions going for touchdowns. Winston was blitzed twice as much and threw 8 touchdowns to 9 interceptions. NFL teams will pick up on Winston’s weaknesses and the passing against the blitz is one of them. NFL teams see how Mariota has performed against the blitz and are going to have to find different ways to get Mariota to not perform well. When Mariota is not getting blitzed he is doing even better, he threw 27 touchdowns to 0 interceptions. Winston threw 16 touchdowns to 8 interceptions. You want your quarterback to throw as little interceptions as possible and if Winston is throwing touchdowns while not even getting blitzed, that is a bad sign. Mariota does not turn the ball over like Winston does.

One other aspect that Mariota has over Winston is running. Not only is Mariota a passing quarterback, he can also run. Mariota ran for 528 yards his last year in college, while Winston ran for only 150 yards. Winston is more of a passing quarterback, but in this new quarterback NFL teams are looking for quarterbacks that can run and pass, one example is Colin Kaepernick. If a quarterback can run it opens up the offense more for the quarterback and can actually help them excel in the passing game even more.

In conclusion, Mariota would have been the better choice over Winston by far, because Mariota protects the ball and does not give the other team “free” opportunities by turning the ball over. Mariota excels over Winston in every major situation a defense can throw at a quarterback. Mariota can also run better than Winston, which leads to more opportunities in the passing game for Mariota.

Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I’m not really going to bother with the whole break down of each debate as you took completely different approaches here. The Rabid Wolverine focused on FIT and Abreu Bomb Alert System focused on college STATS. Although you could argue with 2 great college QB’s that fit should matter more than STATS but I don’t think The Rabid Wolverine did enough to support their claims. Yes you made a lot of claims but there’s no videos, there’s no GIFS, there’s no LINKS of any kind to support these claims. Also, with a bad teams systems can change quickly as coaches get fired, new draft picks come in and they try new things in hopes of not sucking. Not saying that’s going to happen with Tampa but I don’t think you can completely rule out a player just because he’s not a perfect fit when you’re already a shitty team to begin with. Abreu Bomb Alert System focussed on stats and the big problem here of course is they only mean so much most of the time. Not too mention that Winston had a much better year the year prior. All things considered I’m going with Abreu Bomb Alert System here. You took different approaches but The Rabid Wolverine really needed to support his claims instead of just stating them without support before going on to the next one.

The Rabid Wolverine

There were two issues I had with this entry. First off, there's the simple matter of making statements without any evidentiary backup. Why not give a link to something that shows how guys struggle in a pro-style offense after having a shotgun formation in college? The statement about the speed of Tampa's offensive linemen? Their running backs? There's nothing there besides your assertion. If you have some article or stats to backup your claims, that makes you look 100x stronger, and thus 100x more convincing to your reader.

The second issue is dealing with the counterarguments. "The history of the NFL tells us it is MUCH more likely that an immature, extremely talented player will grow up..." Examples of some of these players? Because I think of the JaMarcus Russell's, Charles Rogers, Ryan Leafs and Albert Haynesworths who let their immaturity issues affect their play and end up with them out of the league after a few years. You mention Dez Bryant just above, but that's it. I think a stronger defence is needed on your part when defending the character issues knock against Winston. Also, blowing off rape accusations as something "most 18-20 boys do during college" is laughable.

Stylistically and grammatically, your writing is fine. Your arguments regarding the pro-style offense are appropriate. Your analysis of Tampa's actual team set-up was nice too. Again, it would've been awesome to see some supplementary info on it, but the point there is well made.

Abreu Bomb Alert System

Much like The Rabid Wolverine, I felt that there were two issues with this one. One of the issues is the same, and that's not addresing the counter-argument in a debate. Here, you don't address the biggest knock on Mariota before the draft, which was how his running of Oregon's spread offense would translate to the pro-style NFL offences.

Now, you DID try to highlight how certain numbers (ie: handling pressure / blitzing) will help Mariota translate at an NFL level, so that's reasonable. I would've liked to see you go perhaps a step further and compare him to perhaps other quarterbacks who developed into great throwers after a similar college experience. Aaron Rodgers' name was thrown around somewhat frequently as a comparison leading up to the draft.

The second issue I had is that you kept it strictly on the stats. The biggest knock on Winston is his character. You should've slandered him from here to eternity. Just a bit of a missed opportunity imo. Examples of immature players who flamed out, how character concerns have doomed guys with loads of talent, etc. That was all there for the taking and you didn't go for it.

That said, you summed up the PFF article well, which does indeed make Mariota look like a superhero to Winston's average joe numbers. However, we have to remember to read that in light of the knocks against Mariota (ie: the offense he ran), and the fact that you didn't do anything to negate that. The numbers as presented do a good job of making Mariota seem like an obvious choice.


Now, I felt that both debates were flawed in the ways I pointed out in the feedback. Since Abreu Bomb Alert System did a little bit more to address the counter-argument, in my mind, I'm going to award it to Abreu Bomb Alert System. Neither entry was able to take that leap to truly snuff out the opposing side, so use the comments to improve going forward.

The Rabid Wolverine:

I like your opening and starting off talking about how Jamesis is more ready for the NFL, because of the the fact he played in a pro styled offense in college, was smart as it shows he’s more ready to lead the team right off the bat. However, “It takes YEARS to learn to play quarterback this way, a lot of guys NEVER learn to play this way. This is not some skill I believe can be taught in 1 training camp or even 2 training camps. It takes a long, long time to get comfortable doing it”, this was true years ago, but it really no longer applies. Most high drafted QBs are expected to be able to pick up the pro-style offense quickly once they enter the league and it’s rare to see a QB ride the bench while another vet QB as he learns these days. If this was true then drafting Mariota would be itself stupid as they’d have to wait years for a return on their investment, which is no longer a safe thing to do in the current state of the NFL where coaches and GMs are quickly fired if they can’t do speedy turnarounds of the organization.

I also think it was a mistake by not bringing up the success Luck had and using it as a comparison for Jamesis, as both came into the league having played with a pro-styled offense in college, and Luck is currently one of the best young QBs in the league because of it. Use comparisons to make your points more solid and give them depth.

Third paragraph talking about the rest of the roster, and bringing up Evans, was solid. A QB needs to be able to have good chemistry with his top receiver or you can expect bad results. It was a strong argument to a debate focusing on Mariota.

Talking about Jamesis’s off field issues and bringing up they’re the only reason this is a debate, rather than the talent and skill of the two QBs, was again smart. It makes Mariota look bad while taking away potential counter arguments as you brought up most of what Jamesis was doing was what “most 18-20 year olds do anyway” and the fact they can help mentor him into making better decisions off the field. I think you could have touched on his championship run though and how well he performed in just his second year and probably bring up something about stats.

Strong conclusion too, although I think you asked a bit too many questions in the debate. I myself sort of like introducing my points that way, but try avoiding doing it to this degree.

Abreu Bomb Alert System

Your introduction is quick and strong to start, but I don’t like the way you’ve already stated that you’ll be focusing on only their last year when Jamesis won a championship and MVP in his second year. Surely that’s something worth bringing up and worth countering in your debate rather than just simply ignoring it and acting as if he didn’t matter because it wasn’t his last year at college.

The stats that you brought up are solid for your argument, however I think a bit of context might have helped as well as bringing up what type of offenses they played since that’s usually a major thing when you go from college to the NFL and your opponent focused on that heavily(not that you could have really known that, but taking out counter arguments early is always good).

I liked the “under pressure” stats. While that is not typically the QB’s fault, it is a good measure of how they’ll be able to deal with pressure going into the NFL and if they’ll be smart and throw the ball away or force a play and throw an INT, which you somewhat showed that Jamesis did more than just a few times.

Again the blitz stats are nice, but I think you could have diversified your argument a bit rather than narrowing on passing yards, TDs, and INTs. Luck has had some turnover problems coming into the league as well, but that doesn’t mean anyone wouldn’t immediately take him as their #1 QB now because everything else he does is still great. He’s also made those stupid decisions when under pressure and so have other young QBs, that is something you can improve, natural/raw talent isn’t which is something your opponent brutalized Mariota for. Again, stats don’t always tell the whole story, so next time I’d suggest using some videos/gifs of both players and actually comparing the two’s play. Talking about Winston’s off field issues could have probably helped too, but your opponent did somewhat cover that as a counter. It would give us some visuals to go along with what you’re saying because INTs aren’t always on the QB either (like when the ball hits off the receiver’s hands and a defender grabs it off a tip drill).

The running is a point I think you could have focused on more and I think a comparison to Wilson, rather than Colin, would have been better as Colin is known for playing poorly when he’s not able to run. Aside from that, solid conclusion/debate.

Decision: The Rabid Wolverine wins, he focused more than just on stats and provided more counter-arguments than Abreu Bomb Alert System.

Winner via Split Decision - Abreu Bomb Alert System

deepelemblues vs VIPER

Should School Teachers be allowed to carry firearms in school (assuming they were licenced)?

Spoiler for Debates:
With the recent surge of violence in America, I do not think it would be a wise idea to allow teachers to carry firearms in school. The idea may seem plausible, but you have to ask yourself what are the possible risks of allowing such behavior? Guns are always a controversial topic when it comes to their second amendment, but let’s consider the possible outcomes if this were allowed.

There would be armed teachers on campus, which already endangers their co-workers and students. That means teachers would be putting everyone around them at risk, because there’s no guarantee the gun would not get into the wrong hands. What if a child were to take the gun from the teacher’s desk? Now, you have a child with an armed weapon walking around school, able to attack anyone at any time. They could be concealed or even locked away during the school day but wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having firearms in the first place? There’s no way to be safe with a gun on your hip.

As being a school student, I know students do not like to feel threated and I can assure you that carrying a gun around would not only make kids feel unsafe, but also as if they have the right to do the same. Teachers are required to teach and make their classrooms a healthy learning environment, not an NRA meeting. Teachers could also abuse this privilege for their own personal gain. Who do you think will get partially blamed if the teacher goes and shoots their significant other because of adultery? They could also use it as a tool to threaten kids who simply talk back or misbehave in class, which again, is abusing the privilege of having even more power than they originally were given. A gun could protect students from deadly situations such as the Sandy Hook tragedy but either way the kids would still be in the crossfire. A teacher could try to shoot the gunman and end up accidentally hitting one of the kids. According to a report done by Everytown and Moms Demand Action, from December 2012 to December 2013, at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings, almost two each week. The shooter was also a minor of the age of 14 or younger in 73% of these incidents.

As the saying goes, “Violence begets violence.” This would be sending a message to the students that the only way to solve anything is to use violence as a first resort, while condemning them for fighting in their hallways. Although eight schools in the country have already permitted this to happen in their schools that is not to say there aren’t consequences to happen in the near future. If we think of this as a solution to all school’s behavior problems, perhaps we are the problems ourselves. People are not born violent, they learn through other people’s actions and behaviors. We can easily think of situations where violence versus violence was a terrible choice and backfired. Just take a look at all the recent “racial” violence. I say “racial” because it was turned into a racial issue as opposed to focusing on the bigger picture; violence.

We’ve seen how people react when attacked with guns and senseless violence, so why would we put this same formula into school systems? I am positive it would take only a few years, maybe even months, before a national headline reads, “High School Teen Shot By Teacher” which will most likely be a black student who was shot by a white teacher, and then the cycle of violence repeats itself, but on an even bigger level. Are we prepared to see incidents that took place in Baltimore with rioting happen at one of our local schools? For some reason, the American people have not fully grasped the idea of guns being dangerous. Sure, they sound like a great idea in theory, but you hand a gun to an idiot, and bad things happen. After all, a student is a person and a person is human. We should not give teachers the authority to potentially harm another human or even be allowed to threaten them with violence. Are we really going to allow teachers to have the authority to carry a gun around school grounds with the hopes of there being no backlash or consequences?

Action, Everytown and Moms Demand. "Innocent Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths." 2014. Web.

Armed Teachers

The United States has failed at preventing the regular occurence of shootings at schools, with the occasional large massacre that prompts passionate drives for measures to make sure it doesn't happen again. The Sandy Hook massacre was the latest. The mass murder of small children is something uncommon even in the horrific annals of attacks on students. Most focus had been put on protecting middle and high schools, as they were seen as more likely targets. After a lot of yelling about gun control, not much was done. The main effort consisted of several measures that were defeated in the Senate. [1]

One suggestion was to allow teachers to be armed at schools. [2] Shortly after Sandy Hook, not many states permitted guns to be possessed on public school grounds by anyone other than law enforcement. [3] There are simply not enough police to go around, to put a cop at every one of the tens of thousands of schools in the country. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, right? And when lives are seconds away from being snuffed out, the police are minutes away.

Well. The laws have changed. At least 28 states now allow anyone who can legally own guns to possess them on school property. [4] But is it a good idea? Should it be allowed? I am generally very pro-gun rights, but the idea of training teachers in particular to fight back with guns of their own against armed assaults on their schools gave me pause. In the end, I think they should be, but I also think it is far from ideal.

Armed teachers are no fool-proof guarantee that the Adam Lanzas of the world will be halted, several new breathing holes in them, at the schoolhouse door. Some massacres would be prevented. Others would add the armed teachers to the list of wounded or killed. When bullets are flying, people get hit. They aren't always the ones who should have gotten hit. But schools being "gun-free zones" has not worked either.

The federal government spends billions of dollars identifying terrorists and potential terrorists and preventing them from acting on their plans. One area of intense activity is the internet. Jihadi forums, twitter accounts, Facebook profiles, etc., are monitored constantly by the intelligence agencies of Western countries. The NSA has the capability to poke its nose into perhaps every corner of the internet there is. [5] The governments of the West, particularly the US government, have had success in trawling the internet for ideological terrorists. [6] Yet the authorities fail, again and again, at spotting the people who hate everyone and plan on writing their name in history with the blood of as many innocents as they can. [7] It isn't for the glory of Allah, or to protect the Constitution against the NWO. It's because the world needs to pay attention to them, and as importantly, the world needs to pay. Again and again, they broadcast their intentions, even if not entirely clearly. And again and again, we don't notice until it's too late.

Would armed teachers make this situation better? Yes, but in a reactive way. The political battles over guns have, I think, distracted attention and effort from initiatives more likely to succeed. The gun-control movement has, for the moment, largely been defeated in America. It failed to pass any meaningful gun-control laws in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, up to the present day. Focusing on guns is not going to accomplish anything. In most of the rest of the world, the threat of violence is widespread and constant enough that people with guns protecting schools is seen as normal, or privately owned guns and gun violence are so rare that they are not needed. Improving the mental health system has made some progress since Sandy Hook, [8] but probably not enough. The vast resources of the government are not being brought to bear against the next Lanza the way they are against the next bin Laden. That leaves us with uncomfortable decisions to make. If we are not going to do what needs to be done to stop them before they show up at P.S. 117 with an arsenal, then we need to be able to stop them when they get there.

Should teachers be allowed to carry guns in schools? Yes, as an unfortunate necessity in a world where there isn't enough money or cops to put one at every school, where other preventative measures have not been employed to the degree they could have, and where there is only one guarantee: there will be more massacres and attempted slaughters.


Spoiler for Judging Cards:
You put all your eggs in one basket here, a basket of potential. The possible, what perhaps may happen, the potential outcomes, etc. etc. These types of arguments would work better as the leaves fluttering off a firmly rooted tree of facts and guarantees, but you don't have this here.

Here's the problem, potential goes both ways. It has the potential for gun to be misused, but the potential still exists for guns to be properly used to save thousands of lives. Ignoring the good potential and only talking about the bad potential is a very flimsy argument. It's all guess work as to what might happen.

Along with that,rhetorical questions are a bad, bad, bad tool for making points, especially when you take for granted that the audience will come up with the same answer as you, maybe they'll have a sensible answer that contradicts your intended point.

For instance, "They could be concealed or even locked away during the school day but wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having firearms in the first place?" No, because when a shooter comes into room A, teachers in rooms B, C, D, etc. will be aware and have time to retrieve the weapon. Accounts from Sandy Hook show us that teachers do have sufficient periods of time to react to a shooter's presence.

Then you have arguments that, taken out of context, fall completely apart. "Teachers could also abuse this privilege for their own personal gain." This goes for literally any privilege held by a teacher, so why should the privilege of a licensed weapon be treated differently? I'm sure that now you're reading this feedback, you'll have an answer, so congratulations, include that thought in your mind in your next debate and you'll have less holes in your debate!

It's not all bad here, you raise good points, including counters to your opponent. It would compromise a healthy learning environment for students. But you have some nonsensical ones. The thing about racial issues and then bringing race into an issue and turning it into a Baltimore argument... what?

Then you end with a rhetorical question. That's a sin worse than adultery.

I liked how you briefly opened by framing the debate in its legitimate context, as it plays into your further arguments. You did a natural job of going through the alternatives (putting a cop at every school) and arguing against them to put out any potential counterarguments.

Where your opponent focuses on merely potential, you look more at the guaranteed, which I feel has far more potential in a debate. Where I feel you made a miscalculation was putting so much into the NSA/terrorists section. It was a useful point, but it didn't need so many words to get across and the transition into it was rather rough.

If the rest of the world also allows people with guns to protect their schools, I'd have liked a source to verify that claim. While you go through all the alternatives and explain why they're not proving viable as solutions, you did neglect a wide variety of counterarguments that leave holes in your position, some of which are raised by your opponent.

VIPER brought more counters to deepelemblues' debate, but deepelemblues had a genuinely stronger basis for their debate. deepelemblues wins.

This question was clearly aimed at the United States, but it doesn’t really limit itself to them technically speaking if you look at the exact phrasing of the question. I wonder if anyone will go across borders. Anyway, I admittedly have a clear opinion on this but lets see what we’ve got here:


Ok so right off the bat you make your side clear, but “I do not THINK” doesn’t sound very convincing. Please remember, you’re here to convince me your opinion is fact, not that it’s your opinion.

The rest of the intro doesn’t feel like much of an intro and more like the first part of your first argument. Ok, possible outcomes if this were allowed. Reasoning through eliminating the alternative, gotcha.

I get what you’re saying with the second paragraph, highlighting the added dangers of guns already being on campus. Would’ve really liked some numbers though. I mean, how many teachers HAVE licences? How often do students and teachers get into physical altercations where a concealed weapon, IF it had been on the teacher at the time, MIGHT have gone off. Then maybe compare it to the amount of school shootings, and see (I have my ideas) which one would likely end up being a more destructive path to go on. You give me numbers or even inspired guesstimates, you give me something to go on. Now you’re just giving me catchphrases. Like “there’s no way to be safe with a gun on your hip” is a statement that falls flat, unless you back it up.

Not a HUGE fan of the wording in the lead up, but the whole “kids will feel like they are entitled to as well” kinda hits home for me and I’m excited to see how you go on from there.
Unfortunately the next sentence about it not being an NRA meeting sounds like a catchphrase again and doesn’t build on your previous argument. I don’t get the sentence about personal gain, nor the one about adultery. Does it matter who gets blamed? Is this adultery on school grounds? I’m confused at this point..

The threaten kids line again raises an interesting argument but you abandon it all too quickly and move on to another interesting point entirely, namely raising the question of IF guns in teachers’ hands would even likely nullify the threat, or even to a lesser extent make the bodycount smaller. You ARE right, more guns doesn’t mean less death by definition. Hell, if a gunman started out his crime by shooting an armed teacher he might’ve just doubled his bullets. That being said, didn’t we already cover this? Sounds awefully familiar. At least this time you try to throw facts at me, but I’m not sure the stats you’ve chosen actually tell me anything. I mean, one second you’re argueing teachers might hit kids in the crossfire, the next the stats indicate it’s mostly kids shooting other kids. You’re just a bit all over the place on this one.

The first resort line is so full of hyperbole I can’t possibly take it seriously, and the one following isn’t really an argument in your favor, more of a “if they make this argument, that’s not the be all end all” kinda thing. I’d have rather you avoided the subject in its entirety tbh, instead of pointing out an argument for the opposition then only half tearing it down.
The problems ourselves line is again a throwaway line that in and of itself doesn’t in any way strengthen your positition, and then to finish the paragraph you go off topic and this is suddenly a race thing. Weird.

Your final paragraph… how do I put this… feels like you’re writing for a liberal Fox News. You jump from one conclusion to the next, throwing us gems like “a student is a person and a person is human” and “you hand a gun to an idiot, and bad things happen” (weren’t we talking about teachers? When did teachers become idiots?). Also there’s some unexplained race stuff in there again as well. All in all it doesn’t much feel like a conclusion, and again feels kinda jumbled.

All in all, not a huge fan of this debate although it definitely showed promiss. If anything, it kinda feels like a rush-job with the structure of the debate lacking (jumping from one point to the next at a moment’s notice, coming back to stuff already pointed out etc) as well as some of the points being argued not being sufficiently backed up by references and facts.
In short, even though you basically argued my way (i feel guns have no business in schools) I never really felt utterly convinced.


You also focus firmly on the US so you and your opponent seemingly agree that this question is on the US and nothing but the US. However, your intro kinda makes me see why it’s implied so I’m not even gonna fuss about it.

Using Sandy Hook and focusing on the rarity of that agegroup being the focus of one of these mass shooting. Smart. I kind of expect a declaration of sides at this point, but you leave me hanging and expand the intro to the next paragraph.

I like how you use references to give me access to instant factchecking, but you also throw some catchphrases my way (“best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is corny and the “right” kinda makes me think you’re being sarcastic, but even though you’re likely not being sarcastic, the fact that I’m confused here isn’t a good thing) and you still haven’t chosen a side.

It takes you a full third paragraph to pick, almost 300 words in. I do applaude the sincerity in stating that it gave you pause, I like the realistic approach in that regard, but it honestly takes too long. Oh well, let’s see how you utilize the rest of your wordcount.

The first paragraph of your main section makes a valid point, namely that gun free zones haven’t been able to stop senseless violence on school grounds. I’m not sure “it can’t get worse” is covered under this reasoning, so that really leaves you open for countering. In fact, your opponent in a way touched on this, so I feel like point wise, at this point you’re even.

The second main paragraph kinda leaves me puzzled as it feels like a lot of bulky backstory without any concise points, but then you bring your debate home in section three by quickly discarding some alternative paths FOR NOW (I’m refering to the mental health system and gun-control lines), showing there’s a precedent in other countries (wish that would’ve come with a reference btw) and although I don’t actually agree with your stance and feel like some of the things you say are debatable, you do make it all come together in what likely to many be a convincing fashion.

The final conclusion is spot on, and provides a very solid summarization of your debate.


deepelemblues suffers from an overly long intro and at times fails to make their arguments entirely bulletproof, but it makes up for this in overal structure, reasoning of points made and factual backing.

VIPER imho chose the right side, but didn’t fully provide a debate but moreso a freeflowing argument that seemed written in one inspired go. It lacked structure and factual backing, and thus didn’t end up taking home the victory.

deepelemblues is victorious.

Excellent opening argument regarding safety being compromised by the very presence of firearms, nicely enhanced with the point about guns being useless for purpose if they are locked away somewhere secure.

The next point is worthy but is written a little clumsily. The part about teachers shooting their significant other seemed a little out of place here, and would be better suited to an argument about gun control in general. However, the point about children being caught in the crossfire and the potential for teachers to accidentally shoot kids was bang on point, if you’ll pardon the pun, though the stats were somewhat misleading. Sure, a hundred kids were killed in unintentional shootings during 2013, but then you follow that up by pointing out that 73% of those incidents were carried out by minors. So, only 27 unintentional shootings occurred during that 12 month period that were carried out by people of an adult (or teacher’s) age, which doesn’t sound quite as impressive or convincing as a hundred. Still, it was a good enough point despite the stat hiccup. This is probably a good time to point out that you really need to provide me with actual links to your sources as well. It’s not an unbelievable stat at all, but I do like to double-check that debaters aren’t making stuff up and links at the bottom help (remember they don’t count toward your word count so you can have as many references as you like).

The ‘message to the students that the only way to solve anything is to use violence as a first resort’ part was okay. I think the point is good but you don’t really explain it very convincingly. Are there any examples of schools with armed teachers showing an increase in student violence? That would have been a nice touch. Maybe there aren’t any examples of that as it’s too soon to say, but there are probably loads of real world examples of violence begetting violence you could have used here to colourfully illustrate your point as well as the racial violence one, which could have done with a little more extrapolation.

I thought your final paragraph was a little wishy-washy. Sure, what you say is potentially frightening but you don’t provide any evidence that these consequences are probable. I don’t think it would have been difficult to find something to back your claim up, something along the lines of teacher on student violence that has happened before or a shooting incident committed by someone with a new gun but little training. I did love this line: ‘a student is a person and a person is human’.

Overall, not too shabby. Some parts were stronger than others but you present a pretty convincing case.

Jaysus did you take your time letting me know which stance you were taking. Three paragraphs and 264 words before you declare your stance. Even then, you kind of limped in with it. I welcome different styles of debates and I think people should be free to exercise as much creativity with their debates as they feel able to win with. But for a piece of persuasive writing, surely it’s just common sense to get your stance out there early and declare it with absolute certainty. Declaring your stance is when you begin arguing for it, so pretty much everything that goes before it is wasted in terms of creating a persuasive piece of writing. You have set the scene very well during the majority of those first three paragraphs, but you haven’t provided a platform from which to build your arguments. That comes with the declaration of the stance, so getting it into the debate as early as possible is usually (perhaps always) a much more effective method.

Reading on reveals exactly why the stance reveal should have happened much, much earlier in your debate. You clearly have a lot of intelligent thoughts on this matter and you seem to try and cram as many of them in as possible, but actually very few of them support your stance. Your first argument is that armed teachers would stop some maniacs, but then immediately admits that this isn’t guaranteed. The entire argument seems to rest on your statement that ‘schools being "gun-free zones" has not worked either’ which is a little weak to be honest.

You then make some very good points regarding the efforts to identify potential problem people who ‘hate everyone’ and want to 'make the world pay', but nothing here really argues for or against the arming of teachers. You then state that armed teachers would make the situation better but in a reactive way, later supplementing that with the idea that ‘we need to be able to stop them when they get there’ because the system fails to stop them before they get there. This point had some real potential, but you got into it too late and didn’t offer enough actual evidence that your statement was true. This part, ‘The vast resources of the government are not being brought to bear against the next Lanza the way they are against the next bin Laden’ really needed some extrapolation as to what exactly the government is supposed to do to identify these guys. More spying? Arrest all Marilyn Manson fans? Shoot on sight anyone with an unconventional haircut?

Also I think a vital thing you missed out was how to keep those firearms safe in the school. Your opponent hit on this element and I think it’s a massive point which needed covering, especially in a debate with the stance you took as it's an obvious counter that an opposing stance would seek to exploit.

This is not a terrible debate at all, but you could have done with an earlier reveal of the stance, a stronger belief in that stance, and a more economic use of the word count in terms of the amount of arguments presented and the persuasive content of those arguments. Remember, this is just a debate writing contest and your personal feelings don’t have to play a part in it. Sure, maybe you genuinely feel that arming teachers makes you feel uneasy and you’re not totally convinced by it yourself, but revealing that in your debate makes your stance come across much weaker than it would if you argued for it with absolute certainty.

I always enjoy a match with opposing arguments, but it’s a pretty easy decision in the end. VIPER was far more convincing in terms of the arguments presented and the content of those arguments. deepelemblues suffered by offering too little too late and a general sense that the debater wasn’t entirely convinced they were actually right. The winner is VIPER.

