Wrestling Forum banner

TDL XXXIII: ANDRE VS MAC III - THE CARD

8K views 120 replies 33 participants last post by  SPCDRI 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
TDL XXXIII: ANDRE VS MAC III


A Bulk Lucas Neill offside trap era vintage...

TDL Wrestling Division Special Attraction Match Match
Andre vs DDMac

Assuming WCW had competent booking, and the Time Warner Sale/Merger never happened, would WCW have defeated the WWF in the Monday Night Wars?

PM Debates to [user]Anark[/user]

TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Eliminator Round #2
Rugrat vs CGS vs Jupiter Jack Daniels vs sharkboy22

If Raw is directly against tougher than usual competition for live viewership, should WWE book a stronger than usual Raw?

PM Debates to [user]Magic[/user]

TDL Wrestling Division Rising Star Tournament Semi-Final
MichaelDD vs Curry vs donne vs Codename Bags

Who was the bigger missed opportunity in WWE, MVP or Carlito?

PM Debates to [user]Baxter[/user]

TDL Wrestling Division Rising Star Tournament Semi-Final
OXITRON vs Mr. Socko vs Genking48 vs 3MB4Life

In hindsight, was putting the title on Brock Lesnar a mistake?

PM Debates to [user]Anark[/user]

JM vs Abreu Bomb Alert System vs Perfect Poster
Is Steph Curry currently the best 3 point shooter active in the NBA?

PM Debates to [user]Rigby2[/user]

Bearodactyl vs M-Diggedy
Should Arnold continue to play The Terminator into his late 60s and early 70s or retire from the franchise to allow a younger actor to take over the role of the T-100?

PM Debates to [user]Seabs[/user]

Magic vs VIPER
Currently, you do not have to be a U.S. citizen to be in the U.S. military. Should non-citizens of a country be permitted to serve in a country's military?

PM Debates to [user]Headliner[/user]

BkB Hulk vs TAR vs Marty
Is Steven Gerrard an underachiever?

PM Debates to [user]Andre[/user]

The Arch of Mia Malkova vs Reptar vs RAB
Would a country's lack of a military (and therefore military expenses) be more dangerous than beneficial?

PM Debates to [user]Andre[/user]

  • Deadline for all debates is June 6th. Basically June 6th at ANY TIME BUT NO LATER THAN THE 6th YOUR TIME. If the person you're submitting to doesn't have your debate by the morning on the next day then you'll be considered a no-show even if you submit after this time. Any no shows WILL RESULT IN PERMANENT EXCLUSION FROM THE LEAGUE.
  • If you need to withdraw then please PM me and let us know.
  • In the event that someone pulls out we will replace them on the card with another user.
  • Please make sure you only submit your debate by PMing it to the intended recipient stated above. Don't post them anywhere on the forum. The debates will be forwarded onto the selected judging panel for your debate anonymously. When I post the results show you'll know what user posted each debate along with the judging panel for each debate.
  • For Title, Eliminator & Special Attraction Matches
    Minimum word count = 800, Maximum word count = 1000.
    For the Rest:
    Minimum word count = 600, Maximum word count = 800
  • You are free to debate either side of an argument. Your choice.
  • NO BLATANT PLAGIARISM
 
See less See more
1
#12 ·
COMMISSIONER ANDRE, PoyPoy14 is clearly distraught at not having a match on this card and therefore having no way to bounce back from his defeat last card.

If there was someone else who wasn't on the card that you could book in a quick wrestling debate (ideally on modern WWE), how would you feel about setting that match up as your first act as COMMISSIONER?
 
#16 ·
Guys, debaters are not typically on every single card depending on the number of people signed in. There used to be so many active debaters that it was pretty much every other card where one would appear, sometimes with 2 cards off in between in rare cases.

The reason why we try to keep the number of debates limited on a card is primarily due to the availability of judges. It takes a lot of time to critique and give meaningful feedback on debates, and with 3way or 4way matches (as there are multiple on this card), those responsibilities grow even more.

You saw how long the turnaround was last card with the judging. Adding matches just makes things longer, and requires more behind-the-scenes juggling with judges and whatnot.

If you're off a show, it's not a "punishment" or anything at all like that - we try to get everyone equal turns through here. Please try to understand where we're coming from as organizers, and try not to book yourselves into extra matches after a card is posted. That said, I do love how you guys are passionate and WANT to be a part of TDL, so keep that fire burning!
 
#26 ·
saw the thread was up

thought :yay i'm in my i'm so excited phase a new debate! until i actually try to start then get the coldest feet until like 3 days before it's due

but nope

now it's

vacation time baby

vacation time baby

my 1 win win streak will continue until the next card!
 
#33 · (Edited)
Not that I'm against it but elaboration on Curry, Bags, Genking and 3MB being in the 'RISING STAR TOURNAMENT'?

Also not to say they aren't rising stars (bar FORMER CHAMPION CURRY) but they weren't in the first round and now it's two big F4Ws. Maybe if they were all in their own match instead? :evil

Edit: and I practically begged for the MVP/Carlito debate. :lol
Ah well the Lesnar one is alright too. It seems every debate I have is either NXT or world title related. :hmm:
 
#42 ·
Because I didn't want to leave them off the card and if they're good enough to beat anyone in their matches then they deserve it. Curry is a bit of a curveball I admit.
@Andre or @Seabs I have a little suggestion to make. Would it be beneficial if debaters who weren't on the judging panel were able to see who were judging their debates?

I say this because I'd argue that one of the ways to be successful here is to argue a case that the judges may perceive to be the strongest, not necessarily the one the debater him/herself feels to be the strongest. To give people a bit of an advantage on this, I'd say that everyone should know who was judging their debate in advance, so that they are able to cater this to the tastes of whom are judging their debates.

I know you said Andre that if isn't broke don't fix it, but I feel fairly strongly that this could boost the standard of debates here. I have been here for over 18 months, so I would say that I've been here long enough to suggest an idea which I feel may have potential.
I've never written a debate aimed at a particular Judge and even I wouldn't really know what preferences each Judge has. Rigby2 is bang on with "But if we do create judge "bios" to highlight what we like in our debates, consider mine, "Strong arguments win debates." Full stop.". It's pretty much that simple. You debate to create the strongest argument, not the one the Judge is most likely to agree with (not that Judges should be voting for the one they agree with most either).

Judging Bios sounds a bit daft too. I have no idea what would differentiate any of them. The most well argued debate should always win.

Even if we did the actual Judges changes almost every card rendering it kinda pointless. Debates gets swapped between Judges, Judges drop out and fill in, etc.

I don't know what the last line is about because anyone can suggest ideas and how long you've been here doesn't give it any extra weight.

But when you're faced with new judges, a positive for one judge maybe a drawback to them. Because a lot of times, the feedback outside of "don't do this" may be rendered useless when each judge has different criteria.
Examples?
Or by making concise logical points that support a strong central argument. :Shrug Since I started judging, it's become clear to me that many debaters should be putting their time and effort into learning the technical aspects of formulating their points rather than getting hung up on pandering to the presumed tastes of the specific judges.

That's why style normally doesn't typically become a deciding factor in a debate outside of the highest tier of debates; they all (ideally) have mastered what it takes to put together sound arguments, now they're competing to do it in the most compelling, colorful manners. We don't want undercard debaters pulling the cart by hand and leaving the horse in the stable.

That's how I see it anyways, and while resources for how to put together logical arguments would benefit a lot of the rising undercard debaters, we need to keep it in perspective that this isn't a verbal fashion show where we frolic down the catwalk sporting trendy Summer styles, making flirty faces at the judges.

But if we do create judge "bios" to highlight what we like in our debates, consider mine, "Strong arguments win debates." Full stop.
x2 all of this.
 