Winner via Split Decision - deepelemblues

Masenko vs Curry vs OXITRON

Which match was better, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 2015 or Brock Lesnar vs John Cena vs Seth Rollins at Royal Rumble 2015?

Spoiler for Debates:

Which match was better, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 2015 or Brock Lesnar vs John Cena vs Seth Rollins at Royal Rumble 2015?

What makes a good wrestling match?
a) The technical wrestling and ring-work?
b) The characters involved and the portrayal of them?
c) The storyline that lead to the match?
d) All of the above?

That question is rhetorical. It's D. And the WrestleMania 31 bout between Brock Lesnar, Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins is ultimately the better match because of it.

Though the previous triple threat between Brock Lesnar, John Cena and Seth Rollins had some solid ring-work by all three competitors, the match followed a simple formula that is well overdone in main event matches in WWE - especially ones involving Cena, which is a constant struggle to hit a finisher first, in an attempt to win the match quickly.

Cena has done this for a long time now, and one of the more well-known matches where he does this is against The Rock in their WrestleMania 29 match. That match was BORING, like a large portion of the triple threat match. Cena would constantly try to hit either Lesnar or Rollins with finisher at the start of the match, and mostly failing.

People like to forget the plodding parts of matches which are fundamentally and objectively boring - like the rest-holds and the finisher spamming - if the rest of the match was, at the very least "good", apparently to convince themselves the entirety of the match was "FOUR STARS!!!" or higher.

Furthermore, what was the story involved in this match? Cena wanted redemption and Rollins was put into the match because of authority corruption? This screams REHASH! Both of these things happened with wrestlers in the same position a couple of times in the months prior.

There was basically no story to this match heading into WWE's second or third largest event of the year. It was the go-to "rematch clause" match with an authority figure thrown in when they realised the rematch wouldn't have sold, relying on a much newer and younger talent to make the match interesting.

Ultimately, the second half of the Royal Rumble's triple threat match was good, but it wasn't enough to make up for the disappointing and overdone first half, and make it a stellar match in comparison to things like Daniel Bryan vs. Roman Reigns, or, the subject of this debate, Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns vs. Seth Rollins.

When it comes to the WrestleMania match involving Lesnar, Reigns and Rollins, there were many factors outside of simple ring-work that made this match so much better than the Rumble’s.

Reigns being a powerhouse and a formidable opponent for literally every person he has ever faced but still being doubted by everyone backstage and even the fans, was, compared to Cena's umpteenth redemption angle, a much fresher storyline.

Not only was it BETTER, it had an awesome sense of believability and unpredictability, something we neither expected nor have seen for a long time. When everyone thought WWE was going to build Reigns to be the bigger David to inevitably defeat Goliath, the build to the match showed that it could go either way.

During the match, Reigns turned nonbelievers into fans with the Bret Hart-esque mannerisms by not wasting a single movement in the ring. Every step he took was a limp. Every beating he took was a laugh in the face of defiance. Not only did Reigns put on a performance that was worthy of being a match of the year contender, but he put on a performance that essentially transcended the match and made people realise he is good at what he does.

Reigns however, was not the only person with a stellar performance in the match. Lesnar did what it is he does extraordinarily and did it better than ever. It may be hard to tell whether Lesnar is truly careless when he throws opponents around and smashes their face with his fist, but that's what makes him such a great wrestler. It's believable, careless, stiff, and believably carelessly stiff.

To add to the already stellar performances by Reigns and Lesnar in the ring, and in the build to the match, Rollins was seething week in and week out being unable to prove his worth to the Authority without any assistance from his security geeks. One could almost feel sympathetic about how Rollins traded everything he had, only to find out he just can't manage by himself. And when Rollins lost to Randy Orton in the same night, it squashed the beliefs that he would indeed cash-in his contract, only adding to the story and the unpredictability of the main event.

But Rollins did cash in. Rollins tricked everyone. Rollins' input in the match was perfect. He made history, and made a great match even greater with how perfectly timed and perfectly executed his cash-in was.


Which match was better, Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 2015 or Brock Lesnar vs John Cena vs Seth Rollins at Royal Rumble 2015?_____________________________________________

The answer is the Lesnar-Cena-Rollins match.

Why? Let's first look at the buildup because that's what gets fans interested in a match in the first place.

The RAW after TLC is where the Lesnar-Cena-Rollins buildup begins. It began with a solid introduction to the characters involved which is always desirable because it gets the fans' attention right away. Cena and Rollins were still enemies, they had a mic exchange which included Lesnar representative Heyman, they later faced off in the ring which led to Lesnar coming out afterwards and slamming Cena with Rollins running away(1). This gave extra oomph to the storyline because these men SHOWED they wanted to fight each other rather than saying it. In the following weeks, we got more meaningful interactions between all three competitors including physicality(2), promos(3) and even a contract signing(4). It was a proper promotion of the animosity these guys had towards each other which was important going into the match because when they showed that they cared about fighting each other, it led the fans to do the same. It was a wholesome buildup and when comparing it to the Lesnar-Reigns buildup, it's several steps ahead.

The Lesnar-Reigns buildup started the RAW after Royal Rumble with an interview between Lesnar, Reigns and Heyman. The two future opponents shook hands which showed intensity between them(5), the seed was planted...but it failed to grow. That was it for the entire buildup in terms of actually confronting each other until the infamous 'Tug-O-Bore'(6) which was disappointingly uneventful. No brawls or live promos to excite the fans, NOTHING. Sure, Heyman was always there with his stellar promos, but no matter how good of a promoter Heyman is, it just isn't the same as two opponents building a feud together with interactions so they create that bond which fans immerse themselves in. Instead, it was a lackluster buildup that failed to create a strong connection between the actual competitors.

Comparing both buildups, Lesnar-Cena-Rollins delivered sufficiently as opposed to Lesnar-Reigns. Lesnar-Cena-Rollins actually looked like a FEUD while Lesnar-Reigns just looked like two guys facing each other. This is a significant factor when measuring both matches.

So now let's examine the actual matches.

Lesnar. Cena. Rollins. Royal Rumble 2015(7). Interest was high due to a well-done buildup. It also had the feud aspect which Lesnar-Reigns lacked. Here's how it went. It lived up to the hype and then some. It had a brilliant mix of action and storytelling shown even in the first minute with Lesnar slamming everyone in sight and playing up his character of THE BEAST and Rollins also playing up his character of the chickenshit heel by running away(8). After that, it was constant action that kept the audience's excitement high throughout the whole match reflected by the numerous oohs and aahs from them(9)(10)(11). Sequence after sequence, Lesnar-Cena-Rollins brought the house down which included a Cena-Rollins finisher-nearfall combo on Lesnar(12), a Rollins aerial attack to Lesnar on the announce table(13) and a briefcase-curbstomp counter-F5 combo finish on Rollins(14). The first two of those sequences earned verbal approval ('This is Awesome' chants) from the audience while the finish was an exhilarating way to end an action-packed match. The storytelling wasn't lost either. Lesnar disregarding medical attention(15) and Rollins using J&J for a cheeky Shield-esque triple powerbomb(16) were fantastic performances of their characters within the context of the match. Everyone did their part in this match and it had the audience on the edge of their seat.

It's a different story with Lesnar-Reigns. While it exceeded expectations, they were already low due to a cold buildup. So it's wasn't much of a accomplishment. As for the action and storytelling, there were some hard-hitting blows but the story of Reigns being able to take a beating lacked pizazz because of the absence of emotional investment due to the aforementioned cold buildup. Plus it wasn't exciting action from start to finish like Lesnar-Cena-Rollins. It was a one-dimensional beatdown that DISREGARDED the art of wrestlers actually being competitive with each other to create suspense unlike Lesnar-Cena-Rollins. The crowd was pumped but of course they'd be, it was Wrestlemania. Lesnar-Cena-Rollins got the crowd on their feet without that 'Grandest Stage of em' All' setting which was a testament to how superb the match was.

It's OBVIOUS which was the better match...

Oh wait, the cash-in...

Lesnar-Reigns still loses against Lesnar-Rollins-Cena. Why? It's only ONE sequence. While it was a very exciting sequence, Lesnar-Cena-Rollins was consistently entertaining with many exciting sequences throughout the match and had a great finish in its own right. Lesnar-Reigns had low expectations and the cash-in to make the actual match seem better than what it was.

EVEN WITH THE CASH-IN, Lesnar-Cena-Rollins was still a better match than Lesnar-Reigns due to its superior buildup, continuous action and entertaining storytelling.

Spoiler for references:

1. WWE Monday Night RAW Results - 12/15/14

2. John Cena VS Rollins -steel cage- brock lesnar attack cena Raw 16/12/2014 - (11:02)

3. Brock Lesnar calls out Seth Rollins: Raw, January 19, 2015 -

4. WWE RAW, Brock Lesnar, John Cena and Seth Rollins contract signing chaos, Jan 12, 2015 -

5. Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar meet face to face: January 26, 2015 - (6:29)


7. R R 2015 brock lesnar vs seth rollins vs john cena -

8. (7) - (8:39)

9. (7) - (12:12)

10. (7) - (16:00)

11. (7) - (17:00)

12. (7) - (18:23)

13. (7) - (21:50)

14. (7) - (30:54)

15. (7) - (26:57) and (30:34)

16. (7) - (26:57)


Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns was a better match than Brock Lesnar vs John Cena vs Seth Rollins.

These were both very good matches from a technical point of view but where Lesnar/Reigns wins this clearly is sheer entertainment, coming largely from its unpredictability and unique storytelling.


Many fans thought that Roman Reigns' victory at the Royal Rumble was the start of his megapush toward becoming the new face of WWE. Then the crowds turned on Reigns and the best laid plans of Vince and “yes men” looked to be going awry. Then, just a few days before Wrestlemania itself, Brock Lesnar appeared on ESPN and announced to the world that he had re-signed with WWE beyond Wrestlemania. These factors combined with the looming presence of Seth Rollins' contract briefcase meant that this match was incredibly hard to predict.

By Contrast, Lesnar/Cena/Rollins came at a time when Lesnar's stock was so high that it seemed incredibly unlikely that he would drop the title before Wrestlemania, especially with two babyfaces (company favourite Roman Reigns or fan favourite Daniel Bryan) as the frontrunners to win the Royal Rumble itself.

The easiest way to test predictability would be to look at predictions from before the match. So let's use the Wrestling Forum Championship prediction threads from Royal Rumble:

Demonstrating just how predictable the Royal Rumble main event was, 78% of predictors saw Lesnar's victory coming with 78% of those correctly predicting that Rollins wouldn't cash in.

And from Wrestlemania:

These predictions clearly show that even those who post on wrestling forums, the “smart" marks had very little idea about the outcome of Lesnar/Reigns, with only 28% of predictors anticipating that Rollins would cash in and the poll on who would win the match itself breaking 60/40 in Reigns' favour.

So while most fans watching Lesnar/Cena/Rollins were aware throughout that they would eventually see Lesnar standing tall with the title, those watching Wrestlemania were left in the dark as they followed the rollercoaster of a match. Would Lesnar's dominance overpower Reigns as it had Cena? Would Reigns against all odds comeback triumph over the big bad heel? Would a Seth Rollins' cash in be coming to throw a spanner in the works? This unpredictability led to more investment from the audience in every shift in control, every near fall and every high spot, making this match far more exciting.


Lesnar/Cena/Rollins was a great match but it's a match we've largely seen before:

Suplex, repeat? His matches against Cena

Two small guys being dominated by a big heel, occasionally teaming up to gain some respite? Watch any Big Show triple threat.

One wrestler spending what feels like a week on the floor so the other two can have a match? Damn near every WWE triple threat.

The Authority faction interfering to help their chosen champion? Most of the last two years.

This match combined a number of solid WWE stories well but didn't bring anything new to the table, nothing fresh to excite or shock the fans.

Lesnar/Reigns on the other hand followed the concept of a great action sequel. You take the solid base of the original (Lesnar/Cena at Summerslam), ramp up the stakes (in this case to the main event of Wrestlemania with the most legitimate WWE Champion in years against the so-called future face of the WWE) and introduce a new and exciting chemical into the mix (in the form of the first ever Money in the Back cash-in at Wrestlemania). A sequel starring Brock Lesnar as the unstoppable villain after a year of build-up, conquering the Undertaker's streak, decimating the 15-time World Champion John Cena and generally beating the crap out of anyone with the misfortune to be in the same ring as him and introducing Roman Reigns as the underdog, having fought through 29 men at the Royal Rumble to earn his shot in kayfabe and having put on a fantastic match with Daniel Bryan to earn his place in the eyes of the WWE universe.

In just short of 17 minutes (a full six less than Lesnar/Cena/Rollins had) this unique story was beautifully told by the men in the ring. From the first finisher being hit just 26 seconds in to the match through the resilience of the beast in the face of what would normally be an overwhelming babyface comeback to the first ever mid-match cash in.

Lesnar/Cena/Rollins was a textbook WWE triple threat. Lesnar/Reigns suplexed, F-5’ed and superman punched that textbook into shreds.

It is this huge deviation from the normal WWE match coupled with the sense of huge unpredictability that makes Lesnar/Reigns the better match. Lesnar/Cena/Rollins was a very good match by typical standards but what Lesnar/Reigns produced, complete with the addition of Seth Rollins' cash in was a true wrestling spectacle.

Spoiler for Sources:

Forum Championship Royal Rumble:

Omitted from these results are 3 sets of predictions who neglected to predict whether or not there would be a cash-in. Of these, 2 chose Reigns as the winner and 1 Lesnar.

Forum Championship Wrestlemania:

Omitted from these results are 5 sets of predictions who neglected to predict whether or not there would be a cash-in. Of these, 4 chose Lesnar as the winner and 1 Cena.

Spoiler for Judging Cards:

Decent start to your debate outlining what makes a good wrestling match. It sets up your debate pretty nicely.

I feel the whole “match was boring in the middle” section was pretty weak for the most part.

I did find it strange talking about Cena’s match being very formulaic and predictable and yet praising Lesnar later on in the debate for creating a match which pretty much mirrored his matches with Taker & Both Cena single matches. Saying the RR match was formulaic was fine but you just never really showed why the Mania match wasn’t.

Also I kinda expected you to follow the criteria set at the top of the debate to be honest. If anything I feel if you did your debate would have had the structure that it really missed.

As a whole I feel your debate was decent but the one thing it really lacked compared to the other two was a clear balanced argument as to why your choice was better than the other. If you look at the other for example you can see where the direct comparisons between the matches have been clearly made.

Conclusion could have been slightly better and more rounded too. It feels as if your final point should lead onto another point rather than finish off your debate. Despite that the debate as a whole was a decent effort but lacked that convincing factor that I felt the other two debates had more.


First off, the build for this match realistically started well before TLC. I would go as far back as the Summer. From there you obviously have the Cena/Lesnar match at Summerslam and NOC with Rollins interfering in the NOC match itself. It may not have been referenced much going into RR but it still counts

Good job on separate the debate into two sections. I do feel it made for a good comparison and I feel you made a great argument showing how the RR Match did indeed have the better build up to the Mania one. It’s just a shame you missed out on a lot of the build by saying it started after TLC rather than actually looking further back. Only problem I have with that section.

Onto the next section I feel you did a great job on building up the Lesnar/Cena/Rollins match… only to ultimately let yourself down with a weak paragraph trying to explain why the Reigns/Lesnar/Rollin match didn’t live up to expectation. “While it exceeded expectations, they were already low due to the expectations” is a bit of a copout statement. It doesn’t really show WHY the match was inferior. Everything you’ve bought forward in this paragraph does little to truly convince me that the RR match was better than the WM match.

All in all it was a debate of two halves. The format and structure was good and you do well to argue that the RR match was a truly great match from the build to the actual match up but you do little to truly convince me that it was indeed the better of the two matches. In terms of hyping their pick this is easily the best of the three, just a shame the other half of the debate let them down.


The unpredictably section was actually really well done and if anything counters Masenko’s arguments why the build up for RR match exceeded the build up for the Mania match.

Loved the idea of getting an actually sample. If nothing else it’s direct evidence that’s incredibly hard to argue against and goes a long way in shutting down a lot of the points made by Masenko in regards to the Mania match build being “boring” and “lacklustre”. I’m not fully behind the idea of using a forum such as this though. Can’t help but feel the sample size is too small and niche so you run the risk of a slight bias. Other than that it’s creative and a good move and while it was a risk, I feel it’s a risk that pays off for you this time because of what your opponents brought to the table.

I was initially hesitant when you bought up:

Lesnar/Cena/Rollins was a great match but it’s a match we’ve largely seen before.

Suplex, repeat? His match against Cena
Mostly because I felt from there you was gonna try and argue that the Reigns was indeed unique when it pretty much was the Cena summerslam match with some slight tweaks. But you did well to safe yourself by saying they only took the base of that match and indeed tweaking it. Good stuff.

Nice short conclusion to round everything off and completes the debate nicely. Overall this debate does do a good job in not only showing why the Mania match was the better match but also does a good job in displaying the shortfalls of the RR match.

In terms of the result it was a very close call between Masenko and Curry for me but I feel Curryjust edged it. While it was far from perfect it did a better job of convincing me that the Mania match was indeed the better match than Oxitron while also doing a great job of shutting down a lot of the points made by Masenko.

OXITRON - This was a fine debate but it lacked that ability to make a convincing argument for one match over the other. Your arguments for Lesnar/Reigns are good but they never really argue it over the 3 way. It's too much in isolation. Similarly for the 3 way too. You talk about that and then you talk about the other match but the actual direct comparison isn't clear enough for this type of debate. It was too much of this is what was bad about one match and this is what was good about the other. Your what makes a good wrestling match intro was good but you then ignore it. When you started like I assumed you would compare both matches by the 3 criteria points. That would have at least forced you to make direct comparisons. Your actual arguments for and against each match are on the whole good and well made but what you need for a strong debate here are clear reasons that are difference makers between the two matches. I'll use the finish as an example as you disregarded a massive part of a match that would have fit into your stance perfectly. Compare the two finishes directly against each other. Rumble finish made Brock look super strong but Cena and Rollins didn't really benefit from it. You could maybe make a case that it hurt one or both of them. The Mania finish made all 3 look great though. That's a direct comparison that uses a clear reason for something that makes a match better (the finish) and directly and clearly shows why your stance edged out the opposing stance in that area. Then do it again for more areas. Then you'll have a much better debate. Describing the Rumble match as formulaic was good but you then needed to show that Mania was the total opposite of formulaic which you didn't. You do this for the storyline aspect of the match citing a stale one vs a newer more interesting and unpredictable one. "People like to forget the plodding parts of matches which are fundamentally and objectively boring - like the rest-holds and the finisher spamming" you needed evidence for. Masenko argued for it being non-stop action and out debated you here as he had evidence to back his claim up unlike you. Penultimate paragraph I didn't think was very good. I'm not really sure where the argument for the match is tbh. "One could almost feel sympathetic about how Rollins traded everything he had, only to find out he just can't manage by himself." isn't a positive when Rollins is a heel. I don't know about Orton beating Rollins squashing the cash in idea either. I'm not saying it made it more likely but not less likely either. Not that it matters as it was a throwaway line anyway. You did this last card too but your debate feels like it ends mid flow and not with a proper conclusion. It reads pretty bad so try to have that last paragraph be an actual wrap up of your debate rather than just stopping on your final argument. Next time try to follow the formula I went through with the finish example and it will help improve your debate for a direct comparison topic like this.

Masenko - The build for the 3 way started long before the Raw after TLC but stating so only hurt your own stance by not capitalising on the length of the backstory to the match from Lesnar beating Taker and destroying Cena to Rollins turning heel to the finish at Night of Champions. That's a lot of good arguments for the build up that you ignored and instead focused on the short term build that you never really prove to be effective or all that good. OXITRON presents a decent counter build wise that it was actually stale. All you do here is show that there was an active week to week build unlike Reigns/Lesnar which in comparison helps your stance but not much without showing the effectiveness of the build. Curry also has a good counter here regarding the unpredictability leading into both matches which makes a better case for quality of each match if viewers are more into the outcome rather than what you did which was just show that one had more interaction between the competitors. Arguments against the Reigns/Lesnar build are good but also don't counter Curry's predictability claim or the fact that fans were more invested in the outcome of Reigns/Lesnar than the 3 way. The argument for the 3 way is very good and does a great job showcasing all the highlights of the match. It does leave itself open for any counter that claims the match was just all spots though and how Lesnar/Reigns did the other things much better. You mention some storytelling though which helps you. The Lesnar/Reigns comparison isn't very good though. "While it exceeded expectations, they were already low due to a cold buildup. So it's wasn't much of a accomplishment." is a daft comment. A ***1/2 match people expected to be ****1/2 is still better than a ***1/4 match people expected to be **. "As for the action and storytelling, there were some hard-hitting blows but the story of Reigns being able to take a beating lacked pizazz because of the absence of emotional investment due to the aforementioned cold buildup." - I really don't know about that and you provide no evidence for it like you did for the opposing side of things. The fans were into the match however you want to spin things such as why that was. "Plus it wasn't exciting action from start to finish like Lesnar-Cena-Rollins." again just no and you provide nothing to prove that. "It was a one-dimensional beatdown that DISREGARDED the art of wrestlers actually being competitive with each other to create suspense unlike Lesnar-Cena-Rollins." - total head scratcher. At best you're saying one style was better yet still with no credible reason why but you're also pretty much saying the foundation on which most wrestling matches are built upon are bad because most matches have the heel beat the face down until the finish and it's a formula that works in any sense. "The crowd was pumped but of course they'd be, it was Wrestlemania. Lesnar-Cena-Rollins got the crowd on their feet without that 'Grandest Stage of em' All' setting which was a testament to how superb the match was." - ..... just no. Getting the crowd involved at Mania isn't any more of an achievement than at the Rumble. You also ignore how Lesnar/Reigns went on in the 5th hour of damn near 5 straight hours of wrestling whereas the 3 way went on in the 2nd hour. Your cash in counter doesn't actually counter anything either. The first half regarding the build was decent in isolation but Curry counters it nicely with the unpredictability factor. Your argument in favour of the 3 way is very good but you butcher the counter against any aspect of Lesnar/Reigns.

Curry - The unpredictability part is very good and presents a clear comparative edge for your stance that also serves as a good counter to Masenko's argument regarding the anticipation for the match. Yes the actual week to week build wasn't as good but you argue the anticipation and interest in the outcome was there which is just another way of creating hype going into the match. Your evidence for this was actually pretty impressive for something most would just leave as a given. Don't have any problem with the source of your evidence either. Sample size is maybe a little small but gets the job done. At first I was ready to call bullshit on the "78% of those correctly predicting that Rollins wouldn't cash in" stat until I realised it was 78% of those who had Lesnar winning which was the right thing to do. I do like a good pie chart in a debate too. You could have dropped the final paragraph here and used it for something else. Your point was already made imo. "A sequel starring Brock Lesnar as the unstoppable villain after a year of build-up, conquering the Undertaker's streak, decimating the 15-time World Champion John Cena and generally beating the crap out of anyone with the misfortune to be in the same ring as him and introducing Roman Reigns as the underdog, having fought through 29 men at the Royal Rumble to earn his shot in kayfabe and having put on a fantastic match with Daniel Bryan to earn his place in the eyes of the WWE universe." all probably could have gone too. That would have left you room to dive into the specific evidence for Reigns/Lesnar citing specific spots that back your stance up and/or allowed you to compare the two finishes and their impact for a great argument for your stance. A little rushed on this half but still effective. You do a good job arguing for your match like Masenko did but you don't butcher the counter for the other match, instead actually making easy and quick but credible arguments against it.

Curry's debate was pretty simple and probably would have lost out to a debate that went into arguments in more depth or introduced a 3rd argument. But nobody did. OXITRON didn't have the level of direct comparison to compete here. Masenko's debate was generally good until the Reigns/Lesnar in ring counter but despite that Curry's pre-match argument was better, his argument for the in ring side of his stance probably just short of Masenko's but much better comparison and counter of the other match from this standpoint.

Winner - Curry


This started well be defining the criteria that goes into making a great match. You touched on elements of why the RR match wasn’t particularly great with the finisher spamming, although I must point out that it’s dodgy ground to argue that anything in an entertainment environment is ‘objectively’ great or crap. The point about this match largely being a rehash of a tired feud with one extra element did add a little bit of weight to your stance, but you could have gave a little extra detail as to exactly why this was an issue.

You did a good job of glorifying the build for the promoted Reigns/Lesnar match, by outlining how the actual story was more intriguing, while overlooking how the execution in the build to Mania wasn’t quite as good. This was a smart way of showing how the story had actual value; even if Brock’s regular absences and the goofy execution in some angles (tug-of-war) were crummy.

Your argument for the actual Mania match being better was probably the peak of your debate. You neatly summed up how gritty and real the bout felt, whilst also expertly conveying how the story from the build was accurately portrayed within the ring. The idea that the Rollins cash-in added something that the RR match just couldn’t produce neatly rounded this off. Good debate.


The start of this debate was excellent, clearly explaining why the RR build up was superior to Mania. This line was a pearler : “no matter how good of a promoter Heyman is, it just isn't the same as two opponents building a feud together with interactions so they create that bond which fans immerse themselves in”. Great stuff.

I think you made a decent stab at arguing for the RR match as being superior, but overlooked how a large portion of the match was flat, with the crowd being quiet. There was also a lot of finisher spamming which contributed towards this, as OXITRON argued. The argument against the Mania match was fair as well. The best line was “the story of Reigns being able to take a beating lacked pizazz because of the absence of emotional investment due to the aforementioned cold buildup”, although I think you could have expanded on the idea of a lack of emotional investment due to the fans not buying into Reigns.

I wasn’t sold on “The crowd was pumped but of course they'd be, it was Wrestlemania”, because there was a lot of silence in other matches, including Taker/Wyatt which had an equally poor build and possibly more emotional investment due to Taker’s return (as signified by his winning pop at the end). So, it seems like you’re underselling the Mania main event with that comment. The counter to Rollins’ cash-in was better as you at least showed that the RR match had an exciting conclusion. Great effort.


The unpredictability argument in your intro is excellent and the stats you used to back up your points are more than sufficient. You also BURIED the RR match with a few simple sentences that accurately dissected how run-of-the-mill the match actually was. You also sold the build-up of the Mania match with greater aplomb than OXITRON, by largely ignoring the lame RR – Mania build on tv, while highlighting all of the major elements from the previous 12 months that contributed to the match, including Rollins’ role. This was a smart move as the actual short term tv build up was a bit crap in some ways. You showed me exactly why the RR match was just another big move spam fest by-the-numbers multi-man match, whereas the Mania main event was everything and more.

Contender for best line of the entire card: “Lesnar/Cena/Rollins was a textbook WWE triple threat. Lesnar/Reigns suplexed, F-5’ed and superman punched that textbook into shreds.”

Look, I’ve seen debates of a similar standard that have had a wider variety of arguments, but in terms of a piece that goes to Town on a few key points, this is up there with some of the better wrestling division debates.

This wasn't a landslide victory by any means, all of these debates were at least good, but Curry wins my vote. My respect goes to all three of you because this was a really fun match to judge.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Curry

TDL Wrestling Division Rising Star Tournament Round #1
A-C-P vs donne vs Smitty

Which character is more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot, Razor Ramon or Scott Hall?

Spoiler for Debates:

Which character is more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot, Razor Ramon or Scott Hall?

Scott Hall

When the character of Razor Ramon was inducted into the hall of fame last year they put themselves in a lose-lose situation, I knew that this would have one of two results:

A: Never induct Scott Hall leaving all of his accomplishments outside of being Razor Ramon not recognized in the hall of fame

B: Have Scott Hall get inducted later and so we have a hall of fame ceremony with repeat inductees on it which I have always thought hurts the HOF's reputation

Neither of these results seem very pleasing. Now, obviously Scott Hall is one of the best characters the WWE has ever seen, and his matches with guys like Shawn Michaels are the kinds of matches where someone just sits back and knows this guy has talent. However, just honoring Razor Ramon is doing a disservice to what Scott Hall did in the wrestling industry. Scott Hall along with Kevin Nash in a way started the attitude era and the Monday Night Wars when they formed the NWO. At the moment, technically speaking, his accomplishments for showing up on Nitro on May 27, 1996. In addition to that history making event, Scott Hall is a two time WCW United States Heavyweight Champion, a one time WCW World Television Champion and a nine time world tag team champion (seven times in WCW, once in TNA, and once in the AWA). At the moment, none of those accolades are represented in the WWE Hall of Fame. Now, the question asks who is more DESERVING of this honor. Scott Hall deserves to have every part of his illustrious career represented in the HOF because when you induct Scott Hall, you are inducting 25+ years of wrestling history, and when you induct Razor Ramon, you are inducting a mere piece of it.

The WWE Hall of Fame has always had a certain laudable presence about it. It really is for many wrestlers the ultimate goal in their career. So there is a certain reputation that the HOF has that it has for the most part lived up to. It is a classy night with all the wrestlers and employees getting dressed up to honor wrestling’s best. However, when you induct a character one year and then the actual worker another year (or vice versa) it brings down the reputation of the hall of fame because it seems like just a way to make sure the show is 3 hours long and that fans will come to the show. While to my knowledge that exact process where a character and an individual gets inducted separately hasn’t occurred. However, at the moment only Razor Ramon is in the WWE HOF, so unless we get a repeat induction, this means that his entire career from before and after those few years are left out. What is more likely is that WWE would induct the NWO, which would mean Hogan, Scott, and Nash, would all be repeats, making the reputation of the Hall of Fame go down due to repeat inductions.

The question states who is most deserving of being inducted into the Hall of Fame. When Razor Ramon was inducted into the Hall of Fame the WWE backed itself into a corner, a corner I’ve explained that has two ways to get out: induct Scott Hall another year and tarnish the reputation of the WWE Hall of fame or leave out all of Scott Halls accomplishments outside of being Razor Ramon. The fact is that Scott Hall deserves for his entire career to be represented in the Hall of Fame. Because Scott Hall deserves to be inducted over Razor Ramon because Scott Hall was the one who worked hard every day to make himself famous in the wrestling business. Razor Ramon was simply a character that Scott Hall worked to perfect, and Scott Hall deserves for that work to be honored in the HOF. Double inductions have happened in the past, such as Flair getting inducted a second time as a member of the four horsemen. Now, in order to avoid a filler induction like this again Scott Hall should have been inducted over Razor Ramon so that they could cover all of the man’s career, not just one piece of the puzzle. So, just to remind you one last time of the reasoning’s behind my decision, here are my points once again:

1: Scott Hall deserves for his entire career to be represented in the HOF

:Second time inductions hurt the reputation of the HOF

3: Scott Hall made Razor Ramon, and that should be shown in the HOF

-Thank you


Which character is more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot, Razor Ramon or Scott Hall?

This question was a hard one for me to come up with an answer to as I feel both the Razor Ramon and Scott Hall characters deserve spots in the Hall of Fame. The Razor Ramon character was one of the most popular “bad guy” characters of his era in the WWE, the Razor Ramon character is still one of the most remembered character of the fans from his era in the WWE, and he was part of numerous great matches, especially the two ladder matches with Shawn Michaels for the Intercontinental Title, during his WWE run. The Scott Hall character was part of one of, if not the, greatest, factions in professional wrestling history, as part of the NWO the Scott Hall character really helped start the professional wrestling popularity boom in the last 1990s, and again in WCW the Scott Hall character’s ring work was also top notch most of the time.

So to decide which character is more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot I really had to dig into the details; and after digging into the details I have come to the conclusion that the Razor Ramon character is the one MORE deserving of the Hall of Fame spot. There were 3 major details that led me to the conclusion that Razor Ramon is the one most deserving of a Hall of Fame spot.

First, without the success of the Razor Ramon character there really would not have been a Scott Hall character that followed. The success and how popular the Razor Ramon character had become in the WWE is one of the major reasons that when Scott Hall, the man, left the WWE and became the Scott Hall character in WCW he was one of the founding members of the NWO faction. I would also argue that had Scott Hall, the man, not jumped ship to WCW the Razor Ramon character would have been one of the top characters in the WWE as they moved into the Attitude era, though I will admit this is sort of a moot point as this is a “what could have been statement” and I like to base my arguments for questions like the one posed here on what actually happened.

Second, the Razor Ramon character was a single’s character and all of that character’s success and achievements are because of that character solely. The NWO as a group was a BIG reason for the success of the Scott Hall character, first in WCW, then in the WWE. I will readily admit the (original three) NWO as a group would be more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot than the Razor Ramon character would be, but just taking The Razor Ramon character versus the Scott Hall character I side with the character that achieved success as a singles character over one whose popularity was due in large part because of inclusion in a group, as being more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot. You can also argue that the Scott Hall character never really had the chance to prove he could be a successful singles character in WCW as he was always (for the most part) tied to the NWO group during his time in WCW, but again this is another “what could have been” statement.

Finally, the Hall of Fame in professional wrestling, for most people, is the WWE Hall of Fame. The Razor Ramon character being a WWE character and the Scott Hall character, for the most part, being a WCW character gives another edge to the Razor Ramon character in deserving a Hall of Fame spot more. Whether this line of thinking is right or wrong is a good debate to have, but the debate doesn’t change the fact that the WWE did win the “Monday Night Wars” and with that won the right to place more importance on their company’s history over WCW’s.

In conclusion, like I said earlier I do feel that both the Razor Ramon and Scott Hall characters are deserving of Hall of Fame spots. Looking further into the details, as discussed prior as well, I do feel that the Razor Ramon character is more deserving of a Hall of Fame spot over the Scott Hall character.


Scott hall is the hall of fame.
They say one moment can change the entire course of one’s life. Well on May 27th 1996 Scott hall did just that and more. When he jumped the guardrail and appeared on NITRO the entire wrestling landscape was forever changed.
Let’s be honest wrestling was a dying a slow death in the mid 90’s low attendance awful gimmicks and the majority of the matches sucked. Then one man one moment changed it all.
"The infamous “you want a war speech” Nitro had been on the air for seven months and it was ok but truly not worth tunning in every week, and the same could be said for RAW that was decent at best and horrific at worst. Like I said wrestling out and out sucked until…."You people...You know who I am. But you don't...know why...I'm here” with one line Scott took a dying business and turned it into a phoenix rising from the ashes. The next 82 weeks was the best wrestling the world had seen in ten years on a regular basis. And with it came so many amazing lifelong memories
#Diesel debuts two weeks later
And all those incredible moments plus countless others forced Vince’s hand and created the attitude era. There is no need to go into detail on how fantastic that was. And it all happened because of Scott hall.
Now one would argue as I’m sure someone will, if Razor Ramon had never happened then none of this would exist, and technically that’s true but the truth is Razor wasn’t all that good. Yeah I know the ladder match one of the greatest to ever take place so many moments still shown on highlight reels a match that changed how gimmick matches would be worked and presented easily a top 20 wrestlemania match. But aside from that and the 1.2.3 kid storyline, Razor’s WWF tenure was mediocre at best.
He had several lacklustre reigns as IC champ. Some god-awful matches with I.R.S dibiase, Adam bomb, Bundy and the rest of the woeful 93/94/95 mid-card. If it weren’t for the Shawn/Diesel feuds. His entire 3 year run would have been long forgotten and him showing up on nitro would have gathered very little reaction. So again Scott hall is the guy who deserves the credit and recognition not the toothpick chewing Tony Montana rip off.
Like I said he changed everything more money for the wrestlers more options they became overnight celebrities and with it came Movie/Book deals late night TV appearances. No longer was wrestling looked down upon and it was at the forefront of the late 90’s any semi-famous person worth their salt made a cameo on a wrestling programme and tried to cash in on the success. To be blunt Scott Hall made it cool to be a wrestling fan.
The fact we are sitting here Nineteen years later still talking about a ten minute segment on a wrestling show that no longer exists should hammer the point home. He changed the game and how it was played. And it should have been Scott in the hall not a long dead character that hardly anyone remembers or even cares about. The man behind the mask is the one who should be honoured who should be talked about forever. When people reminisce about the “glory days of the 90’s” they need to remember without one 6ft7 slicked back hair toothpick chewing lone wolf NONE of us would even be watching wrestling. So in closing.

Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Smitty - Key word in the question which hurt your debate. Character. Not Scott Hall the person but Scott Hall the character meaning that Razor Ramon and Scott Hall aren't the same person. You never really separate the two which made your debate a) confusing and b) not a proper answer to the question. You should be looking at which run of Scott Hall the person was better, as Scott Hall or as Razor Ramon. You never really tackle that like A-C-P and donne do. The whole stuff about it being one or the other is irrelevant to the question if you read the wording of it properly. You mention how the same person going in twice is an issue but you never convince me why with reasons it's a bad thing. It was done with Flair and had no bad effect. Did you proof read this before you submitted? If you did then I'm not sure how you didn't notice quite a few sentences that I assume were just missing words. Your second of the three large paragraphs answers nothing to do with the question which is in other words which character had a better run. With the lack of grasp of the question and the typing errors this seemed like a very rushed effort lacking care. Make sure you read the wording of the question properly and grasp what it's actually asking next time.

A-C-P - Out of a 800 word count you use 422 words actually arguing your stance. That's obviously a big hindrance. That's not even double the length of your intro. That first paragraph is nice but it doesn't really add anything to your stance because you argue both character's worth. I would have cut that entire first paragraph personally and left myself another paragraph to craft another argument for my stance. The idea that what came first makes it more deserving is odd imo. Yes it's a reason why Scott Hall was what he was in WCW and afterwards but if the success and accomplishments of the later are greater then it doesn't mean anything. You wouldn't say Stunning Steve is more deserving than Stone Cold just because he came first which is basically all you did here but for Razor/Hall. " I would also argue that had Scott Hall, the man, not jumped ship to WCW the Razor Ramon character would have been one of the top characters in the WWE as they moved into the Attitude era, though I will admit this is sort of a moot point as this is a “what could have been statement” and I like to base my arguments for questions like the one posed here on what actually happened." is a massive waste of words. The moment you say your argument is moot that's the signal to delete it. Singles doesn't need an apostrophe. With it you're saying the character belonged to single. Whoever single is. " I side with the character that achieved success as a singles character over one whose popularity was due in large part because of inclusion in a group" is pretty unsubstantiated and to me a bit of an odd argument like your first one. You counter your own argument to end it too. The final point is also very odd imo. Plenty of wrestlers have gone into the HOF based on accomplishments outside of WWE and if you are going to argue this then you actually need to say whether it's right or wrong. A lot of wasted words and honestly 3 very weak and frankly odd arguments. Arguments can be hit and miss and you can't really give feedback on how to think of better arguments but do work on being a lot more concise in your debate and not wasting words. Re-read it when you think you're done and ask yourself if that sentence/etc really adds anything to my stance and if it doesn't replace it with something that does.

donne - Well first of you won the moment you presented one decent argument for your stance as neither of your opponents managed that. Secondly, your debate is a bit of a chore to read because of the horrible formatting (preview your message before you send if it was a copy and paste mistake or make sure you leave lines between paragraphs) and the poor language. Debates aren't won purely on written communication standards but if your debate is hard to read with constant errors it does put you at a disadvantage in a tight contest. Fortunately for you this one wasn't tight (or shouldn't be). " Scott hall is the hall of fame." is this isn't a typo then it's a very odd statement. Please capitalise the first letter of any name. " Let’s be honest wrestling was a dying a slow death in the mid 90’s" is a claim you could have done with some evidence for. If you had evidence of wrestling's popularity before and after the NWO was formed you would have a great argument. Try and get into the practice of providing evidence to any claims like that you make. The Razor counters are lacking some compelling evidence to back them up. You mention several opponents he didn't light it up with but honestly barely anyone did with them guys at that time. Saying Razor didn't have much consistency in terms of delivering entertaining programs is fine but then also show how Hall had more that were to his credit. You do list the great NWO memories but you could easily use that list to say their success was more reliant on others than Hall. You did a good job showing that Hall was the catalyst but you then needed to continue through and cite Hall's achievements during the run to add another layer to that argument. The money argument is another good one in terms of lasting impact on the industry. The idea that none of us would be watching wrestling if Hall didn't jump and form the NWO is madness though but thankfully it was just a throwaway line. Good arguments, just try to improve the writing so they flow better and make a more enjoyable read.

Winner - donne

BkB Hulk
I thin large parts of your debate have missed the mark due to not reading the question properly. It doesn’t ask about Scott Hall the person, but rather Scott Hall the character. That means the parts about recognising Hall’s whole career and his devising of the Razor Ramon character don’t apply, because that was Scott Hall the person, not Scott Hall the character.

The points about what Scott Hall did in WCW are relevant, and I agree double inductions aren’t great. However, assuming the Scott Hall character is removed from Razor Ramon, as the question dictates, then a double induction would be necessary either way.

I think this would have been okay if the question was just asking whether Scott Hall or Razor Ramon should have been inducted. However, with the way the question is worded, you haven’t really answered what was asked.

I feel like you’ve done a decent job here arguing in favour of Razor Ramon. I don’t think you really countered any Scott Hall arguments too effectively, and you maybe could have done more for the Ramon argument (especially listing his achievements from his time in WWE), but it was okay.

A lot of your early arguments in the opening paragraph could have easily been turned around to apply to Hall too, especially with regard to being an iconic, influential character.

I’m not sure you dug into the details as promised, because your arguments were quite basic and didn’t require any research. They were okay, without really being overly convincing. The first argument was a bit fantastical, the second argues that booking is responsible for a character’s success, which is really applicable in any circumstances, and the third doesn’t work greatly when you consider that WWE owns WCW and there has recently been a spate of people who have little to do with WWE inducted.

I think the main problem is that you never really refuted any of the reasons why Hall would be more worthy, other than saying he was in a stable. I’m not sure that really works against that character though.

I think what you’ve done best is both argue convincingly for your character and refute the reasons for inducting the other one, which is the most important thing to do.

While the debate isn’t the best presented in general, I think the Hall arguments were great. You really did a good job of selling the impact that character had.

The Razor Ramon arguments were very strong. They were perhaps too dismissive at times, but they did their job in being convincing. The detail you went into was great and showed the best knowledge of the topic of everyone in the debate.

The conclusion really drove your point home well, and pretty much sums up why I think you win this debate.

Winner: donne


The first three paragraphs don't read well at all. It's quite hard to read and it doesn't really flow. Mind you, the writing does pick up to an adequate standard later on in the debate. The quality of writing is pretty important in TDL, so I'd make an extra attempt to make sure your efforts read well.

For Option B, I really don't think it'd harm the Hall of Fame that much if Hall was inducted as part of the NWO alongside Hogan and Nash. I also kinda struggled with the next paragraph. You credited the Scott Hall character with the matches with HBK, assuming you mean the ones in the mid-90's, it was the Razor Ramon persona who had the bouts with Michaels. The next bit of the paragraph is better, as you're listing Hall's kayfabe achievements. You probably should have contrasted them with Razor to help further establish your point, in my opinion.

The next paragraph isn't bad, but you're just repeating the exact same point you had before, which is just eating away at your word count. You should try to be as concise as possible to either make more arguments for your case or increase the depth on your existing points.

With the next paragraph, it seems you're getting confused with Scott Hall the person and Scott Hall the character. He did train hard (presumably) but, I don't see how this supports your argument for Hall. It's even been argued that he got lazier once he got to WCW under his new persona. You also mention throughout your debate that double inductions hurt the business, but you don't really provide any explanation of why.

I'd also leave the comments like "Thank you" out the debate when your concluding. I'm going to assume it was a message to the person you were sending your effort to, though.


The first and second paragraphs are fine and I really can't say that I disagree with anything written in them, but they do go on a bit too long. As a result, you only have 442 for your three reasons for why Razor should get in ahead of Hall.

Your first point really doesn't do anything for me. Just because he played the Razor character first, I really don't think you can attribute everything he did afterwards to the initial gimmick. He did get success, so I suppose it's a fair enough point.

The second point is much better. You're right that he received much more success (at least as an individual) as Razor than as Hall. Debate A does state that he did win a lot of championships in WCW. Your point does have merit, but I kinda feel that this point needed more detail, as it was a bit thin. I'd have maybe mentioned Razor's feud with Bret when he first returned. There's also a lot of mileage out of his epic ladder match at WrestleMania X and his even better ladder match with Shawn at Summerslam 1995. Given that ring work would be the first thing I'd think if I were arguing this stance and something your opponents didn't/couldn't counter I'm surprised you didn't bring it up.

The third point doesn't hold that much merit, given that wrestlers who've barely wrestled in WWE have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, such as Tatsumi Fujinami last year. You argue the point well, so I suppose there is enough here to credit this point

This was a pretty good debate overall.


First off, please sort out the formatting in future. It only takes a moment to check these things over in the preview message bit.

The writing is also pretty dodgy and your random use of capital letters make this a bit awkward to read. The writing style is also slightly strange.

Looking past those initial two points, this certainly wasn't a bad debate. The first three paragraphs were actually quite good in my opinion. The promo itself however wasn't what solely led to the change in the business, it was the formation of the New World Order. You make a good point though nonetheless. The promo was a very good point to mention though and I was surprised nobody else mentioned it.

I feel for the next paragraph, you should have gone into a bit more detail on why some of those feuds sucked. He did get a super push to face Bret at Royal Rumble '93, which I was surprised that you didn't mention. You made a great point on how Hall changed everything with contracts though.

Hyperbolic statements such as "it should have been Scott in the hall and not a long dead character" don't do your debate much justice. It also makes it hard to take what you've written seriously. With better writing and more detail, this could easily have won, but unfortunately not.

A-C-P is the winner, he really grasped the question and gave the most detailed and balanced analysis.

Winner via Split Decision - donne

TDL Wrestling Division Rising Star Tournament Round #1
Mr. Socko vs obby

Are WWE right to ban the Curb Stomp?

Spoiler for Debates:

The Finishing Move has always been one of the most vital parts of putting together a wrestling match. The ultimate trick any performer has in their arsenal. As such, having a good signature move is extremely important. In some cases throughout wrestling history the finisher has been the catalyst for a talent breaking out into superstardom, and has acted as one of the defining characteristics of a given wrestler's gimmick. Of course, over time, original finishing moves have depleted in availability. Today's generation of wrestler's are often without the marquee trademark moves that established the legends of days past. There are only so many ways you can realistically end things in a wrestling match from a strictly kayfabe point of view, something that is truer than ever in today's product with several former devastating finishing moves having been demoted to basic maneuvers over time. So, obviously, finding a truly great finishing move these days is quite the diamond in the rough, which is exactly what the WWE did with Seth Rollins' Curb Stomp. As such, the decision to remove it from his repertoire and replace it with a generic inverted DDT was quite the large misstep on their part.

So why is it that the WWE would be making this grievous error? Of course, no official announcement or acknowledgement has been made by the company itself, and the prevalent rumor around the banning of the move is that it was removed in direct correlation with the current concussion lawsuit being filed against the WWE. If this is the case, the WWE are wrong to single out this one maneuver to follow in the footsteps of other head impact moves like the skull punt in piledriver. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Curb Stomp itself isn't a completely safe move, as there have been no reported injuries as a result of the action being performed. Meanwhile, moves such as the Trouble in Paradise that HAVE caused injury within the company continue to be allowed. The banning of a move because of the manner in which it's performed rather than because of it's risk is a case of taking kayfabe too seriously. The "Don’t Try This at Home" advertisements label the members of the roster as "highly trained professionals" for a reason. Not only are they more than capable of performing the maneuvers safely, but they also knew the risks going in.

To elaborate on just how genius of a finish the curb stomp was, I'd like to bring up a performer that many have compared Rollins to; Edge. As heels, the characters played by the two wrestlers were similar in many ways. Obsessive, aggressive, cowardly villains always looking to take advantage of an opportunity even if it meant stretching the rules. However, one of the downsides to Edge as a performer throughout his career was indeed his finishing move. Perhaps the weakest spear on the face of the earth, it was entirely unfitting of his character. On top of this, it did nothing to signify him as an individual. It was just another on the long list of signature moves that were often duplicated and reused. The Curb Stomp, however, fits Rollins character to a tee. A slightly sadistic yet advantageous Hail Mary tactic that could very well put his opponent in the (fake) hospital. It could be said that this new inverted DDT finisher is to Seth Rollins what the Spear was to Edge. It doesn’t define him individually, and if anything it contributes to him being just another guy in the crowd.

On the topic of originality; there's something that absolutely should be addressed here. Seth Rollins' new finisher is extremely similar to the "Diry Deeds" maneuver used as a finishing move by Dean Ambrose. This may have been forgivable were it someone Seth hasn't had much contact with on the main roster, but the two have been such a gigantic part of one another's careers and almost definitely will continue to be in the future because of their status of former stable mates. It's a wonder they took inspiration from Ambrose here; now both performers have been saddled with the anchor of a terrible finish.

We don't know for sure why the WWE saw fit to ban the Curb Stomp move. They could very well have been justified with the proper reasoning. However, with only the prevailing rumors to go off of, the facts speak for themselves. Getting rid of such an innovative move with such faulty reasoning is an oversight, and could go on to damage Rollins in the long run.

Mr. Socko

Due to the ongoing hear-say nature of the WWE’s banning of the Curbstomp, I’d like to start my debate by stating that due to the phrasing of the question being asked I am assuming the position that the Curbstomp has been banned for the moment.

From the facts currently available to the general public, it seems the Curbstomp has been temporarily banned over concerns relating to concussions in sport, usage of the move by fans and/or the upcoming class action lawsuit the WWE faces. It appears to me that this is an ill-timed and poorly thought out decision from both a financial and performer safety point of view. The Curbstomp, as performed by Seth Rollins, has never appeared to result in concussion or injury of another performer in stark contrast to other moves currently performed on an almost nightly basis such as the Superkick, which has been mentioned specifically by one of the plaintiffs, Ryan Sakoda, currently suing the WWE [1], or the Diving Headbutt, long suspected of being the cause behind Chris Benoit’s unusual autopsy.[2]

As someone who has dealt with their fair share of concussions in sport, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that concussions are not severe injuries with possible grave consequences. However, to single out a particular move with no known history of causing concussions strikes me as a political move for PR purposes due to the possible connotations of the word Curbstomp with ideas of neo-nazism due to it‘s association with American History X. The idea that the WWE would take this step to appease a sponsor and hide it under the guise of a move in the name of performer safety is quite disturbing. Were the WWE truly interested in performer safety moves such as the Superkick and Diving Headbutt would clearly have been more appropriate options for banning due to their noted history of causing injuries and concussions.

The WWE have also managed to back themselves into a corner legally here by temporarily banning the Curbstomp. What happens if Rollins is given permission to use the move in future and an opponent does happen to suffer an injury as a result of the move? The WWE will have shown that at one time they felt there was enough of a concern in the dangerous nature of the move to ban it only to later rescind the ban. They will be far more liable for any injuries caused in a scenario such as this as they will have highlighted the fact they were aware of the danger and yet proceeded to reinstate the move.

Another possible concern of the WWE may lie in the possibility of fans attempting to recreate the move at home. To me, this appears incredibly foolhardy of the WWE as not only have they invested time and resources into enforcing the “Don’t Try This at Home” campaign but they will have set a precedent here for any further cases where individuals injure themselves attempting moves seen on WWE television. If the WWE appear to ban the curb stomp due to the danger associated with it’s application by untrained individuals, why would they not take this step for every other such move like the DDT or even a basic rear chinlock which could conceivably cut off blood supply to the brain if performed incorrectly?

In regards to financial concerns, it appears, due to this ban, much of the time, effort and funds invested into Seth Rollins’ push to the main event this past year have now been largely wasted due to the WWE’s removal of the move from archived footage. As a result many of Rollins’ iconic moments this past year ranging from the cinder block incident to the Cutting Edge segment will now be ignored by the company going forward. There appears to have been a huge lack of foresight on the behalf of those in the WWE as linking a move which you feel may one day be banned to a performer you intend to invest heavily in is an incredibly short sighted and foolish move.

In closing I would like to state that whilst the safety and long term health of WWE performers should be of the utmost importance, banning the curb stomp appears to be a move directed more out of concern for appeasing corporate sponsors due to it’s seemingly impeccable safety record. It seems quite illogical that WWE would ban a separate move than the one mentioned in their upcoming class action lawsuit, the Superkick. Overall I feel the WWE has made a mistake in banning the Curbstomp as not only have they devalued one of their more valuable talents, Seth Rollins, they have shown a clear disregard for performer safety in the name of appeasing corporate sponsors.



Spoiler for Judging Cards:
obby - A good debate but also a one dimensional one. You've basically got one argument that you then build different layers off rather than introducing new arguments. It's not that that's a bad strategy but I do feel it's a more risky strategy, especially if like here your opponent can cover that one argument well but then also introduce a couple more arguments on top of it. That then gives their argument more depth and likely more quality by covering more angles. With this strategy you're a tad too reliant on what your opponent does, hoping your multi-layered but still one dimensional argument carries more weight than the entire sum of their arguments. Try and cover more angles rather than just the one with your debate as it gives you a better shot at winning. That aside this was very good though. Your one dimensional argument is thankfully strong and obviously very well built upon. Giving a few examples of current wrestlers who suffer from the problem of generic finishers would have helped and could have been done with only a sentence or two. Or also noting how a lot of the roster uses DDT variations as finishers or signature moves now. Argument about the hypocrisy of why it's supposedly been banned was good. The Edge comparison was very good but I think introducing another angle to build a different argument off would have added more weight to your stance. This definitely added some weight but a lot of it was already there from the previous paragraph. In isolation it's a great paragraph though. Penultimate paragraph was fine but in terms of weight it carried weak. It felt a bit "running low on ideas but here's something to finish the word count off with". Again totally fine but there were better angles to look at than you left untouched and really that's all that hurt you here. If the question was just confined to the effect it has on Rollins as a performer then the debate is a lot better but it doesn't and requires you to look at more angles such as WWE's angle and how it effects them rather than just Rollins. Other than that though really good.