#34 ·
@Andre or @Seabs I have a little suggestion to make. Would it be beneficial if debaters who weren't on the judging panel were able to see who were judging their debates?

I say this because I'd argue that one of the ways to be successful here is to argue a case that the judges may perceive to be the strongest, not necessarily the one the debater him/herself feels to be the strongest. To give people a bit of an advantage on this, I'd say that everyone should know who was judging their debate in advance, so that they are able to cater this to the tastes of whom are judging their debates.

I know you said Andre that if isn't broke don't fix it, but I feel fairly strongly that this could boost the standard of debates here. I have been here for over 18 months, so I would say that I've been here long enough to suggest an idea which I feel may have potential.
 
#36 ·
I agree.

Certain judges give certain feedback, so their approval for debates varies. But at the same time, you begin adjusting to their judging style and know what they're looking for.

But when you're faced with new judges, a positive for one judge maybe a drawback to them. Because a lot of times, the feedback outside of "don't do this" may be rendered useless when each judge has different criteria.

I understand the unknown judging concept creates a level playing field for all, so I'd understand if @Rugrat suggestion is shot down.




But, expanding on that, how about a profile for the judges, in general? A way of knowing what each judge is specifically looking for, beforehand, while also keeping the judges a mystery during the actual debate & judging process until results day? Something like a judge specific pros and cons to putting together a successful debate. It'll provide a preexisting understanding of various judging criteria, while also having a blueprint for new debaters (and us vets) on how to put the best debate together possible. To me, that would also help strengthen results day feedback, as well as potentially help people start off on the right track, instead of starting off bad and having to figure out, after the fact, how to make it right.



If not, I understand.
 
#37 · (Edited)
We do have a rulebook Corter, which isn't stickied. *HINT*

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/debate-league/1263538-tdl-judging-guidelines.html

So we kinda have a guide on how debates are judged and therefore how to write debates. The problem is that judges will all have their own way of interpreting the rulebook, assuming that they use it. As a result, different judges will have different styles of writing and debating that they like and prefer. Given that in TDL, the way to succeed is writing in the way that judges prefer, as TRW would probably attest to. If you are to write to appeal to judges, I feel that the debater in question would be aided if they were able to know which person they are writing for.

For instance my dig at Cena was presumably interpreted as a grandeur of delusion by Seabs, but it was interpreted as a light-hearted comment by Andre. The point is that judges interpret things in completely different ways, so if you're writing a debate with the style and content one or more of the judges like, it's more likely to get a win.

I'd quite like the ideas of judge bios, but I'd imagine that they'd be all very similar.
 
#39 ·
Given that in TDL, the way to succeed is writing in the way that judges prefer
Or by making concise logical points that support a strong central argument. :Shrug Since I started judging, it's become clear to me that many debaters should be putting their time and effort into learning the technical aspects of formulating their points rather than getting hung up on pandering to the presumed tastes of the specific judges.

That's why style normally doesn't typically become a deciding factor in a debate outside of the highest tier of debates; they all (ideally) have mastered what it takes to put together sound arguments, now they're competing to do it in the most compelling, colorful manners. We don't want undercard debaters pulling the cart by hand and leaving the horse in the stable.

That's how I see it anyways, and while resources for how to put together logical arguments would benefit a lot of the rising undercard debaters, we need to keep it in perspective that this isn't a verbal fashion show where we frolic down the catwalk sporting trendy Summer styles, making flirty faces at the judges.

But if we do create judge "bios" to highlight what we like in our debates, consider mine, "Strong arguments win debates." Full stop.
 
#38 ·
I do like the idea of a little bio for each judge. Highlight your favourite things about a debate, least favourite thing, matches you have enjoyed, best and worst debates etc. I think it could be a quick thing that adds a little more depth to our little corner of the forum.

As for knowing who is going to judge your debate - I disagree. I'm sure it could help to know who exactly you will write for but I don't necessarily think that is a good thing. I personally think that you should establish your own writing style and attitude and be confident that a debate of top quality will always win the match.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top