Mr. Socko - Second paragraph outlines the hypocrisy of the reasoning really well with the two examples that made this argument very convincing. Next paragraph kinda repeats the main point there. I got dead excited when you mentioned the hate crime aspect of the wording of the move but then you just left it there and failed to build on a great argument for removing the move. Obviously it goes against your stance and it's probably such a strong argument for banning the move you might have been better not doing that. Although actually thinking about it you could just argue they only need to rename the move as the move itself is very different and not even close to resembling the actual thing like Super Dragon's did. When I made this question I was praying that one of you would go ham on that layer and present the horrible reality surrounding the name and why WWE are stupid to even bring attention to that sort of thing by naming a wrestling move the same as it. Legality part is good. Without proof that that's why WWE banned it it's hard to hold up legally but there's enough there to make the link and you could have argued that although it might not cost them in court it could cost them in other legal fees and do PR damage. Recreation argument is good. I would have given better examples at the end than a DDT and a chinlock. The curbstomp is more force than technique to hurt someone where a kid can lock a chinlock on and not do any damage unless he does it really right even by accident. The risk of accidental harm is much greater with the curbstomp is what I'm saying. A better example might have been a piledriver which is very technique heavy in terms of delivering right (at least to a kid who doesn't "get it") and doing it wrong and breaking a neck. Is there any evidence or even credible speculation that it would be removed from all archive footage or is that just your own speculation? If there's nothing to suggest that (nothing from a quick google search on my end, plus this is the type of evidence you need to link the reader to) then this doesn't carry any weight based only on speculation.

Mr. Socko wins due to covering more angles. Both debates were at a strong level of quality though and were only separated by choice of arguments rather than quality of arguing them.

Winner - Mr. Socko

I liked your intro a lot. You laid solid groundwork for your stance and this is one of those examples where a delayed stance reveal actually works really well. You constructed a platform from which to declare your stance and thus the declaration itself felt very convincing. Really good start.

Very good point regarding moves like Trouble in Paradise remaining legal, though I’m not a super wrestling geek with encyclopaedic knowledge so I would have appreciated a source linking me to the injuries caused by Kofi’s finisher. You supplement this point with the part about how WWE clearly label everything with ‘Don’t Try This At Home’, but the way you mention it wasn’t that convincing, especially as WWE know full well that kids copy the moves regardless of the warning. Also, a kid copying the Curb Stomp has to be more of a worry than kids copying something like the Phoenix Splash or the Gorilla Press.

I liked your comparison with Edge, notably the part where you described Rollins’ use of the Curb Stomp as ‘slightly sadistic yet advantageous Hail Mary tactic that could very well put his opponent in the (fake) hospital’. You showed how a move can help define a character and that Rollins’s character was definitely enhanced by such a move. Nice additional point too about his new finisher resembling Dirty Deeds, and how his close relationship with Ambrose makes the whole thing somewhat awkward.

This was a really good debate with plenty of solid and well presented arguments.

Mr. Socko
Not a fan of how you opened. I think it would have been better to just assume the wording of the question was right without explaining that you were doing so. Not a major complaint, but it prevented your debate getting off to the flying start that your opponent’s did.

Good points about other moves that have definitely caused concussions and head damage still being legal. Interesting that you bring up the association with American History X, though surely this problem could be solved by renaming the move? That’s happened plenty of times. I still call Cena’s finisher the F.U. Bringing the sponsors into it though might have served you better if you had elaborated more. There’s not much in this section that’s very convincing.

I liked the section about WWE backing themselves into a legal corner regarding any future injury caused by the Curb Stomp, though again this could be easily dealt with by WWE being able to prove the move wasn’t ‘banned’ for safety reasons. If they can show that they did it to prevent copycats, or its association with neo-nazism, or anything other than concussion, then this is a non-issue.

Good point again about the ‘Don’t Try This At Home’ dilemma. Indeed there are loads of moves which should be banned if this was truly a concern. One point might be that the Curb Stomp can literally be performed by anyone on a prone individual, whereas the likes of DDTs and other similar moves usually require some consent/help from the person taking the move. You can’t chokeslam someone unless they jump for you, and you can’t DDT someone unless they let you lock the reverse headlock on first. A Curb Stomp could literally come out of nowhere while one kid is lying down reading a comic or watching TV. If copycats are an issue here, then I see infinitely more danger in moves like the Curb Stomp that don’t require any team work or upper body strength to perform.

Really good point about the waste of archival footage (if this indeed the case) and many of Rollins’ iconic moments now wiped from history. Has this definitely happened though? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt as I’m not going to trawl through it all now, but it would have been nice to be linked to an article or something or other that confirmed that.

Also, as there is currently a lawsuit involving the Superkick, would it not harm WWE’s case if they were seen to ban it? That would be an admittance that the move was inherently wrong, no? Maybe the banning of the Curb Stomp is related to this, perhaps they have removed it to show that they do remove moves they consider dangerous, but that the Superkick isn’t one of them. That’s just an extra thing that occurred to me while reading your conclusion.

Overall, this is pretty good. There are elements of it which aren’t very convincing and I sometimes had more questions than were answered, but it was an enjoyable read and a good effort.

Both debates covered some similar points, yet I always felt that obby presented them more persuasively. Both debates also had arguments the other didn’t pick up on, and both of them were very good. obby had the character defining part, while Mr. Socko mentioned the loss of archival footage. Thing is, it’s not truly lost (even if it has currently been removed) and we still don’t know what’s going to happen in the long run. However, obby’s section on the Curb Stomp helping define Rollins’ heel persona was awesome and left no questions unanswered. So, because of the arguments being more convincing overall, the winner is obby for me.

This debate left me feeling like I'd been shorted a real focus on the topic. The longwinded opening about the importance of unique finishers could've been much morre brief and had the same effect, and the bulk of your argument is about Edge's spear or Ambrose's DDT, more instances where you could've gone with brevity. It feels very one-dimensional in that you focus on the originality/uniqueness factor all too entirely and the WWE's actual justification of banning the move becomes an afterthought in a debate that's asking about their justification.

As for when you actually address the meat of the debate, you did a passable job. I don't see the banning of it being a case of kayfabe being taken too seriously, that remark was very underdeveloped in this debate and highly uncompelling as it's presented, but rather it's seemingly a case of both the ties to American History X and the simple imagery of a man having their head stomped into the canvas. While it's clearly a basic front bump, nothing too dangerous, the image alone is enough for the uninitiated to grimace.

The "they knew the risks going in" bit also felt inconsistent with the tone of the argument you're making, which is that there's -less- risk for this move. Your phrasing frames it as though there is a risk. That's poorly thought-out wording.

The real kicker is your outro though, where you're flat out admitting that the decision to band it might be justified, casting doubt upon your entire debate! Your opponent handled the fact that the debate is based upon rumors instead of an official WWE statement without simultaneously undermining his own debate, so there's no excuse for such a gross misstep.

Mr. Socko
The opening was a good way of handling the hearsay nature of the debate question,and unlike your opponent, it doesn't undermine your debate, so kudos. Leading into the fact that the superkick has caused more concussions, and is specifically mentioned in the lawsuits, could have been more effective if we mentioned some of the cases of concusses recently caused by superkicks. Christian's career was ended by a superkick, for instance. Also, mentioning that wrestlers like Bull Dempsey and Daniel Bryan still use the flying headbutt wouldve been another nice addition.

Mentioning the ties to American History X was a worthwhile move, but it does leave open the possibility that they simply could have renamed the move from "Curb Stomp" to distinguish it from any ties to neo-Nazism. Your argument about them reintroducing the move was a little weaker, considering there's no benefit for them if they reintroduce it. Fortunately you kept this weaker argument on the short side and followed it up with a slightly better one. The WWE has seen lawsuits from parents whose children have died trying to recreate wrestling moves at home, so the precedent already exists, but the "don't try this at home" TV spots would make this concern more of a non-issue.

You went out with a far stronger argument. The WWE can't even show the finish to their own Wrestlemania main event less than a month after filming it, or the finish to the Orton/Rollin match with what should be an iconic RKO spot, a wast of both many months building up those matches, the money going into the show, and the heat that should be feeding both the Rollins/Orton feud coming outof Mania, but the Ambrose/Rollins feud leading into Elimination Chamber. These are all things you could have mentioned to demonstrate the point a bit better, but as far as arguments go, it's a good one to go out with.

No question here that Mr. Socko showed a more sophisticated perspective on the matter with arguments that while could hav been backed up a little better, outclass the arguments highlighted by obby. Mr. Socko wins.

Winner via Split Decision - Mr. Socko

TDL Wrestling Division Rising Star Tournament Round #1
PoyPoy14 vs OXITRON

Are WWE building NXT at the expense of their main roster product?

Spoiler for Debates:

WWE are NOT building NXT at the expense of their main roster product. NXT is being built extremely well and there is a lot of effort being put into that product, but it is to compliment the main roster product, rather than be detrimental.

NXT Influence

It's been said that NXT is making the main shows look bad in comparison and whilst this is true, this is something that will, in the long run, force them to be better. You can already see the winds of change beginning to stir on RAW, with the show now featuring more quality matches than it has in the past.

The midcard is now consistently putting on good quality matches between guys such as Ziggler, Barrett, Sheamus and Neville. The tag team division is getting a shot in the arm with the newly heel New Day feuding with Cesaro and Kidd and putting on an absolute clinic at Extreme Rules. Even John Cena, derided for years for having poor matches, is having great matches every week as part of his "US Open Challenge". This is all down to the influence of NXT and the positivity that it's generating. WWE is realising that you can cater to the hardcore fans as well as the casuals and that's making for a better, more balanced show.


The biggest difference between NXT and the main roster is the quality of women's wrestling. The women on NXT consistently steal the show and put on the best match of the night and as a result, there are a lot more eyes focusing on the divas division than in the past, and what they noticed was a huge disparity in the way women are treated on the different shows.

After witnessing a mere 30 second divas match on RAW, fans started a trend called #GiveDivasAChance that trended for three days and even forced Vince McMahon to respond. This was down to the fact that fans have seen what women can do in the ring with some time and wanted to see change on the main shows. WWE is slowly but surely changing the way the divas division is treated and is already giving them more meaningful TV time. If the trend continues until there is parity between the shows, then that will add an extra dimension to the main product.


Obviously, the main goal of NXT is to develop new talent for the main roster. This can only be good for the main shows as it adds diversity to them, even if the talents don't always make it in the long run. The talent that do make it though, are a massive bonus.

When you look at the current track record for NXT providing talent, it's been a massive success. Out of NXT have come The Shield, who are completely dominating the current main event scene, add Bray Wyatt, Rusev and Paige to that mix and it's easy to see that NXT is immensely successful at developing new talent.

It's too early to say that there have been any flops from NXT yet as the brand is still young and so are the talent that have come through, but even somebody like Adam Rose who has floundered has had his moments, with the audience singing his song. Whether the talent are ultimately successful or not, developing new talent is vital for the survival of WWE in the long term and is the ultimate goal. A steady stream of new faces help keep the main shows fresh and exciting and is a huge positive for the main roster product.


Yes, WWE work hard on building NXT and growing its audience, but this isn't at the expense of the main roster product. In fact, it's a massive plus for the main roster product. NXT is catered towards hardcore fans because that's who WWE feel are more likely to subscribe to WWE Network and watch the product. Yes, this leads to overwhelming positivity about the product on the internet which in turn can make the main roster look bad, but that should motivate them to step up their game and put on a better show, including creative. This is a lesson they're learning and you can see the changes being made to the formula of the main shows.

NXT is one of the shows WWE are hanging their hat on to attract more subscribers to the Network and therefore it's VITAL that the show is a critical success. If NXT is successful then more people will subscribe and as an extension of that, more eyes will be on the main roster PPVs which will make the main roster more successful.

Whichever way you slice it, NXT is certainly not being built at the expense of the main roster product.


With an impressive track record of very well received special events, and an ever growing fanbase every single month, NXT seems to be growing in popularity at a rate faster than even Raw is declining in popularity. But is the rise of NXT at the expense of the main product? Simply put, it's not.

Why? Simply because the popularity of NXT is directly transferable to the main roster.

NXT, despite its daily-increasing popularity, is never going to be able to eclipse the popularity of WWE's flagship show, Raw. You must already be a WWE fan to have the Network, which already shows a huge portion of NXT fans are already privy to the main roster product and watch regardless. Furthermore, it's proven moreso when a popular NXT star debuts on the main roster, like Neville debuting on Raw. Though the crowd knew who he was and there was a major reaction, it wasn't a hometown crowd, they had no other reason to cheer for him outside of the fact they already knew who he was, and were happy to see him move up from NXT, like everyone else.

And what has Neville done since debuting? Exactly what he did in NXT that made him so popular: wrestle fantastic matches. The only thing that has changed is the landscape.

Neville had been one of the few wrestlers that carried NXT on his back since the show went "viral", for a lack of better words, and popularity tripled in one night with the TakeOver special, and though he received negative reactions throughout the last few months of his NXT stint, it was only because the fans were bored - and rightly so - they still loved him and his matches, just disliked his title reign for a couple of irrelevant reasons.

Kalisto, another fine example in another fine way, often had lacklustre appearances on NXT, and despite winning the NXT Tag Team Championship at one point with Sin Cara (against the undefeated Ascension, who were disliked by fans), gained virtually no traction, and stagnated in NXT, having one match a month, until the loss of the Championships in what seemed like a throwaway match to push Kalisto and Sin Cara back on the main roster.

Despite those average-at-best reactions in NXT, Kalisto and Sin Cara debuted to a comparatively outstanding reaction when they debuted on the same show Neville did. But why? Because WWE fans were excited about NXT wrestlers moving up to the main roster.

It's not just the wrestlers themselves that strive to get from the developmental system up to the main roster, and hopefully one day become a champion. It's the fans as well. Though many NXT fans clearly hold disdain for the main roster as they somewhat fairly expect bad treatment of their favourite NXT wrestlers upon their 'promotion', we all want to see them succeed in the biggest way possible.

That's the primary reason why any popularity gained in NXT is directly transferable to Raw.
That's the primary reason why NXT cannot be built at the expense of the main roster.

To further disprove the notion of NXT possibly being a hindrance to the main roster, the idea that the NXT specials being better than the regular WWE PPV events is a double-edged sword.

It's not straightforward in that NXT displaying a more well received product hurts WWE. This falls back to the aforementioned fanbase of NXT. It's just a vocal minority. Worldwide, the NXT fanbase is a particularly small portion of the overall WWE fanbase, and the majority of that minority - the NXT fans - tend to be diehard WWE or wrestling fans, and will watch the main product regardless. Even if they proclaim they're "never watching again". We know they'll tune in next week, even if it is to "see how bad the show is".

One could even argue the success of a developmental show that makes the main roster look bad is motivation for the members of Raw and Smackdown to try harder, and put on better shows. Though there's clearly no solid evidence of this and only dirtsheet rumours that main roster wrestlers are disappointed with NXT supposedly outdoing the monthly PPVs, motivation could be drawn from this rumour.

All in all, despite the obvious popularity and growth of the developmental system and it's show NXT, there's no way it can or will ever manage to eclipse the main roster in worldwide popularity. The effect is transferable. If any developmental wrestler becomes popular, management just takes them out of NXT and puts them on the main roster as designed, and the star flourishes as intended.

Spoiler for Judging Cards:
PoyPoy14 - I wasn't really convinced by this tbh. I didn't feel you did a great job at comparing the benefits of NXT to the negatives of the main roster that NXT is linked with. A lot of the more obvious counters to your stance I think are left unanswered whereas OXITRON did a better job addressing them. Arguments like NXT creating a more well liked alternative to what fans get on Raw and SD detracts viewers from Raw and/or SD to NXT and how that's bad for WWE financially to have Raw and SD take a ratings hit. There's only so much wrestling a fan will watch each week so is it good for WWE to be getting them watching NXT rather than SD? Which will generate them more money through viewership? Are WWE keeping guys like Zayn in NXT too long when they could have value on the main roster at a time when it's needed. That was the major one that I was sad you both missed out on. The idea that Raw now has better wrestling because of NXT I don't agree with. WWE have always had good TV matches with the right guys. It was usually on SD but ever since Raw went 3 hours you usually get a good match each week that gets time and that started before NXT took off. There's also no link between the tag division getting... idk, better? and NXT. Likewise with Cena's Open Title Shot shtick, where's the NXT link? Good wrestling matches on Raw isn't a new thing because of NXT. The Divas part again was missing that link. Yes NXT has got female wrestlers more attention but it hasn't had any benefit to the main roster, not yet anyway. If anything they're giving more ring time to female wrestlers who don't benefit from it and increase the risk of viewers getting bored watching them have average matches for longer. You needed some link to the divas getting more ring time being a positive for the main roster product. They have had the chance at longer matches now but they're still not good on the main roster, be it because of the different audience or the wrestlers on the main roster not being that good. The Developmental part is better but OXITRON does it a lot better imo. Countering the argument that they keep guys down there who are past the development part is bad for the main roster product currently might have helped you edge this argument though. I thought your examples for who NXT has produced are misguided. The Shield aren't an NXT product as much as they tell you they are. They debuted on the main roster before they were ever on NXT. Bray is a better example. NXT didn't really do anything for Rusev. He wasn't half as good there and didn't do anything of note or even have good matches with guys like Neville and Ziggler. Paige you needed to argue for what benefit she's brought to the main roster. Given a lot of the guys kept in NXT that are Raw ready are still in NXT a more futuristic argument would have been better here arguing that giving Zayn/Balor/Owens/etc the extra experience in NXT will reap more benefits for much longer on the main roster. You also say that the success and acclaim of NXT's live specials should motivate the main roster but the WWE PPVs are still no better and the creative still pails in comparison so is the success of NXT just making the main roster product look bad and allowing more fans to realise it by presenting a better but less financially successful alternative? Should WWE be happy with that and the prospect of fans watching NXT rather than Raw or SD? Probably the best counter to that is the fans will come back to Raw when their new NXT darlings also do but then you still also have the issue of the bad creative and WWE constantly trying to fill NXT with new Indy Darlings.

OXITRON - I would have loved to have seen evidence for the italics in your intro. Argument that building NXT will help the main roster when the NXT guys go there to get over quicker was good. If you added in a line about how the live crowds who watch NXT treat guys like Neville as a star when they first debut it gives them a better shot at getting over with casuals who don't watch NXT it would have topped it off superbly. " and popularity tripled in one night with the TakeOver special" - pls explain? tripled? Arguing that the benefits of NXT will be directly transferable answered the question better than any of PoyPoy14's arguments imo because you actually made that link. Maybe add in that the short term benefits may dip and NXT viewers may lose interest in Raw but that would be corrected once the NXT guys move up and take the lapsed main roster fans with them. The argument that NXT fans are still watching the main product too was a bit guess-y but then again it couldn't be much more and you at least tried to tackle it. What you say is likely true for Raw but what about SD? There's only so much wrestling each week fans can watch so is building those fans to watch NXT rather than SD good overall? You do a better job at addressing the counters I thought of but you also missed out the big one for me which is leaving guys like Zayn down there too long when quite frankly they're needed on the main roster now and running matches and feuds in NXT that could be more beneficial on the main roster not having been done before in NXT like Zayn/Owens or Owens/Balor. Same feedback as to PoyPoy14 regarding the NXT shows making the main roster ones look bad. Better job at arguing for the same stance and a better job at tackling the counters. Good debate.

Winner - OXITRON


The main problem I have with this debate is the sheer number of throw away comments, which seem to be key to your stance, but really lack any substance or supporting evidence. Example: “You can already see the winds of change beginning to stir on RAW, with the show now featuring more quality matches than it has in the past.” Obviously wrestling matches are subjective, but you need to do more than that just to convince me. Another one is “The midcard is now consistently putting on good quality matches… This is all down to the influence of NXT and the positivity that it's generating.” Granted, some of the wrestlers mentioned are from NXT, but again this is an empty argument without any real analysis or explanation. As a means of comparison to these weaker arguments, the Divas argument is much better and actually provides a strong link for cause and effect.

The developmental section is okay, but really overlooks how some of the NXT - main roster successes didn’t really need developmental. It also fails to counter the idea that NXT has become a bigger hit since moving away from its developmental ways, with more time given to indy darlings and less to those in actual need of development.

“If NXT is successful then more people will subscribe and as an extension of that, more eyes will be on the main roster PPVs which will make the main roster more successful.” This is baffling, seeing as most people are far more likely to watch NXT because they already have the network, possibly because they wanted to watch a main roster “special event” (PPV in old money) that was advertised on RAW.

I wasn’t convinced by this debate at all.


This does what PoyPoy14 fails to do; consistently communicating arguments with good effect while addressing counter arguments.

Paragraphs such as this being a good example: “NXT, despite its daily-increasing popularity, is never going… NXT fans are already privy to the main roster product and watch regardless”. You also expanded upon these ideas and revisited them: “It's not straightforward in that NXT displaying a more well received product hurts WWE… Even if they proclaim they're "never watching again". We know they'll tune in next week, even if it is to "see how bad the show is".

The motivation for the main roster argument was superior to your opponent’s, while you also gave a couple of well detailed real life examples of NXT – WWE transferability, which were superior to anything your opponent managed. Good debate.



Intro was short and sweet. No complaints

No real complaints on the NXT influence section. Be careful about putting all the praise on NXT for the likes of the midcard scene getting more airtime though. Some of it may have been down to the hype NXT is getting but not necessarily all of it.

Divas section is pretty decent, although are the WWE really giving the divas any more screen time than they got before and are the matches anymore meaningful? At best the matches and segments are marginally longer (if at all) and their segments are not really anymore meaningful than they have been over the last few years. As a whole they are still a pretty forgettable part of the main roster.

Dunno if I would say NXT has had a “massive success” of talent coming up to the main roster either. Despite what the WWE say Roman is a product of FCW and not NXT and Ambrose wasn’t even on NXT much, another product of FCW tbh. From all the guys to come up I can only think of Paige, Rusev, Bray & Rollins who have really benefitted from NXT. At a stretch you could say Big E, Harper & Rowan as well but wouldn’t list though three as “massive successes”. Can’t really judge Neville & Kalisto just yet and Bo, Rose and The ascension don’t seem to be going anywhere soon.

Plus I’m not sure if guys like Rollins, Rusev and Bray are the best examples considering all of them came up long before NXT really gained momentum. If anything all those guys gained all their momentum from being on the main roster.

Concluding paragraph is good though and does wrap up your stance pretty well.


Like PoyPoy14, decent enough introduction to the debate.

“You must already be a WWE fan to have the Network, which already shows a huge portion of NXT fans are already privy to the main roster product and watch regardless.”
That is a really iffy statement to make. While yes pretty much everyone who has signed up is exposed to the main product and may watch it to say “they watch the main roster product regardless” is a questionable statement to make. Some people have zero interest in the main product but sign up to the Network for the old content, NXT etc… just be careful not to make any sweeping statements.

Also with the Neville comment, be careful because post Mania crowds are notorious for being “smark crowds” and NXT is notorious for being a smark show. Also is it a case of the fans being happy to see NXT guys moving up or just happy to see guys like Neville & Kalisto move up? Be careful on your wording because I’m sure there are NXT guys out there that the fans would rather not move up anytime soon. Also like I said before, post Mania crowds are notoriously known as “smark crowds”. I’d say you would have made a stronger case using the following week’s reactions in crowds are cities that were more neutral.

Worldwide, the NXT fanbase is a particularly small portion of the overall WWE fanbase, and the majority of that minority - the NXT fans - tend to be diehard WWE or wrestling fans, and will watch the main product regardless. Even if they proclaim they're "never watching again". We know they'll tune in next week, even if it is to "see how bad the show is”.
Like I said before, be careful on statements such as this. Not all NXT fans will “watch the main product regardless”.

Similar conclusion to PoyPoy14 basically saying that motivation can be drawn from the rumours of the WWE roster being upset with the NXT love. Like PoyPoy14 decent closing paragraph to sum up your stance.

Two decent enough debates here with not many flaws to point at. Both taking a pretty similar approach to the question, pretty close call but I felt OXITRON minus the sweeping statements and a slightly narrower outlook used their examples better and backed up their points better.


Winner via Unanimous Decision - OXITRON

SPCDRI vs M-Diggedy
Is capitalism better than socialism?

Spoiler for Debates:
Capitalism is better than communism.

The best economy is one in which people work at the jobs they are naturally suited for. However, communism does not have this. For one, a communist nation owns the means of production. They take private property, collectivize businesses and assign workers to do tasks that they are ill-suited for, such as farming. Collectivization and forced labor is a disastrous misallocation of resources that has consistently resulted in famines and failure that killed tens of millions of people in Soviet Russia and Maoist China [1] and [2].

Capitalism better rewards mentally and physically demanding and dangerous tasks. This is not perfect, but it is better than communism. Communism has everybody get equal compensation because excess production is given to others. Jobs requiring extensive schooling or training or involving unpleasant and dangerous duties are compensated the same as a less demanding, demeaning and dangerous jobs. A doctor and a plumber and a soldier are given equal compensation to artists, teachers and salesmen. The very finest surgeon in a country is paid better than the very worst in capitalism. However, in communism, the very best and the worst receive equal pay and the best surgeon has to give resources to the worst. So why be the best when you can do just enough to get by? This system ensures there really will be no “excess” to go around because everybody will be slacking off and trying to pimp the system [3].

Communism hates private property and savings. Marx called for the confiscation of private property and savings and the abolition of them in the future in steps 1 and 3 of Communism in his Communist Manifesto [4]. Though the motive may be well-intentioned (to prevent entrenched noble classes and aristocracies), the result is that people do not work to save up things to pass onto their children and to others. Why work to better your family when it will all get taken away?

These are crippling flaws that prevent hard work at proper tasks and led to the well-known Communist joke, “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us!” Communism is a poorly managed slacker’s system.

Communism is a monopoly with no way of determining the proper price of an item. The State-Ran T Shirt Company is the only game in town. They’ve got no incentive to put out good clothing at a fair price. Why put out a good t shirt for 10 dollars when you can put out a crummy one for 30? People have to buy it from the state, anyhow. Unless they go to a capitalist “black market,” that is. Communist countries prior to capitalist reforms were notorious for pumping out shoddy items to meet artificially imposed state quotas. “Made in China” was a black mark against items for years and deservedly so. Communist systems pump out inferior merchandise at inappropriate quantities and prices. Even when communism manages to set competitive prices on the global scene, they do so by looking at superior unplanned market economies that capitalism produces. The USSR joked they would take over the world…yet leave New Zealand as a capitalist system to know what to charge people [5]!

Communism is also revoltingly disdainful to the environment. Despite capitalism’s flaws in regard to this, you can still walk outside without respiratory protection. China is so thoroughly polluted that smog chokes out the Sun and people in the industrial sectors watch it on JumboTrons [6]!

Laos, Cuba, China, Vietnam and North Korea are the 5 remaining Communist holdouts. Vietnam, though economically developing, is still not considered a developed nation after 4 decades of trying. Despite a similar population to a nation likewise ravaged by war and partially communist, Germany, Vietnam’s economy is approximately 1/25th of the German economy [7]. China, the “star” of communism, permits private business, property and inheritance limiting it as a Communist system. China has the majority of its people, hundreds of millions of people, living a rural lifestyle [8].

China spent 3 decades implementing capitalist reforms the same way formerly Communist Russia did to tremendous economic benefit. China has state-owned enterprises and private sector companies. SOES, despite bank loan and regulatory preferences, are thoroughly outclassed by private sector businesses. Private firms account for 3 and a half times as much tax revenue despite receiving ¼ the amount of government investment and are approximately 2 and a half times as profitable as SOEs [9]. Even in Communist China communism loses…To Chinese Capitalism.


Communist Russian Famine

Communist China Famine

Incentive Problem

Property and inheritance problem

Market Pricing Problem

Pollution Problem

Vietnam Vs. Germany GDP taken from CIA World Bank figures via Google.

Rural China

Chinese Capitalism Defeats Chinese Communism

Is capitalism better than socialism? In some ways, yes. Is capitalism better at benefitting a few at the expense of many? Yes. Is capitalism better at favouring those born under fortunate circumstances? Yes. Is capitalism better at producing enough for everyone while somehow failing to provide enough? Yes, yes, yes.

I apologise for channelling my inner Daniel Bryan, but to understand the merits of socialism, it’s important to examine how capitalism’s continued prevalence is a detriment to society.

Capitalism is an economic system reliant on private enterprise. The means of production are owned by those who run businesses for profit. This principle is fine in isolation; work hard, earn well, repeat. However, the inherent flaws of this system are laid bare as society continues under the capitalist umbrella. As time goes on, capitalism allows the rich to get richer while the poor languish in the distance. Oxfam has stated that by 2016 the richest 1% of the world’s population will own more than the other 99% combined. This isn’t just a third world problem, because statistics show that G20 countries also have an inequality gap that is continuously increasing.

Proponents of capitalism claim opportunity exists for people to escape the doldrums of poverty and climb the financial ladder. This is rarely true. Educationally, capitalist society on the whole does not encourage this social mobility, it inhibits it. Studies show that those who are privately educated (a consequence of wealth and circumstance) earn between 6.7 and 17% more than an equally qualified person with a state education.

In spite of this unequal wealth and opportunity, is capitalism redeemed outside of materialism through a positive impact on the wider world? The evidence says not.

Capitalist practice has harmed our planet irreversibly; all for profit. A 2010 UN report found that the world’s largest 3000 companies would lose a third of their profits if they paid for the environmental damage they cause. They don’t pay, society does. Even on a basic humanitarian level, over 800 million people go hungry every day because their inherited circumstances mean they miss out on the global food surplus.

Furthermore, much of the world’s healthcare system is profit-oriented. The fact that the health and wellbeing of society is mostly influenced by money earned rather than lives saved is symptomatic of an intrinsic failing of morality. 2009 statistics show that an American dies every 12 minutes because they have no health insurance; but at least the USA makes money, right?

So, with capitalism demonstrably leading to inequality and suffering on a widespread basis, surely any system that can fairly reward, incentivise and care for the citizens must be better? Correct - enter socialism.

Socialism is stigmatised through misconception. However, when analysed, it becomes clear that the concept is much more nuanced than given credit for.

Socialism means that the state, not people, own the means of production and the economy is communally managed with the goal of providing more equality, more opportunity and a collectively responsible society.

However, socialism is hindered by ignorance. It is frequently categorised as communism despite clear differences. Communism removes all private ownership and remunerates citizens equally, while socialism rewards people based on the value of their contribution.

Nonetheless, even those who understand socialism fall back on hollow arguments.

A common rebuttal to socialism is that it discourages the advancement of society. Some say that if people are limited in their earning, they will be limited in their motivation. This highlights another fundamental misinterpretation of the concept. In socialism, those who contribute more earn more. The better you do, the better you earn. Managers out-earn their subordinates. The difference lies in the inequality gap. Socialism eradicates obscene wealth and abject poverty while centrally owned enterprise allows a platform for individual self-improvement. Admittedly, this system will not work for the greediest, but removing the systemic inequality that infects capitalism is a price worth paying.

When confronted with the remnants of a broken system, capitalists often ask why socialism is not practiced if it is a preferable ideology. In a sense, they are right. Socialism has never been implemented as it was designed to be. The Soviets operated from a communist platform while the Chinese rely on free market models within their system. The stumbling block for socialism is the corporate, profit-driven society we inhabit opposing any change to the system that facilitates their greed.

When left to its own devices, capitalism will always breed inequality. The lottery of circumstance runs rampant. The status quo is maintained by the ideology of greed. It is society that pays the price with socialism as the unheralded solution.

So, we return to the initial question. Is capitalism better than socialism? No. A system so broken can never be the answer when a just and moral alternative so clearly exists.


Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I’m not going to go into a tonne of detail with this feedback because quite frankly, the failure of one of the debaters to read the question correctly makes this really pointless.

SPCDRI built up a nice argument for Capitalism vs Communism… but the question is comparing Capitalism vs Socialism. Communism and Socialism, while sharing similarities, are different concepts (Have a read here: Your opponent even outlined a few of the differences between the two, which makes it all the more humiliating for you. By answering a different question you’ve lost all credibility. Remember to read the question properly in future!

M-Diggedy actually answered the given question so automatically wins by default. The wrestling joke at the start was out of place and unneeded, but you gave enough decent arguments to avoid completely fucking this up, unlike your opponent. Highlights included criticisms of American healthcare and the issue of a minority possessing the majority of wealth.

M-Diggedy wins

Well, okay, nice debate. It would definitely be a contender in a debate asking if Capitalism was better than Communism, but there are quite significant differences between Communism and Socialism. Some of the differences are massive, and your opponent ably demonstrated these in their debate. What might have saved you was a paragraph dedicated to explaining why you think there is no difference between Communism and Socialism, though you would have needed to weave some kind of magic to pull the wool over my eyes on that particular issue. I would have given you points for at least trying though. Without it, it’s difficult to consider your debate a contender as you haven’t actually answered the question.

There’s plenty of good stuff in your debate, and the quality of your arguments and their presentation are top notch. But they’re arguing a slightly different question. I probably wouldn’t have considered awarding your debate the vote even if your opponent hadn’t included the Communism/Socialism counter in theirs, but they did so there’s no doubt who wins. My apologies as this was a great effort, but there really are clearly defined differences between Communism and Socialism. I also think it’s pretty obvious why Socialism was chosen for this question ahead of Communism, and it’s exactly because of the differences between the two (some of which are outlined in your opponent’s debate), so I’m not sure how you managed to completely ignore the actual question. There’s not a lot of suspense in a Capitalism vs Communism debate as Communism as it has been executed over the last 100 years or so has often been horrific, as you rightfully point out. Socialism is quite different though, and many elements of it actually co-exist within Capitalist societies.

Let me heap some praise on you for an excellent piece of writing though. You at least matched your opponent for quality, if not for understanding the question.

I like the way you open up and establish your stance by immediately laying into the opposite stance. In the time it takes most debaters to write an introductory line and inform the judges of which stance they intend to argue for, you have already presented three negative aspects of Capitalism. You add some good examples regarding some other negative effects of Capitalism before hitting us with the big one: the effect it has on the environment and the wider world. The healthcare point was short but sweet and ably supplemented your previous arguments. Nice segue from countering the opposite stance to arguing your chosen stance.

You struck gold by clearly defining the difference between Socialism and Communism. Your opponent argued singularly against Communism so this section of yours put the decision beyond doubt. Your descriptive passages dealing with the other misconceptions of Socialism weren’t bad, though here is where your reference links could have done with being more clearly labelled. Just pasting the link makes checking the facts and data you provide a little bit pot luck. Maybe just add a little title before each link so I know what each one is at a glance.

Other than that, I don’t have any complaints. Your opponent left himself wide open to exactly the kind of debate you wrote, so good job.

M-Diggedy may have won anyway as it was very good quality, but SPCDRI simply didn’t answer the question that was asked. I’ll be interested to see the reasons why they ignored Socialism and instead laid into the significantly different Communism. Maybe it was a mis-remembering of the question, maybe there’s a difference in perception of each system in different parts of the world. Either way, the winner is M-Diggedy.

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute here, what is this? This is the wrong debate!!! The question is about SOCIALISM, not COMMUNISM. These are two separate, distinct economic systems. They have some similarities, but they're not mindlessly interchangable. I can't even really justify going ahead and seriously judging this debate. What happened??? Either you miconceptionalize socialism as communism, a naive/ignorant viewpoint, or you lack basic reading comprehension.

Nonetheless, the judging must go on. Unless your opponent made the same exact mistake, you've thrown the debate. I'll still critique your arguments, but the biggest critique I can give is READ THE DEBATE QUESTION. Have it in front of you while you're writing your debate, so as to avoid debating the wrong debate!

You do nothing to show that capitalism is more likely to put a worker into a job for which they are best suited. You do point out that the opposing system has historic failures at allocating its work force, but neither does this show that capitalism can succeed in this area or that this was a matter of improper execution than a fault with the economic ideology. You do go on to try to argue that it is an ideological fault, but in doing so take more presuppositions than provide answers.

Does capitalism truly reward based on how physically demanding or dangerous a task can be? Take independent wrestling for an example; driving countless consecutive hours to spend hours setting up a ring in a High School gym, put on a wrestling match in front of apathetic fans, and then take down the ring to drive all night to another town miles away, and for not even enough to support yourself. Compare that to a dentist, for example, who can do some tooth cleanings, maybe a root canal, and then drive home in a Cadillac to the house they own. Clearly one is more physically and mentally demanding, but it's not the one that makes the most.

Then the very finest might be paid better than the very worst, but let's not pretend that this notion that salaries correlate to skill for everything in the middle. Cost of living will vary from area to area in a country like the US, and take that in with factors such as how much competition there is in a region. Perhaps a great dentist in California has far more competition and needs to charge lower rates to compete as compared to the mediocre dentist in Missouri who is guaranteed paying clientelle.

I don't like the rhetorical questions that are meant to lead the audience to suppose the same as you're supposing. Why be the best when ou can do just enough to get by? For personal fulfillment, to take pride in your work, to better the greater good, etc. You might say "oh well those aren't good answers"! But if that's so, argue why those aren't good answers, otherwise you're outright inviting counterarguments!

The rest of your debate is so specific to communism, which isn't even the point of the debate, that I can't justify going through and judging it all. The moral of the story is make sure you're actually arguing the debate you were assigned, because confusing the two demonstrates clearly the weakness of your position.

I enjoyed the general groundwork of this debate but there were plenty weaknesses in how the arguments were backed up that could have been solved with a little more data and effort.

The wealth gap is a great argument, and the 1% controlling more than the 99% is an interesting satistic, but perhaps a visual aid showing the expanding gap between the wealthy and the "middle class", which I've seen and it's very grim to see, would have done wonders. Simply saying the gap is "continually increasing" has far less impact for your argument. Then for the idea that capitalism allows those to escape povertyreally needed firm statistics showing how few Americans born into poverty are able to escape it. I don't know the figure offhand, but I know it exists and it revelas the asinine nature of that claim.

You managed far better with the data in the harm caused by capitalism portion, but there's not much to draw a conclusion for causation in this section despite claiming causation on capitalism's part. The health care portion needed something showing that socialist health care can be implemented in a practical, affordable fashion, as the crux of the argument against it when the US considered implemented it relied upon the supposed infeasibility of bearucracy ruling your health decisions. You show that capitalism fails at this issue, but not that socialism is the superior alternative.

Your opponent proves socialism is miscategorized as communism, and you do well to not only clearly paint the contrasts, but do so in a way that makes your opponent appear a fool. Continuing on, there's great value in pointing out that socialism also serves the function of rewarding individuals for their contributions while eradicating "obscene wealth and abject poverty", but without showing visually earlier the grossly inflated gap caused by capitalism, it falls too flat here. Once more, you make a fool out of your opponent by pointing out that neither Soviet Russia nor Communist China were truly socialist, making them moot points.

In the end, I feel the final two paragraphs would do better to be reversed, first reaffirming your stance, then iterating the failings of capitalism, and ending with socialism framed as the solution. That's a little nit-picky on my part though and what you have is fine in its current order.


M-Diggedy wins because they actually answered the debate question. What a shocker!

Winner via Unanimous Decision - M-Diggedy

Rigby2 vs samizayn

Who is the more complicated gender: Men or Women?

Spoiler for Debates:

When it comes to which gender is the more "complex", the answer is very simple. Females, in a world of social, political, economic, and biological realities, have a more complex individual and mas population role in our world than males.

Both genders are going to have their respective complexities, that's the nature of being human, complex beings. Acknowledging this makes it easier for us to distinguish between the human complexity and the extending gender complexities.

Our engendered extension begins with the social, the nature of being a female in a patriarchal society. From the Middle East to the United States of America, there are dueling responses to the female image itself. From the overt sexualization of the bikini clad super-model airbrushed, to the hijab clad obedient housewife.

It may reason that men are no strangers to sexualization in the media, but not when the extent to women are appraised and valued by their appearance in that even female politicians are ridiculed and subjected to the litmus test for aesthetic quality.

The criticism follows not only their bodies, but their attitudes. If a women is outspoken for her rights, she's a nag. If a man is outspoken for his rights, he's a Patriot. Look no further than propaganda mocking women's suffrage for the contempt with which the Land of the Free held its women's' cries for Democratic equality.

That political oppression lasting for centuries birthed numerous complexities persisting today. The oft-mentioned "$0.77 to the dollar" wage gap might be dubious, but the existence of a wage gap, no matter how it's rationalized, exists, and is recognized by many nations as a serious roadblock to economic prosperity. This particular issue's so complex, it has ramification upon all genders.

For a gender that sees more condescension, subjugation, and contempt, it's hard to believe that women biologically develop better than males. the prefrontal cortex, the decision making sector of the brain, fully develops in women well before men, making them the more readily rational gender. However, ignorance towards the menstrual cycle as being a switch that turns women into a "massive bitch" perpetuates the idea that MEN are more rational!

Women being the "irrational gender" in common knowledge, whether accurate or not, leads to complexities seen in, for instance, The Yellow Wallpaper. The common medical treatment of these irrational, emotional, ignorant women was dismissive, damaging, and destructive, as depicted by the protagonist's descent into madness being caged up by her doctor.

Freud's major psychoanalytic breakthroughs came in part when an irrational woman came to him confessing that her father had molested her as a child. She had to be lying, because she was a woman and a rational man couldn't do that his own daughter, so Freud psychoanalyzed that she merely developed a sexual attraction towards him, and actualized it with this silly story!

This complex biological reputation ties back into most all depictions and stereotypes of women that justify and perpetuate the various other complexities they face. Women are irrational and bitchy, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote alongside the level-headed, rational men. Women have their menstrual cycles and child-birthing, so the wage gap is from them missing work to birth children. Etc., etc.

As mentioned in the offset, men have their complexities, and that's fair to them that they also see biological reputations defining them, but where it stops being complex is when the complexities don't persistently undermine the individuality of men. A man has an emotional moment, he's sensitive. A woman has an emotional moment, she's a typical bitch. A man is masculine, he's a "rugged individual". A woman is masculine, she's a dyke. A man has numerous sexual encounters, he's a Lothario. A woman has various sexual encounters, she's a whore, slut, skank, ho, etc.

A trait/behavior in a man is a virtue. The same trait/behavior in a woman is a vice. There's no simple way to rationalize that double standard.

This standard leads to horrible bullying cultures among women, vying not to be seen as one of "those" undesirable women. The perverse psychological mind games have been depicted in media with films like Carrie where even the supportive teacher takes pleasure in Carrie's humiliation at the film's climax. Courtney Love received thousands of pieces of hate mail when she married Kurt Cobain, from other women and teenage girls that literally wished for her death, a reputation that's followed her and Yoko Ono alike for many years. The complex lengths women will go to tear others down makes the "shoved in a locker" bullying from males pale in comparison. That's the low down on the throw down of the wedding gown wearing gender.

Remember the answer plain and simply, the female gender is by far the most complex.


It seems straightforward at first, when asking which gender is the most difficult and complicated to deal with, what the answer should be. The so-called fairer sex have a reputation for being a lot more emotional than their male counterparts. They’re also known for not being straightforward with that emotion – where men, on the other hand, are seen as much more direct and forthcoming when addressing what’s on their minds. Those factors considered, it seems a no-brainer that women are obviously the more complicated gender.

That’s not quite so, as it turns out. Partly because these traits are not as gender-skewed as one might have you believe. Indirectness has become a ubiquitous feature of western social norms. Every time someone asks how we’re doing, we reply with ‘fine’ even if the response does little to reflect how we’re really feeling. We often offer to give help and share snack foods, even when we’d really rather not give either one. All of these are social niceties we indulge every day; that women are more prone to using these means of communication does not go to say that they should suddenly become cryptic and impossible to decipher. It takes the most basic emotional intelligence to detect reluctance in an overt agreement, or disappointment behind a casual remark – without this ability we’re no more than robots.

And in terms of emotion, it’s an obvious myth that men experience less negative feelings than women. Men repress the emotions that society has deemed inappropriate to express, and this is the main cause of the complications that arise from the male emotional process. If a female is feeling negatively about something, it is instantly apparent in her tone and body language, if not in the words she’s actually saying. When you notice this, you have several options from apologising, attempting discussion or just simply giving them space. For men, the only socially acceptable emotion for them to display is anger. Any other negative emotion is swallowed and repressed until it can come out in that more violent, more "manly" and therefore more acceptable form. Where depressive sadness can be helped and dealt with by other people, the more volatile emotion of rage does not leave that option open. Responding to angry people is a matter of selecting the reaction that's least bad, and being faced with the complicated task of navigating that position is not an enviable place to be.

The difficulties become even more apparent when we consider one significant source of male anger. Consider the word ‘emasculated’. Its existence is curious because it’s one of the rare words in the English language that does not have a complementary equivalent, and as such is demonstrative of the fact that masculinity is more important to the male ego than femininity is to the female. Placing emphasis on this gendered sense of self is what leads to even more complicated situations for people that might not be privy to the sensitivities of the male ego.

Take for example the overt social wrongdoings, where there is a clear and obvious protocol. If someone screamed an insult at a passer by, that person would be expected to apologise for their transgression, or else be considered rude and unfavourable.
But what is to be done when the so-called offense is something innocuous, like making more money as a female counterpart? Or being smarter as a female counterpart, something which is the nature of an individual’s very being? Males feeling upset at people for things like these is not anything said person can reasonably do anything about, or expect to work around – probably the most complicated social situation to be in, especially if a relationship (professional or otherwise) is to be maintained. Doing so in a way that leads to a positive outcome actually goes much beyond complicated, and into the realm of downright impossible.

It might seem simpler to understand the motivations of a male mind, but the complications that arise from dealing with that mind in action mean that it can in no way be considered the less complicated.

"Men may convert stereotypically feminine feelings, such as sadness or vulnerability, into feelings like anger or pride—feelings more socially acceptable for them to experience."

"Men’s self-esteem can take a beating if their wives do well, while women’s egos aren’t as affected by their partners’ victories."

Spoiler for Debates:
BkB Hulk
I thought the strongest parts of this were analysing women’s roles in society. While the question initially seems to just be about psychological elements, it’s a great level to take the debate to and showed that it’s more complicated to be a woman in society’s world-wide.

I don’t think the parts that acknowledged women as more developed really did much for your argument. Men perceiving things otherwise doesn’t actually make women more complicated, or more complicated to deal with.

I also don’t really agree with your assessment of emotional moments in particular, because it’s a really general argument that isn’t really right. A man being emotional isn’t automatically sensitive in any world. It can instead indicate a lack of masculinity, or perhaps that he’s unstable.

The last paragraph was okay, but it oversimplifies men again. I think you’ve been guilty of that quite often throughout. The conclusion was a bit of a waste really, too. Not a great finish.

Your opening was okay, but I feel like starting with a counter doesn’t really enforce your point strongly open on. It more argues ‘hey, maybe they are more similar’ than ‘yeah, men are definitely more complicated than women’.

On top of that, I’m not sure about your argument to do with emotion. It shows a women’s range to be larger, which you would assume makes them more complicated. A lesser range seems more simplistic. The arguments about it being the other way don’t really seem convincing.

A gender role also seems simple. It’s easy to accept, and I don’t think that’s a showing that makes the male mind more complicated. The last paragraph about that being more difficult to deal with is a good point, and makes the gender as a whole more complicated in a way. I think that was your strongest point, but I also feel like it goes against your point concerning the range of emotions, as you then have to deal with those emotions if they’re shown.

I feel like both debates had strengths and weaknesses. I think the first spent longer on convincing points though, so that gets my vote.

Winner: Rigby2


You made a number of good points supporting your stance, but on quite a few occasions I was left thinking that there was a big gap left for a counter, mainly concerning how Men must be at least as complicated because they construct the “societal norms” which Women have to struggle through, as you even mentioned briefly regarding patriarchy. While this was a big problem, your arguments were still at least creditable. You also managed to build up a good flow with each point supporting the next, peaking at the conclusion by expanding on the idea that Women are complex due to the levels of irrational in-fighting, which aren’t quite so prevalent within the Male gender group.


On a first skim read this debate felt a bit empty, but with a second proper analysis I realised that you focused on just a few strong arguments and expanded on them, using thoroughness and detailed technical breakdowns. Turning the concept of Men being simple, angry knuckle draggers, into an image of them having complex thoughts and feelings that they wouldn’t allow to emerge, due to gender created stigmas, was a good move. The emasculation point was equally as good and covered ground with the type of left field thinking that most debaters wouldn’t achieve. Your opponent also helped you out a fair deal by undermining their own efforts. Against a stronger debate I think your lack of varied arguments would have hurt you.

I'm voting for samizayn

Nice intro, incorporating social, political, economic, and biological elements into the answering of the question. I was, however, expecting you to dedicate larger portions of this debate to each of these aspects, but you touched on each of them and then quickly moved on so I’m a little disappointed as this intro promised a much deeper debate than was delivered. I did appreciate the acknowledgement of general human complexity, focusing the debate on the extending gender complexities. That was a nice touch which showed you had a good grasp of the topic at hand.

I thought you were headed in a great direction when you started out noting the duelling responses to females across the world, but you then meandered off into describing the ways in which women are unfairly treated compared to men. While undoubtedly true, I’m not sure how it proves their complexity compared to males. Too much time was spent on giving examples rather than tying in those examples to the extended complexity of women.

Your last section describing the different perspective of female on female bullying compared to male on male bullying was potential gold dust in this debate. I think a much briefer analysis of patriarchal subjugation of women leading into a much more in-depth analysis of this point would have served your debate much better.

Hmm. Not entirely sure what to make of this. It seems to me like your main argument actually supports the opposite stance. You present men’s limited emotional reaction scale, and show how dealing with it leaves little to no options. But you’ve already shown that a woman’s more varied emotional reactions, and their sometimes hidden motives, require the appropriate selection from a number of options including ‘apologising, attempting discussion or just simply giving them space’. This just doesn’t read convincingly for the stance you took.

The way you describe men makes them come across as extremely simple to deal with, in that there isn’t anything to be done as they react as they do as that’s that. Whereas you actually present women as far more complicated in terms of how to deal with their various emotional reactions.

I also understand the point about men finding it more socially acceptable to express anger over other emotions, but this isn’t actually true. It’s a myth in of itself. Sure, there are grunting oafs out there who can’t express themselves any other way, but they are not that prevalent among the less fairer sex. I think you might have done well here to introduce the complexity of this stereotypical (if not truly representative) male with other examples such as the modern metro-sexual male. There’s loads of possibilities there to expound on the complexity of men, perhaps the possibly that men’s socially acceptable identities are changing faster than women’s and in more drastic ways, but you paint us all as grunting oafs with anger as the default option, which just doesn’t quite ring true.

It’s certainly an interesting read, and I can’t fault the quality of presentation. It’s just that your main argument isn’t convincing at all.

This is an odd one to call as neither debate really convinced me either way. While samizayn stayed on point more than Rigby2, the point it stayed on lacked persuasive impact. I get the feeling both of these debates were fairly lazy efforts in which both debaters did a grand sum of zero research for. I honestly feel this match should be a tie, but I have to choose one so on account of one debate presenting more arguments which were mostly more convincing than the one main argument their opponent offered, the winner is Rigby2.

Winner via Split Decision - Rigby2

TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Round #1
Rugrat vs CGS vs Jupiter Jack Daniels vs sharkboy22

Has the WWE Network placed more or less importance on the drawing quality of WWE PPVs?

Spoiler for Debates:

The WWE Network has definitely placed less importance on the drawing quality of PPVs.

Don’t get me wrong, WWE has been half-assing their PPVs for a long time now but at least they used to try to treat it like a big deal. In the past, WWE would try to sell PPVs. Now it seems as if they’re trying to sell the Network more than the PPV.
Now, you may be thinking that of course they have to sell the Network. How else are people going to see the PPV? And yes while traditional PPV still exists an option most people would much rather get the Network for just $9.99. So WWE would be stupid not to sell the Network. But the argument here isn’t them selling the Network, it’s them NOT placing the emphasis on the PPV aspect of the Network.

The focal point of every month now seems not to be the upcoming PPV, but rather the entire month being free to all new Network subscribers. They have now had two consecutive free month trials. If they really wanted to sell the Network as the home of a WWE PPV, they would at least try their best to build the PPV to entice viewers to purchase the Network as a packaged deal. The fact there is also an upcoming PPV seems more like a by-product of the Network (a by-the-way thing so to speak), not the main reason to get Network. But hey, they’re shows like Too Hot for TV and WWE 24 with Roman Reigns!

Perhaps the biggest example of WWE simply not giving a shit about their PPVs anymore, is this year’s Wrestlemania which was arguably one of the most forgettable, dull and uninspiring Road to Wrestlemanias ever. Despite this, WWE recorded a record breaking first quarter this year with Network subscribers increasing by 99% when compared with the previous year’s Wrestlemania. Furthermore, unlike the previous month and the two months that followed, the Network was no offered for free that month. Needless to say, Wrestlemania is the WWE’s biggest show and probably their biggest money making show. To give it away for free would be stupid. But the point to take home here is that WWE took advantage of the fact that people will buy a Wrestlemania no matter what. Therefore, they felt as if they could have gotten away with a half-assed build- and they did!

Instead of promoting the Network as the home of Wrestlemania, the WWE used Wrestlemania to promote the Network itself. It wasn’t, “Get the Network to see Wrestlemania!” it was more “Get Wrestlemania for the Network experience!” The product being sold for this year’s Wrestlemania was not a PPV (or the biggest show of the year) but rather the Network. Wrestlemania was used to exploit the Network and spike subscribers. It’s no coincidence that this year’s logo was a replay button. Or how about the week-long Wrestlemania Network experience with shows such as the Hall of Fame red carpet and the event itself? All, incentives not to get Wrestlemania but to get the Network.

Again, don’t get me wrong, the Network is the future home of PPV. And one of the reasons why is because of all the goodies subscribers can get leading up to a PPV. But don’t neglect the PPV. Don’t tell customers to get the PPV because there’s a red carpet event or because there is a Kick Off show or a post-show. Tell them to get the PPV because they have to- it’s a must see. Make the PPV the selling point. Most fans are not going to be enticed to watch a PPV because there’s a kick-off show, if they did people would not have complained about the build-up (or lack thereof) for this year’s Wrestlemania.

The recent free month binge the WWE is on shows how much they really care about the drawing quality. In the past, there was no way the WWE would have ever shown a PPV for free, albeit because fees are owed to cable provider. Still, even on a Tuesday, WWE tried to sell the PPV because it was a major source of revenue. With the Network, free month subscriptions are given in the hope that customers continue to support the Network not necessarily because of the PPV but because of everything the Network has to offer. Financially, it makes no difference what a customer purchases the Network for. Whether it is for a PPV, NXT, Slam City or Total Divas, it’s all the same price. When the entire month is given for free, all segments are attracted. It’s not just those who are subscribing solely for the PPV. By balling up all its services is one, they are able to attract a clientele much larger than the PPV market. It should no come as no surprise that the WWE’s attitude towards PPVs is not what it once was.

As the Network continues to grow in subscribers, the more entertainment-esque shows (Camp WWE and Swerved) will be added and less emphasis will be placed on PPVs. In fact, it may only be a matter of time until the term Pay-Per-View is replaced by “Network Special”. The WWE Network may have revolutionized the industry but at the cost of a great tradition.

WWE Records Record Quarter Revenue. (2015, April 30). Retrieved May 6, 2015, from

NB. The WWE Network was not internationally available for Wrestlemania XXX hence the astronomical increase in subscribers.


The WWE Network has certainly increased the importance of the drawing quality of WWE PPV's.

Firstly, let's look at what WWE perceive to be the major selling point of the Network: the price. WWE clearly believe this is the major attention-grabber to it, otherwise they wouldn't have promoted it to such an extent ad nauseam. The price of the WWE Network domestically is $9.99. The price of a pay-per-view (PPV) in the same market is $44.95, so assuming that every potential PPV buyer instead used the Network model for their PPV, it would take 4.5 subscribers to equal the revenue created by one PPV buyer from the traditional method. Due to a decreased price, it should be clear that there would hence be an increased importance on getting more subscribers because of the reduction in consumer cost.

Some might say that there is sufficient non-PPV related stuff on the Network to reduce the importance on PPV's to attract Network subscribers. However, there is only so much wrestling a fan will watch. Looking at Smackdown, for instance, despite the fact that it's on free television in the Stateside, it has never equalled the ratings of Raw, barring a very brief period in the early 2000's. Furthermore, much of the barrier of nostalgia on most of the older stuff on the Network will come down since all the older PPV's have been uploaded. Much of the appeal in the older stuff will go pretty quickly when a classics fan sees many of the Clash of the Champions shows - the third edition in particular and the awful Bischoff experiment of NWO Souled Out '97, or when an ECW fan sees the likes of Hardcore Heaven and Wrestlepalooza '98, they'll realise that much of the product in its heyday was marred by chronic botching and selling which was either absent or incredibly clumsy. Is it any wonder why Paul Heyman specifically noted John Cena as someone who would have fitted right in at "The Land of Extreme"? Even a lot of the WWF stuff in the 90’s had shortcomings, such as the squash filled In Your House PPV’s and the matches on Raw in the Attitude Era would rarely lost over a few minutes. Even a fan who believes that the older stuff does hold merit can only watch so much of the stuff, before unsubscribing and spending $120 per year on something better. It's not like they have tons of archived stuff either, they have minimal TV footage of WCW, ECW and the old WWF. There is very little of World Class, AWA etc. and absolutely nothing of Memphis, which is bewildering, considering Jerry Lawler is a shareholder. They could also buy out Jerry Jarrett’s share too, since he hasn’t been attached to TNA for a decade, but they choose not to, as they believe their current footage is far more of a draw than its older stuff.

There’s also a larger emphasis on the PPV’s drawing well nowadays, since they are supporting the WWE Network. The Network has been a very costly endeavour by McMahon et al and has forced the WWE to make cuts all over. These cuts range from threadbare set designs for PPV’s, making staff work harder for their pay and releasing numerous wrestlers and other personnel from their contracts. WWE are in a far more fragile financial position than they’ve ever been in over the 2000’s. What’s more is that if people aren’t interested by the PPV’s, then they aren’t interested in the Network, and the Network is quite simply too costly to accept failure on, it’s not like the debts caused by the XFL and WWE Studios, which can simply be written off due to Vince McMahon’s bizarre desire to succeed at something other than professional wrestling. The Network needs to survive and the PPV’s are the main ingredient in the sustenance of it.

It’s also worth noting that whilst the traditional method of purchasing pay-per-views is not as widely used as it has been in previous years, for obvious reasons, there is still some demand for WWE PPV’s using the traditional method. For example, the first three PPV’s of 2015 – Royal Rumble, Fast Lane and Wrestlemania netted WWE a cumulative sum of 450,000 buys, which netted WWE a very attractive $9,000,000. Given that the WWE only netted $28,600,000 from the Network in the first three months in 2015, it’s still worth noting that the standard method of purchasing WWE’s PPV’s gathered approximately 30% of what was gained by the Network, so there still is the financial incentive to go all out for the PPV’s, as opposed to cruising because they already have a sizable amount of subscribers to their Network.

Since WWE is a publicly traded company and has been since before the turn of the century, it’s more important that the PPV’s fare well and attract people to the Network. This is because due to some of the monumental losses taken in earlier months by the Network, it is important that Vince and co keep their shareholders happy by producing the booming profits that many in WWE have grown accustomed to them generating. Without the large profits, the shares will be less valuable and will be creating less money, which would make being a shareholder in the WWE less attractive which would only be bad news for Titan Towers.

To summarise, the Network is WWE’s most important investment since the initial Wrestlemania. It simply cannot fail. The determinant of whether it fails or not is whether people are willing to invest to watch the monthly PPV’s, it’s as simple as that.

WWE Financial Report listing its revenue (the buyrates stuff is on page 5


Over the last 30 years PPV’s have been a huge part of the WWE and a vital cash cow for the company. However with the times now changing trying to get people to spend a ridiculous amount of money each month has become pretty difficult. From this the WWE decided that moving all live 12 PPV’s onto the Network while also keeping them on Cable and Satellite but charging a much lower price themselves is the right way to go and a move which I believe has placed a lot less pressure and importance on their PPV’s to “draw”.

The whole package for just $9.99

Firstly, looking at the traditional PPV payment plan for the WWE we see that most shows were sold for $44.95 with Wrestlemania being sold for $59.95 each. From whatever is sold the WWE split the revenue with the cable and satellite companies keeping roughly half of that per buy for themselves, thus earning around $20 or so per every buy.

Essentially the company where having to push themselves to put on a show every 3-4 weeks and make everyone pay $45 while only gaining half of them for themselves. In a world where everyone is becoming more technologically savvy and can watch PPV’s for next to nothing (or nothing at all) carrying on with this method was proving to be financially tough.

With the WWE network the pressure has slowly been removed from PPV’s to be a huge profitable aspect for the company. While offering not only all new PPV’s including Wrestlemania but also every single WWE, ECW and WCW PPV, old TV shows, weekly episodes such as NXT and original WWE content all in one big package for the same price the WWE have allowed themselves to benefit from guaranteed profits even if the PPV’s are not highly watched.

Think about it, different aspects of the Network appeal to different people. Some people would be happy enough paying the 9.99 just for being able to go back and have all the old PPV’s in one place, other’s may stick around for all the original content. This has put the company in a position whereby if 1,000,000, 100,000 or even 100 people watch their PPV’s they are still guaranteed to receive revenue from all their subscribers.

The traditional model is dead

“In the past PPV programming was a profitable and important segment that generated more than 15% of their annual revenue. Now it’s part of an expensive system which is struggling to reach break-even goals.”

The PPV business has been dead for quite a while in the WWE now and if nothing else they’ve been putting extra pressure on themselves to produce 12/13 or so PPV’s over the course of a year and not really gaining much benefit from it. Outside of Wrestlemania no other PPV really helps drive the WWE brand forward and make them real money. If anything the company has somewhat become reliant on Wrestlemania in the last few years to account for a huge portion of their yearly PPV revenue.

Just to weigh up all the numbers. In 2014 PPV revenue dropped from $82.5m to $45.5m representing a decrease in around $37.3m. However this loss was protected by the $69.5m they received from the Network (which accounted for around 13% of their yearly profit). That’s $69.5m they are getting even if no one watches their PPV.

Naturally people would look at this and say “but imagine how much more they could make selling through the traditional method”, but like I said, revenue has been going down year on year anyway and people are becoming smarter in getting the shows for nothing. Yes they are receiving a lot less money through the Network, but it’s more secure in the sense no one even has to watch the show for them to receive money from it.

Television: The new cash cow

With brings me to my final point. With PPV buys declining a new cash cow has seemingly emerged, that being their weekly television broadcasts such as Raw and Smackdown where they have been able to make up to over 30% of their annual revenue, almost double what they've been earning though PPVs over the last few years. In fact looking through their annual reports, between 2005 & 2013 (before the network came into the equation) PPV revenue has dropped from 23% of total revenue to 16% while Television revenue jumped quite substantially from 21% to representing 33% of total revenue.

Just think about it, while hardcore fans will most likely buy the Network regardless of how they feel about the current product the same can’t be said for the more casual wrestling fans. Traditionally where they would use the weekly episodic programming to sell their PPV’s now they have to do it to sell the WWE network instead with PPV’s taking a backseat, after all TV broadcast are the first point of contact for many fans these days.

Using the likes of Raw and Smackdown to not only promote their PPV’s but NXT, the original content, the video library etc… the WWE creates the potential to get the fans to find even one small aspect of the network they find interesting and BOOM extra income and potentially a new long term subscriber regardless of whether or not they even find the upcoming PPV interesting. It's certainly is a huge area for WWE to make sure they are producing gripping TV that keeps the fans tuning in no matter what.

Overall, PPV’s have proven to not be as big of a draw as they once were and by moving them over to the network while also keeping them shown on cable and satellite TV they are able to still get some revenue from TV buys while also removing the pressure on the PPV’s to bring in huge margins while also helping to guarantee revenue from network subscribers regardless of how many views their PPV’s actually receive.


Jupiter Jack Daniels

For most WWE enthusiasts, the Network was a dream come true. The opportunity to watch WWE's library from the past, the development brand known as NXT and various original specials. But also, the opportunity to watch upcoming PPV's in real time, exclusively on the Network. And when you combine what the Network has to offer and how much they've put into it, this has placed less importance on the drawing quality of PPV's.

There was a point in time, specifically the boom period of the Attitude Era, where the PPV business was big bank for WWE. The fiscal year 5/1/2000 to 4/30/2001 saw WWE generate $128.2 million in PPV revenue, which accounted for around 30% of the overall $438 million in revenue generated that year(1). But, as the years progressed, PPV revenue accounted for smaller percentages of overall revenue. By 2005, that number had shrunk to under 25%. By 2009, that number was less than 20%(2). And by 2013, the final pre-Network year, PPV revenue accounted for less than 18% of all revenue generated. PPV's were no longer drawing. Buys, from the start of the century, were shredded nearly in half ten years later. Why? Could be a variety of reasons. The most plausible is fans simply tuning out.

When it was strictly PPV and buys are declining, it paints the picture that what you're trying to sell isn't being bought. The glory days of the Attitude Era, where WWE averaged nearly 7 million PPV buys a year, had left. The five years, pre-Network, of being lucky to average 4 million buys was the new and totally undesired standard for a company that was generating more revenue from different streams. And, oddly enough, a key revenue stream for WWE, today, is a streaming service.

The promotion of that streaming service is evidence that WWE has placed less importance on PPV drawing quality. Because they're no longer selling you on a singular event or moment. Instead, they're selling you on an entire experience. No event or piece of content is taking precedent over another, as you're presented options, allowing you to decipher what you're subscribed for. In the case of some, it's the PPV's. For others, it's the library. And for others, it's the original content and specials. But, for WWE, it doesn't matter because, at the end of the day, you're still subscribed. And they can spin the subscriber count any way they please but it still reads the same: X amount of people have subscribed to their service.

We're all aware of WWE's jabs at people who opt to pay $45 to $70 per month for a PPV, instead of spending $9.99 for that and more. It's not done to promote the PPV. It's done to promote the WWE brand. Look back at the initial six month commitment. In the pre-Network days, it was a usual losing coin toss that the million buys for Wrestlemania would carry over for the next six months thru Summerslam. It never did. Largely because of a period of lackluster events between. But, with the Network and that initial six month commitment, it provided a bit of a safety net.

Typically, the May PPV, for example, doesn't draw. From 2010 to 2013, it garnered 140,000 to 197,000 buys(3). With a six month commitment to the Network, which was listed as 731,000 by the end of that six month commitment period, you're getting $9.99 per subscriber, regardless if they actually watch the event. That's $7.3 million for one PPV. Through sole PPV viewing via a cable or satellite provider, based on previous years, you can't expect more than 200,000 buys and by the time WWE takes their share (which is around 40%), that's around $4 million. Significant difference in potential revenue a May PPV could bring in. Essentially, WWE would make less from the 197,000 who buy it for $45 a pop than they would from X amount of subscribers who, at $9.99, have the ability to watch, probably won't but are still counted towards the revenue for that event through the Network for simply being subscribers.

And that applies to any WWE PPV. On it's own merit, 40% of 175,000 to 579,000 buys that non-Wrestlemania PPV's drew the year before the Network debuted is going to be significantly less than the 100% of approximately 1.3 million subscribers at $9.99, with the option to watch. So, if something isn't bringing in an adequate amount of revenue and a far cry from what it once generated, you're going to place less importance on it, in favor of something that does, without tackling the reality that the same event, PPV or Network exclusive, isn't drawing.

Of course, in the eyes of the fan, some events and some superstars have more importance than others. There's also a contingent that over analyzes who and what, in WWE, is a draw. But, in the eyes of WWE, they're in a comfortable place because nothing in WWE is a bigger draw than WWE, itself. That includes PPV's. The promotion and presentation of the Network, complete with free month trials that allows you to watch a heap of content, in addition to an upcoming PPV, for a fifth of the standard PPV fee, is proof of that.

In the end, there's less importance on the drawing quality of PPV and more importance on the drawing quality of the brand, as a whole. The Network allows WWE to keep their events in-house, without having to relinquish a significant portion of the revenue those events generate. By downplaying the concept of paying $45 to $70 per month for PPV, WWE is presenting the Network as the go to destination to watch. And while a fraction of the price, there's an increased probability of adding new subscribers, which makes the Network look like a success, while also presenting the brand as sexy enough for potential investors.





Spoiler for Judging Cards:

The WWE Network may have revolutionized the industry but at the cost of a great tradition.
This I do not agree with (WWE is doing this all on their own; PPV as a concept can more than survive on the network if they put in the effort {and you seemed to acknowledge this as well, but fuck it. It made for a decent close}), but you made a hell of a case for it.

What set your debate apart from the rest is the passion with which jumped off the page, constantly bordering emotional to outright angry. You tore the network down, linking it to the fall of pay-per-view with the new system. Well-played.

Punctuation was choppy at times, especially in the beginning but I can't honestly say that it was anything major.


Rugrat makes a very good point when he argues that the PPVs are what will make people purchase the network and continue to purchase the network month after month. And he does make a good point. Theoretically, without PPVs, a nostalgic fan could watch all of the old product that they purchase the network for and then run out, and have no reason to continue the network.

Where you miss me is when you say that nostalgia over the old product will stop once fans get a chance to see all of the PPVs of old promotions that have been uploaded, and realize how bad the quality many of them are. This assumes that 1) the quality of them are bad (which you may very well feel; it’s all subjective) but it doesn’t transform the opinions others may or may not have. 2) it assumes that the bad content outweighs the bad (a harder sell). And 3) that nostalgia is logical. It isn’t. Not even a little.

Overall I thought your points were solid especially the one on PPV buys. Though more than half of the 450,000 buys came from WrestleMania 31, the numbers you provided does show that people are more than willing to put money down (lots of money down on a solid product. Grammar, punctuation and the like was fine enough notwithstanding a couple of highlighting issues.


There’s a very solid debate in here somewhere, but it’s definitely hard to get to. First and foremost, the first paragraph is littered with a lack of punctuation, a couple of spelling mistakes and one or two run-on sentences which really hurt the flow of it all. It continues throughout the debate, but when they’re in the beginning, it just makes everything else more difficult.

While you successfully argued that the WWE Network was a necessity and the previous format of PPV-focused content was no longer financially viable, I felt that you strayed a bit far from the actual question. Most of the debate seemed to be focused on why WWE is in a more stable economic space with the network, instead of explaining why the network doesn’t need or why the WWE doesn’t seem to think the network needs to focus on the monthly “pay-per-view” events.

In your “Television: The new cash cow” portion of your debate, you hinted at the differences in buying philosophies between hardcore and casual fans. I feel you missed the perfect opportunity to perhaps mention why the quality of PPV cards made no difference to some of the different classes of fans for one reason or another.

Again, it’s solid enough in a vacuum, but seemed to stray a bit from the question. Combined with the errors in punctuation and grammar, it was an uphill battle.

Jupiter Jack Daniels

Much like CGS, this debate toed the line between comparing WWE’s shifting financial strategies rather than answering the question asked. Fortunately, it settled down after a bit and hit on the most vital point the WWE Network actually has to offer: no matter what kind of fan you are, it has a little something for everyone. Therefore, PPVs don’t mean as much. I don’t necessarily agree with this concept but it was well-stated.

Because they're no longer selling you on a singular event or moment. Instead, they're selling you on an entire experience. No event or piece of content is taking precedent over another, as you're presented options, allowing you to decipher what you're subscribed for. In the case of some, it's the PPV's. For others, it's the library. And for others, it's the original content and specials. But, for WWE, it doesn't matter because, at the end of the day, you're still subscribed.
Perfect, man.

Unfortunately, I felt the debate lost it’s way a little towards the end as once more the focus shifted more to the WWE’s profits and sustainable business model rather than the question. Still, it was a solid debate. Punctuation and grammar were fine as was the content. Would’ve liked to have seen it a little more attentive, however.

sharkboy22 - Best
Jupiter Jack Daniels - 2
Rugrat - 3
CGS - 4


Your intro was sound and gave examples of why PPV’s have less importance due to the Network’s marketability through other shows and features.

The point about not having to make lots of effort for Mania was a bit flimsy because you even admitted that the event still draws big and is crucial to WWE hooking in new network subs for a non-free month, so technically the drawing ability of the show was still important. The arguments concerning how Mania was a stage to advertise the network were a bit more convincing.

The paragraph beginning and ending with “But don’t neglect the PPV… if they did people would not have complained about the build-up (or lack thereof) for this year’s Wrestlemania” seemed really random and out of place within the context of this topic.

This debate had potential, but was rather jumbled up and all over the place. There were also quite a few spelling and grammar issues (if this isn’t CGS then please try to fix this).


Your first big argument contains a mathematical flaw, seeing as you’re assuming that WWE need 4.5 network subs each month for every former PPV buy. The truth is close to 2 subs, as you haven’t taken the money that the PPV providers took from WWE into account. Obviously WWE don’t have to pay a PPV provider for anything related to network subs.

The old content argument was good, if a bit long winded. There definitely is a limited appeal to this older material, in terms of how much is available, the replay value and how many actual fans will be interested in this. Oh wait, there’s a dig at John Cena in here, guessing this is RR

Covering the financial issues within WWE was a good idea, but the actual link that you made to the importance of PPV’s wasn’t strong enough. The lines of “if people aren’t interested by the PPV’s, then they aren’t interested in the Network” aren’t necessarily true and are well countered by your opponents.

The next paragraph was the key one for me, as you covered an area that your opponents misses. WWE still make money from actual PPV on PPV, which is clearly crucial at a time when they need to make as much profit as possible. Good debate with two very strong arguments amongst others that varied in quality.


Your maths were superior to Rugrat when concerning how much profit WWE makes from PPV on actual PPV, although you failed to address his point about how WWE still makes money from PPV on PPV, which shows this medium still has a fair amount of importance. However, your breakdown of the costs still shows that they have LESS importance, which is crucial.

The fact that WWE can still make profits through the network without people watching the new PPV’s is okay, but you haven’t done enough to convince me that the old PPV content (which Rugrat countered) and new non-PPV content is enough to keep the required amount of subs active in the long term so that WWE can continue to profit.

“The PPV business has been dead for quite a while in the WWE now” is hyperbole and ignores how WWE still make money from PPV’s, as outlined by Rugrat. It might not be as big as it was, but “dead” is a major exaggeration. You even gave facts about how WWE still make money from PPV, which makes it all the more ridiculous. The point about how the network profits have made up for the drop in PPV revenue was better.

The point about the RAW and SMACKDOWN tv deals making up for lost revenue would be good in another debate concerning PPV’s general importance to WWE, but the topic asks whether the network has altered the importance. The closing couple of paragraphs concerning how these tv platforms are used to promote the network, rather than the PPV’s, make much more sense within the confines of the topic question. This did give Rugrat a good battle, but likewise it had some big flaws.

Jupiter Jack Daniels:

For me, this is the winning debate. This displayed a far more technical breakdown of finances than the other three combined, whilst also expertly explaining the background to how WWE’s decline in PPV business put the company in a position where they could effectively launch a network which would likely forever take away the importance of PPV’s being the sole draw. The explanation for how WWE are likely to make more money through the network in the quiet months in 2015 onwards than they ever were able to with just pay per views in the previous few years was also great. The persuasive language was also superior in this debate, lines such as “Because they're no longer selling you on a singular event or moment. Instead, they're selling you on an entire experience” certainly sold this debate to me.

There are definitely a couple of areas where Rugrat countered you partially (including how old ppv’s might lose their replay value and how WWE do still rely on actual PPV on PPV revenue), but not to the point where he bettered your thorough examination of the history of WWE’s PPV business that led to the point where the network doesn’t have to rely on PPV’s. Great effort.

I’m voting in this order:

Jupiter Jack Daniels wins

Rugrat is runner up

CGS takes the bronze

sharkboy22 takes the wooden spoon

sharkboy22 - For me you focus too much on if WWE have chosen to place more/less importance rather than if the Network has forced them to place more/less importance. That's a pretty big difference imo. I guess you're arguing what WWE have chosen to do rather than what they should do which is the real focus of the question. IMO anyway. With the WM build for example you say what they did but were they right to as you say half ass the build? Is that evidence that the drawing quality of the PPV isn't very significant in people's decision to get the Network that month or would more people be getting the Network if the drawing quality/the build was better? You don't really take either stance but just state what the reality is. You argue what WWE's approach is just fine but I'm not left convinced that this approach is right or wrong which is really what you should be arguing here. Lack of focus side you argue well and have nice passion which is a plus to carry over to a debate more focused on what you're really being asked.

Rugrat - Your numbers at the start assume that WWE kept 100% of PPV revenue which isn't true. I had the actual % in my Mania on the Network debate but I think it was like 45% so the 4.5 figure is higher than the real number. Fortunately bad figures aside the point remains a strong one. BIG paragraph kinda needed cutting into two. I think there's a good point in there but you focus on other stuff that dilutes your stance a bit. Here you should have been going down the route where you argue that the PPV is the biggest attraction to the Network and the other stuff is just supporting content rather than drawing content. Trying to argue against the appeal of the archive content was odd because focusing on the bad quality in there doesn't negate the great stuff in there from WWF/WCW/ECW. There's loads of classic stuff in there and lets face it people will watch WCW at its worst for dark humour too. People will also go back and watch old WWF shows purely because of nostalgia too. Nostalgia viewing isn't just viewing the good stuff. Warrior promos are awful but people from that era will still search them out because of the nostalgia feeling regardless of the fact that they know they're awful. Wow at fitting a Cena knock in here too. Your obsession with him should worry you a bit quite frankly. You also assume the archive stuff has no rewatch value too which is bonkers. The Memphis stuff at the end showed a total lack of knowledge regarding who owns the video library and why WWE haven't brought it. A simple google search doesn't clear it up but clears up why you're wrong about it being so apparently easy to acquire and put on the network. Next paragraph is again something that should be a great argument that you end up diluting a bit. The network does need to be a success but the future of the company isn't dependent on it to the extent that you suggest here. Adding a publicity angle to if it fails would have been better. "it’s not like the debts caused by the XFL and WWE Studios, which can simply be written off due to Vince McMahon’s bizarre desire to succeed at something other than professional wrestling." - why? PPV still being a valuable revenue source itself was much better. You do a decent enough job arguing why the Network needs to succeed but what stopped this being a great debate was you not being able to really argue how important the drawing quality of the PPV is to that. Overall a pretty good debate though that probably wins out due to your choice of stance.

CGS - Largely a good debate but it falls flat overall due to one problem, you never show that the PPV isn't the main reason to buy the network. If you're going with this approach then you need to argue much better that the other stuff on the Network is deserving of the 9.99 even without the PPV. If you did that then bingo you have something. Nobody in this debate convinced me otherwise but afaik the PPV is still the big sell for the Network and that's still how WWE treats selling the Network. Therefore implying otherwise without backing it up hurts you imo. I know actual viewing figures for the Network aren't out there so it's a tough one to argue with numbers so you have to do it just through persuasive writing and really try to sell how great everything else on the Network is and how people will buy the Network for said month even if they aren't bothered about the PPV. For me you didn't get the hard sell on that aspect right which was crucial to your stance. You also ignore the fact that WWE need to be selling more subscriptions over a year than PPVs to make up for the revenue drop the smaller price. So shouldn't that mean they need to get more people watching them? Really with the price drop they need double the amount of PPV buys over a year to turn into monthly network buys to avoid switching to a less profitable distribution method. Ignoring the fact that viewers can cancel month to month now rather than being locked in to a commitment and WWE getting 9.99 regardless for that month left another crucial hole in your stance. If nobody wants to see that months PPV then they're banking on the other content drawing the 9.99 because that 9.99 can easily be cancelled now. The rest is largely well argued but that part is key to making your stance work and didn't work well enough.

Jupiter Jack Daniels - Largely the same feedback I gave to CGS regarding the major hole. If you're placing less importance on the drawing quality of them then you needed to do a better job showing that the other content can make up for if the PPV isn't a draw for that month. That was missing from this debate too and presents too big a hole in your debate that Rugrat didn't have. The rest is good and very marginally better than CGS' in terms of analysis but that hole sinks both of you beneath Rugrat.

1st = Rugrat
2nd = Jupiter Jack Daniels
3rd = CGS
4th = sharkboy22

Winner via Points Decision - Jupiter Jack Daniels

Eliminator Standings:
1: Jupiter Jack Daniels - 11 Points
2: Rugrat - 8 Points
3: sharkboy22 - -1 Point
4: CGS - -3 Points

TDL Sports Division Special Attraction Match
Seabs vs Aid

Out of Steph Curry, James Harden, Lebron James & Russell Westbrook, who is most deserving of being this season's NBA MVP?

Spoiler for Debates:

On paper, this would appear to be a close MVP race between Curry, Harden, James, and Westbrook, but in reality, this isn’t close at all. Steph Curry is your MVP in every category.

When judging the MVP award, you often hear three differing criteria:
  • Player with the best stats
  • Player that provides most value to their team
  • Best Player on the Best Team

Curry has all three of these.


When it comes to the offensive end, Curry has been spectacular as the leader of the unit that ranked second in the league in offensive rating (only behind the Clippers). The Warriors dominated on the offensive side of the ball with really only a few offensive players (Thompson, Lee) and many defensive specialists. His production on a per-36-minute basis is similar to Harden in some categories, like 26.3 points per for Curry to 26.8 for Harden; 4.7 rebounds per to 5.5, but he’s ahead of him in several others like 8.5 assists per for Curry to 6.8 for Harden; 3.4 turnovers per to 3.9. In a day and age when a player's efficiency is incredibly important, it's not even close when it comes to Curry vs. Harden. Curry had an overall PER of 28 compared to Harden’s 26.7. Looking deeper at shooting we see: 48.7% overall shooting for Curry to 44% for Harden; 44.2% from three-point range to 37.8%; a league-leading 91.4% from the free-throw line for Curry to 86.6% for Harden. Curry's long-range game might go down as the greatest of all time, as he broke his own single-season record for three-pointers and now has three of the top five single-season marks in league history.

The defensive end wasn’t bad for Stephen Curry either. Curry averaged 2.0 steals per game and overall the team had the best ranked defense efficiency in the NBA. He contributed to that too. He’s averaging a career high in steals and a career low in fouls. Curry is a pretty effective defender as well, ranking fourth among point guards in defensive real plus-minus (Harden is 38th among SG’s, Westbrook is 34th among PG’s, Lebron’s 9th among SF’s). The opponents he guards have shot just 36.8 percent on the season. While he does have help from teammates, he certainly isn’t a liability.


Curry leads the league in win shares per 48 minutes (.290), a statistic that estimates the number of wins contributed by a player per 48 minutes. If Curry and Harden averaged the exact same minutes, Curry would have a higher win share. Looking at the team’s itself. The Rockets post a net rating of -3.5 with Harden off the court this season, representing a 9.1 net rating drop off compared to when he’s on the court. The Warriors post a pedestrian net rating of +1.2 when Curry’s sitting on the bench, a ridiculous 15.2 net rating drop off compared to when he’s on the court. Yes, that is correct: the Warriors are 15.2 points worse per 100 possessions when Curry’s not out there compared to when he is. That’s an insane drop-off which shows just how important he is to the offensive flow. Looking at value over replacement, Curry leads the league at 7.9, ahead of Harden’s 7.8. Simply put, Curry is incredibly valuable to the Warriors. In terms of combining impact and efficiency, he averaged 23-plus points, seven-plus assists, four-plus rebounds per game while shooting 40-plus percent from three-point range for the second time in his career. That mark has only been reached by two others: LeBron James (2012-13) and Larry Bird (1986-87).


Perhaps, out of all the numbers here, there’s only one important number: 67. That’s the number of wins the Warriors had. 7 more than the next best team and 11 more than the second best team in the West (Houston). The Warriors weren’t just the best team, they were the best team by a large margin. The Warriors were an NBA best 39-2 at home. That’s insane. For how great LeBron, Harden, and Westbrook have been this season, none of them can say their team dominated the league like the Warriors did. Curry played a large role in this. It’s not just one or two wins more than these guys, it’s 11+ more wins.

So why Curry over these guys?

Why Not LeBron

He missed 13 games this season(15.85%) and the Cavs started off really slow. If it wasn’t for the additions of Mozgov, Smith, and Shumpert, the Cavs may never have truly recovered for the 5th best record in the league. LeBron helped, but they were 19-20 in 39 games before they got all of them. Those guys helped to turn around Cleveland more than LeBron did.

Why Not Westbrook

This dude missed the playoffs. The whole point of playing is to win the fucking title. You can’t do that if you’re sitting at home in May. No matter how great Westbrook played, they still didn’t win enough games. It was their spot to lose, and despite the many triple-doubles, the stats were meaningless when they got the “L”. And that’s what happened too many times for Westbrook to be considered.

Why Not Harden

He definitely had a great year, but as you’ve seen, Curry rivaled him in stats in many areas. Harden may have scored more, but Curry was more efficient offensively and defensively. Efficiency is why Curry was able to sit and rest in the fourth when the Warriors had huge leads. Harden had to fight every minute. You could argue that Harden had a lot to carry with Howard, Beverly, Jones, and others missing time, but in the end, if we are going with advanced stats and record, Curry is still better.

All in all, Curry is da real MVP. Stats, Value, and Record prove this.


Abbreviation List
MVP- Most Valuable Player
NBA- National Basketball Association
WS- Win Shares
PER- Player Efficiency Rating
B.P.o.t.B.T.- Best Player on the Best Team
PG- Point Guard
SG- Shooting Guard
SF- Small Forward


The Most VALUABLE Player award shouldn't go to the player with the most impressive stats or even the best player in the league. By the very wording of the award it SHOULD go to the player who has been the most valuable commodity in the League. Nobody has been more valuable or more irreplaceable this season than James Harden.

Eliminating Lebron & Westbrook

A major part of value over a season is consistency. As harsh as it may seem on Lebron and Westbrook they’ve missed 12%1 and 18%2 of the season respectively. That's time where they have no value to their team. Harden meanwhile leads the League in Minutes Played and is #2 in MPG3. That's not only longevity which makes his achievements extra impressive but it's also constant pressure being Houston's only go-to offensive option. Yet despite that he's still an elite performer.

As we'll see, Harden has faced adversity this season like Westbrook and James have. The difference that rules them out is that Harden overcame his adversity. Both Westbrook and Harden were missing their All Star partner but Harden was able to overcome it and push Houston to a #2 seed while it crippled Westbrook and the Thunder. Even with Ibaka, Westbrook only forced a 12-8 record and 3-6 vs Play Off teams456. Harden however forced a 21-5 record and 5-4 vs Play Off teams minus 2+ starters78910. Likewise, Lebron massively struggled before the Denver and New York trades, forcing only an 18-11 record, scoring 22 or less in 73% of those loses11.

Harden vs Curry

As far as individual statistics go there's barely anything between them. Truthfully, Curry probably has the slight edge. But that doesn't make him MVP. The fact that they're so tight in individual performances only adds to Harden's claim given the disparity in the quality of supporting cast and difficulty of achievement.

To put Harden's carry-job into perspective, Houston have had at least one starter missing for all bar 2 games, with Howard missing 51% of the season10, Jones 61%9 and Beverley 32%8. Houston have had to play 32% of the season missing 2+ starters, yet despite that they were still only 21-5 and 5-4 vs Play Off teams, only losing to teams .500+ at the time7. In fact with 3 starters out they were 5-1. Meanwhile Golden State have had the luxury of all 5 starters available for 71% of the season and 4/5 for 100%1213141516.

Curry meanwhile was sitting pretty knowing that he had the fallback of the best supporting cast in the League. The PERs of Harden's supporting cast compared to Curry's reinforces the difference in quality between them. No Rocket that played 50%+ of the season is above the typical league average 15.0. Golden State however have 8 players with higher PERs than Houston's next highest below Harden excluding Howard who missed half the season17.

Additionally, when Curry scored below 15 Golden State were still 8-112. Houston however when Harden did were 3-57. Furthermore, Houston's offence minus Harden is the League's 2nd worst at 96.2. Even THE KNICKS have a better offence than Houston do minus Harden. Comparatively, Golden State boast a 103.2 offensive rating minus Curry18.

Any Sports fan understands that it's harder to perform at an elite level under game and season-defining pressure19. Therefore any Sports fan can understand why Harden's accomplishments with Houston this season are much greater than Curry's with Golden State. Under more pressure due to not having an offensive beast like Klay Thompson to ease the load and under more pressure for longer due to not having a supporting cast capable of wrapping up games and the season 3/4s in. Yet despite all that he's still around Curry's elite playing level. No the stats may not be better but the accomplishment definitely is.

Probably the time when MVP candidates earn their votes the most is when it's time to visit "Clutch City". Here Harden's as good as it gets. In games within 5 points with under 2 minutes left Curry is shooting a 42.9 FG% and only 1-for-7 from three. Harden however is 45.5% FG% AND 3P%. Yes 45.5% from 3 compared to Curry's 14.3%18. It's even more impressive considering Harden is really Houston's one go-to option whereas Golden State are brimming with viable alternatives. Extend the time-frame to 5 minutes left and Harden's eFG% still trumps Curry's at .565 compared to .440, along with boasting a better Assists to Passing Turnovers Ratio at 25:7 compared to 16:52021.

The idea that Curry makes his team significantly better than Harden is misguided too. Yes Curry is a better facilitator but like with all areas Harden isn't far behind Curry despite playing under increased pressure and responsibility all season. Curry's assist numbers are indeed better but not to the degree they should be a difference maker here22. The more telling stat however is that they actually create the same amount of assist opportunities per game22, further reinforcing the fact that Curry's stronger supporting cast bolsters his stats in ways Harden's can't.

Likewise defensively, while Curry is better, Harden isn't far behind given the inferior supporting cast. 0.02 more points allowed per defensive possession22, #5 in the League in SPG compared to Curry's #423 but higher defensive win shares at 4.2 compared to Curry's 4.123. Again the difference is miniscule.

Another point against Harden is that he relies on shooting free throws. It makes him MORE valuable because it's the easiest way to score and makes the game easier for his teammates by getting the opposition into foul trouble and easier drives to the basket or easier points off free throws for them. Plus let's not pretend like Harden isn't shooting a .440 FG% or a .375 3P%24.

Curry's probably been the best player this season. But the award isn't "Player of the Year". The fact that Harden has been able to perform on par with Curry despite facing significantly greater adversity getting there makes him most DESERVING of being called the Most VALUABLE Player.

[2] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted
[4] (Independently counted stats)
[7] (Independently Counted Stats)
[11] (Independently Counted Stats)
[12] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted
[13] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted
[14] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted
[15] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted
[16] - DNP Coach's Decisions Discounted

Spoiler for Judging Cards:

Strong opening and a good definition for what it means to be the MVP. “The Warriors dominated on the offensive side of the ball with really only a few offensive players (Thompson, Lee) and many defensive specialists.” David Lee hardly got playing time and wasn’t exactly one of their few offensive players, I’d say Green was a lot more impactful on the offensive end with his ability to take advantage of larger power forwards with his small ball game as well as all the great passers on the Warriors.

The stats are nice and effective, although it would have been nice if you could have shown some videos or anything else in the “value” department after already writing a paragraph using stats to diversify your argument a bit as advanced statistics only show so much in basketball and certainly do not tell the entire story. The stats for the team with Curry on the court and him off of it were a nice touch though.

The “why not Lebron” parargraph is off base. Missing thirteen games isn’t exactly huge if you dominate otherwise and the fact the team was 1-9 without Lebron at one point and followed it with a huge winning streak when he returned showed his value to the team. I think you could have done better showing why Lebron didn’t deserve the MVP.

The Westbrook/Harden counter arguments were solid, but I think you could have done more for the Harden one as there is a HUGE argument that could be made that Harden carried a far greater load with all the injuries the Rockets had and yet you kind of just let that go by stating the stats/record should put him ahead when that doesn’t exactly take away from what Harden accomplished with a far weaker team(due to injuries).


Again I don’t really like the whole “he missed games therefore he can’t win” argument. It’s a bit silly, but you still did a good job of quickly eliminating Westbrook/Lebron to focus on the two main guys, which I think Aid should have done as well.
I think Aid did a good job of showing there was more than just a little bit between them in stats, considering Curry’s efficiency, so you might have touched on that a bit more than you did.

Although the stats about the missing starters from the Rockets are eye-poping, I think most would agree that Donatas Motiejunas had taken the job from Jones, regardless of when he came back, with his strong play throughout the season, but he too got injured eventually.

The clutch stats are nice, but incredibly misleading as the Warriors were rarely in those situations in the first place giving Curry a much smaller sample size than Harden and skewing his stats to be reflected based on a small portion of games.

There is also a large gap between them defensively, stats don’t tell this story and anyone with eyes knows Harden isn’t a good or decent defender. At best he can stop himself from being a liability on the floor as others make him for his deficiencies.

Decision: Although both were incredibly close in terms of quality, and both were indeed top notch debates, I’ll go with Seabs as he focused on Curry/Harden, while providing a good argument for Harden playing great all season with a lesser supporting cast as well as providing better counter arguments for all players listed in the question.

Good assortment of STATS~!. Did a good job explaining why Curry’s stats are comparable to Harden in some areas and better than Harden’s in other areas. To me this portion got a bit disorganized when you threw Lebron and Harden in at the end in the defense section as you hadn’t even mentioned them in the STATS~! Section prior. Your second paragraph was sound. Curry made the Warriors better, Curry had good metrics. Harden’s were good but not quite as good. Your points per possession stat was your best argument. The best player on the best team paragraph is sound and taps right into your points to hit. I will talk more on this in the next paragraph.

To me, this debate followed the NBA rhetoric that Most Valuable Player means best player on the best team. This notion is fine really as long as you support why this makes them most deserving but simply saying they should be NBA MVP because of the criteria the NBA seems to use doesn’t justify why YOU feel they are most deserving. I think you more or less just laid out the NBA’s criteria without really saying why this is the best criterion to use.

This debate started by eliminating Westbrook and Lebron and althought I think you did it better than Aid I don’t think you did it that well. Eliminating them at the start allows you to focus the rest of your debate (available words) on the 2 main candidates which is a strong approach. I think you did a great job on giving some context to their contributions. The teams each player was playing with. The injuries they each dealt with but you can’t rely on it completely. I would have liked to see you hit on the stats more. You did a good job countering some common gripes with Harden as well in his defense and whistle ball.

This one is close but I’m going to go with Seabs by a hair. I think eliminating Lebron and Westbrook at the start helped you here and although Harden is the “underdog” I think you did a great job explaining how Harden really stepped up his game this year, especially when they needed him the most (at clutch time, and when other starters were out of the line up). Aid, as a whole I would have liked to see more as to why you eliminated Lebron and Westbrook. Yes I agree that Harden and Curry are the leading candidates but simply saying they missed games and therefore aren’t eligible is a tad weak. I think there are better arguments to be made here. I think your entire debate lacked helpful context. Yes Curry had a great year on a great team but you didn’t really address any of the difficulties Harden had to face in having the season he had, mainly the missed games but also a much less impressive supporting cast even when the team is healthy. You only addressed this at the end and more or less just passed it over. You made some strong points but I would have liked to see a bit more on why Lebron and Westbrook shouldn’t be considered and why what Harden did with a weaker, often injured cast wasn’t as impressive as what Curry did with a much stronger cast.

This debate is definitely of high quality. Like the way you set out what the important factors of being the MVP are and the way how you have attacked these three points, puts me in a position where it’s making it incredibly hard for me to find faults in this debate at all.

You’ve clearly focused your debate on Curry vs Harden, which makes sense. So first of all I will clear the last few sections of your debate. Totally agree and have no problem with your reasoning for ruling out LeBron James and Russell Westbrook. James was hardly pulling the Cavs to anything special and Westbrook did not make the Play Offs. They don’t belong in the conversation for MVP.

Looking at your breakdown of the stats, the story seems pretty conclusive. Curry is clearly the more efficient player. It’s pretty easy to tell that Curry uses the ball far better, when it comes to shooting from within and outside and has more assists. What this also shows is that when Harden has the better stat, it is very tight; Curry is right behind him. But when Curry has the better stat, it’s a far bigger margin. I think when you study the position they both play, the stats Harden has a slight better in, are the ones where he should have due to position. However, one thing I do not think is fair is that you have said that the Warriors don’t have many offensive options, but the Rockets also aren’t stockpiled on that side either. I’d say Klay Thompson is a better sidekick offensively that anything Harden has. This may also mean that Harden is forced to take more shots as really, he is the only option? Just a thought. There’s also a stat that says Harden has created as many chances as Curry has. Unfortunately for Harden, his teammates aren’t putting the ball in the hoop as many times as Curry’s.

I think the stat that shows the drop off when Curry is off the court is incredible. This really signifies how important he is to the team. I mean there are some great teams that don’t show too much of a miss when their main guy is out, but clearly the Warriors struggle to do this. It really does put water over a fire of Curry being on the best team so he looks better. The team is clearly fantastic largely due to him.

I’m not a big fan of looking at the wins a team has to prove who has been the best. But when you’re the main reason for the majority of the wins it’s hard to look past it. The drop off from when he is absent shows he is easily the best player in the team that was easily the best in the NBA. I can’t find an argument to challenge this.

So finally we come to your why not Harden part. I actually think this paragraph actually works in Harden’s favour a little. You cite the injuries the Rockets have had this year and how he has had to carry them. This means that although Curry has been more efficient, a lot of Harden’s statistics may take a hit as he has probably had to force a lot of shots due to him being without key players a lot. He’s setting up players as much as Curry, but they’re not finishing. So he has to take it into his own hands. Rockets still managed a third best record in the NBA and that is largely due to Harden. He’s not had it as easy as Curry has, as you say, he’s had to battle many more nights than Curry has. Think you could have done better here to rule him out.

Overall, this debate is very, very good. I think you’ve made a strong case for why Curry deserved to be named MVP. But I don’t think your debate has done enough to completely rule out Harden. Still, after reading this, I would have given the award to Curry.

This is another top debate here. You’ve gone down a different route with your debate, not because you have decided to choose a different MVP, but in the way you have set out the parameters of this debate. You’ve tried to break down what being valuable actually means and whether there’s a difference between it and being the best player. It’s a great effort.

First of all, just like the last one I agree with how you have eliminated LeBron James and Russel Westbrook from the discussion. The fact that James’ Cavs were not showing any signs of greatness before the trades of Shumpert, Smith and Mozgov occurred is enough to rule him out of the equation. Westbrook not making the Play Offs would have been enough, but I like how you have compared him and Harden. Both guys have had to put up with key players missing, but James. Harden has come through this situation a lot better than Westbrook. While Westbrook shone well as an individual, being a MVP should mean you’ve had an effect on your teammates too or at least won enough games single handedly to make the Play Offs.

Now onto Stephen Curry vs Harden. It’s pretty incredible that the Rockets have been without some of their best players for over half the amount of the season – especially Dwight Howard who is their defensive anchor and their clear #2 option – and they have still managed a second place finish in the super tough Western Conference and a third overall finish. It shows that Harden has had to go hard nearly every night in order to achieve this. Curry has not had to deal with his situation. He’s had the luxury of being a part of a healthy team, which means the stability is there. He goes out and plays in the same surrounding each night. My only peeve is that when you mention that Rockets have missed 2 and 3 starters at times this season, you have not shown Harden’s stats. If those stats showed that he has been the main reason they have won those games, then that would have been 50% of your selection justified in only a few paragraphs.

The PER difference between each of their teammates is absolutely madness. The fact that 8 of GSW players are ahead of the third Rocket player who has played more than 50% of the season, shows just how much work Harden has really put in this season. It proves that he has without a doubt had to carry that team. Only thing is, while Curry’s teammates may better Harden’s, I think a big part of that is Curry. He definitely makes his team and teammates better. It’s hard to find statistics of it, but just by watching you can see how he makes room for his guys, finds the open guy and how the offense flows so much better. The drop off from when he is on and off the court is insane. While they’re not terrible without him, with him they’re nearly unstoppable. Also, GSW have lost the two games Curry had not taken part of. Rockets have lost the one game Harden has missed. The stat of Houston’s offensive rating without Harden does speak volumes of just how important he is to them actually playing well though. I guess the difference is without Curry, GSW drops from incredible to good. While Rockets without Harden drop from a top side to just not good.

I’m absolutely flabbergasted on how Harden completely trumps Curry down the clutch. His stats are ridiculously good here. This is the time of the game where the real deals are separated from the pretenders. And for Harden to be this far out on his own in the last two minutes when the score is tight is mad. I will say that I don’t think Curry has had to be in this situation much this season though, due to his team being out of sight most of the time when the fourth starts. And he’s a big part of that. But still, his stats for when he is in that position is what you have to judge him on and he’s been clearly beaten here.

Again, Harden creating the same amount of chances as Curry, but having less assists just shows how much harder he has to work due to his teammates not being as good. I guess it is tough to completely judge this stat though, because maybe Curry creates more clear chances that are easy for his teammates to score. Still, it shows Harden isn’t just a scorer.

Overall this debate has certainly given me a lot to think about. And that’s it due to being one of high quality. I like the idea of being the best doesn’t mean you’re the most valuable to your team. But maybe being the best makes you the most valuable to the league. Hard to decide what the award actually encompasses, but this was a brilliant effort.

Verdict: Can't describe how hard a decision this was. Definitely the hardest one I have had to make since I've started judging. I'm going to give this one to Seabs. Honestly, I came into this thinking that Curry was the correct MVP, but Seabs made really showed me how valuable Harden was to his team. It's made me believe that without him Rockets may have been where OKC are, while Curry was very important to GSW, it looks like they could cope better without him than the Rockets could with Harden. This isn't a slight on Aid, as it was top stuff as well, but Seabs takes it for me here.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Seabs

TDL Sports Division Special Attraction Match
Andre vs Baxter

Out of Diego Costa, Harry Kane & Sergio Aguero, which two players are most deserving of being the 2 strikers in the 2014/2015 Premier League Team of the Season?

Spoiler for Debates:

This topic emerged as a consequence of the ‘PFA premier league team of the season’, so Diego Costa’s a strong candidate, right?


It doesn’t mention 'PFA' anywhere in the question… therefore this is a completely hypothetical ‘TDL team of the season’. In a tight call between three strikers for two team places, the differences needed to separate them should be their number of goals and assists, level of responsibility taken, importance to team results, team work, discipline, sportsmanship and individual skill. By excelling in those categories, a place is earned. Therefore the CORRECT picks are Sergio Aguero and Harry Kane.

As TDL is supposed to be credible, any credible team of the season should be based over roughly a whole season, unlike the ridiculous two thirds of a season PFA awards which laughably honoured Cahill and Coutinho. So I’m going to work around the 36 games Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham have played so far:

Costa’s ruled out for the season’s remainder, his stats aren’t improving. He’s played a glorified half season, unlike Aguero and Kane, who have both outscored and out assisted Costa, while also making big impacts coming off the bench, unlike Costa. Hypotheticals can be made based on averages for what might have happened if Costa stayed fit and suspension free, but these awards shouldn’t be based on a long-term injured player’s hypotheticals; otherwise Giroud should be involved. He’s not, so let’s forget ‘what if Costa played more games’ and further analyse the stats:

Even Tim Sherwood would admire Aguero’s ratios. Pedantic naysayers will point to the penalties scored by Aguero (5) and Kane (2), but this actually works in their favour, as it’s a big responsibility, a quality that’s crucial to the credibility of this award. If penalties were easy there would be less bums twitching during shootouts, while THE GOAT (greatest of all time, for Seabs) Messi wouldn’t have such an ordinary penalty record. That’s not suggesting Costa can’t score penalties, but he hasn’t had that responsibility. Hypothetically he could have, but that doesn’t matter.

Addressing the elephant in the room (not washed by Adebayor’s father), Kane has the worst goals to minutes ratio. However, that ignores how he plays in by far the worst team, with overall far less talented creative midfielders. In fact, he has carried the mediocre Spurs on his hunchback. This is the point where young Harold begins to shine:

Despite most goals and assists being important, some are obviously more equal than others. While Aguero’s modest tally and ratio are better than Costa’s scores, Harry absolutely canes the pair of them. Without his goals and assists, Spurs would be in the relegation zone:

It’s a testament to Kane’s performances that such an ordinary Spurs side were top four contenders for so long. He hasn’t just been a flat track bully either, with 6 of those points being earned through stunning solo performances against Chelsea (2 goals, 1 assist) and Arsenal (2 goals). He’s also had the constant pressure of knowing without his goals, Spurs are unlikely to win due to their horrendous defence, which is the equal fourth worst in the league, having conceded 53 goals. This level of responsibility for a young player in his breakthrough season, where he had to force his way into the team to make such a difference, suggests being deserving of a place in the team of the season.

While Aguero and Costa haven’t quite reached those heights, they’ve been important to their teams. However, Sergio has made a bigger difference than Diego. Without Kun’s goals and assists, Manchester City would be struggling to make the Champions League:

Without Costa’s goals and assists, Chelsea would be level on points with Man City, second on goal difference. While this obviously wouldn’t be good for Chelsea, it shows how much more Aguero and Kane have carried their teams, because Chelsea would still have a great chance of winning the title, while Spurs and City would be in deep shit QPR:

The other major factor is Chelsea’s form without Costa (including the eleven minutes against Stoke where Costa had zero impact). This is slightly better than with him, despite 6 of the 13 games without being against top 6 sides. I’m not suggesting Chelsea would have definitely won the title without Diego, but it shows that they’ve coped well without him for long spells:

A lazy argument for Costa is that he has been important to Chelsea’s high pressing system, but this ignores the superior work that has been put in by Aguero and Kane:

In fact, this is where Costa falls further behind. The edge to his game is achieved by aggression, which quite frankly is an unfair advantage given that he fouls frequently and receives so many bookings. From a sportsmanship perspective, Costa definitely doesn’t deserve to be picked ahead of Aguero and Kane, who have both managed to excel through sheer bloody team work:

On the subject of hacking, Eden Hazard knows how to draw a foul. Costa has benefitted greatly from playing in the same team as arguably the premier league’s best player, meaning his comparative lack of guile on the ball hasn’t been exposed. Through world class dribbling skills and often being double marked, Hazard has created great space for Costa to operate in when he takes and creates his chances, space which hasn’t been afforded to Aguero and Kane by teammates:

Conversely, for their teams, Aguero and Kane are paid the most attention by opposition players with double marking due to their ball skills, which makes their feats even more impressive:

Costa has clearly had a great ‘season’, if you can call it that, but he’s consistently been outstripped by Aguero and Kane in the vital areas which should decide a supposedly credible award. Thankfully this isn’t restricted by nonsensical PFA scheduling; therefore the evidence clearly weighs in the favour of Aguero and Kane.

Spoiler for References:

Brightly coloured stats comparisons available through the Squawka comparison matrix (all based on per 90 minute metrics):

Stats based on minutes played by Aguero, Kane and Costa, researched from:

Stats based on goals and assists in each game by Aguero, Kane and Costa, researched from ESPN:

Chelsea points without Costa, researched from Whoscored:
Palace +3 Man United +1 Spurs +3 Man City +1 Villa +3 Everton +3 Stoke +3 QPR +3 Man United +3 Arsenal +1 Leicester +3 Palace +3 Liverpool +1

For PROOF that Costa did sod all at home against Stoke apart from get injured:

Messi's crap penalty record (sponsored by Henry Hill):

Prem games where Aguero came off the bench to make a big difference:

Prem games where Kane came off the bench to make a big difference:


Out of Diego Costa, Harry Kane & Sergio Aguero, which two players are most deserving of being the 2 strikers in the 2014/2015 Premier League Team of the Season?

The players who make the Premier League Team of the Year should be the players who have put in the best individual performances AND contributed most to the overall success of their team over the course of a season, and that is why Harry Kane and Sergio Aguero are the 2 players most deserving of a place in the Premier League Team of the Year.


Generally speaking the best place to start when comparing three strikers’ performances is by looking at statistics relating to their goals:

Spoiler for STATS:

If there’s one thing you can conclude about the rate at which these 3 score, it’s that no conclusion can be drawn; Aguero only marginally leads Costa with Kane not far behind (who is somewhat hindered by the fact his team creates far less chances than Aguero’s and Costa’s do). This means that you have to delve deeper into the numbers to get an idea of who’s been performing the best, and this is where Aguero and Kane start to show their edge over Costa.

Chance conversion?

One of the biggest arguments in favour of Costa’s stats is his chance conversion rate (as of March this figure was at 26% in comparison to figures of 21% and 18% for Kane and Aguero respectively) and his general shooting accuracy (63% shot accuracy in comparison to Kane an Aguero’s numbers of 59% and 55%), but these numbers are skewed heavily by the type of goalscoring chances he gets and the shots he takes: for instance Harry Kane shoots almost FOUR TIMES as much as Costa does from outside the area (Aguero does this about 2.5 times as much) such to the extent that Diego Costa is yet to register a goal this season from outside the 18-yard box. Aguero and Kane’s proficiency from all over the pitch completely negate any stats regarding Costa’s “accuracy”.

The Penalty Fallacy

The notion that Kane and Aguero get to ‘boost’ their stats because they take penalties is just completely nonsensical. Yes, a penalty is a goal scoring opportunity but one that still takes skill to convert (25% of penalties have been missed this season) and there is no reason why it shouldn’t couldn’t as a ‘legitimate’ goal.

You also have to take into account the quality of the players that these 3 guys have been playing alongside; naturally as Harry Kane plays alongside inferior players, he isn’t going to be receiving as many goal scoring opportunities as Aguero and Costa (Spurs have created just 384 chances this season in comparison to Chelsea and Manchester City’s totals of 436 and 502 respectively). This obviously scores him points in any “Team of the Year” debate as he has to do more work himself.


In spite of fairly similar stats individually, Kane and Aguero both have Costa dominated when it comes to their worth to their respective teams this season.

It’s one thing smashing goals past poor teams, but it’s another thing scoring in the important, high pressure, 6-pointers against your main competition that very often can make or break a season, and this is one area where Aguero really shows his worth:

FORTY PERCENT of Aguero’s goals this season have come against the top 7 sides. Even if you ignore his single-handed 4 goal demolition job of Spurs he STILL has a better strike rate than both Costa and Kane in the big matches. Costa and Kane have a virtually identical record against the big teams, but there is however a clear advantage to Kane when it comes to looking at whose goals has had the most impact upon their overall team:

Harry Kane has won about 2.5 times as many points for Spurs as Diego Costa has for Chelsea, and about 1.5 times as many as Sergio Aguero has for Manchester City. It’s also worth noting Aguero’s superior stats in comparison to Costa, who has scored a higher % of his team’s goals and has also won his team about 5 more points this season, which only strengthens his case to contributing more to his team than Costa.

However, the one big thing that sets both Kane and Aguero apart from Costa is the impact their goals have had upon their respective teams league placing; without Costa’s goals, Chelsea would still be leading the Premier League, but without Aguero’s goals Manchester City would be in 5th place (a difference of three places), and Spurs would be in 13th place (a difference of SEVEN places).

But it’s not just all about the goals, strikers contribute in other areas too
Which is a correct statement, but unfortunately for Diego Costa not one that strengthens his case for a Team of the Year spot.

Spoiler for STATS:

Just a snapshot of some of Diego Costa’s other stats this season; he makes less assists than the other two, gives away more fouls, doesn’t win his tackles or duels, doesn’t do great defensively; there’s very very little on this front that he’s actually beating Kane and Aguero at.

Costa’s 2014/15 disciplinary record has also been an issue that sets him back in this debate; he’s picked up twice as many yellow cards as Aguero and Kane have for a whole assortment of reasons, and even had to serve a 3 match ban for stamp on Emre Can. The fact he’s put his team mates under pressure by missing games unnecessarily doesn’t help his bid for a Team of the Year spot.

There can be no doubt at all: Harry Kane and Sergio Aguero have contributed far more to the success of their teams this season than Diego Costa has to his.

All 3 players have had an excellent season and all of them have a genuine claim for a place in the Team of the Year, but taking all aspects of their performance over the course of a season (both individually and as part of their team) Harry Kane and Sergio Aguero just have the edge over Diego Costa.

Spoiler for Sources:
Stats compiled using and
Conversion rates:
25% of Pens being missed:
Costa getting himself in shit:

Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I feel like I’ve been raped by STATS. But this is a near faultless debate. One I can’t really find much to argue about. If I’m going to nit-pick, I’d say the beginning part where you say Diego Costa isn’t a strong candidate is a bit harsh. Judging purely on stats you would have to give the nod to the Sergio Aguero and Harry Kane. But I don’t agree that Costa is far away from the Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur strikers in question for him not to be a ‘strong’ candidate.

Also, I’m not judging your bit you mention on this, but Costa is important to the Chelsea high press, as the high press has more or less be abandon since his absence. I don’t think the fact that his interception or tackles aren’t as high as the other two should come into the equation. As he won’t get a statistic for when he forces the defender to boot the ball away under pressure and thus the midfield or defence recovers the ball.

My last thing against the debate (well not really the debate, but the process) is that I get that you have to show evidence for the information that you provide, so that is why stats is the most important commodity in this. But sometimes you cannot tell how a player influences his team due to stats. Stats won’t show how someone creates space for other players, how his warrior nature gives the team a bit of a bounce and so on. But alas, that’s maybe just the Chelsea in me seeing the Costa effect. It’s not a slight on your debate at all though.

Onto the good things, which is more or less everything of this debate. I love the way you have broken everything down here and just attacked them with evidence and a lot of sense. I mean, there’s no point of me commenting on each paragraph, just to say I agree with the way you have displayed it and come to your conclusion. The stats clearly show that Costa is behind Kane and Aguero. You have shown that they both trump him on goals and assists. And I totally agree with you that penalties shouldn’t be scoffed at. You still have to beat the keeper and put the ball into the back of the net.

I thought it was a great idea not only to break down how many points each of the competitors goals and assists are worth, but I also thought it was a great idea to show where the teams would be without those points. It clearly shows the importance of Aguero and Kane to their team. However, I also think that while Costa’s goals and assists may not have been as important as the other two, I think a big reason for that is because Chelsea is a far more balanced team. It’s hard to slight Costa for this. I would love to see a stat of how many times he has got the first goal in the game, but then Chelsea went and won by a big margin so it doesn’t seem so important anymore, but in reality it is, as breaking the deadlock is a big psychological boost for the rest of the game.

The stat about Chelsea with him and without him is interesting. Again, I think the fact that Chelsea have a more balanced team and a better manager is hurting Costa, but the facts are facts. Chelsea have shown no effect point wise without Costa. However, I’m pretty sure that the amount of goals per minute must have decreased, as in the last weeks when he has been absent, Chelsea have been brilliant at getting the one goal and then closing up shop.

I think you’re right when highlighting with playing with Hazard has made it easier for Costa. Virtually every week Hazard is being double teamed and thus that gives more space to the rest of the team to make an impact. You’ve also shown that Aguero and Kane are the guys who are the guys on their teams who are being double team, which definitely shows just how brilliant they have been.

There’s not much else for me to add. This is a fantastic debate. And without a doubt, I am convinced from this debate that Aguero and Kane deserve to be the two strikers in the team.

This debate was a solid effort in my opinion. Again, it is heavily backed up by statistics, which this debate was going to be all about anyway.

First of all on the chance conversion and shot accuracy rates – I don’t agree much with you here. You’re slighting a striker for taking shots in the box. The reason why Costa doesn’t take many shots outside the box is because his movement is to get into the positions in the box to fire his shot away. He doesn’t really carry the ball and advance as Aguero or Kane would do. I don’t think it’s neither fair nor right to say his stat cannot count as he takes most shots in the box. What next? His goals inside the box only count as half?

I agree there should be no reason why penalties should be seen as a booster. The player still has to score, so a goal is a goal. It’s not like Chelsea get any penalties anyway, so Costa would never get a chance, lol.

I like your breakdown of the goals that have come against the top 7 teams. Scoring in the big games is what makes a striker elite and Aguero’s stats shows he outguns his competition here. Those stats are just crazy good. The stats show that Costa and Kane are quite close together here in this rank. Although, I think it’s worth noting that while Kane has 5 goals in 8 of those games, 4 of those goals were part of 2 braces. So he’s gone blank in 5 of those 8 games. Costa’s are all single goals for he’s scored in 4 of the 6 games he’s played.

There’s nothing to fault in the statistics that show that Kane has won far more points for his team than both Costa and Aguero. And that Both Kane and Aguero’s contribution to their team outweighs Costa’s. I do find this a bit harsh in a way. I mean, it’s not Costa’s fault that his team is far more balanced than the Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur team, but it is what it is. Those are the facts and it’s hard to argue against them, even if this isn’t a slight on Costa. One thing that isn’t harsh though is the assist stats. Costa has not contributed enough in this department here and the other two easily out trump him here.

I won’t spend too much time on the disciplinary part, as so many times this season, Costa has been unfairly threatened because of his reputation. Sure he loves a confrontation, but the opponents know this and sometimes will instigate the situation and then he gets booked and they get let off. He does need to tone it down a bit for sure and Aguero and Kane are far cleaner than him, but what is said about him is overdramatic.

Overall I think it’s a good effort. I think you have done well to back up your selections here. You’ve used your research really well and once again, I can’t help but agree that Aguero and Kane deserve their spots. Some things in it I didn’t agree with, but not to the extent where I think it breaks the point.

Verdict: Baxter's was a very good debate, but Andre wins this one. Both debates go the same route to arrive at their destination, but Andre just had a bit more substance to it. It had less things that I disagreed with as well, so all in all it was the obvious choice for me. Good match up though.

BkB Hulk
Look, I’m going to keep this simple because you know you’ve done a good job, and you’ve also shaded your opponent by going the bit further. The arguments were near identical in places, and you’ve used most of the same stats, but you’ve gone further in explaining the stats and using a few more. That’s why you win.

The better points you picked up on are discipline (although the sportsmanship guff wasn’t really aiding your argument for me), points gained, defensive contribution, and importantly the highlighting the stats of those around Costa in particular.

I think smarter use of the words to fit all of this in and also illustrate it means you clearly win.

This would beat almost anyone. If you read the respective debates though, you’ll see that your opponent has used all of your points and also added a few more on top of it. While this is a good debate, it’s simply been outdone by someone else. A bit of a shame, because what you did was good.

One thing I will say you could have done without was showing Costa’s superior shot accuracy. Everything else was well done. Not enough to win, but enough for an impressive showing.

Winner: Andre

First off thank you to both of you for producing great debates that I don't need to pick apart and wrap this judging up quickly by getting straight to the difference makers in the outcome. Both debates pretty much take the same approach as well as the same stance making them very similar but Andre edged out in front with that slightly deeper level to his analysis. You both have a couple of points that the other doesn't really cover (at least not in the same depth) but they pretty much cancel each other out quantity wise. Baxter goes to shot distance and discipline more whereas Andre goes to consistency and midfield supply more. No difference maker there. Where the difference for me comes is Andre's focus on the assists which Baxter doesn't pay the same level of attention to. Factoring assists into where each team would be without each player's contribution was big, especially with the effect it made on the argument for Kane. Baxter had a bit more here regarding goals against the big teams but Andre also did enough to cover it somewhat whereas Baxter didn't factor assists into team value at all. I was all ready to disregard Andre's tables for not factoring in points effect for the other teams too until I saw that he did. Taking credit for both of you drawing inspiration for the team value minus a players contribution . Generally speaking I did prefer Andre's analysis and the general flow of his debate but as far as significant difference makers that was the main one. Great debate from Baxter though that was very almost on par with Andre's but still very worthy of a Champion's debate even if this does end in a unanimous decision.

Winner - Andre

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Andre

TDL Social Division Title Match
Anark vs Magic

On The 100, which character relationship is the best; Clarke & Bellamy or Bellamy & Octavia?

Spoiler for Debates:

The best relationship on the 100 would be the one that is most captivating, impactful, and unpredictable. The Clarke/Bellamy relationship nails all three things on the head and is very much the relationship that drives the show as well as their “people”. Octavia/Bellamy, while special, is a relationship that is very much limited to those two in particular. While Clarke/Bellamy’s relationship evolves and grows as the show goes on, the two siblings have always been close and simply grow closer as the show proceeds.

What makes Clarke/Bellamy so captivating and interesting? Well for starters the two of them were quickly made into the two leaders of the 100 and are very much in control of whatever significant decisions need to be made. The fact the two typically have two very opposite ways of approaching things, as well as different motives, also make their relationship that much more compelling. The first example of this is when Bellamy uses food to convince a large majority of the kids to remove their wristbands; this angered Clarke as not only was he bribing others with food that she thought should be shared with everyone, but she wanted to notify the Ark that Earth was safe and inhabitable. This caused a massive amount tension between the two for a while and only became worse after Bellamy’s actions caused a bunch of people on the Ark to die. While Clarke’s and Bellamy’s relationship affected the entire group and their fate, the relationship between Octavia/Bellamy was, again, limited to one another and nothing they ever did really seemed to affect the group’s well-being.

The impact Clarke/Bellamy had on the group is unquestionable, but the two had a massive impact on one another as well as they worked together to grow as leaders. The constant power struggle between Bellamy/Clarke over what the group should do was the main focus of the first season and what caused them to be at each other’s throats, but their relationship eventually grew and they developed a mutual respect for one another. This can be seen after Charlotte’s suicide as Clarke convinces Bellamy not to hang Murphy and instead have him exiled; this was the first instance of Bellamy backing down to Clarke, something that seemed impossible at the beginning of the show. The mutual respect is again shown when Bellamy gets Clarke’s approval before torturing Lincoln as he is never shown asking anyone else whether or not something should be done, including Octavia who attempted to stop Bellamy from torturing Lincoln. They still had conflicts over decisions such as when Clarke convinced the other kids to leave the camp and not go to war with the grounders, while Bellamy was trying to convince everyone to fight and hold their ground. This again was a massive decision for the group that was being decided by the two of them. The biggest thing that happened in Octavia/Bellamy’s relationship in season 1 was Bellamy allowing Octavia to leave with Lincoln in order to treat her wound. This was growth on Bellamy’s part as he had never once trusted Octavia venture out on her; however, this was a minor transformation compared to the one he had as a leader alongside Clarke. Their personalities clashed heavily at the beginning, but as they led next to one another you could see more of their individual traits and qualities rub off on one another. Again, Clarke allowing Lincoln to be tortured is something we would have never expected from her at the beginning, and yet due to Bellamy’s influence she relented as it helped one of her own people. Bellamy also becomes a more caring and sympathetic figure.

Lastly their relationship is unpredictable; something that two siblings that love each other could never be. What makes Octavia and Bellamy’s relationship so endearing is that they’re willing to give up or do anything for one another throughout the series. Whenever she’s in trouble he will literally drop everything in order to help her, which is why Clarke kept information about the bombing from Bellamy, simply so he could focus on the mission. Clarke is not always thinking about what’s best for Bellamy, she attempts to put her PEOPLE above all else. Like her brother, Octavia was willing to give up her spot as a second, as well as her relationship with the grounders, to help her brother who was still stuck in Mount Weather. This initially seemed true for Clarke as well as she was first unwilling to let Bellamy go into Mount Weather alone, suggesting that she needed him and couldn’t lose him, but after some thought she told him to go in and risk his own life in order to help their people. This appeared to hurt Bellamy, but it also showed the sharp contrast in his relationship with Clarke compared to Octavia: Clarke wasn’t willing to put Bellamy’s life above everyone else’s. You could argue this was due to the commander’s influence on Clarke, except she made a similar decision at the end of season 1 when she closed the door on Bellamy while he was still outside. Again this is what makes their relationship so great and unique, they’re extremely close to one another, but have shown to not let their feelings get in the way of their roles as the leaders of the group. Bellamy/Octavia, on the other hand, will ALWAYS do whatever it takes to help one another out and stay by each other’s side. Bellamy even helped Clarke push the lever to kill the people in Mount Weather after he saw that his sister was in danger. Afterwards we see Bellamy have no regrets, while Clarke was visibly shaken by what they did, because Bellamy was able to justify the action as he NEEDED to protect Octavia.

Bellamy/Octavia, while great, is nothing compared to the relationship that Bellamy/Clarke share. They’re the leaders, they make the crucial decisions for the group, and they’re the driving force of the entire show and the group.


You might argue the answer to this question is subjective, but I wouldn’t because I’ve examined the criterion determining the worth of television relationships and the answer is clearly Clarke and Bellamy. Criteria such as the relationship’s relevance to the show’s plot, the dynamic of the characters involved and the chemistry between the actors portraying them. Criteria such as the development of the relationship throughout the seasons, and finally the impact said relationship has on the characters themselves. All of these elements contrive to determine the worth of a television relationship, and all of them favour Bellamy and Clarke.


Octavia’s character develops in spite of her relationship with her brother, not because of it. Their relationship only serves as an occasional episode-specific plot device and has no series-long arc. One of the pair will get in some kind of trouble and the other will be angry or worried about it. There’ll be a rescue attempt or a squabble and that’s that.

Clarke and Bellamy on the other hand drive the main story arc of the entire series. Their relationship symbolises the initial fracturing of the group as they struggle to survive on the ground, then in later episodes represents the group’s coming together to survive despite their differences. Eventually, their relationship embodies the absolute togetherness the group achieves through their trials and tribulations.

Bellamy and Octavia’s relationship offers some episode-specific excitement, but Clarke and Bellamy’s relationship is the entire show in microcosm.


Octavia and Bellamy are siblings who love each other, and that’s it. Their back-story is interesting but fleetingly relevant. Their adventures rarely involve each other and in terms of on-screen chemistry, the actors just don’t have much to work with.

“Don’t do that.”
“I’m doing it.”
“Don’t do it.”
“I did it.”
“I’m sorry.”
“I’m sorry as well.”
“I love you.”
“I love you as well.”
“I’m glad you’re not dead.”
“Me too.”

Rinse and repeat.

But Clarke and Bellamy’s dynamic is engrossing because it’s not already defined by prior events. It’s unpredictable. At first they’re two Alphas butting heads, but then they’re Tango and Cash in the jungle with tits. Then they’re friends, ahhhh. And then, hello. Bellarke anyone? But then oh my god what the fuck just happened.

Their relationship is an open-top bus tour of holy shit moments. It’s the rollercoaster to Octavia and Bellamy’s bumper cars.

Bob Morley and Eliza Taylor cleverly used each other to establish their own characters as the Alphas of the group but with very different outlooks and intentions. Their early antagonism afforded the show an underlying danger; a threat that it could all kick-off at any second. And what’s especially interesting when looking back at the early episodes is that Taylor and Morley both show exquisite skill in portraying their characters’ obvious disdain for each other while surreptitiously planting the seeds of mutual respect that would flower later in the show. The progression of their relationship dynamic is intriguingly organic.

As early as the second episode, Earth Skills, Clarke recognises Bellamy’s usefulness, despite their dispute over the wristbands, exhorting him to help save Jasper. When Clarke later falls into the pit-trap, Bellamy instinctively grabs her arm before realising he could let go and end their wristband dispute right there. He considers it for a moment, but chooses to save her. However, that moment of thinking about it did not go unnoticed by Clarke. Their simmering silence and lingering eye contact in the aftermath of Jasper’s rescue remains a testament to both actors’ chemistry.

Octavia and Bellamy’s relationship simply has nothing close to this sort of character dynamic.


Clarke and Bellamy’s relationship undergoes a tumultuous evolution while Octavia and Bellamy’s relationship doesn’t actually change all that much. In the pilot, Bellamy and Octavia’s relationship consists of independence-seeking sister and over-protective brother. By the end of Season 2, their relationship consists of independence-seeking sister and slightly less over-protective brother.

Compare that with Clarke and Bellamy’s relationship which begins with them as antagonistic rivals, but by mid-season develops into an unlikely but necessary partnership as Clarke permits Bellamy to torture Lincoln in order to save Finn in Contents Under Pressure. As I’ll explain more about below, this uneasy partnership continued to evolve, ultimately flowering into genuine affection and friendship.


Lincoln and Indra develop Octavia’s character, not Bellamy. We only get glimpses of Bellamy’s influence on her in flashbacks during His Sister’s Keeper. In turn, Octavia has little influence on Bellamy, with his softening in attitude toward her more to do with Clarke’s influence via her trust in him as her partner in leadership.

Clarke’s predominant characteristic, her sense of responsibility, rubs-off on Bellamy, as his ruthless streak rubs-off on Clarke (ably exhibited when she puts a knife in Finn’s belly). Slowly but surely they draw ever closer until they are almost symbiotic, no longer opposed but unified in both intention and action. This coming together of their souls is given the ultimate on-screen representation when Clarke tentatively lays her hand on the lever that will massacre all the Mount Weather people. When Bellamy places his hand on hers to save her from committing genocide all by herself, it immediately becomes the most poignant moment of the entire show.

The emotional weight of this moment was massively multiplied because of the long, winding journey that Bellamy and Clarke’s relationship had previously undertaken. That emotional weight was their baggage. That scene, arguably the most important in the entire series so far, simply wouldn’t have worked with any other combination of characters.

When you consider their relationship’s relevance to the show’s themes, sub-plots and main story arc, and that their relationship produced many of the show’s most memorable moments, alongside the fact that Bellamy and Clarke together consist of one of the most interesting character dynamics and exciting relationship evolutions in recent television memory, it’s clear that this question isn’t and never was subjective. Clarke and Bellamy had by far and away the best character relationship on The 100.

Hidden Block (you must be registered and have 500000 posts):
You do not have sufficient rights to see the hidden data contained here.

Winner via ??? Decision - Anark

Last edited by Magic; 05-28-2015 at 11:42 AM.
Seabs is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 06:54 AM Thread Starter
Seabs's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ----->
Posts: 29,887
Points: 8,282

You know the drill with the hide tags now. Waiting on JM and CGS to send in and then I'll edit in their Judging and remove the hide tags hopefully today. Judging on The 100 debate may take a little longer but Anark and Magic both know and have the Judging.

SUPER happy to get the win in that one. Probably the happiest I've been with a win given it's over Aid in an NBA topic without dropping a vote. Got a vote from JM too! Probably the most time I've put into a debate too. Glad Aid took the Curry stance as well to make it a great read.

Top 3 debates were all great contests imo. Baxter's debate was great and would have beaten just about anyone else quite easily.

Oh and OXITRON pulling out the upset!
VIPER likes this.

Seabs is offline  
post #3 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 07:46 AM
Anark's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,812
Points: 1,070

Anark is offline  
post #4 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 07:49 AM
The New Face Of Fear
Poyser's Avatar
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 507
Points: 1,048

Originally Posted by Seabs View Post
You know the drill with the hide tags now. Waiting on JM and CGS to send in and then I'll edit in their Judging and remove the hide tags hopefully today. Judging on The 100 debate may take a little longer but Anark and Magic both know and have the Judging.

SUPER happy to get the win in that one. Probably the happiest I've been with a win given it's over Aid in an NBA topic without dropping a vote. Got a vote from JM too! Probably the most time I've put into a debate too. Glad Aid took the Curry stance as well to make it a great read.

Top 3 debates were all great contests imo. Baxter's debate was great and would have beaten just about anyone else quite easily.

Oh and OXITRON pulling out the upset!
I'm not sure I'd call it an upset
Clearly I'm gonna have to try something different next time.

Road To Wrestlemania 32:

[ ] Flights
[ ] Hotel
[ ] Visa/ESTA
[ ] Wrestlemania Tickets
[ ] RAW Tickets
[ ] HOF Tickets
[ ] AXXESS Tickets
[ ] NXT Tickets

312 days and counting!

@PrincessPoyPoy. Will always follow back!

Last edited by Poyser; 05-27-2015 at 08:05 AM.
Poyser is offline  
post #5 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 08:21 AM
donne's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: on the lone road
Posts: 689
Points: 1,388

I am completely shocked I pulled out the win. I would like to do a couple of things, first thank the hardworking folks at wrestling forum for judging each debate we all appreciate it. Second I would like to apologise for my terrible formatting and inconsistent grammar, I have no excuses. And to the poor souls who had to read it and make sense of my rambling I'm truly sorry.

I promise if I'm given the chance to take part in another debate, I will thoroughly read it several times and make sure any lazy or nonsensical statements or mistakes are deleted.

Once again thank you for letting me join the TDL and be apart of a card.
Bearodactyl likes this.

"I'm the man who started a fight with John Cena, but I'm also the man who just finished that fight! And now that I've beaten John Cena, John, I have some veteran advice—It's time for you to go because your time is way up, but my time is now because THE CHAMP IS HERE!"
donne is online now  
post #6 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 08:29 AM
JM's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Fairly close to Zombo
Posts: 28,337
Points: 2,541

Originally Posted by Seabs View Post
Got a vote from JM too!
I guess we can count this as your first legitimate win



Maple Leafs - Raptors - Steelers - Blue Jays - Florida State
JM is offline  
post #7 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 08:38 AM
We're all United aren't we?
Baxter's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 1,032
Points: 261

disappointed to lose my first singles sports debate since TDL 21 but there's no shame at all in losing to an in-form Andre. reading the judging I'm glad I at least put up a fight and gave him a run for his money, can't do much more than that because as so many people have found out he's literally unbeatable when he's in that sort of mood.

@Seabs The turnaround on this card taking longer than usual means I'm OK to judge on the next card btw (but not debate).

edit: having read through the card and all the judging going to pull a first and have a minor gripe:

Originally Posted by Joel's judging
First of all on the chance conversion and shot accuracy rates – I don’t agree much with you here. You’re slighting a striker for taking shots in the box. The reason why Costa doesn’t take many shots outside the box is because his movement is to get into the positions in the box to fire his shot away. He doesn’t really carry the ball and advance as Aguero or Kane would do. I don’t think it’s neither fair nor right to say his stat cannot count as he takes most shots in the box. What next? His goals inside the box only count as half?
I feel you've slightly misinterpreted this bit of my debate, I wasn't really slighting him for not shooting outside the area but more making a counter argument and pointing out that his conversion/accuracy stats are going to be slightly skewed due to the type of chances he gets presented with and don't represent the whole picture. If Andre had argued for Costa and said something like "Diego Costa has a far superior conversion to Kane and Aguero, with a figure of 63% compared to 59% and 55%" and left it at that then yeah in isolation that looks great but in reality it's completely meaningless without some context; such as a mention of the type of chances that all 3 of the players have been getting. I'm not saying Costa's statistic shouldn't count, more that's it's just a pretty redundant factor when weighing up the performance of all 3 if you don't put it in a bit of context; and when you do it doesn't look anywhere near as impressive.

Not a huge issue and obviously wouldn't have changed anything results wise, just a point i wanted to refute.
Andre likes this.

Last edited by Baxter; 05-27-2015 at 10:43 AM.
Baxter is online now  
post #8 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 09:05 AM
Andre's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,104
Points: 782

@Baxter Your debate was class. Don't think there was any way I was going to lose that one though, sometimes the planets and stars align and you produce something very special. That's the only reason you lost, not because you're not good enough. That standard would have definitely beat a lot of my 2013 sports debates in terms of quality, so when you consider how much longer I've been doing this, you shouldn't feel any shame at all.

Just understand that you have to restore pride to that sports title by continuing to produce debates of that calibre, whilst steadily improving if possible. Hopefully Aid rediscovers his consistency and some of the newer guys step up to provide serious competition for you.

Similar can be said to Magic. Not much wrong with his debate, but Anark managed to squeeze out that little extra bit, like
Spoiler for don't look if you haven't watched season 2 of the 100:
a Mount Weather nazi extracting bone marrow
. On that note, sports could really do with Magic imo.
Andre is offline  
post #9 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 09:10 AM
Andre's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,104
Points: 782


Bet instead of congratulating me on this win and Norwich going up, his first comment will be about half and half scarves at Wembley

I gave a few disgusted looks to some Boro fans with them on in the services on the M1 back to Leicester while thinking of you. Please log in and say hello
Andre is offline  
post #10 of 85 (permalink) Old 05-27-2015, 09:12 AM
Black Mamba
Magic's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Playing catch with my neighbour, JM
Posts: 7,122
Points: 192

I don't know anything about Andre and Baxter's topic, but I clicked on them just to see what form Andre was in. Holy balls, BOTH of you guys looked crazy impressive.

I didn't click on Anark / Magic either, because if I ever do watch that show, I didn't want it to be spoiled. I trust it was great though.

Some fun matches on the undercard that I quickly perused through. Just realized obby is in the "rising star" tournament despite having been in TDL since the first show

donne with an impressive victory, and Oxi with a big unanimous W as well. Good to see TDL in tremendous shape.

Seabs burying Aid despite Aid already being dead. RIP Aid.
Baxter and donne like this.

Magic is online now  

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome