Wrestling Forum banner

TDL XXXVI: THE CARD WAGG LOST INTEREST IN HIS PREVIOUS INTEREST'S DAUGHTER - THE RESULTS

4K views 52 replies 20 participants last post by  M-Diggedy 
#1 ·
THE CARD WAGG LOST INTEREST IN HIS PREVIOUS INTEREST'S DAUGHTER
banner to come soon

Marty vs TKOK vs Greenlawler
Who was most deserving of being the 2014/2015 NBA Most Improved Player; Jimmy Butler, Draymond Green or Hassan Whiteside?

Greenlawler
In 2013, Hassan Whiteside dominated the competition. He tore up the rest of the league averaging 25.7 PPG and snatching up 16.6 rebounds per game. On top of those stunning numbers he tallied 5.5 blocks per game. However he did this while playing for the Blue Whales of the Chinese NBL. You see Hassan Whiteside was out of the NBA in 2012-2013. "Most Improved Player", how does a guy go from nothing to averaging double digit points and rebounds and then gets snubbed for the award?

In his first two seasons in the NBA Hassan played in a grand total of 19 games. One game in 2010-11, and 18 in 2011-2012. He averaged 6 minutes per game in that "prolific season" and he only averaged 1.1 points per game.

Look Hassan Whiteside in 2012 played for the Sioux Falls Skyforce, the Reno Bighorns, and the Rio Grande Valley Vipers. He also played for the Amicht Club, yes the Amicht Club, have not heard of them? Probably because most of us are not familiar with Lebanese Basketball.

In 2013 he graced the rosters of another Lebanese team and another Chinese NBL team, the Iowa Energy and rejoined that Valley Viper powerhouse club from Rio Grande. You get the point. He was as well traveled as Phileas Fogg.

And yet, in 2013/2014 Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green sat comfortably on NBA solid ground getting plenty of minutes and enjoying the benefits of some very talented teammates.

Let's review the actual question. "Who should have won the Most Improved Player of the Year Award?"
So what is the thing that separates this award from every other NBA award? I think we can all use our common sense and emphasize the word "improved".
So now let's look at the resumes of Green and Butler.

First let's look at Green. Green obviously improves in every category from his 2013/14 season. But the real question is, how much of improvement does he make? It's decent at best. Especially considering the biggest numbers jump occurs in playing time. Would it not stand to reason that a guy who averaged 6.2 PPG would improve his scoring if he got ten more minutes per game? So he showed some improvement for sure, I mean he jumped up to average 11.7 PPG in 2014/2015 that's nothing to sneeze at. But that's still only a net improvement 5.5 PPG. The only other key statistical improvement he showed last season was in rebounds where he pulled in 3.2 more per game. That's decent once again, but every other "improvement" was minimal. So, wow, what a resume. But this guy still finished above Hassan?

And now we come to the eventual winner of the award. Obviously the voters know what they are doing, right? Butler averages the exact number of minutes he averaged in the previous campaign and shows solid improvement in every category. Most notable among his improvements are almost seven points per game, and an eight percent jump in three point percentage. Both of these numbers are impressive. However. how much better were the Bulls with an improved Butler? Here's the answer, two games better.

Lets look at it strictly by the numbers. Green gets a decent bump in scoring (5.5.) and rebounds (3.2). Butler scores in PPG with almost 7 PPG more, and a much improved 3 point shooting percentage. However, I hope you paid attention to the first four paragraphs of this post. Hassan Whiteside was not even in the league in 2013/14. He helped push a roster obliterated Miami Heat to playoff contention by averaging 23.8 MPG, 11.8 PPG, 10.0 RPG, 2.6 BPG. This is coming from a guy playing in Lebanon one year before.

So NBA voters blow it again, because the question is this, who was the most improved? Decent NBA player improves to all star status. Okay that's a good story. But what's better? A guy with little hope rising from obscurity to average double digits in PPG, and rebounds. The answer is easy. Hassan should be sitting at home with that hardware on his mantle.

http://www.hothothoops.com/2015/5/3...candidates-for-most-improved-player-nba-award

http://www.nba.com/heat/roster

http://www.nba.com/bulls/roster

TKOK
Jimmy Butler was the correct choice to win the NBA’s most improved player of the year award for this last season. Sure Timofey Mozgov, Haasan Whiteside and Draymond green were all great candidates, none improved as much or helped as much as Jimmy Butler. Butler improved in multiple categories and became a guy who was both a reliable scorer ( top 15 in the league) and a defender (top 15 in steals)

The 14-15 season was Butlers best season by far, as he vastly improved his shooting percentage and points per game. he went from a below 40 percent shooter at 39.7 percent to a very respectable 46.2, which was actually the second best improvement in shooting % that year. He also improved his points per game output, from 13.1 to an even 20, so not only was he more efficient in getting his points, he got more of them as well. in his first 191 games during his first three seasons, he only had nine games of 20 or more points, in this last season, he had 34 such games, nearly quadrupling his output in that regard.

Also i feel like he was more important to the bulls than the others were to their teams. the bulls are a notoriously scoring starved team, after Butler their next highest scorers are Pau Gasol and Derrick Rose. While Gasol had a great season, Rose is very unreliable because he gets hurt all the time. you cannot rely on a guy who has played in only 100 games out of a possible 328 over the last four years. So the burden on him and the others is more significant than say a guy likes Draymond Green who, while he is a very good player. just has not had the same burden put on him as Butler, he has an off night the team can rely on Steph Curry or Klay Thompson, two of the best shooters in the league to make it up. but if Butler had an off night, the team is in deep trouble.

Butler he was more efficient than two of the three other players. he had a Player Efficiency Rating of 21.32, which was better than Draymond and Mozgov's per, which were around 16. He was only bested in that category by Hassan Whiteside, who burst on the scene after two years of not even being in the league about half way through the season. But the butler’s credit on that, He played nearly 15 more minutes a game than Whiteside, played in almost 20 more games, and stated nearly twice as many. so while Whiteside was great, he did his work over a much shorter amount of time than Butler did.

Another point to Butler is while Draymond,Timofey and Hassan all improved, they are still role players, or glue guys and not the guys who are counted on to really put out big numbers. While Mozgov was a great pick up for the Cavs, no one goes into a game thinking “ we have to stop Timofey mozgov” and neither is anybody going to be writing up game plans to focus solely on Green or Whiteside. they are important to their teams, but their teams had other options so that they did not have to carry the load that Butler does. Butler not only had to bring it on offense, but continue to be a great defender in the Chicago bulls defense oriented team. All while leading the league in minutes per game.

Jimmy butler deserved to win the NBA’s Most Improved Player Award, not only because he actually improved the most, but because he had the biggest role on his team. The other players could afford an off night now and again, but the Bulls really needed Butler to perform every night to have a shot at winning. Because if he was not scoring they did not have a lot of other options. Butler went from a role player to possibly the best player on the team and an all-star caliber player.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/3

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4298/timofey-mozgov
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4262/hassan-whiteside

www.sheridanhoops.com/2015/04/14/mo...-why-jimmy-butler-should-take-home-the-award/


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...y-butler-wins-nbas-most-improved-player-award

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/jimmy-butler-most-improved-player-award

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...y-butler-wins-nbas-most-improved-player-award


http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3456/derrick-rose

Marty
Who was most deserving of being the 2014/2015 NBA Most Improved Player; Jimmy Butler, Draymond Green or Hassan Whiteside?

I believe that Jimmy Butler was most deserving of the 2014/2015 NBA Most Improved player award due to significant rise in his performances and stats that lead to the Chicago Bulls reaching the Eastern Finals of the 2014/15 season.

Jimmy Butler





As you can see in the images above, Jimmy Butler saw an increase in not only his offensive play which includes an increase in his shooting accuracy, assists and offensive rebounds, the defensive side to his game was as impressive as the previous campaign.

I feel that the most impressive improvement for Jimmy Butler from the last year was the improvement with his three point shots. He attempted 47 less shots but managed to increase his successful attempts from 68 up to 73. Not a huge increase, admittedly, but when you factor in he achieved 37 more assists, and his field goals made percentage increased from .397 to .462, this shows that Jimmy Butler was less wasteful when in possession of the ball and he had a much more positive effect on the Chicago Bulls offensively and defensively.

Draymond Green





As the above images will show you, although Draymond Green saw a small increase in the majority of his stats, which were mainly offensively, it was his defensive side of his game that saw a huge spike and his stats shoot up.

He got over 200 more rebounds than his last season, more blocks and more steals and offensively he almost doubled his assists going from 152 assists to a career high 291.

Although Draymond Green and his side went on to win the 2014/2015 NBA Finals, he was also playing in the best team in the entire National Basketball League. Playing alongside the best players in the league in the best team, although that doesn’t discredit his credentials of the previous season, performing to an equally high or an even higher level with a lesser side is always more impressive.

Hassan Whiteside





30 games played less than Draymond Green. 0 three point shots attempted. 165 rebounds less than Draymond Green. Hassan Whiteside had nearly 100 steals less than both Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green.

Hassan Whiteside bested Jimmy Butler and Hassan Whiteside in only offensive rebounds.

Hassan Whiteside also boasted a higher field goal percentage of roughly .150 more than both Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green but he also attempted 378 shots less than Green and 525 shots less than Butler. This allows Whiteside to obtain a higher field goal percentage assuming he is sensible with his attempts.

Post-Season





Despite Jimmy Butlers’ better stats throughout the regular reason, Draymond Green statistically was the superior player to Jimmy Butler who also got to play in 9 extra games and averaged fewer minutes with Green averaging 37.3 to Butlers 42.2 minutes.

In 9 games less than Draymond Green, Jimmy Butler played more minutes, had a higher field goal percentage (.441 v .417), a higher three-point percentage (.389 v .264) and Jimmy Butler also produced less turnovers (21 v 58).





Draymond Green was the better defensive player producing more rebounds, blocks, steals, even providing more assists to show his offensive side and in doing so, this allowed the Golden State Warriors better players such as Klay Thompson and Steph Curry to do what they do and be the stars of their title winning team.

Hassan Whiteside and the Miami Heat were unable to reach the Post-Season so he is only able to be judged based on his regular season performances and his inability to lead his side to the playoffs.

The Verdict

Now when we factor in the overall stats throughout the regular season and the post-season compared to the 2013/2014 season, I am of the belief that Jimmy Butler fully deserved to win the 2014/2015 NBA Most Improved Player as he saw the largest improvements stat wise offensively and defensively whilst helping his team improve on their previous season.​

SOURCES:

Jimmy Butler: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/6430/jimmy-butler

Draymond Green: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/6589/draymond-green

Hassan Whiteside: http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/4262/hassan-whiteside

Aid
Greenlawler

Alright. So I see Hassan Whiteside is your choice. Interesting. I see you started off by pointing out Whiteside’s stats from overseas. Numbers like that are MVP-Worthy. So it shows Whiteside can dominate at that level. Being seven feet tall probably helps too. Anyway, you then transition into saying he goes from nothing to averaging a double-double in the NBA. We’ll see how that holds up for you later.

You go on to mention how many places he has played in that last few years. It’s a ton. But basketball ability is not the reason for that. It was his attitude. Many sources claim that Whiteside turned off many teams with overseas numbers like that because of attitude and work ethic. CBS Sports wrote this in an article:
"If you're a jackass, rubbing away that reputation is very hard," said Elhassan, who before working for ESPN was the assistant director of basketball operations for the Phoenix Suns. "It's very easy to ruin your reputation and very hard to rebuild it. Hassan Whiteside, for lack of a better word, was a 'jackass' when he came out of college. He was delusional and would say things that were not commensurate with how great he was as a player."
Whiteside turned many teams away from him when he told many scouts he didn't need to work on any aspect of his game.“
He even had an altercation with Kelly Olynyk that had Wade calling him out. I may be digressing a bit, but the nothing he came from was totally brought onto him because of him. It wasn’t a lack of talent. Anyway, back to the debate. You end this paragraph by saying that Butler and Green were in the NBA last year like it was a slight.

Anyway, I think you played with a dangerous dagger here in this paragraph and accidentally stabbed yourself.
“Would it not stand to reason that a guy who averaged 6.2 PPG would improve his scoring if he got ten more minutes per game?“
Would it not stand to reason that a center that went from 6 minutes a game in 18 games could improve to 10 rebounds a game and 11.8 points a game after adding almost 18 minutes a game and 30 more games? Especially in a scheme like Miami’s that has Bosh play a stretch four a lot of the time? Your minutes argument could really affect both guys in this situation. Then you go onto Butler: “Butler averages the exact number of minutes he averaged in the previous campaign and shows solid improvement in every category. Most notable among his improvements are almost seven points per game, and an eight percent jump in three point percentage.” So he played the exact same minutes but improved in EVERY category? Going by your Draymond minutes argument, then that stat is amazing. He improved without getting more time. By 7 more points a game too. Going up to 20 points a game. If Draymond’s 11.7 points is nothing to sneeze at, then Butler’s improvement to 20 is amazing.

Finally you mention that Whiteside helped to push the Heat into playoff contention with an injured roster. Um, well, they didn’t make they playoffs in a weak east. A conference that didn’t even need a winning record to get the 8th seed. And their contention went down in flames after Chris Bosh went down after the trade deadline. Pushing for playoff contention in the east is not an accomplishment. It’s like a participation award.

Anyway, I feel your biggest flaw here was the wording in your Green write-off. Most of what you discredited Green for made Butler look better and Whiteside look worse. The Bulls even still improved their record overall, something that Whiteside can’t say happened for the Heat (yes, I know LeBron left, but it still is an answer to your throwaway line at the end of the Butler paragraph). The minutes argument was the biggest shot in the foot. If a guy goes from very few minutes to a lot, improvement is expected. If a guy doesn’t increase minutes, no improvement is really expected. Except Butler broke that expectation. There’s your problem.

TKOK

First things first. Where did Timofey Mozgov come from? Was it originally in the question to include him? I just see Green, Whiteside, and Butler. I really hope you didn’t devote a lot of words to him, because that would be harmful to your debate.

Cool mention that Butler became top 15 in scoring and steals. That’s pretty neat. Cool mention that his percentage jump was second best improvement. I like the 20 point game stat too. All very solid little bits of information that help your pick. I do wonder who was number one in improvement for shooting percentage though.

Next you go on about role. That’s an interesting choice of path. The other guys are role players and starters, but Butler had to become the star. The burden becomes an interesting thing to think about seeing as the others had Wade, Bosh, Dragic, Curry, and Thompson to help. I guess you could say Rose and Gasol are both really great help too, but Butler was the team’s leading scorer.

The PER argument is interesting. Whiteside was the winner of that, but Butler played more. So what you are saying is that playing time resulted in some lower PER for Butler. I guess so. But you could also say that Whiteside was able to do more with less.
Your next paragraph is more of just restating points you made in the previous paragraph about role and burden and carrying the load. Really not much added here other than pointing out that a team may gameplan for Butler more than the others. Still, it’s a little disappointing that you didn’t bring anything really new to the table for this paragraph. Perhaps something about how improvement shouldn’t be looked at by just playing more minutes, but seeing who gets better with the same amount of minutes. That’s something that would really have helped your Butler argument. The role argument was solid, but I feel you needed one more major point or something to discredit Whiteside a bit more. Whiteside to kind of burst onto the scene and averaged a double-double. That’s what you really need. Just some sort of counter to the other choices that could help set Butler apart even more.

Marty

Alright. I’ve feeling some major déjà vu here. What I’m seeing is someone that formatted their entire debate to have the words centered. I totally ripped someone because it made me feel like I was reading an awful poem. :lmao

This isn’t the same, but boy, that was funny. I would still award my vote to whoever made a poem debate that rhymed. So there you go TDL. Give me a poem.

Anyway, you start off mentioning who you are picking. Solid. Thanks for that. YOu would be surprised at how many debates I have read that doesn’t explain which side they are picking until the end and it makes things confusing as hell when they write good points for both sides. Now you go onto STATS. Stats are love; stats are life. But for reals though, stats and physical numbers prove more than any words can. They are proof. Proof proves points. P3. Ask Zombo, Attorney at Law. You find the dna of the suspect at the crime scene, then you can help to prove your argument that the person did it. Here you prove that Butler was found at the scene of the court, and he balled the fuck out. You show what he increased in. You even showed that he was less wasteful. That’s an environmentally friendly stat there! Or fundamentally friendly stat. You show that he was good offensively and defensively too. Very helpful since basketball is a two way sport for players.

For Draymond Green here, I feel you missed the opportunity to mention that he had a career high in minutes too. Which about 10 extra minutes a game for 79 games is almost 790 minutes. That’s enough opportunity to grab 200 extra rebounds and 139 assists. You could have definitely used that to your advantage. That’s something I feel you were really missing here. You didn’t really discredit Green at all. You mentioned how he played on the best team and that helped him, but at the same time, was the team not the best thanks to their combined improvement, including Green’s? That’s what you really needed here. Something that would remove all traces of Draymond Green being the right choice from my mind. I did not see that here. All I saw was a paragraph about how much he improved and how he doubled a stat of his.

Now listen. Which team would want their center to shoot a three? Yeah, not many. Maybe the Knicks if they started Bargnani. That’d be silly though. See, using 0 three point attempts as a slight against a center just isn’t very damning. It’s like being mad that your defensive men in hockey doesn’t have a lot of goals or that your defensive tackle doesn’t have any interceptions. It’s not really their job. It’s not Whiteside’s job to shoot threes. His job is to get into the paint, take up space, get open, and to get putbacks. Deng, Bosh, and Dragic can shoot the threes. Also, the whole 165 less rebounds in 30 less games while averaging 8 fewer minutes isn’t really a slight either. Hassan had 10 rebounds a game on average this year. At that rate, he would have had more rebounds that Green if he had just played 17 more games, which would still have give Green a 12 game advantage. Using whole stats like this aren’t very great in determining who really was better when the amount of minutes and games the three guys have played vary so much. And I would also expect a center to have more offensive rebounds than a SG. Whiteside also had a higher shooting percentage because he played almost exclusively in the paint. A shot chart here would have benefitted your Butler argument more as you could explain that the only reason Whiteside was able to score was because he was seven feet tall and dunked a majority of the time. It was all about positions in this comparison. And that didn’t help you here. I feel the numbers you threw out were not helpful in proving your point. They were too misleading, especially when you look at the minutes played in the stats you posted.

The playoff point seems kind of strange to have since this a regular season award. On top of that, one of the players didn’t make the post-season. Here is when you start using percentages like you should have before for the Whiteside argument. Still, the two paragraphs here points out how Green was better defensively and offensively. You even mention that his contributions helped Golden State to win the title. Why even mention all of this? Like, you should understand just how infuriating this is. You started off white hot in your debate. Like your Butler argument was on point. Then suddenly you take two paragraphs to talk about how Green was better than Butler in the post-season, a whole thing you didn’t even have to mention for a regular season award, and how he was instrumental in the Warriors winning a title, in which Green having good teammates to help him win the title was your one counter-point against Green. He allowed Curry and Thompson to become better. Yikes. You really just buried your own debate here man. Like you need to scrap this entire playoff paragraph ASAP. Like damn. Why include this at all if it doesn’t help prove your point that Butler deserved to win the award. At this point, I feel you would have won if you said Green was most deserving. At the very end you mention that Butler helped his team to improve on the previous season. I mean, the Warriors had a better record too. Much better than last year compared to the Bulls this year and last. Man, this just hurts seeing you trip up this much at the end.

DECISION: I am awarding my vote to TKOK. I don’t know if it made the strongest argument for their choice in Butler, but I feel it was the least harmful to his own debate. Both Greenlawler and Marty had clear points that made me question why they picked their choice. The both had stats and paragraphs that hurt their own choice and helped another. Greenlawler’s writeoff on Green could easily have been used to make Butler look better and Whiteside look worse. Marty’s dedication of two playoff paragraphs and an ending verdict made Green feel far superior, especially when he says how he helped the better players do what they need to do to win the title. It just hurt to see these two debates harm themselves, especially when both could have easily won if they removed those points and talked up their choice more. Sorry fellas.

Joel
Greenlawler
I like how you have argued Hassan Whiteside’s case here. There can be no denial that Whiteside improved a hell of a lot from the last time he was in NBA. I’m not sure if I care much for his stats in a Chinese and Lebanese league (with all due respect), but it does show how far he has come from a few years ago, to where he is now, playing 23 minutes, averaging 11 points, 10 rebounds and 2 blocks per game in the NBA, as you pointed out.

When looking at stats alone, I agree that it may not look like Draymond Green made leaps and bound on offence. However, when watching Warriors, you could see that many times when he was left free he would punish teams, because the opposition were too occupied with Stephen Curry and/or Klay Thompson. Because he was able to produce, his minutes were increased and as you say, because of the increased minutes, he increased his points. What I don’t like is how you act like that is a formality. It doesn’t happen with all players, so the fact that he answered positively to his minutes increasing help him in this debate, imo. The fact is he became another weapon to the Warriors that he wasn’t the season prior. He also really improved a lot on the defensive side of the game, which you have totally missed.

Jimmy Butler’s improvement was anything but minor. Here’s a guy who went from a brilliant defensive player to arguably the number one scoring option. The fact that you have highlighted his big jump in points and jump in shooting 3s, yet you still try to downplay it is baffling. Every statistic except steals was improved on by Butler, so not only had his offensive game improved, he also improved on his already high quality defence. True, the Bulls only improved on 2 games in the regular season, but that I don’t see how that is a slight on Butler. He put up numbers and as one of the new leaders of the team, he carried them to third in the conference.

Another thing both these guys have on Whiteside that you didn’t acknowledge is that they played more games than he did. So they had to produce far more than he had to. When speaking about improvement, you have to consider the whole season. Whiteside only just played over half the season. Can that count as a whole year which the award is judged on?

All in all, you did good work with making Whiteside look good, but for me you didn’t make the other two (especially Butler) look worse than him for me to agree with your stance.

TKOK
I really like the direction you went with this debate. You’re pro Jimmy Butler here, so it’s easy to just write about his improvement in statistics, which you have done. However, I like that you point out that the way you can truly see his improvement is by looking at how his role developed. Butler did become Bulls most important player last year and they would look towards him to get them out of tough situations, which I think you’ve described well by saying that he had to carry the burden. What you should have done here, was show examples of how well he actually carried out this task. I also think a quick write up of how he evolved form a great defender to a becoming on the best two-way guards in the league would have helped too.

Looking at the statistics you’ve listed, I really liked the piece of research that showed how in his first 191 games he only had 9 games where he scored 20 or more and last season he had 34 of those games was great. It really does show the level of his improvement.

Draymond Green’s defence really improved a great deal. It’s something you haven’t acknowledged. You have to look at both sides when looking at improvement and while his offence was marginal, there was enough to write about his defensive side. You also haven’t really looked much into Timofey Mozgov, but he wasn’t a part of the actual question, so I will let that slide.

I disagree with is where you say that Hassan Whiteside isn’t as important to the Heat as Butler is to the Bulls. As you note, Whiteside does have a higher PER than Butler and while I agree that playing less minutes and in less games helped that, I also think his PER is high because he became just as important as the season went on. He really grew into the team and became one of their most important players. His stats were incredibly impressive when you consider he last played in the league was the 11-12 season. So I think you could have done a bit better to discount him.

To conclude; you’ve made a really strong case for Butler and didn’t just concentrate on his stats, but also delved deeper into this and looked at the roles him and his competitors for this award. But I also don’t think you’ve judged his competition as well as they should have been.

Marty
I’m glad that you didn’t just list Jimmy Butler’s improvement in scoring and the efficiency of it. He improved in nearly every area last year and you’ve made note of that, so that’s good to see. You say his defensive side was just as good as last year, but I think that’s a disservice. All his defensive stats increased, except a slight decrease on steals. Butler is your choice for this award, so don’t underplay his achievements even if they were just a slight increase. Boast about them to help your debate.

What I do like about this debate very much is that you’ve made it very balanced and impartial. You’ve made clear who you think deserved to win the award, yet you still looked at his nearest competitor fairly. I think this adds legitimacy to the debate as there’s no hidden agenda. You’ve tried to be fair. So I like that you have acknowledged the impressive increase in Green’s defensive stats, which showed just how much he improved.

While I think you have tried to be fair I don’t think you have analysed Whiteside particularly well. You speak about the less rebound sand less steals he has from the other two, but he’s played a lot less games, thus less minutes. You need to measure that type of stuff by percentage. And the fact that he didn’t attempt a 3 pointer means nothing, since he’s a centre. You don’t really see them loading up 3s. Also, you got caught up in comparing some of his stats with the other two (shot percentage and such), but I don’t think that’s relevant. You need to compare Whiteside to the Whiteside of previous years, as you had with the other two. But I believe you are alluding to him not playing enough games and minutes to really win this award, as it’s a whole season, not just over half – I agree with that and for me that is why it’s hard to make a case for him.

I don’t think post season really matters much, as the award is given before the whole season ends, so it only really takes into account the regular season. But since you have, I’ll say that I liked how you broke it down to how the two fared against each other when having the same numbers. It’s pretty split between them. Although, we’re meant to be judging them on their improvement from previous seasons, not really against each other.

All in all, you are arguing for Butler, but I’m unsure if you have shown that he deserves it. While he saw a large spike in offence, he marginally improved on defence. Green was vice versa. So it was really close between them and I’m not sure you’ve given a clear reason Butler truly deserves it. You also just stayed purely on the statistics. You haven’t spoken about their roles in their teams or anything along those lines. So I think you could have done better with explaining where Butler’s improvement was superior to Green’s.

Verdict: Tough decision. 3 debates that had positives and negatives. Not particularly great debates, but definitely not bad ones either. I’ll go with TKOK. I think his reason for his choice was the best from all three, as it was chosen by statistics and also understanding how his role changed to something incredibly important due to his improvement.

Jupiter Jack Daniels
Greenlawler

The biggest plus here is that you acknowledge Hassan's absence from the league the previous two seasons. That's big, as he went from just another guy in the league, to not even being in the league, to a guy that stepped up in a big way and fought (at one point, literally) to clinch that final playoff spot in the East.

The biggest minus here is that you continued to acknowledge Hassan's absence from the league the previous two seasons. When it came to pure performance, statistics and the improvements there, your only rebuttal to what Draymond and Jimmy did was by saying they've been there, the improvement was minimal or in the case of Jimmy Butler, his team finished with only two more wins than the previous year.

And in the case of the Bulls finishing only two games better, that shouldn't be a drawback for a guy with improved field goal, 3pt and free throw percentages. Your opponents both did a great job in detailing the improvement and importance of Butler, rather than focusing on something as trivial as only winning two additional games. Kevin Love won the award in the 2010-2011 season, on a Timberwolves team that not only won just two additional games but they won just 17 games total. But, it doesn't take away from his improvement as a player.

Overall, I feel your entire argument is based on Whiteside not even being in the league the previous two seasons. It got to the point where you began using that to discredit the improvements of Draymond, who played a big part in the Warriors having the best defense in the league, setting a franchise record for wins and ultimately (although not considered when issuing this award) an NBA title. And Jimmy, who improved significantly in his second year as a starter and first full season as the number one scoring option.


TKOK

This was good, due to the breakdown of numbers and inclusion of some of the more complex statistics and ratings.

You also detailed the importance of Butler to Chicago, due to how unreliable Rose has become and while not mentioned, the trade of Luol Deng during the previous season, who was a go to guy in Chicago for years. You painted the picture of Butler being the only guy here that, if he has a bad night, the team is in bad shape. That could be countered because you're looking at it in terms of scoring. With Draymond, stats aren't his best friend. It's the hustle and readiness to get physical that makes him important to the Warriors. With Hassan, he was a blessing in disguise for a team that desperately needed a low-post presence. His importance to Miami, with what would happen just a few months later, can't be understated him. Without, they had no fight left in them for that final playoff spot.

But even with that, you're right, these aren't guys that teams are drawing up plans to figure out how to stop. Butler is.

And your closing paragraph really hits it home. It was Butler's improvement in such a big role that won that award. And won him a lot of money in the off season. He had big shoes to fill and since becoming a permanent starter in the 2013-2014 season and he's owned it.


Marty

National Basketball League? Okay.

Same stance and argument as TKOK, which is that Jimmy Butler was the right choice and both have the stats to back it up.

It's interesting that you looked at various stats, such as three points attempted. It's problematic because something like that shouldn't be used in comparison to Hassan Whiteside, because he never even attempted one. The comparison between those two simply shows that Hassan played less games. And his stats are going to be reflective of that but it shouldn't take away from what he did do in the games he played in, which was crucial to Miami's survival.

And then, you devote a section to the postseason stats, which is utterly pointless. It's an award that has nothing to do with postseason at all. Devoting a whole section to that deprived you from making those words useful in other ways.


TKOK wins, even with grammar mistakes and the like. Greenlawler came off dimensional and Marty didn't add much crucial to the argument. It was solely about facts, whereas TKOK utilized facts, importance and role on the team.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - TKOK

BruiserKC vs Flay
Which Series of Films is better, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?

Flay
Which series of films is better, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?
_____________________________________________

Both Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are iconic series of films that have made colossal fanbases for life. Both have wonderful worlds of fantasy that have made people feel like they were at Hogwarts and Mount Doom themselves. Both have captivating characters that have made people laugh and cry. Both have rollercoaster adventures that have engrossed people of all ages. So how on Middle Earth can one be separated from the other as 'better'? Well no matter how much you think elves and dwarves > witches and wizards and vice versa, there's an objective way to answer the question by considering a criteria based on FACTS such as how much money was made, the impact from longevity and the emotional depth of the journey. When this criteria is considered, the answer to the question is undoubtedly - Harry Potter is a better series of films than Lord of the Rings.


REVENUE

Lord of the Rings' box office revenue(1):



Harry Potter's box office revenue(2):



Harry Potter has generated more revenue than Lord of the Rings. This is a simple fact that can't be refuted. Even if it's attempted to be refuted by saying 'Harry Potter has more movies, it's not fair', a Harry Potter movie has the most individual revenue in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. Now think about what that means for a second. Where does that money come from? It comes from sales of movie tickets that moviegoers who were interested enough to leave their house, go to a cinema and pay their hard earned money to sit for 3 hours so they can be entertained. Revenue means more than just being a number, it calculates the interest from the masses which Harry Potter has eclipsed Lord of the Rings in. Regarding numbers, $7,723,431,572 is a convincing number and it exceeds $2,917,506,956 which is attributed to Harry Potter being the more interesting series as well as it's longevity.


LONGEVITY

As shown in the chart above, Harry Potter (2001-2011) had the longevity over Lord of the Rings (2001-2003). This means that Harry Potter helped build a generation for a decade while Lord of the Rings had only a couple of years in the limelight. Lord of the Rings may have been neck and neck when it was around but since it ended in 2003, Harry Potter has overtaken it by providing more entertainment and chances for its fanbase to grow. Harry Potter has stayed in the hearts and minds of the masses while Lord of the Rings has faded into obscurity in terms of pop culture. The longevity also gave way to a better build of Harry Potter's journey which seals this debate.


JOURNEY

Harry Potter ultimately has a more rewarding journey than Lord of the Rings. For two years, Lord of the Rings' endgame was Frodo getting the ring to Mount Doom while there was other side stories like Merry being in Rohan and Pippin being in Gondor after which they all live happily ever after which is fantastic. However, Harry Potter's journey runs much deeper than that. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson (Hermione) were all 11 years old at the time of the first Harry Potter movie and 21 years old at the time of the last(3)(4)(5). This means that viewers have basically watched these kids grow up on the screen and become men and woman through trials and tribulations and for the younger viewers have even grown up with them which is a magical connection that no other series of films has with it's viewers. It's not just from the kids either. There are journeys other than The Three Musketeers' which are equally compelling such as Dumbledore being an honourable father figure but then finding out that he has a dark past, Snape allegiances being unknown until his very end and even the big bad villain Voldemort who went from being a pimple on Quirrell's head to finally showing viewers why he was so feared. A Lord of the Rings fan might not give a shit about the magical connection and a Harry Potter might give a shit about it too much but an objective viewpoint will hold that in higher value than the two-year journey of Frodo's love triangle with Sam and Gollum while trying to put a ring in a volcano.


Sorry Lord of the Rings fans, Harry Potter is definitely a better series of films. A fierce argument can be made for either from personal preference but Harry Potter is definitely the more lucrative, lasting and engaging series. Now that I've made my case I'mma grab my wand, turn on my magic box, snuggle up with an Invisibilty Cloak, enjoy some Gillyweed watch all 8 movies on Blu-Ray while flying high like a Thestral.
_______________________________________________________


BruiserKC
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, written by J.R.R. Tolkien, was inspirational for nearly two generations of fantasy writings since they were published in the 1950s. Meanwhile, J.K. Rowling created a passionate following of her own with the Harry Potter series of books written within the last 20 years. Of course, this debate is not about the books, but the movies that followed and which franchise was the better of the two. I have actually been able to say I have watched all three of the LOTR flicks, and all of the Harry Potter films. Without question, I would strongly say that the LOTR trilogy is far better than the eight films that made up the Harry Potter franchise.

First, the Harry Potter movies seem to have very many characters that one can make comparisons to as far as LOTR. Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter are very similar. Frodo starts at the young age of 33 on his quest to save Middle-Earth. Harry Potter starts out as a very young boy who starts wizard school and must soon save his world from Voldemort. It's also not just the main characters, but one can see many similarities between the other supporting characters as well. Gandalf and Dumbledore are very much alike, as one can also make the argument as well for Lord Voldemort and Dark Lord Sauron. I would like to make a stronger argument for Potter, but can't due to the many characters almost being the same.

In addition, the characters are three-dimensional in LOTR. Each and every single character, from the main ones to the fleeting glimpses, hold a purpose and play a very strong role in the movies. They all seem to belong. However, watching Harry Potter, only the main characters are very well made and created. Folks like Cho Chang and McGonigal really serve no purpose other than to provide a bit if diversity. They strike me as being the equivalent of Jar Jar Binks from the Star Wars films. They provide no depth and really didn't need to be in the movie at all. Plus, in LOTR, you can see the main characters grow, such as Frodo grows up a great deal as a result of his journey. Folks like Ron and Hermione in HP don't really change, they just have stunted growth.

The settings are completely different for the two franchises, but when you watch LOTR you can tell that Middle Earth is very well-organized. Middle Earth has a set system, a set of universal rules that are consistently met from the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring to the end of Return of the King. Even though there is magic in this world, the rules on how it is used and made is consistent and unchanging. Meanwhile, Harry Potter's films seem to have a universe that seems to change as it goes along. The rules seem to change on a whim. People die, yet can still interact through paintings? It reminds me a lot of the old comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin's favorite game was Calvinball. The only rule was that the rules changed every time they played.

Finally, when it came down to the production and creation of these movies, one has to look at the awards they snagged. The Harry Potter films earned 12 Academy Award nominations, from six of the eight films. However, the films netted a grand total of zero awards when the Oscars were handed out. Meanwhile, the LOTR franchise earned 30 Oscar nominations, including all three films were nominated for Best Picture. At the 76th Academy Awards in February, 2004, the Return of the King swept pretty much every category it was in, including taking the nod for Best Picture. Not a single movie in the HP series even got that nomination. The LOTR films clearly dominated.

The HP movies have their own spot in the universe of movie-goers, and they inspired a generation of readers. However, the Lord of the Rings books inspired 60 years of fantasy writers and films, including the three classic films it produced. That's why the LOTR franchise is clearly better than Harry Potter.

Baxter
Flay

Your opening paragraph went on for little a bit longer than I like to see in debates, you only get a limited amount of words so you HAVE to use them well and kicking off your debate with a 150 word introduction isn't doing that. If you're going to do a long-ish intro then atleast make sure it's adding to your argument and you're setting up the main points for your debate (which in fairness you do towards the end of the paragraph).

My main issue with the revenue paragraph is that it's a load of bollocks, pls pls PLS don't say things like "This is a simple fact that can't be refuted" when that simple fact can be refuted with minimal effort, just absolute LOL @ comparing the total revenue made by an 8-film series to the revenue made by a 3-film series and saying that because the 8-film series made more in total that it's better and more people want to see it, if you were going to go down this route then atleast take an average figure or something for crying out loud (fwiw LOTR did an average of $10m more per film than HP). I did like how you fed into the longevity argument at the end of this though, which was a good point to make.

Think the longevity argument was solid and actually something i'd have liked to have seen you focus on more, I don't know if it's because I'm one of the people you mention who grew up with this series but there's no denying that Harry Potter has had a lot more influence over my generation than the LOTR films.

Journey argument was an interesting one but like a lot of BruiserKC's debate I think it's just too much of an opinion thing to really be used as a convincing argument, there's definitely going to be people who find the LOTR's journey and conclusion more exciting than Harry Potter. I do appreciate that with topics like this it can be tough to really conclusive prove things with stats/facts and stuff but arguments like "xxx is better because I say so" just are not convincing at all.

Overall this debate has potential but it just didn't really deliver, a lot of it was far too opinion based and you kinda messed up the one fairly convincing argument that you had.


BruiserKC

Your first two paragraphs are essentially worthless and add next to nothing to your debate, I don't know if I'm having a 'whooosh moment' but I don't even know what the point you're trying to make in your second paragraph is... Harry Potter and LOTR have similar characters so LOTR is better? eh?

"Only the main characters are well made and created" yeah I just do not agree with this at all, there's plenty of well created and interesting characters in HP outside of the main trio (Snape, Malfoy, Neville, Hagrid to name just a few). Like I said to Flay I know it's tough in these sort of debates to really give solid arguments and back things up with stats but try to stay away from arguments that are fairly opinion based.

Next paragraph I really like, without a doubt the HP series has a number of glaring plot holes that aren't present in the LOTR series and bring down the quality of the series.

Awards argument was solid as well and there's not much to fault here apart from the fact I'd have probably liked to have seen you bring this up earlier as this was one of the money arguments for the LOTR side of things.

This started off poorly but picked up momentum near the end, definitely think the potential is there though so keep at it. My problems with this debate were mainly argument related (which can be fixed with easier topics in the future), your structure is fine and you write very well which are great qualities to have in TDL.


Decision

Neither of these were amazing but BruiserKC wins, he started off poorly but finished well and definitely got closer to giving a conclusive reason as to why one series was better than the other. His debate also had a wider scope and more variety in it's arguments which of course helps.

Anark
Flay
Not entirely convinced by your definitions of ‘better’. You could have done with a little more explanation as to why these three elements define why a film is better (“how much money was made, the impact from longevity and the emotional depth of the journey”). Off the bat I’m suspicious about using money made to define ‘better’ as that could well be down to a superior marketing campaign, which a better film does not it make. A nice counter for an opponent to include against revenue being an indicator of which film series is better (aside from the obvious one we’ll get to in a moment) is that the Potter books are far more recent than the LOTR books and have a much larger modern readership which in turn boosts the revenue of the films. Of course, it’s up to your opponent to counter you with this kind of thing.

Right then, let’s get this out of the way. You dismiss the fact that there are eight Potter films compared to three LOTR films by pointing out the most successful of them all was Deathly Hallows Part 2, which is a very weak point if it’s even a point at all. Your argument then gets even weaker when you round off the revenue section comparing the overall revenue made by each set of films having not actually explained in any way why the revenue from eight films should be fairly compared to the revenue of three films, apart from that throwaway line about Deathly Hallows Part 2 being the (marginally) most successful of them all. There was a much better way to make the point you were trying to make and you nearly hit on it, which would have been to compare the three most successful Potter films to the revenue made from the three LOTR films. Of course, if you had done that then the difference between them would have been much, much smaller, almost to the point where it had little to no impact on this debate.

I’m also not convinced by the longevity section. I don’t think you’ve fully grasped the concept of longevity here. Yes, the Potter films were spread out over a longer period of time; this is because there were eight of them. How does that prove they are ‘better’? Release dates don’t equal longevity to me, certainly not according to the impact on pop culture that you skim past very quickly. You say LOTR has faded into obscurity yet there are still Sean Bean/Boromir memes floating about with the classic ‘One does not simply…’ tagline. I don’t remember anything nearly as ubiquitous as that coming out of the Potter films. It could also be argued that the success of the LOTR films gave birth to the Hobbit films, which in turn extended that universe’s entertainment value over a far longer period than the Potter films did, only with just six films to Potter’s eight. I’m probably being pedantic there, but that’s your fault for narrowing the meaning of ‘longevity’ down to such a minimal concept.

Finally, you hit me with the good stuff in your Journey section. The point you made about a whole generation growing up with Harry, Hermione and Ron was brilliant and felt very convincing as I read it. It’s not something that had occurred to me when I saw the debate question so it was a nice surprise to be hit with something that had so much weight and which I wasn’t expecting. The last line of this section cracked me up as well. Props.

Conclusion was nicely written but offered nothing in terms of reaffirming your arguments. A good conclusion is not a knock-out punch – the knock-out punches should have already been delivered in the main body of your text – but ideally a conclusion should contain some final kicks to the head to ensure the opposing argument stays down. Of course, that’s just, like, my opinion, man.

BruiserKC
A nice enough and informative intro, though it’s a relatively big paragraph in which to only actually tell me which stance you will be arguing without setting up any of the arguments. Words are gold dust to top debaters and you wasted a lot here.

I’m not entirely sure where you were going with the next paragraph comparing certain characters from LOTR to characters from Harry Potter. It didn’t make any difference to me regarding the debate question at hand, and in truth you didn’t really try to make it make a difference to the debate question. What you wrote about Harry being like Frodo, Dumbledore like Gandalf and Voldemort being like Sauron, contained nothing with regards to how this made the LOTR series better. I assume you meant to say that original characters are better than later versions, but you never make this explicit and the whole paragraph seems to lack purpose.

I’m not sure how McGonagall is only there to provide a ‘bit of diversity’ when every Potter film is set in a school which she is the headmistress of. Cho Chang also played a role in one of the films which was pivotal to the plot. I also had to re-read the bit about how Frodo ‘grows up a great deal’ in LOTR whereas ‘folks like Ron and Hermione in HP don't really change’ several times. I even rubbed my eyes at one point and re-read it again. I’m not even going to comment further, just read your opponent’s section sub-titled ‘Journey’ for further explanation as to the ridiculousness of your argument here.

You hit on a potentially good point with the structure of each of the worlds. You do present some good arguments regarding the consistency of the LOTR universe compared to the consistency of the Potter universe, but the only evidence you provide me is a throwaway comment about dead people in paintings. You provide me with no context here so the argument loses value despite it having a shitload of potential.

I appreciate your section regarding the awards and nominations etc, though I am personally of the opinion that the Oscars can go fuck themselves with regards to their relevancy to what makes a good film. I won’t deny you make good points here though.

Nice conclusion, rounding up a few points and driving them home for the finish. It did occur to me that you were focusing on the ‘franchise’ a bit too much right at the end of your debate. The franchise includes the books and indeed the LOTR books did inspire so much more than the Potter books have, but a 60-year head start will certainly help with that.

VERDICT
Flay’s presentation was very good, though of course I took issue with a couple of the three main arguments. It has the makings of a very good Social Division debate, had the revenue and longevity arguments been tidied up and explained much better than they were. Whoever wrote this has a promising future in Social if they can analyse their own arguments a little better to discover where they falter and fix them before submitting. BruiserKC read entertainingly enough but made a couple of errors, most notably one which was masterfully countered by Flay (the Potter characters ‘not changing much’ lol), and while BruiserKC did make some good points towards the end, not nearly enough detail was included to back up those points. The winner is Flay and by a fair margin.

Curry
Flay

Okay, that's a 152 word intro that lays out a stance and establishes your 3 criteria. It makes for a nice lead in to the debate but using up ~1/8th of your debate just for intro flavour hurts your chance to make arguments in the body of your debate.

In the revenue section it's good that you're aware of the obvious "more movies means more revenue, duh" counter but your refutation doesn't actually refute this. Your own figures prove there were more "moviegoers who were interested enough to leave their house, go to a cinema and pay their hard earned money to sit for 3 hours so they can be entertained" by Lord of the Rings than by Harry Potter. All this section has really argued is that Harry Potter had more films, which is true but doesn't really help you.

And while we're talking about longevity: Is the half-century-spanning Doctor Who a better TV series than Breaking Bad? Is the 13 year Scary Movie series or the 30 year long Friday the 13th series better than the Back to the Future series that was wrapped up in only 5 years? Why is longevity and actual advantage to a film series?

Although the last section in the main body of your argument does finally get to the films themselves, trivialised summaries of LOTR don't actually dicredit it much as it'd be just as easy to describe Harry Potter as "the tale of a hormonal child accidentally overcoming the greatest dark wizard in the world time and time again" and the possibility of a child having grow up with the series is really just another argument for the longevity of the series.

Overall I'm struggling to see much actual argument in your debate as to why Harry Potter is a superior series in anything other than longevity as the arguments you've made are either too easily countered or missing the point in my opinion. If this debate was a little rushed, I'd suggest taking longer to think clearly about each point and assess why this backs up your stance and how you can preemptively close up any cracks your opponent or the judges might find.

BruiserKC

The first thing I noticed here was that this seems to run a little short. At 694 words you're in the word limit but choosing not to use over 100 words that are available to you leaves you with less chance to build arguments and reaffirm your stance. Even though 600-800 is the given limit you should always aim to be in the 780-800 range to make sure you are getting as much as you can out of the topic. When you then go on to spend a sizable chunk of this giving a summary of the two series' similarities you're left with even less of an opportunity to make your points. Try to ensure that at much of your word count as possible is used in arguments that help your stance.

Though you can make some criticism about the characters in Harry Potter, especially when compared to the more well-developed universe of Lord of the Rings, comparing Cho Chang and Minerva McGonagall to Jar Jar Binks is pushing it too far, as both fit useful roles and are there for more than diversity.

Cho serves as the focal point for Harry's growth as a teenager into his “raging hormones” phase in The Goblet of Fire and The Order of the Phoenix. With the knowledge that Harry and Ginny were eventually to wind up together in the later films, Harry's “first love” storyline has to be out of the way before then and be with a character not previously involved in any major stories with the trio.

McGonagall is absolutely a purposeful character. She serves as:
*The devoted second in command to Dumbledore, amplifying his presece by acting as a representation of the respect he has garnered in the magical community.
*The “firm but fair” mentor to Harry who plays opposite the biased Severus Snape throughout the series and against Dolores Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix.
*Harry's surrogate mother and mentor at Hogwarts while he is away from Molly Weasley
*Hermione's role model as a strong ravenclaw-esque Gryffindor witch
All valuable roles that had to be filled and were done so well.

Your point about the rules is an odd one to make. I'd agree that Lord of the Rings has a better developed world (obviously Tolkein was a master of this) but your example is a very poor one here. To say “Even though there is magic in this world, the rules on how it is used and made is consistent and unchanging” is something Harry Potter lacks and back this up with the example of dead people appearing in portraits is nonsensical as this is something that is clearly established in the grand staircase scene in the Philosopher's Stone and continues to be a part of Hogwarts throughout the whole series.

The section on awards is easily your strongest as this is a very clear difference between the two film series and you presented the very basic facts of the argument and let them show Lord of the Rings' superiority clearly.

In your conclusion it really would've been better to steer clear of mentioning the books as the question asks specifically about the movie series so they shouldn't feature in what is effectively a summary of your answer.

Although your debate was a little short and at times drifted off topic a bit, you made a good attempt to compare the two and presented at least one good area of dominance for your chosen film series, giving you the win here.

BruiserKC wins

Winner via Split Decision - BruiserKC

obby vs JustJoel
Who should have won at Battleground 2015, John Cena or Kevin Owens?

obby
One of the primary reasons for the consistency of hatred for John Cena amongst wrestling fans is his equally consistent track record of ruining the careers of others for the sake of his own elevation. In the ten years he's been on top, he's been involved in a plethora of one sided feuds that have resulted in the depushes of a vast array of talent including, but not limited to, the likes of Umaga, Sandow, Christian, Bray Wyatt, Ryback, and the entire Nexus stable. As a result, Cena has established a firm monopoly on the main event scene for himself, and is one of the primary factors in the insignificance of the majority of the roster, having doomed them to forever trade wins and losses in the midcard. Said storylines are a step backwards for the WWE as a whole, and Cena's recent feud with Kevin Owens is no different.

Up until recently, 2015 had been a different year for Cena than most. While his one sided feuds with up and comers were still a constant, what with his multiple dismantling's of the Wyatt's the year before, said storylines were generally spread out between feuds with other main eventers. The majority of Cena's 2015, however, consisted of almost nothing but. He started off the year with a typical thrashing on Rusev, breaking his winning streak, and his momentum. In between and after these beatings, his United States title reign also allowed him to register wins against an abundance of main roster workers. However, when NXT champion Kevin Owens made his main roster debut and managed to get a clean victory over Cena in their first meeting at Battleground, fan perspective was overwhelmingly optimistic about this being the one time that a newer star managed to get the better of Cena and actually establish himself as a main event presence. Of course, the WWE managed to break these expectations by having Cena win the feud, but also to add an extra blow when they ended it all with Owens tapping out to Cena's STF and promptly being sent down the card to feud with another midcard nobody in Cesaro.

One of the major arguments made for Cena dispatching Owens and the others in such a way is that of his status as one of the few draws left in the company, which is truly nonsensical considering Cena himself has been one of the prime reasons there are so few wrestlers with drawing ability in the first place. Not only is Cena responsible for the prevention of multiple potential superstars coming to fruition, but the company itself has even been known to diminish already proven stars at Cena's expense, CM Punk's midcard title reign being a good example. It's clear that the WWE are hellbent as keeping Cena as their number one guy, and only real star, no matter how much collateral damage he racks up. It begs the question of what exactly they'll do when he's gone and all they're left with are the guys he's beat.

Another argument is that of Cena's feuds all following the basic principles of wrestling storytelling in that the good guy is triumphant when all is said and done. The problem with such a statement is clear; when it comes to Cena's storylines with up and coming heels, he's not elevating them because every other principle that makes a storyline in wrestling great is ignored. There are no ups and downs in said storylines; the hero never looks in peril. If anything, it's one big squash match extended over the course of a couple months, and that's exactly why there appeared to be hope for said Owens feud. For once, the villain got the upper hand. He actually looked like a credible threat. But this proved to be for naught with the way he was treated immediately afterward. With three straight clean losses, submitting to Cena, and no prior main roster history to bounce back on, the one win Owens got over Cena is nothing more than a fluke.

Where does Kevin Owens go from here? His character is similar to Wyatt's in how talking the talk is a vital part of his arsenal. What WWE don't seem to understand is that walking the walk is just as important, and that as Owens trades wins in the midcard his credibility will whittle away. No matter how far Owens goes from here, he'll always have the fact that John Cena is better than him hanging over his momentum like a dark cloud.

JustJoel
The crucial questions when booking are “how, and to what end?” Matches are not booked in a vacuum. Instead, they are shaped by the past and future plans. The best option is for Cena to defeat Owens via Disqualification.

The biggest problem for Owens winning concerns the future: Who will both men face at the next ppv - the bigger and more important - Summerslam? If Owens defeats Cena cleanly at Battleground, there is no logical next opponent or angle for Owens which is bigger than the climax of the trilogy between he and the reigning face of the company. The only comparable big matches would be:

World Champion Rollins (Heel)
Brock Lesnar (Booked)
Part-time legend (left field)

This also leaves Cena no credence to challenge Rollins, no reason for Rollins to accept, and lowers the stakes even if they run with it anyway. Bottomline: Owens over Cena clean leaves both men a lower-profile match for an even bigger upcoming event.

This may suggest Owens cheating to win is smart money. However, the crux of the problem is this: If Owens wins at Battleground by unfair advantage, the logical result from Cena/Owens III is Cena/Owens IV. This risks the feud “feeling stale” after four singles matches in as many months. Adding more opponents to create a multi-man match after Owens wins the title only stacks the deck against the heel.

Ok, Cena - but how?

Let's be honest - Rollins breaking Cena’s nose was a godsend. As originally proposed, Cena cleanly submitting two of the most credible, active heels in an eight day span easy-peasy is damaging not only to Owens and Rollins, but also the title match to follow. Champion against Champion is a high-profile match in theory, but it’s taken Cena’s nose to generate interest from those not already behind Cena. Owens - suffering his fourth consecutive clean loss in big matches - has “cooled off” and is less relevant moving forward in the eyes of many fans[1][2]. Steve Austin acknowledged this controversy on his podcast, despite agreeing with the finish[3]. By again wrestling without attempting to cheat to win, Owens comes out more respectable and yet less threatening - the exact opposite qualities a heel should possess. The result also reinforced the sometimes negative perception regarding Cena and in wrestling, perception is often treated as reality. Perhaps worst of all, the blowoff to the company’s hottest feud happened on a transitional ppv, when a bigger True Rubber Match could have been saved.

I Call Upon You, Shenanigans​

Cena and Owens shouldn't have wrestled three consecutive clean matches. To keep heat on Owens, set up an high-caliber Summerslam match, and further the story already in place, Owens should’ve “inadvertently” knocked out the referee (winding back and elbowing the ref in the face during an exchange of punches). Owens then downs Cena and attempts to use the US Title as a weapon. Before he is able, Cesaro comes out to save Cena, and brawls with Owens. Rusev then comes out and attacks Cena.

The introduction of new characters adds depth as all have good reason for involving themselves: Owens cheated both Cesaro and Rusev out of the US Title[4][5]. Cesaro had a rematch which he lost[6], but earned Cena's respect and admiration in the process, which Cena conveyed afterwards[7] and the following week on commentary[8]. Mutual respect makes Cesaro the logical candidate to "save" John Cena from an unfair attack. Cesaro can be said to have given a lot of himself trying to win the title, and would not want it to be won underhandedly. Rusev, having never had a rematch and bitter over the result to his “I Quit” match[9], has motive and opportunity to attack. Owens is disqualified for hitting the referee, but the controversy surrounding whether Owens “meant” to hit the referee is good heat and The Authority including Cesaro works because it stacks the deck against the face while “driving a wedge” between two comrades, Cesaro and Cena. The match for Summerslam is Cena v. Owens v. Rusev v. Cesaro for the US Title.

Where does that leave the WWE Champion? Randy Orton defeated Sheamus at Battleground[10], is a credible opponent, and has history with Rollins. A title match could be made even more interesting and unpredictable by having Sheamus “call his shot” and guarantee a cash-in if Orton wins. This would set the stage for three big Summerslam matches.


John Cena retaining is the best option for Battleground, but how and to what end matters most. Todays booking sets up tomorrows stories. Instead of capping off a hot feud at a transitional ppv, Battleground should've been a vehicle in the larger fight for the US Title that gives direction to all involved, while leaving open an even bigger final resolution between Owens and Cena in the future.

References:

[1]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2527270-kevin-owens-lacks-momentum-after-john-cena-loss-at-wwe-battleground-2015

[2]http://fansided.com/2015/07/19/john-cena-beats-kevin-owens-battleground-reaction/

[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQrf7bCIEs

[4]http://www.wrestleview.com/wwe-wrestling-results/wwe-raw-results/55061-wwe-raw-results-6-29-15-live-results-from-washington-d-c

[5] http://www.wrestleview.com/wwe-wres...raw-results-7-13-15-live-results-from-atlanta

[6]http://www.wrestleview.com/wwe-wrestling-results/wwe-raw-results/55158-wwe-raw-results-7-6-15-live-results-from-chicago

[7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmbFq7zwgC8

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8gEATXZ_ds

[9]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2456736-john-cena-vs-rusev-i-quit-match-winner-and-reaction-from-wwe-payback-2015

[10]http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/599569-wwe-battleground-result-randy-orton-vs-sheamus

M-Diggedy
obby

This is quite an enjoyable read. Your intro is pretty good and sets out a number of your opinions early on. One problem, though – you haven’t answered the question yet. You imply that this will be an anti-Cena based debate but I don’t know how you would book the match; which is essentially what is being asked.

The second paragraph is similar to the first. A good read, sure, but it’s more of a tirade against Cena than it is an answer to the debate question. I also think you have doctored the fan perception on the US open challenge a bit, but you bring it up and dismiss I so briefly that I think it works here. By the end of the paragraph, I know what it is you are trying to do. You want to make it so plainly obvious that Cena always wins that just this one time they should have done otherwise. However, that is an assumption I’m making, because you still haven’t told me this yet.

I wish you could have driven home the point in your third paragraph a little more. You’re right in saying Cena’s booking has prevented others from excelling but I would really like you to expand on it. You had some words to spare, why not show me a specific example of someone’s fall from grace.

Fret not, though, as your next section is the best part of your debate. Had you answered the question more directly earlier, this would have been a great argument to use. I thought you did a very good job of dismissing the impact of Owens winning the first match which would be a good counter to anyone saying Cena could win due to giving the initial rub to KO. Strong section.

The end of your debate is ok, even if I disagree with the point somewhat. You could have went harder here and talked about the need for longer-term booking with the heels occasionally being on top but it’s still not too bad. However, you still haven’t told me how you will book the match. Unfortunately, that is the main take home for me as a judge.

However, the second main point to take from this is that it was a convincing and well-written piece of writing, even if I did dislike the frequent use of “said storylines”. Just answer the question more directly and you’ll do well.

JustJoel

This debate certainly doesn’t suffer the Achilles heel of the previous debate so much as you have left me in no doubt as to your stance. By setting out your stall early you trade in some of the entertainment achieved in Debate A so it’s a good clash of styles.

I don’t agree with your alternatives for Owens Summerslam opponents, especially considering you mention Orton later on in your debate. However, that one little omission aside, you largely convey a sense of considering all the possibilities in making your decision.

The way you dismiss the fourth battle between the two is pretty good. Again, I disagree, but you are doing a good job so far of making that unimportant. The formatting here is particularly useful, as it makes it seem as though we have both agreed thus far and will now move on.

Your next section is hit-and-miss for me. I don’t really subscribe to the notion that the broken nose was necessary to hype the match. It helped, sure, but I found this part to be too dismissive on the whole. Your Owens sub-section is better. Your Austin mention actually weakens your argument a little bit, but it still works on the whole.

Ok, now we get to your specific booking. Clearly you have given this a lot of thought, but it’s not well written. It just drones on too much for my taste and the rampant use of referencing takes me out of your debate. Maybe group them together so I can reflect on it all at the end of the paragraph. In any case, the positives of this section are that you have really taken the time to justify your decision and at least show that it makes some booking sense. While your section about the WWE title comes across as a little bit underwhelming and a tad irrelevant, it still achieves the purpose you aimed for in showing that Cena was not necessary for the world title match – so maybe I am being harsh there.

Your conclusion is a nice throwback to your introduction, which is a nuance of persuasive writing I always really enjoy. This las section neatly summarises the arguments you have made and is a concise confirmation of the points you have made. This is a pretty good effort overall, with just a few elements to tighten up.

Verdict

These were both good, but for very different reasons. However, one of those shared reasons is that they are persuasive in what they write. I personally enjoyed reading obby's more than JustJoel's but as far as answering the question goes I would have to award my vote to JustJoel.

I’m looking forward to reading more debates from the both of you.

CGS
obby

Ugh at people trying to treat Cena like some political asshole when there really isn’t any documented evidence of him being one. Anyone would think the booking team applies to every other superstar apart from him. Mini rant over.

Anyway for an intro that is uberlong and unneeded. We didn’t need a list of guys Cena has apparently “buried”, didn’t need to know that Cena has an apparent monopoly of the main event and we didn’t need to be told that he is the reason for the majority of the roster being “insignificant”. We just needed to know “who should have won Kevin Owens or John Cena”. Keep it simple and to the point.

I’ll keep it short and simple for the next three paragraphs. All of it is just way to descriptive and none of it truly answers the question put in front of you. You never actually say that Owens should have beaten Cena. Just that Cena buried Owens (debatable). This entire debate is pretty much just slamming Cena down and saying that pretty much everything wrong with the company is because of him rather than explaining why Owens should have walked out with the US title.

Your conclusion isn’t terrible but I could easily turn that around and say booking could fix all of that. Look at the New day right now. They are the definition of midcard fodder but with and without the title there credibility and hype is only growing. Owens didn’t need the title too look like a threat. He just needed great booking behind him to look like a threat.

You really needed to talk more about Owens and less about Cena. So Owens should have won the title? Good now sell me the reasons as to why. Why did he need to beat Cena, What are the benefits of him being the U.S champ, How does him winning affect the WWE going forward that kinda stuff.


JustJoel

Nice to see that that you took on the advice from both Seabs & Andre from the last show and tried to think about the bigger picture in this debate. It would be very easy to just turn around and say Owens because of elevation reasons or like obby did just say that he should have won it because “he needed it more than Cena”.

Nice simple intro. No complaints there. Second paragraph is good too and slightly true. Although you could have turned this around and also said that with Owens being a great talker he could have taken this moment into his next feud and even helped elevate someone else. There may not have been a bigger feud ready for him, but the opportunity created one. Decent statement on the Cena one though. With the stale comment you could have brought in how that fucked up Cena/Rusev as well. Decent statement on Owens looking strong by appearing not to cheat to win. You missed the mark by also saying it can help further his character as well.

In terms of your overall scenario I felt it was fine but it could have been written a lot cleaner. I was initially confused because at the start you said Cena would win by DQ but then you brought up Cesaro interfering to save Cena which suggests to me that Owens actually wins by DQ only to go on to say that Owens would have already been DQ’d due to attacking the ref. If this was the case that should have been noted before Cesaro & Rusev came out. Logically if Owens was able to almost hit Cena with the US title then the ref had to have been down and not able to make the call at that time and probably wouldn’t have until Cesaro & Rusev were already both in the ring.

I like that you thought outside the box but if you’re gonna go with the fantasy angle you gotta make sure it’s logical, clean and no holes can be poked in it. Frankly I thought you made it harder for yourself than you needed too.

The last two paragraphs are fine. It’s good that you covered what would happen with the WWE title too with no Cena around. All in all it was a decent debate. Your fantasy booking paragraphs defiantly needed tightening though. If you do this in your next debate just remember to read it and think “Is there any holes the judges can poke in this and where”.

In terms of a winner it’s gotta go to JustJoel simple because they actually answered the question brought forward.

Winner: JustJoel

Evolution
Oh goodie, a John Cena topic. I can't wait to see what we get here. It'll be interesting to see if people debate with their hearts or their heads...

obby:

Okay so my first problem with your intro is that you start trying to bury John Cena off the bat but you have no idea nor demonstrate any proof that Cena is actually responsible for anything that you've claimed. He is merely the face that the TV sees doing it, but without any evidence you can't claim that HE is solely the one responsible for doing those things and not WWE creative, bookers or Vinnie Mac.

My second problem is that you barely address the topic at all. You don't mention Battleground at all and you don't really establish a reason or address any points for why you've taken the side you have. It's just a vague, uninformed statement which you go on to then briefly engage the topic at the end.

Second paragraph in and I'm still not sure what you're getting at. You still haven't told me who should have won at Battleground and you sure as hell haven't told me why they should or shouldn't have won.

Oh and Cesaro has been on the ascent recently, and if anything, Owens feud with Cena (despite the losses) has actually put him in a position of power to elevate people. Which is truly proven given the fact a guy that's been on the roster for 4 months has elevated a guy that's been on the roster 3 years further towards the main event than he's ever been in his career and Owens is his first true upper-mid card match iirc. So your own example is a detriment to your own argument.

In your next paragraph, you're still not telling me who should have won at Battleground directly and why.

I already disproved your heel elevation argument by accident just before. There's no way Owens could have elevated Cesaro to where he is now if he debuted against anyone else on the roster. Not anyone else.

This is one of the worst debates I've read in a long while. I hope to God the next one is better.

JustJoel:

Your intro is great, a good breakdown of why Owens couldn't have won clean but I'm a little confused as to how you think the match should have been booked because you say in the intro it should have been a DQ win to Cena but then go on to say that a DQ finish would have meant a fourth match with the potential to make a good feud with great chemistry stale.

So you're kind of weakening your own argument there.

You do go on to clean it up and provide us with a good alternative. That's a good match for Summerslam (the 4-way), it would have made sense to mention the Orton/Rollins match that was on Raw and the ending that received and basically asked why that couldn't have happened on PPV instead. Would have strengthened it a bit.

Good conclusion and a much, much, MUCH stronger debate than obby.

Conclusion:

Via body bag then cremation; JustJoel is the winner.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - JustJoel

Poyser vs A-C-P
Is the wrestling industry better off with or without TNA?

A-C-P

Is the wrestling industry better off with or without TNA?

This question is a tough one for me to give one stance on as certain circumstances make the answer yes and some make the answer no. In theory the existence of TNA makes the wrestling industry better, but the fact that TNA is being run like such a joke it actually makes the wrestling industry worse off.

In an industry like professional wrestling where there is one dominant company (The WWE) in theory the existence of TNA, a wrestling company with some of the same advantages, though on a much smaller scale, as the one dominant company has; a TV deal, a venue to tape TV shows at, and that also tours should make the wrestling industry better off. A wrestling company that has all these things provides another option for professional wrestlers to work in a stable environment and gain great exposure world-wide, which increases their own personal earning potential. Also, having a set venue that your TV shows are taped at provides some sort of stability of having a place to live and not having to constantly be on the road, like most professional wrestlers need to do to earn a decent living.

Also the existence of a wrestling company with the things that TNA has currently also adds competition to the wrestling industry and more legitimate competition in any industry is good for the industry as a whole. Giving the consumers of the pro wrestling industry more viable options of different products to watch forces all the wrestling companies to produce a better quality product to keep people consuming their individual product with in the industry. More legitimate competition in the industry also provides advantages for the professional wrestlers themselves as companies have to treat them better as employees/independent contractors to keep them working for you. And again in theory another company that should be providing legitimate competition in the industry, like TNA should be, would make the wrestling industry better off.

Now for the other side of the fence, where in reality how TNA being run like a joke on the business side now actually makes the professional wrestling industry worse off because of their existence. This debate is not about why or how TNA has become a joke of a company from a business standpoint so I will not go into that and just focus on why TNA is a joke of a company from a business standpoint. TNA currently not paying their wrestlers and other employees on time (or at all), the constant either lying to the wrestlers and employees or just withholding negative information from them, and the resulting exodus of a lot of their talent recently is making, or has already made TNA into a complete joke of a company. Also, now because of the company turning into a joke from a business standpoint TNA has had to reach out to the man (Jeff Jarrett) that founded them, which the company then fired when they were able to, and who now has started another promotion of his own to try and save them, making TNA look like an even bigger joke.

When the closest thing to what could’ve be legitimate competition, somewhat, to the dominant company in the wrestling industry becomes as big of joke as TNA has become the wrestling industry as whole is definitely worse off. It is worse off for the customers as it gives them good alternative options if they are unhappy with the product of the dominant company in the industry. It is also worse for the wrestlers themselves as there is now less options out there for them to earn a decent living in the pro-wrestling industry. The one other major reason TNA being such a joke is bad for the industry as a whole is the fact that they have been the one company that has been the closest to becoming legitimate competition to the dominant company in the industry and now them failing like this adds to the negative stigma the wrestling industry has as a whole to a lot of the people of the world.

The existence of TNA could have been and really should be a great thing for the industry of professional wrestling, but the sad truth is that TNA’s existence is actually bad for the professional wrestling industry as a whole.

Poyser

Whilst it's fair to say that TNA receives its fair share of criticism and derision from the internet wrestling community, wrestling is absolutely better off WITH TNA in it.

Competition Breeds Success

Arguing that wrestling would be better off without TNA would be similar to arguing that fast food would be better off without Burger King, that fizzy drink would be better off without Pepsi, and that the Premier League would be better off without Manchester City, it's just a little bit silly. Sure, these might not be the number one companies in their fields, but it's the competition they provide which makes the top dogs raise their game, in turn ensuring that the overall quality is the best that it can be. TNA provides the same for wrestling.

Obviously, TNA don't provide competition on the level which WCW once did, but the potential is there. Let me take you back to January 4th, 2010. TNA went live on Monday nights, challenging WWE directly for the first time in their history. WWE took notice and produced a STACKED show, including the return of Bret Hart, which most people were sure they would never see. The result? More people watched wrestling that night than had done for a long time! TNA produced their highest ever rating, with WWE producing their highest rating for over 6 months1, showing that the potential is there if TNA could find their booking groove and keep the viewers hooked. A successful TNA equals a more successful wrestling business, with more eyeballs on the industry and WWE producing a better product than is their norm. January 4th 2010 is just a taster of the possibilities of having consistent competition between the two biggest wrestling companies.

Viewer's Choice

The key to any industry vulnerable to subjectivity is choice, and catering to everyone's different tastes. The reason Walkers creates so many different flavours is because they know that choice is king and just having one flavour would be bad for business. Wrestling is much the same. When WWE was the only wrestling show on television, the amount of people watching wrestling dropped off a cliff when compared to a time in which the choice was strong2.

TNA, along with Lucha Underground and ROH (now that they're also on national TV) provide alternatives and each offer a unique flavour which is paramount for the wrestling industry's success. Not everybody likes WWE and the style of wrestling they bring, so it's important for them to have alternatives otherwise they could very well end up lost to wrestling for good. Some people may argue that ROH would have been a better choice to be in TNA's position as the #2 company, but BOTH companies are important to wrestling and the loss of either of them would greatly weaken the industry and take eyeballs off the business. Now that they both have TV deals (on the same channel!) that get their product out to more people, they can both benefit from the competition that the other brings, and as they vie for supremacy on Destination America, the wrestling industry can benefit from both of those companies bringing their A games.

Talent

The most important aspect of the wrestling industry is the talent and it's imperative that they have as many options as possible to make a living, otherwise they would have no option but to quit wrestling altogether. One of the biggest knocks that TNA gets is that it's basically a house of WWE rejects, but in fact, this is one of the best things about them. In the past, talent that were passed over or released by WWE would face either having to scrape together a living on the indies, or go and get a real job. Wrestlers often don't make enough money to keep on wrestling on the indies, and find themselves contemplating quitting the business if they don't make it to WWE3. Many talented wrestlers would end up lost to the business this way, which is obviously a real shame for wrestling. TNA gives them another option to make a living whilst remaining in wrestling and can also offer stability with multi-year contracts, similar to WWE, which would mean that more wrestlers could continue wrestling even when not employed by WWE.

In summery, it would be silly to suggest that wrestling would be better off without TNA. Whilst they may be mocked by the internet smarks and given a bad reputation, the positives they bring to the table far outweighs that. Giving both viewers and wrestlers alike alternatives to the juggernaut (and stale) WWE, they make the wrestling business stronger. Their loss would be massively detrimental to the profession of wrestling which by definition means that wrestling is better off with it.


1 http://www.geekweek.com/2010/01/tna-draws-record-ratings.html - WWE & TNA ratings for 04/01/10.
2 http://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/12/5/2613074/pg-and-the-wwe-is-it-working - RAW/Nitro ratings from '95-'01 and WWE average ratings up until '11.
3 https://soundcloud.com/coltcabana/aow-261-5th-year-anniversary - Colt Cabana interviews Kevin Steen in 2012, who is struggling to decide if he should quit wrestling, as he's not making enough money.

Seabs
A-C-P - The moment you start arguing for both sides of the coin you're doing something wrong. I'm kinda assuming that wasn't your attention because you should know better but that's what you did. Half your debate said why TNA should be good for the industry and then the other half said why it isn't. Granted should be good and being good are different but it was a bad strategic choice to spend half your debate arguing the benefits TNA SHOULD have to the industry because it doesn't help your stance and just hurts your debate (more so than your stance). Your first half is mostly on the ball but if TNA isn't making them factor then there's no point to them. The irony is that I actually thought you argued the first half better than the second half which was your actual stance. The pros for talent and viewers do technically still exist. TNA is still another place for talent to get paid and to get exposure from and for as shit as it is it is still an alternative product for some viewers to enjoy. So that's two different stakeholders in the industry TNA has a positive impact on regardless of how bad they are that you bring to my attention that go against your stance. The issue with your arguments for your actual stance is there's no real negative impact on the INDUSTRY being shown. It's just TNA looks like a joke but how is that bad for the industry? Is it driving wrestling fans away from wrestling all together or just to other promotions? Is it preventing promotions like ROH and Lucha Underground from getting better TV deals? The penultimate paragraph doesn't make any sense to me when I read it. It's full of contradictions like "It is worse off for the customers as it gives them good alternative options if they are unhappy with the product of the dominant company in the industry.".

Poyser - Your talent paragraph won you this one. The theory behind the competition and choice arguments are good but you never actually show if they are the case for TNA in 2015. "A successful TNA equals a more successful wrestling business, with more eyeballs on the industry and WWE producing a better product than is their norm." - you really needed hard evidence for this. There's nothing in your debate (or from WWE I'd say) that suggests TNA's presence forces WWE to produce a better product. The only evidence you have is really outdated for a context like this. Also I get the aim with the comparisons here but they're not really accurate comparisons. TNA are in no way to WWE what Burger King is to McDonalds or Pepsi are to Coke. The Premier League comparison I was pretty eh with too comparing the success of a sports team to the commercial success of a business like McDonalds. For the choice argument I needed more evidence that TNA is actually an alternative. Counter the argument that TNA is just WWE but worse and that they don't differentiate themselves properly. Also if TNA is the go to alternative via ease of access and people who don't like WWE don't like TNA for the same reason and just exit the industry all together could you argue TNA being #2 over an actual alternative like ROH or LU is hurting the industry? This had more than the competition argument but still with holes you didn't fill and a lack of compelling evidence to back it up. Fortunately the talent argument is really good though and was enough to win you this debate comfortably as your opponent made a bit of a mess of their debate. Against a debate that offered more than one counter against your stance you might have been in trouble though as you were relying on the strength of this one argument. No complaints with this part of your debate. Effectiveness of two arguments aside the other issue with your debate for me was a lack of counters to the opposing stance and the possible damage people may say TNA is doing. Obviously there's only so much you can do with 800 words but you should have touched on that at least a little bit.

Winner - Poyser

Jupiter Jack Daniels
A-C-P

You start off with the positives, such as having a TV deal, a venue to tape TV and the ability to tour the world. This is important because, aside from WWE, no American promotion has all of those things. The common theme here is stability, with wrestlers having another option to work in a stable environment and gain global exposure, increasing their earning potential, and the company has a home that allows wrestlers to gain everything, without the grueling schedule. You also mention TNA providing competition, which is truly what the industry needs.

Now, the other side of the fence.

Of course, the biggest complaint about TNA is the business side of things. But, I don't get how they make the business worse off by merely existing. Every reason you listed has a more significant effect on TNA than it does the business. Them not paying people, lying to the employees or even bringing back Jarrett is only an internal thing that may be a joke to the rest of the business but is it a joke that detracts from the business?

I don't understand what you meant by this:

It is worse off for the customers as it gives them good alternative options if they are unhappy with the product of the dominant company in the industry.
But, this:

It is also worse for the wrestlers themselves as there is now less options out there for them to earn a decent living in the pro-wrestling industry.
Makes no sense to me. Using the fact that there aren't as many viable options for guys to make money in the business as a way of saying the business is better off without TNA seems like a reach. If there was no TNA, wouldn't that be the same case?

Overall, the narrative of TNA being a joke took control here. You never convinced me that the business would be better off without them. For all of their blunders over the years, the wrestling business has still managed to progress. With NJPW's growing following in America, ROH securing national TV and PPV, AAA returning to American PPV, the rise of NXT and Lucha Undergound amassing a cult following thru their TV, options have grew for guys frustrated with TNA. To say that their mere existence hurts the business would have merit if the above wasn't a reality.


Poyser

Reverting back to the Monday Night Wars 2.0 was interesting. While that may have had a positive effect in the short-term, it's also viewed as the point where TNA started to unravel behind the scenes. However, your point about a successful TNA equals a successful wrestling business is good, mainly because TNA is in a position where they should be able to thrive in the current wrestling climate and doing so makes things better for everybody.

Choice is key and now more than every, fans have a heap of options. WWE, NXT, ROH, NJPW, Lucha Underground and of course, TNA. Great point about how when WWE was the only wrestling show on TV, viewership dropped significantly, compared to when there were options. An interesting thing is, I think for the first time since maybe the 80s, we have two different wrestling promotions airing on the same channel. It provides a way for them to piggyback off one another and as you said, with their A-game, can benefit the wrestling industry.

The next part about the talent is good but parts of it can be countered, mainly in regards to contracts. At a time where TNA is being outed for paying people late (if at all) and if I'm not mistaken, the restructuring of existing contracts from when they toured heavily to deals that are reflective and consistent of where they are now, it may not be the best place to go to make a good living but a living can be made, nonetheless. Also, TNA allows guys to take indie dates again, which provides the luxury of having a contract, while also being able to get outside work.

Basically, the theme here was alternatives. For fans and wrestlers alike. In comparison to A-C-P, which told the story of TNA being a joke that shouldn't exist, Poyser acknowledged them being a joke but also explained the positives they have on the wrestling world by simply being an alternative viewing experience and alternative working environment. I felt it was more structured, more detailed and more in tune with the topic, so Poyser wins this one. Not flawless but it was good.

M-Diggedy
I felt this was a pretty easy decision to make but I’ll stick to my usual format of giving individual feedback first.

A-C-P

“This question is a tough one for me to give one stance on as certain circumstances make the answer yes and some make the answer no.”

I don’t often quote debates but this type of sentence needs to go. For the same effect you could type – “this is a good debate question so honestly I’m not sure, let’s see how it goes”. It might be honest, but it’s damn sure not convincing and in this case it undermines your argument from the very first line.

Your 62 word stream of consciousness at the start of the second paragraph is a tough read. In fact, it was a tough re-read as well. It’s a shame because you actually summarise the whole point you were trying to make in the next two sentences. Basically, stability, earnings and exposure = good. You clearly know what the important issues are to address, just show more conviction and do a bit of proof reading.

I won’t go in to big detail because it’s largely more of the same from here on out. You talk about a lot of the things you should talk about, but you ramble a bit. Refine your points, be more convinced in your own argument and don’t give so many acknowledgements to the opposing point of view.

The last real point I will make here is that it is often harder to argue the negative. A lot of the time a glimmer of hope will beat a barrage of negatives so, in order to win with this kind of stance, you have to really slaughter the subject of the debate – especially so in this case. TNA is nothing if not cannon fodder for a focussed debater. Talking passionately and in detail about TNA’s pay issues, broadcast relations and any LOLTNA moments you can think of was essential here. Unfortunately you did not go far enough or hard enough for me to think they are terrible.

Poyser

I’ll preface the following by saying that I quite enjoyed this but it would not be a TDL judging feedback if I wasn’t at least somewhat of an arsehole.

You argued the same stance as I would have, but in a pretty different way. However, you still had the debate won within two paragraphs. If I am being extremely harsh, I didn’t like the premier league analogy because that’s based in objectivity. The comparison on the whole is very much the crux of the argument, though. Competition is good. I would have driven home that this is best for both the consumer and the employees of the wrestling industry here – it would have shown you considered the whole industry and that everybody benefits.

That same minor issue is there in your second paragraph. You are making the right argument but don’t relate it to the question clearly enough. You mention the eyeballs on the product, but relate that more to WHY it is good for the industry. Talk about finances or long-term growth or something. I appreciate the word count is limiting and that I am being very harsh but that could be the difference between a championship debate.

It’s a similar story in the ‘Viewer’s Choice’ section. You make the right argument again but it just needs that tiny little nudge to fully relate it to the entire industry. Essentially, I’m looking for some specific links so I can relate to your debate a bit more. At this point specifically, you lean a little too much on conjecture.

The last section is what I would have spent the most time arguing and I think you do a decent job of it. I would have emphasised the WWE reject bit a little less and mentioned that it gives everybody a better chance at a sustainable career.

One last time, I know that I’m being a little specific and harsh with this debate but that’s because there are only little things you need to alter. Overall, it was a well formatted, decently written piece that countered the opponent and made solid arguments. Well done.

Verdict

As will be clear to those who read the feedback, Poyser gets the win here. In terms of a written argument, it was not a particularly close contest. However, I get the impression that A-C-P would argue quite well in person. Make sure and tighten up the writing and make sure every sentence adds to your argument. If it doesn’t, then cut it and try again. A little more planning and I think you’ll rise up the wrestling division.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Poyser

Mr. Socko vs OXITRON
Assuming that Finn Balor successfully defends against Kevin Owens and Kevin Owens then leaves NXT, who should Finn Balor work his first NXT Title program with?

OXITRON

The NXT Championship picture for the last two years has unsurprisingly been the main event of NXT:
• The most popular talent on the show are constantly in contention or not far from it;
• They get natural prioritised booking and by far the most airtime[2];
and also unsurprisingly...
• The majority are wrestlers with a well-documented career in the independent scene.

The landscape has changed from 'televised developmental' into 'niche wrestling brand' relatively quickly, and though wrestling fans are divided on whether or not it's a good change, it strongly proves that the next contender should be Samoa Joe.

Joe is the absolute best choice (other than the injured Hideo Itami) to face Balor for three main reasons:
1) He represents NXT's niche wrestling appeal extremely well;
2) He's insanely popular with a majority of NXT fans - possibly the most popular other than Balor right now;
3) Both his ability and usefulness have been untapped since arriving on the show.


Joe
1 & 2: Representation & Popularity

Joe represents the niche market of NXT exceptionally well, probably better than anyone on the entire NXT roster, due to his years wrestling for ROH and TNA. He's popular because of that, and though NXT fans undoubtedly 'mark' for whatever big star comes along next, the reason why doesn't matter, what matters is they tune in - they subscribe and they watch the show - because of guys like Samoa Joe.

In essence, NXT changed to gain Network subscriptions from a niche market. Joe appeals to that market more than anyone else in NXT other than Balor himself. And Joe vs. Balor appeals more to it than any other match. So it's simply best for business.


3: Ability & Usefulness

It's clear Joe has been misused since joining NXT. The proclaimed "[wrestling] machine" debuted on TV in a non-wrestling role, worked a tag-team match with Balor against Owens and Rhyno, faced a jobber, faced another jobber, and then faced jobber Rhyno[2]. That's all, despite being televised for two months.

But Joe has been in a couple of well-received matches at dark events - like fatal four ways against Balor, Breeze and Owens - so it's clear he's not "past his prime", he's just misused. Which, by extension, means he won't just be a popular representation of NXT, he'll also put on a good match and make it worth the while for even critics.



Samoa Joe's opponent at the upcoming TakeOver is Baron Corbin, who some consider a good option for a championship feud, as well as Tyler Breeze, who is getting a massive nudge by facing megastar Jushin Liger. Yet, Joe is still a much better decision.

Corbin had a slow-burn-heel-turn, which has not 'polarized' the audience, but made everyone who was neutral towards him, dislike him. He's officially the only true heel in NXT. But all of that works against him.

And Breeze has simply been horribly overexposed throughout his already lengthy stay on NXT.


The Other Guys
1: Concerning Corbin

Corbin's heel turn may or may not have been intended. Booking was either lazy and people have naturally turned on him, or booking was "smart" and purposely portrayed him so people would turn on him. Either way, the turn is based on the fact that Baron Corbin is not a world-class wrestler, and even then, he hasn't proven himself to be respectable in-ring yet. Personally it doesn't matter to me, but as mentioned earlier, NXT is no longer treated as a developmental show, but more of a showcase of wrestling ability.

That means not only would Corbin being champion make fans dislike both him and the product itself, it means Corbin being in a feud with Balor over guys like Joe and even Breeze would do the same thing.

It's safe to call Corbin's situation right now a kind of so-called "X-Pac heat". It's not bad, but it's volatile, and like I said, NXT is made to appease a niche market, and putting Corbin in this situation isn't appeasing. It's frustrating.



2: Because Breeze

Tyler Breeze debuted in NXT over two years ago[3], and that's just Breeze, not Clement. His character has been overexposed, he hasn't introduced anything new to keep his tired act from getting any more tired.

Basically, his time to be champion has passed, and there's no way to possibly make it interesting, even with a victory over Jushin FUCKING Liger.


Two arguments could be made, however. "Like Joe, Breeze is popular, so what does it matter?" and "Breeze is also a good representation of NXT."...

Both arguments have simple answers. Joe is more popular and puts eyes on the product; and Breeze was a good representation of televised developmental, he's a fair example of 'niche wrestling brand', but again, just not as much as Joe is.





References:

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FSEZWCKxiA
2 http://www.profightdb.com/wrestlers/samoa-joe-917.html
3 http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwenxtreport/article_72241.shtml#.Vcxm0fnzrIU

Mr. Socko

Firstly, I’d like to discuss the idea of a Balor heel turn by revealing himself as the perpetrator of the attack on Itami before NXT Unstoppable. This is a non-runner for me as it is a waste of a valuable character moment in a small environment such as NXT. A moment such as this could be a star making feud for both men on the main roster. Not to mention that, whilst Itami hopes to return soon, it would be foolish to base your plans entirely on the return of someone who has had significant injury problems in the past. [1][2]

Balor's next opponent should be Samoa Joe. Since his debut in NXT, Joe has shown tremendous moneymaking potential for NXT with his merchandise sales and the buzz he created with his NXT debut.[3] Balor vs. Joe is also likely to be highly anticipated considering both have significant followings and have never had a broadcast singles match together. [4]

This is incredibly important as the next NXT Takeover will likely be without Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn, Sasha Banks, Charlotte and Becky Lynch due to call ups and injuries. As a result many of the most recognisable stars of NXT will no longer be on the card. For this reason it is vital that the next big NXT event have a strong main event that will captivate audiences and entice them to pay for it. Currently there is no NXT talent that comes anywhere near Joe in terms of notoriety and ability to generate interest in the product. NXT is at a crucial juncture with the loss of many of it’s primary talents and cannot afford to risk damage to the brand by producing a show which does not captivate it’s audiences attention.

In addition to this ‘dream match’ feel, there are many parallels between both performers careers which could be used in creating a storyline rivalry between the two that makes sense and doesn't feel forced. The rivalry could play off jealousy on Joe’s part for Balor beating Owens who he felt was his to beat as well as the affection of the Japanese audience for Balor who have been resistant to Joe in the past as seen during his tenures with NOAH and Zero-1. Similar to Balor, Joe has also used paint as a intimidation tactic and this form of mindgames could add an element to the storyline between the two. Also as Balor’s most obvious weakness is his mic work, it would be wise to have an opponent who can carry him during these segments. Joe has shown he is very capable on the microphone and with his experience would be the best option to carry that end of the feud. [5][6] This clash of puroresu-based styles could also be an excellent match considering both men's inring prowess.


Now, what about the other alternatives? Realistically they boil down to Itami, Breeze, Corbin, Rhino, Apollo Crews and possibly Tye Dillinger.

  • Itami is just coming back from injury and it would be foolish to risk building your upcoming plans on him just yet. Him and Balor are also still below average talents on the microphone so putting them together right now would not be a good idea.
  • Breeze is talented sure, but he’s already feuded with Balor and it was quite a dull feud.
  • Likewise with Rhyno who has also feuded with Balor previously.
  • Corbin is far from a complete package and still requires plenty of work. There is no point in rushing a young talent and risking backlash when there is a clear viable alternative in Samoa Joe.
  • Crews is just making his NXT debut in a few weeks and is a largely unknown quantity in the NXT environment. Whilst he is somewhat known for his days on the indy scene he is far removed for the level of notoriety which Joe possesses amongst fans.
  • Dillinger has largely been a jobber on NXT and his new gimmick hasn't shown anywhere near enough potential to warrant such a push.

At 36 years old Joe is in the latter part of his career and should be utilised now rather than kept for the future. Now is the time to push Joe and utilise him to make as much money as possible.

In closing I would like to reiterate my belief that the best possible opponent for Balor post-Brooklyn is Samoa Joe. He makes sense in terms of being a logical storyline choice, it keeps the momentum of NXT going, is a prudent financial decision due to his popularity and protects the less experienced talents from the glare of main event status before they are ready.



Seabs
OXITRON - Everything up to "3: Ability & Usefulness" is fine. After that it's a bit meh. Overall I think your actual reasoning for your stance is too limited. It's basically just Joe is an Indy guy who's over so fits the brand identity. I know you're at the maximum word limit but you should be getting more substance out of those 800 words than you do here. It's a combination of not being concise enough and spending too many words countering Corbin and Breeze. You don't mention how Balor fits into the equation once which is a massive own goal. You really should be looking at how who Balor faces will affect him. What does he need right now and how will Joe give it to him? So say character development and mic time. Show how pairing him with Joe will help him improve the areas he needs to improve. Just he's over and will have a good match with him is so basic. There's loads of angles you should have taken with your arguments for your stance and the only one you took was the most basic one anyone could think of in like 5 seconds. Also not sure why you excluded his match with Owens in your rundown either. The long intro into the second part of your debate is weird and a waste of words because you end up repeating yourself later. Those 3 paragraphs of sorts should have been spent making a more multi-layered argument for Joe/Balor. Corbin counter was fine but it really needed some sort of evidence to validate the X-Pac heat claim. I guess show fans just shitting on his matches rather than booing him in a heel manner. Breeze counter is less convincing but Mr. Socko countered him better by mentioning that it's a re-run of a recent and not all that bright feud. You did it with Corbin and I just passed over it as bad wording but you did it again here, "Basically, his time to be champion has passed". You're not arguing for him to be Champion but to face the Champion.

OK I'M GOING TO PUT THIS IN A SEPERATE BLOCK AND IN CAPITALS SO YOU START PAYING ATTENTION TO IT. STOP ENDING YOUR DEBATES IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARGUMENT. CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS. A DEBATE NEEDS TO END WITH A CONCLUSION. OXITRON DEBATES ARE NOT THE EXCEPTION. Seriously though it looks so bad when you're reading your debates and you keep stopping dead like you are at the end.

Mr. Socko - What an utter waste of 1/8th of your debate with that opening. I read it and kept assuming that it would be a factor later on in your debate but you never mention a possible Balor heel turn again later so why on earth did you use up 101 words of a 800 word debate on something completely irrelevant. You may as well have spent your first 100 words talking about the rise and fall of Sunny D. If you really wanted to incorporate a Balor turn into your stance then say how facing another face like Joe can start to set the seeds for the crowd siding against Balor and making the turn more likely to get the right reaction when it comes. The irony of all that is that you still got more out of your 700 words than Oxi got out of his 800 words. You basically cover Oxi's argument for Joe in 2 short sentences. "As a result many of the most recognisable stars of NXT will no longer be on the card." was a great argument. The next paragraph is a mixed bag for me. The parallels stuff feels a bit forced. It's more it didn't hit home with me than it was bad. "They both wore face paint" is bad though. The mic work part is better though. Good evidence for showing that Joe can carry the mic work as it probably is Balor's weak point in NXT. It does raise the point though that should they be pairing with Balor with someone who will improve his own mic skills rather than overshadow them and take the lead away from Balor on the mic. Maybe make a point that Joe's fire on the mic can be used to get a similar sort of thing out of Balor. I don't know if Itami needed to be countered at this stage as I'm pretty sure he's not due back yet but regardless your counter was good. Counters here all good actually. I preferred Oxi's counter for Corbin but it didn't hurt you. Don't think you needed to counter Dillinger who has only been a geek on TV unless that was you planning ahead for Oxi taking a curveball stance and choosing him. Conclusion is great too. Really good stuff for a 700 word debate.

Winner - Mr. Socko

Curry
OXITRON

It's a very good sign that the first thing I did when I was finished my first readthrough of your debate was to open up word and check your wordcount because I could've sworn you were over. As it is you've nailed the 800 word limit and taken full advantage of it with your format, allowing you to jam a lot into this topic.

Because your debate and your opponent's are very similar in places as you're arguing for the same side, it's the nuances of your writing that could swing this and the insistence on arguing against some imagined wrestling forum poster is colourful but does occasionally lead you to drift a little from making constructive arguments for your chosen stance.

On the actual content of your debate there's very little to actually disagree with. Joe is a sensible pick and you've gone for good arguments to back that pick up. It would've been nice if you'd gone more into why Balor vs Joe appeals more to the niche market as your opponent did, discussing the history of the two and why they might make good opponents for eachother to play off.

It was a little odd to introduce mini-counters to Breeze/Corbin before starting a new section to rule them out but your reasons against them are solid and do a good job of comparing directly to your choice in a way that favours your argument. Also, it's an incredibly minor complaint and I can see that you were going for alliteration in your section titles but I couldn't help but have a little chuckle at “Because Breeze” as a header for your paragraph on him.

A sentence or two to conclude your debate would've been nice as it ended rather abruptly but even without that this is a well-formed debate and you have me thoroughly convinced.

Mr. Socko

I like that you ruled the idea of a Balor heel turn out early on but I'm confused by your suggestion that the “Balor was the attacker” angle “could be a star making feud for both men on the main roster “. As this would either mean continuing an NXT angle on the main show in front of an audience who didn't see the beginning and aren't as invested in the characters or redoing the beginning which would seem hilarious to anyone who does follow NXT. It's difficult to see where you'd go with this and including it in your intro was a little odd.

Once that rather confusing opening is out of the way though, you've launched into a very solid debate covering well the advantages of Samoa Joe's drawing ability, the need for NXT to maintain it's quality and appeal in the wake of the mass exodus of it's top talents, the possibilities than a Joe/Balor rivalry presents and why these would make for the best possible feud for Finn Balor now that Owens is out of the way.

Your bullet pointed list of why no one else could fill this role was nice and I like that you went broad to try and cover all possible alleyways your opponent could have taken with his debate. Even though he wound up going the same way as you it was a good call to cover as many options as possible given how wide this topic could have gone.

A simple but well-emphasised conclusion rounds out a pretty good debate, well done.

Winner - Mr. Socko

CGS
OXITRON

Minor complaint here but if I was you I would have said “last year” or “last 18 months”. Simply because it more true. Before that you’re including the Bo Dallas reign and a time before NXT really took off. It’s a minor complaint really. That being said I don’t feel you really needed the bullet point intro. “the landscape has changed...” would have been a perfectly fine starting block for your debate imo.

Decent job building up a background for Joe and why he was the best choice in this discussion. Wasn’t Joe’s Merchandise a really great seller? I reckon you could have brought this up for the “popularity” point as well. The fact that he’s a proven seller WITHIN the WWE says a lot.

50/50 on the Ability and usefulness paragraph. Joe has such a wide career that using a few “well received” dark matches to show his ability is a bit eh for me. I feel Mr. Socko did a better job of showing his usefulness talking about how he can help Balor with his mic skill limitations and Joe has similarly used paint as a mindagames tactics just as Balor does so it gives the feud and Joe a little more intrigue.

Not sure why you have three paragraphs talking about Breeze & Corbin not being good enough contenders….only to lead into another section talking about why Breeze & Corbin are not good enough contenders. You should have done one or the other, not both. Frankly I would have stuck with the three paragraphs beforehand and then used the rest of the word count to hype up Joe and a why a potential feud would have been more worthwhile. You didn’t really need more than couple sentences on each guy to say why they are not worthwhile choices.

I mean with Corbin you’ve essentially taken 171 words (200+ if you take into consideration the paragraph before the other guy section) to say the exact same thing Mr. Socko managed to say in five lines. The Breeze section….This screams personal opinion rather than a well thought out point. Not sure if his character has truly been overexposed (he doesn’t really get much more airtime than anyone else on the show) and introducing new aspects to his character is surely a booking thing rather than down to Breeze himself.

Basically, his time to be champion has passed, and there's no way to possibly make it interesting, even with a victory over Jushin FUCKING Liger.
Like I said feels more like a personal opinion on him rather than a logical thought out statement.

Your conclusion feels like the conclusion to the “other guys” section rather than a conclusion to your debate as a whole. Mr. Socko did an actual conclusion. They summarised everything they had wrote. Not just one part. As a whole this debate fell flat for me and I feel you wasted a good amount of your word count on useless points. Plus unlike Mr. Socko you never truly sell the idea of why Joe/Balor truly is a huge match and the feud that HAS to happen next. I’m left feeling that Joe is a good potential candidate, but not THE candidate.

Mr. Socko

Yeah you didn’t need that opening paragraph at all. I dunno if you put this in because you were taking a risk and believed your opponent would bring it up but they didn’t and yeah you have a useless paragraph and a huge waste of words. Shame really.

Your second paragraph really is where your debate should have started and it would have been a great introductory paragraph by itself. Sets the debate up nicely and flows beautifully into the next paragraph.

Ok so as a debater myself I’ve been told I need to “think about the bigger picture” so what I’m gonna do is apply that mindset to this question quickly based on what you’ve said. The paragraph about how a lot of the more recognisable faces of the NXT roster being called up and injured and so the next big card needs a big name match to really help keep the fans enticed is very true…however the question isn’t asking who he should face at the next NXT Takeover show but just who his next program should be with. Considering the next big NXT show may not even be till late November/December he could easily have a program before that. Additionally if Joe/Balor is the next “dream match” on NXT where do they go from that program? It’s a good idea to keep eyes on NXT in the short term but there is a reason why “dream matches” don’t all happen back to back in the WWE. Why not hold out on it and let Joe’s momentum build up a little more. You talk about how their rivalry can play of jealousy. Why not build this in the background while giving Balor another program or two, kinda like what they did with Sami Zayn where they played off the whole “you can’t win the big one” stuff while Neville also did other programs with Breeze & Kidd. This whole paragraph is one I feel OXITRON should read too.

I’ll leave it at that since i’m not the one writing the debate but I do reckon there was a lot more to this debate that both yourself and OXITRON could have thought about before jumping the gun with Joe. Apart from what I’ve just bought up there isn’t really much wrong with what you’ve actually written. I did like you bringing up that Balor’s main limitation is his mic work and that Joe could actually help with that. Nice comment

Dillinger? I wouldn’t even include him in this discussion tbh :lol not gonna penalize you for using it though. Still The rest are fine though (Crews is 50/50 but I’ll give you it). I do feel you did this section a lot better than your opponent while using less wordcount. Your sentence on Breeze > His seven. Felt your point on Corbin was slightly better too.

“logical storyline choice” is debatable and I don’t feel you done much to prove to me otherwise. The rest of the conclusion is fine though. Overall a pretty good debate.

So yeah easy choice for me. Mr. Socko wins this one. I felt they sold the idea of Joe/Balor more than OXITRON did. Had I answered this question I would have gone with Breeze instead of Joe. OXITRON didn’t really do much to sway my opinion whereas Mr. Socko at least got me thinking that maybe Joe would be a better choice than Breeze.

Winner: Mr. Socko

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Mr. Socko

Jupiter Jack Daniels vs Flay
How should the finish to Brock Lesnar vs Undertaker at Summerslam 2015 be booked?

Jupiter Jack Daniels

April 6, 2014 was a night we'll never forget. The Streak...was over. And that created a lot of doubt and frustration within fans. Doubt over Undertaker's future, which was put to rest less than five months ago when he made his return. Frustration over Brock, and not a young talent, being the one to end the Streak, which was given reasoning less than four months later. And as the Summerslam rematch draws near, how should WWE book the finish? It's simple. There shouldn't be a finish.

"Revenge of the 'Taker"

For the first time in seven years, an Undertaker PPV appearance isn't in the role of the hunted. He's no longer a man defending his legacy, a title or a streak. This is about revenge. Not because the streak ended at the hands of Brock Lesnar but because it's remnants have been disrespected over the previous sixteen months. Now, Undertaker is the predator. A man on a mission to be the 1 that slays the 1 in 21 and 1. But, it's also a wake-up call. A way of saying, "even though you killed the streak, you didn't kill me and this is yard is still mine." And under any other circumstances, that directly points to a must-win situation for the Undertaker. But, this is different. One win a piece does nothing but practically guarantee a rubber match that's impossible in the short-term. Given what's to come at Summerslam, it's nearly impossible to fathom Undertaker working another match this year. And in the role of the hunted, Brock going over doesn't mean as much as it did last year. So, what's the escape? How can WWE get out of this, with both men looking strong going forward? There's a wild card in all of this.

"Am I my brother's keeper?"


Just 5 weeks ago on RAW, we not only witnessed Paul Heyman mock Kane and condescendingly refer to him as "Undertaker's baby brother" but we saw an unleashed Brock Lesnar destory him and "break his ankle". And 6 days later, we get the return of Undertaker. But, the following night during his explanation for why, Kane wasn't mentioned. Instead, Undertaker had returned for his own agenda, due to his own issues with Lesnar. This shouldn't sit well with Kane. Combine the comments from Heyman with the beatdown at the hands of Lesnar, as well as Undertaker not even mentioning him, this creates the change in character for Kane...the return of The Devil's Favorite Demon.

But, with that return, where does his allegiance lie? In the eyes of Kane, what's the worst of the 2 evils? His attacker, Brock Lesnar, or his off again/on again rival and brother, the Undertaker?

"Everything comes full circle"

There needs to be an escape route and a transition point for both men involved. And that's where Kane comes in.

The match should be close and competitive. The usual false finishes and overkill of finishers that we've come to expect from both men. Towards the end of the match, Brock hits an F-5 but only for a nearfall. As Brock looks on stunned that Undertaker managed to kick out, we get the fire. The arena goes dark and Kane's music plays. And Kane immediately goes after Lesnar and lays him out with a chokeslam. As Undertaker struggles to get to his feet, he sees his brother standing over him, lending a hand. Suddenly, the show of support turns into a show of anger, as Kane chokeslams Undertaker. But, it doesn't stop there. Kane unleashes a Tombstone piledriver to his brother.

And some may question the logic behind that but the beauty of Taker-Brock is how neither has been portrayed as a face or heel. This attack is a way of moving forward with Kane. There's a big picture in mind.

Obviously, Undertaker isn't going to be around forever. And his storied rivalry has been with his brother, Kane. Kane interfering at Summerslam and attacking both men brings closure to not only that story but also Undertaker's career.

It's time to make everything come full circle. To think about Wrestlemania 32 in Arlington, TX, which is the home state of the Undertaker. We talk dream matches and Sting's name usually comes up but without the streak and with what happened to Sting last year, that's no longer interesting. What's interesting is two storied rivals dancing one last time, in front of, potentially, the biggest crowd in WWE history. And that's only possible if Kane interfers at Summerslam and we get a non-finish. Simply because neither Taker nor Brock come out looking weak, Kane is given something to build him for the next several months and Taker gets his usual hiatus following a big match.

Flay

How should the finish to Brock Lesnar vs Undertaker at Summerslam 2015 be booked?
_____________________________________________

Brock Lesnar is the hottest commodity in pro wrestling today. WWE have heavily invested in him by having him break THE STREAK then later decimate THE FACE of the company in a match. The investment has paid off as interest from fans and profit for WWE increases substantially from ANYTHING Lesnar does. Even an otherwise insignificant house show in Japan where he wrestles Kofi 'Jamaica' Kingston. This is maintained by making Lesnar look strong and booking him NOT to get pinned or submitted so he shouldn't lose any time SOON because it'd be throwing money down the toilet. Sure he should get pinned or submitted EVENTUALLY because it'd be a huge event where everybody benefits...but only if it's by the right guy and it's at the right time. The Undertaker is NOT the right guy and Summerslam 2015 is NOT the right time. Therefore the finish to Brock Lesnar vs The Undertaker at Summerslam 2015 should be booked as Lesnar winning via submission with the Kimura Lock.


TAP OR SNAP

Lesnar winning via pinfall would be adequate...but adequacy isn't what Lesnar and Summerslam are about. Every time has Lesnar performed at Summerslam something special has happened and this year should be no different if the event is to excel. If Lesnar pins Taker it's nothing new because it happened at Wrestlemania 30 and that had The Streak on the line so paling in comparison to that won't do. If Lesnar submits Taker with the Kimura it provides a different kind of surprise which will definitely be dramatic in The Deadman having to choose between giving up willingly or letting his arm snap. It also showcases a different aspect of Lesnar's skills which fans will love because it shows that he has much more to offer than just suplexes. Lesnar submitting Taker with the Kimura would be a powerful finish for Summerslam and while Taker should put up a hellacious fight as it'll make the finish much more impactful, he should TAP OR SNAP because he has nothing to lose.


THE DEADMAN'S DRAWBACKS

Taker being booked to pin or submit Lesnar would be a terrible decision. He's nearing the end of his career with Wrestlemania 32 as the realistic time to retire unlike Lesnar who has at least 3 years left(1). He can't optimize the hype from defeating Lesnar unlike a younger star who has a 10+ year career ahead of them such as Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins or Roman Reigns. A younger star should defeat Lesnar and his victory should be at Wrestlemania and NOT Summerslam to make it as monumental as possible to develop a great career of his own. Taker doesn't need the victory because he's had a legendary 30+ year career with multiple world championships, highly acclaimed programs and a 23-year Wrestlemania streak so one more accomplishment is nothing to him. A loss is also insignificant to him because he's The Undertaker and he'll still be a big star regardless of it. He can lose, leave for months, come back in January to build a match with Sting for Wrestlemania 32 and it'll still be intriguing. Taker shouldn't win at Summerslam because he really doesn't need to and he probably doesn't want to either. He's been known to be a consummate businessman by making sure the right guy goes over at the right time(2)(3)(4) and him going over would diminish Lesnar's value and belittle the breaking of The Streak which is bad business that Taker is surely against. If Taker wins, it downplays Lesnar, denies a young star an opportunity to solidify himself, deprives fans of watching a star making moment and does a disservice to Taker himself so to prevent all that, Taker should put Lesnar over clean without fuckery.


AN INDECISIVE FINISH?

A disqualification, countout, no contest or interference is unacceptable. It'd be deflating for fans because Battleground sacrificed its mainevent so Summerslam's could settle a score. To then not give fans a fulfilling finish of a deserved winner would be daft. This feud calls for closure of a decisive win because a match between Lesnar and Taker shouldn't happen again after Summerslam. Not at a B-PPV because it'd be a waste of an appearance which they both have scarce amounts of and not at a big event like Wrestlemania 32 because there's better programs for the both of them (Rock for Lesnar, Sting for Taker). After the smoke clears, Lesnar should be standing tall after beating Taker FAIR AND SQUARE.


Lesnar submitting Taker with the Kimura at Summerslam is the ONLY correct finish. It's fresh, everybody's happy including Taker and it's much more satisfying than some shenanigans. WWE don't get things right often but when they do it's usually at Summerslam so let's all hope they don't pull a Russo on us this year.
_____________________________________________

(1) Big Update: Brock Lesnar Reveals the Length of His New WWE Contract, Reportedly Turns Down Huge Offer From UFC, More - http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/564591-brock-lesnar-talks-wwe-contract

(2) Vince McMahon speaks candidly about the decision to end The Undertaker’s WrestleMania Streak - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY-fPsD7eZc

(3) The Rock tells a story about the Undertaker - http://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/the-rock-tells-a-story-about-the-undertaker

(4) Jim cornette tells a great undertaker story - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI5YDqkrbkc

Seabs
Jupiter Jack Daniels - I think your finish really sucks but you do at least do a pretty good job arguing for it. The issue is still though that your finish is bad and you don't argue why it's better than a clean finish either way in a convincing fashion. "One win a piece does nothing but practically guarantee a rubber match that's impossible in the short-term." - how is it impossible (and/or also not what should be the aim)? The rubber match comes at Mania, Brock demands a rematch and Taker either doesn't show up again until the Mania build or you have Hunter keep them apart until Mania arguing the match is too big for anywhere other than the biggest Mania ever. Its' pretty easy really. The argument for Kane's insertion into the angle is fine but I'm not sold on the issue he'd have to go after Taker other than lol we used to hate each other and do again now because big brother didn't stick up for me. That sounds pretty lame. "Kane interfering at Summerslam and attacking both men brings closure to not only that story but also Undertaker's career." - first off I'm not really sure how the Taker/Kane story is still open and if you're signing Taker off at 32 KANE feels like a really lame duck parting given his current position in WWE. Yeah you can start rebuilding him again but he's still Kane and they've tried that before for guys like Cena and it hasn't worked. Also where is the closure for Brock/Taker? It's bad booking to start this off again now and not have any sort of conclusion to it? Is Taker just going to stop caring about wanting to beat Brock? Like I said you do a pretty good job arguing for a bad stance which is impressive but when I start to compare your debate with counter arguments it starts to crumble quickly. Another big issue is ending a major show like this one on a non finish and the fact that they end so many PPVs and major matches in such shitty indecisive ways, not to mention the main event of the last PPV too. "We talk dream matches and Sting's name usually comes up" - I don't think anyone is bringing Kane's name up as Taker's dream last opponent tbh. "in front of, potentially, the biggest crowd in WWE history." - they still need to actually sell it out first and deflating one of their biggest attractions with Kane isn't going to help. If you think Kane's still a bigger deal then I do then you needed to argue that to convince me but let's face it I'm hardly in the minority in thinking that Kane is no longer relevant.

Flay - Better stance, better counters, better debate. I think the idea that Lesnar is this massive money draw for WWE is almost a myth at this stage but that's really a totally different point that you're not arguing. My point was against "The investment has paid off as interest from fans and profit for WWE increases substantially from ANYTHING Lesnar does." because really ratings don't boom (afaik), network subs are network subs and they're not making tons more of a Lesnar PPV showing now and he doesn't work house shows and I'm not sure he's even a big merch mover. Actually you might not even be right given you used profit rather than revenue which means you have to take off Lesnar's massive contract so WWE might actually be losing money using Lesnar now that I think about it. Anyone it doesn't matter to your debate and it's just a sidetrack ramble that I went on that would be an awesome discussion but pretty much an impossible one too given the knowledge available. "Every time has Lesnar performed at Summerslam" - think you should have got your debate proof read mate. Can't disagree with your arguments for a submission win over a pinfall win but for me you don't counter the damage that it would to a prized asset for WWE, especially after losing his streak to Lesnar last time out. Yes it makes Lesnar look even better but does Lesnar really need another massive rub? Do you get the extra return to warrant doing that damage to Taker? The major flaw in this is not addressing the damage that a submission loss would do to Taker. "A loss is also insignificant to him because he's The Undertaker and he'll still be a big star regardless of it. He can lose, leave for months, come back in January to build a match with Sting for Wrestlemania 32 and it'll still be intriguing." is really dismissive for me. WWE still need Taker as a strong asset and like it or not they're not exactly in a position to sacrifice their proven commodities. They already beat his Streak on top of him getting visibly older, a major sacrifice like him tapping out needs a much better counter than what you gave. For me anyway. What I would have done is switched your stance up a bit and had Taker snap rather than tap so to speak. Either do a ref stoppage finish when Brock "breaks Taker's arm" or have Taker just pass our or lose via TKO. That way you get largely the same rub for Brock but protect Taker better and even actually give Taker a babyface rub by not giving in. Argument for Taker not winning is fine, as is the non finish counter. "This feud calls for closure of a decisive win because a match between Lesnar and Taker shouldn't happen again after Summerslam." I don't really agree with. Sting being a better opponent at 32 than Lesnar I really don't agree with and Rock seems paired with Hunter already. Plus there's no counter to Taker never getting his win over Brock which is a big part of the equation. One thing you missed that I felt was needed was looking at the consequences of the result. How does it affect both as well as the story coming out of Summerslam. I don't think Brock/Taker III at 32 is a massive assumption give II is happening at Summerslam so saying that and then arguing that Taker being 0-2 is a better story than 1-1 so when Taker does get his win (which is possible to argue is inevitable because WWE always let their top stars get their wins back). Maybe looking at that angle would have highlighted the issue with Taker looking so weak again for when you want to use him again come Mania in a big drawing role. Big flaw aside with the damage your stance does to Taker this was well argued.

Winner - Flay

Evolution
Jupiter Jack Daniels:

Intro was decent, it would have been nice if you mentioned some of the stuff you'd be talking about in your debate as to why there shouldn't be a finish. Apart from that it's good.

I liked that you portrayed the necessity of "the win" for Taker, however you still mentioned that a rubber match between the two isn't desirable at all. Good balance to that side of the argument, however it would have been good if you explained why Brock shouldn't/couldn't just win clean and be done with it.

I like the Kane theory but you spent too many words explaining the theory and not telling me why it's a benefit to both the competitors/WWE. Also Lesnar has ran through J&J, Kane and Rollins in their earlier feud, so what would Lesnar have to gain from being "taken down" by Kane? How does it become believable all of a sudden? And what is the benefit of that finish? Ratings? PPV buys? Impact on the balance of the show?

You include your pay-off in your conclusion but it's too late by that point. You just haven't demonstrated enough benefit from the result that you've chosen for your topic. You don't tell me why they should book it that way outside of it coming full circle. Where is the benefit in that? Slash WHAT benefit is in that? Is it ratings? Merch? PPV buys? Asses on seats? You need to give us something. That's what your debate is missing from start to finish.

Flay:

You should have a reference or evidence to support your claim that "interest from fans and profit for WWE increases substantially from ANYTHING Lesnar does" otherwise it's a null statement.

I'm pretty sure Undertaker has never tapped out short of that fake tap-out victory Punk had in their feud in 2009. That's a pretty big call for you to be seeking that finish so I'm interested to see if you can sell me on it.

You need to demonstrate to me a tangible benefit that having Taker tap over being pinned has. Unfortunately your "TAP OR SNAP" paragraph doesn't have that. Showcasing a different aspect to Lesnar's skills isn't tangible enough for me.

Great section on the drawbacks of a Taker win. Makes a lot of sense and I like that you've addressed the rub a younger star could and should receive off Lesnar and how it would be diminished in value if Lesnar lost to the old fella on Sunday. This is what I mean by showing me a tangible benefit!!! Do more of this please. Go to THIS level of reasoning for every point that you make in your debates.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact nobody wants to see a fucking third match between these two because FUCK THAT in your indecisive finish section but regardless what you said makes sense. It still lacks a tangible benefit or detriment, still pretty good though.

Pretty solid debate, really good references and a solid flow. Quite enjoyable.

Conclusion:

I'd have to give it to Flay on this one, their stance was supported better, and despite me liking the bigger picture hypothetical of Jupiter Jack Daniels with Kane and all Flay did was mention a Sting matchup at Wrestlemania (ew), Flay's short terms booking made a lot more sense with the way they backed it up. Having that killer paragraph in the middle about the newer star getting the rub off Lesnar sealed it for me.

Andre
Jupiter Jack Daniels

This is more geek/mark fantasy booking than a debate with convincing arguments.

Flay instantly countered your idea of having a non-finish, by pointing out that it would be a smack in the face to the fans who weren’t given a finish in the previous month’s special event main event at Battleground. Once is bad, two times is simply bad business. You also failed to include a solid argument as to why Taker couldn’t lose. Flay made an excellent argument as to why Brock couldn’t lose, while you made a reasonable one in regards to the idea that a rubber match is no good in the short term (but why not in the long term? Flay countered this while you didn’t), yet you failed to shore up the side showing how Brock winning damages Taker. Brock is THE MAN right now so why couldn’t he just pin Taker dirty/clean/whatever? It’s not like Taker has suffered from losing a feud to Brock before (2002-2003), so why would it be a problem now? All I’m left with is “Brock going over doesn't mean as much as it did last year” which is a nothing argument.

KANE? WTF??? Which geek wrote this debate? Eurgh…

Okay, so I’ll give you credit for making it clear that Kane has an obvious motive. Your idea makes sense from a wrestling angle storytelling point of view. However, from a booking and money making perspective it makes little sense. The Kane/Taker feud at has been done to death, while they’ve already faced each twice at Mania, so any potential rematch is going to have less effect. Add in the factors of Kane having been undermined by terrible booking and gimmick exposing portrayals in the authority, plus one previous FLOP return as the demon in late 2011/2012 and you have a BAD IDEA. Flay also made a good counter regarding how there is a bigger potential dream/money match at Mania with Sting (whether or not you think he can still go). Add in the idea of a schmoz where Brock is attacked first without the ref calling for a DQ, before attacking Taker for a no contest and I’m left scratching my head. It just makes it even worse when there’s an apparent drawn out pause between each attack.

Again, from a storytelling perspective this all makes sense in terms of giving Kane something to do, or “a way of moving forward with Kane”. However, Kane is washed in 2015, so this redeeming act seems like a big waste of a rub for a younger star that will actually be with WWE in the long term. If Kane wasn’t a massive geek via years of undermining booking then yeah I’d say your idea of him facing Taker at Mania XXXII is fair, but that’s not reality. You finally came up with a counter against Taker/Sting at the end, but “Sting's name usually comes up but without the streak and with what happened to Sting last year, that's no longer interesting” is as throwaway and meaningless as they come. Why would Taker/Kane be more interesting when it’s already been done to death as a feud (unlike Taker/Sting), as a Mania match (unlike Taker/Sting) and when Kane has fuck all aura or drawing power (unlike Sting, maybe less so on the latter part)? I’m left totally perplexed by all of this.

I’ll state it again; this is a fun read and would do well in Be The Booker, but there’s nothing authoritative or persuasive about it that makes it a credible debate.


Flay

This is actually a very good debate for the most part, when it comes to supporting arguments. You made good points about Lesnar needing to win with a decisive finish as to not screw the fans, while this would also serve a great purpose in preventing Taker/Brock III at Mania XXXII, which as you stated would be a waste when there are bigger dream matches available for both men. You also made great counters against Jupiter Jack Daniels in regards to having a non-finish schmoz after the Battleground nonsense. Would suggest it’s not out of the question that Taker/Lesnar III could happen at Survivor Series, but I agree that it’s a waste of a match/appearance for both men at this point (as much as I loved the Summer Slam match before the finisher kick out fest and STUPID finish).

However, the debate concerns the actual finish of the match, which quite honestly I think you’ve taken a big risk with. Taker tapping prevents another young star from gaining that rub when Brock doesn’t need it. It also lessens the potential of the often frothed upon Cena/Taker I quit/Submission dream match as Taker’s potential retirement match at Mania. Okay, if this was Taker’s last ever match I’d say it’s a fine finish that can get Brock heat (if he cheats to hold onto the Kimura and WWE want him to get over as a heel, not that they should now) or make him look legit as a face if Taker shakes his hand after the match (not that Brock can get much more over with the WWE crowds), but I’m sceptical about it when there’s potential to save it for another time. Having Taker tap (which WWE stupidly booked as it goes) just erases the rest of his remaining “unbeatable” aura. Your argument for having Taker tap doesn’t convince me either; “If Lesnar submits Taker with the Kimura it provides a different kind of surprise” assumes surprises mean automatic good booking, which is often the opposite of the truth (look at Taker losing the streak as an example, HUGE surprise, waste of a huge rub that Brock can do without if he’s booked well otherwise, plus a waste of other potential dream streak matches).

Why can’t Taker go over strong with a clean pinfall victory? It’s not like fans would shit all over that finish and be dissatisfied with it. If anything, ardent Taker fans are more likely to reject Brock for being handed all of Taker’s “unbeatable” aura via beating the streak plus tapping him out, at a time when really he is THE GUY in WWE and needs to be as over as possible. Honestly if you had gone with a clean Brock victory via pinfall and avoided the tap out and surprises guff, I’d be calling this a legit great debate. Instead you’ve damaged your own debate by using what seems like a very markish idea for the finish, with such little thought beyond “yeah that would be cool”. It’s these mistakes that you really need to avoid, start filtering the pointless throwaway ideas before submitting your debates. Luckily for you Jupiter Jack Daniels was pretty crap so you got away with it this time.

P.S: Fuck your awful, awful, formatting, which was a chore to read on my iphone 6 :moyes5

Decision:


Jupiter Jack Daniels is pretty much a nothing debate, despite being a decent read. His idea for a finish was terrible in so many ways, with terrible consequences and terrible potential business damaging aspects which Flay hghlighted in his counters. Flay has a pretty dumb finish too without any real purpose, but I suppose it's not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things (aka this dodgy match). Flay at least made a strong argument for Brock winning which Jupiter Jack Daniels couldn't match.

My vote goes to Flay, but in reality you're both LOSERS.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Flay

TDL Sports Division Special Attraction Match
Perfect Poster vs JM

Should the NBA restrict the use of the Hack-A-Shaq tactic?

JM
Should the NBA restrict the use of the Hack-A-Shaq tactic?

When considering this question there are obviously two glaring views that will come to mind. Basketball purists will scoff at the thought of changing the game and would suggest that if teams are fed up with their seven footers getting sent to the foul line to exploit their free throw shooting ineptitude they should probably tell their seven footers to get their oversized bodies into the gym and work that shit out. Others may find themselves watching a playoff game and see POP operating under a strict ‘hack-a-jordan’ strategy such as this past year. Said viewers will roll their eyes at this glaring killer of game flow and question why this shit isn’t dealt with. Who’s right here? To answer this lets first consider this: What is a bigger problem, the fact that hack-a-shaq is a tactic in the NBA OR the fact that there are players in this league so useless at free throws that teams consider it a benefit to put them at the line? The NBA should not set a precedence of validating poor performance by giving these guys a save. The NBA should not change a thing and instead these guys should get their asses in the gym and learn to shoot free throws like the professional basketball players they are and stop embarrassing themselves on World Wide Television.

In the previous paragraph ‘precedence’ is mentioned. Let’s think about the precedence that would be set if the NBA did say for instance, create a rule that stated that any off ball intentional foul for the purpose of sending a poor free throw shooter to the line results in 2 shots and the ball returning to the fouled team for a sideline inbounding. Ok. What does this say to high school kids struggling with free throws? What does this say to college kids struggling with free throws? I’m tall, I can rebound, I can dunk, why should I worry about improving this glaring hole in my game? The NBA bails me out and I can float by without consequences to my team. Is this right? No. The NBA should be promoting continual development and encouraging players to try to be a complete player. What kind of message is sent when a professional sports league makes a rule that protects those that immensely struggle with a fundamental aspect of the game of basketball?

Now I know what you’re thinking: How can the NBA Continue to allow something that slows the game to a crawl and makes the game look like a joke. First of all, the NBA doesn’t allow this to happen, players like DeAndre Jordan and Dwight Howard allow this to happen by not improving their free throw shooting and if the NBA does implement rules to prevent this then THEY, the NBA are knowingly condoning and allowing poor free throw shooting to continue. The NBA did not protect Shaq, who this strategy is named after. The NBA did not protect Wilt Chamberlain. The NBA should not protect DeAndre Jordan. The NBA should not protect Dwight Howard. The NBA should not condone poor free throw shooting. Period.

You are also probably thinking: these guys are at a distinct physical disadvantage, they will likely never become competent free throw shooters. To that I respond with Tiago Splitter. Ok, I will elaborate. Tiago Splitter, a guy who until this year played for one of the most notorious hack-a-shaq teams in the league in the Spurs. Let’s rewind to his rookie season of 2010/11 when Splitter shot 54% [1] at the line and then in 2012 Playoffs was exploited in the Western Conference Final by the OKC Thunder for his FT Shooting incompetence. How did Splitter respond? That off-season he got his ass in the gym and hasn’t shot below 69% at the line since during the season. Sure he struggled this past year in the playoffs at the line but overall his FT shooting is trending up. It is possible to improve despite whatever too tall, hands too big, too uncoordinated, too strong argument people make. Free throws are all about muscle memory and can be learned by PRACTICE. That’s right Allen Iverson. PRACTICE.

In summary, yes, Hack-A-Shaq is lame but not as lame as implementing a rule to protect the handful of players that play enough minutes and are awful enough at free throws to greatly benefit from any rule implemented. It should be up to these players and teams to set a good precedence to young and aspiring basketball players who struggle with free throws by IMPROVING. Not give the next generation an excuse to enter the NBA missing one of the most fundamental skills in the game.

[1] http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/3233/tiago-splitter

Perfect Poster
Should the NBA restrict the use of the Hack-A-Shaq tactic?

The Hack-A-Shaq tactic has grown into a popular strategy for basketball coaches to use since the turn of the century. The idea of the tactic was simple – find the worst free throw shooter on the court and send him to the foul line to try to limit the points allowed on that possession. The strategy is typically used for completely awful shooters such as Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan, and Shaq, who the strategy is named after. While it may be a useful strategy at times, the NBA should do the right thing and restrict the rule.

Why? Well, let's start with an easy point – it's not an aesthetically pleasing strategy to watch. For all intents and purposes, the NBA is an entertainment league. Yes, it's a basketball league, but it gets people to tune in by providing entertainment. Basketball is supposed to be a free-flowing game like soccer that takes a little over 2 hours to watch. Nobody is paying a ticket to watch Shaq, Howard, or anyone else shoot 30 FTs a night. Nobody wants to watch a basketball game for 3 hours because teams are busy sending guys to the foul line. If the NBA is concerned about the quality of it's product, it will figure out a way to limit, or outright cut, the strategy from the rulebooks.

One might try to counter by saying not all strategies are exciting – intentional walks, end of half/game knees, etc. – and that's not a good enough reason to outlaw a strategy. While I'd disagree since those strategies are widely accepted by all teams and hack-a-Shaq is only used on a select few players, it's also not the only reason why it should be restricted.

Another reason that the hack-a-Shaq should be restricted is because many times you'll see the fouls occur in the backcourt or as the hackee makes his way down the court, with there not even being a basketball play going on. For example, here's an instance of the hack-a-Jordan from Matt Bonner during the Spurs/Clippers series this past postseason:



Jordan doesn't have the ball, nor is he currently in position to get the ball, yet Bonner hugs him and is able to send him to the line. This isn't basketball being played the way it was intended to, this is nonsense.

Furthermore, if the NBA thought there was nothing wrong with the hack-a-Shaq strategy, don't you think they'd allow it to happen for all 48 minutes? They already know that there's something wrong with the strategy since teams are not allowed to perform the tactic inside of two minutes of each half. While that's only a small amount of actual game time, it is the most important time of the game.

One counterargument I see towards the hack-a-Shaq is that the players should just suck it up and make their free throws or get taken out. Compelling case, I know, but every player has his weakness, yet only poor foul shooters get exploited. A point guard isn't forced to play down low in the post, a small forward isn't forced to dribble the ball up every time. If you want to cross over to other sports, a quarterback doesn't have to kick field goals and a left wing doesn't have to play goalie. My point being, even world class athletes have holes in their game, yet only poor free throw shooters are punished. Suggesting the players should be benched is ridiculous as well because there are only so many effective seven footers in the league and most of them are very helpful on the defensive side of the court, so chances of them getting benched is very low as it'd hurt the team even more.

Overall, the hack-a-Shaq strategy should be further restricted, if not completely done away with. While people can try to make the argument that the player should just make his free throws, the fact is we don't see other players fall into forcing their weakness exploited, whether it's in basketball or any other sport. As a fan of the game, it's hard to watch games where that strategy is being employed because it just kills any flow that the game may have. The NBA already prohibits the strategy from being used in end of game scenarios, so clearly they understand it has some flaws. Even if you think it should still be allowed, that doesn't mean there can't be any significant changes to the rule. Maybe it can only happen in the first 6 minutes of every quarter, or it can be a three shots for two points, or maybe something completely different. Whatever the changes are, though, it's clear that something has to be done.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMItm2XUfsY


Magic
JM:

I liked your debate, especially how you set up your question, however I feel like you completely ignored the possibility of them “restricting” the hacks by simply not allowing them to happen for a certain portion of the shot clock. Let’s say a team cannot intentionally foul until the 14 second mark in the shot clock, not for the sake of the free throw shooter, but to help maintain the flow of the game. Is it to the benefit of poor free throw shooters? Sure, but it’s also benefit for the viewers and since basketball is an entertainment based business that matters a whole lot more than the purity of the sport.

Another thing, if your defense is so bad that they’re better off fouling a guy than trying to straight up stop them doesn’t that put a negative spotlight on your defense in general? Sure it’s a smart strategy, but any team that can lock the other down wouldn’t need to resort to these tactics in the first place and defense itself is a fundamental part of the game, which isn’t played during free throws.

Aside from that I really liked your debate. You are a good, aggressive tone. You try to answer as many counter arguments as possible as well as solid supporting arguments to go along with those counters. Just in general made a good case.

Perfect Poster:

I like how you made the point of mentioning the NBA is not only a basketball league, but an entertainment league, which is why the rule should be done away with. It is unappealing for fans and it is boring to watch. However, to state only poor free throw shooters are punished is ridiculous.

You brought up a point guard posting up in the low post or a winger having to dribble up the court, but those things are roles for certain positions on the court while free throw shooting is something EVERY position has to do and master. If it were all seven footers that struggled with free shooting, or alternatively, only seven footers that struggled with it then it might not be a problem, but the thing is that it’s only a few select players in the league. Cousins, Anthony Davis, Brook Lopez, Paul Gasol, etc don’t struggle with free throw shooting and 6’3” Rondo has more troubles than all of them. You should have made a better case as to why a rule should be made(or entirely remove intentionally fouling) simply for a select few players as it is a large portion of big men that struggle to this degree. Your opponent also pointed out an instance where a player was able to improve his free throw shooting after initially struggling with it so it is not impossible to improve it.

Decision: JM wins for me making a more thorough argument and covering nearly all the bases. I felt Perfect Poster just didn’t justify why an entire rule should be changed for a minority of players.

Seabs
Yay for opposing stances on this. I thought both did well if pretty basic. If one of you had developed your stance beyond the basics you would have taken this one.

JM - That first paragraph is a lot of words to use up before really diving into your arguments. It's good, but lengthy. Precedence argument is good. I would have liked to have seen you address the hand checking hole in it though. The NBA has changed the rules to make the sport more "entertaining" before so why is this different? You could argue that rule benefited less gifted offensive players. It's not an exact comparison but it's a counter to your argument that you left open. You spend a lot of time on the ability part of the debate but I would have liked to have seen you spend more of that on the entertainment aspect. It's not good to watch and whether you agree with it or not the NBA is about trying to attract more viewers to the game and the HAS tactic is a big turn off. Key word in the topic that neither of you sadly exploited was "restrict". You're not arguing for/against removing it all together but restricting it more. If Perfect Poster had argued that stance and focused more on just restricting it rather than removing it you were left wide open by just arguing it shouldn't be changed at all. Splitter argument is very good though.

Perfect Poster - Ok you had a money argument here that you missed out on, that being the fact that the NBA is about attracting more viewers to the game (plenty of evidence to back this up) and restricting the tactic will help do this/help not lose viewers. Then link that to more money in the League and all the good to come from that. The other big miss was not making greater use of the word restrict in the wording of the topic. You did touch on it a bit but it should have been something you really focused on and spelled out to the reader rather than leaving me trying to find parts where you kinda did it. You can use the wording to counter the opposing stance arguing that it protects poor free throw shooters by showing they'd still be exposed just to a limited amount. Ok so I just beat both your debates so I'm claiming the moral victory and another burial of the US Sports Division at my hands :evil. Missed opportunities aside though this was a good debate. Your 2nd paragraph is where you should have made the link between "Nobody wants to watch a basketball game for 3 hours because teams are busy sending guys to the foul line." and the negatives it produces. Instead you stopped before you made the link to the negatives. Do that and you have something great. "If the NBA is concerned about the quality of it's product" - say why they should be. "They already know that there's something wrong with the strategy since teams are not allowed to perform the tactic inside of two minutes of each half." was a really good line. Your penultimate paragraph has some merit but I'm undecided on the strength of it. Your examples aren't really something other teams can enforce on them unlike HAS. The better example here would probably be the introduction of the hand checking rule and the effect that had on players of certain skill sets. As you sort of touched on the restricted point rather than complete removal I think it would have helped you tighten up that aspect of your stance if you suggested a method of restriction. So say teams can only use it X times or in X minutes of each quarter. That would have made your stance a bit more assertive and would have been better than "Maybe it can only happen in the first 6 minutes of every quarter, or it can be a three shots for two points, or maybe something completely different.".

This is a real tough one to choose on. Both had good solid fundamentals to support their stance but neither really developed their debate beyond that to have a money argument and stroll home with the win. I've decided on both debates as my vote at some point but I think in the end I'm going for Perfect Poster. His debate has more layers to it, deals with countering the opposing stance better and probably has the peak of either debates with "They already know that there's something wrong with the strategy since teams are not allowed to perform the tactic inside of two minutes of each half.".

Winner - Perfect Poster

Joel
JM
Honestly, I really enjoyed reading this debate. I think you have really hit the nail on the head here. If the NBA outlawed this tactic, it is essentially protecting these poor free throw shooters and you have really done well to explain this. You’re absolutely right that banning the tactic sends the wrong message to young aspiring players.

I completely agree with you when you say that if the law was out ruled, then the likes of Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan and all other big guys who have poor free throws, wouldn’t look improve this skill. They’d just continue doing what they were good at while their weaknesses were protected. In sport if a player has a weakness, the opponent should be able to exploit that.

What really did hammer home this debate was the inclusion of Thiago Splitter. By looking at how he was once the target of this tactic, which led him to work on his free throws and as you say, not shoot under 69% since, shows that it’s not something than cannot be improved on. It shows it’s not a fair excuse to say because they’re big they can’t get the trajectory correct. No doubt it is harder for them, but as you say, once you start hitting them properly, it becomes a part of your muscle memory. Besides, I remember hearing some commentator say Howard was one of the best free throw shooters in college or something along those lines, so it’s definitely just lazy to say they cannot do it.

So basically, I think you have hit the key points on why it would be wrong for it to be out ruled. For arguments sake I guess there could be arguments that his tactic kills the flow of a game and it makes viewers turn off, but for me, I’m happy enough with this debate. Very good work.

Perfect Poster
“Basketball is supposed to be a free-flowing game”. I disagree. What everyone would prefer is for it to be a free-flowing sport. But it can’t always be like that, because it’s a sport. And when it comes down to it, the main aim for these sport teams aren’t to aesthetically please the crowd, but it’s to win. Winning is what measures success in sports. Sure you can play the sport well and still earn plaudits. But at the end it will be the winners or the players that transcended the sport who are remembered. So if a coach thinks that’s the best tactic to use to get the win (or back into the game) then why not? Surely it should come down to the player being good enough to hit those free throws and killing that tactic on his on will rather than hoping the league does it for him?

You say that some strategies are widely accepted by all the teams but you allude to H-A-S not being. I’d like to see some proof of that. I won’t be surprised if the only teams that don’t like it are the teams who have big guys who struggle, I.e. Clippers and Rockets. So yeah, you should have referenced a claim like that.

The last criticism I have for this debate is where you’re talking about weaknesses and how PGs aren’t forced to play in the low post, small forwards no forced to dribble the ball up and then go on to talk about of sports. I think this is so off the mark. It’s not the same as the H-A-S tactic at all. No one is forcing these bad foul shooters to shoot the ball. But they’re being made to do it by implementing a tactic. Just like if a team decided to guard the two guards before the ball is in bound, they would make the SF, PF or C dribble the ball down the court. Or if they found a way to lead the PG to the post position, it would make the PG have to post up. It’s harder to achieve than the H-A-S tactic, but it could happen. It’s just entirely pointless to waste energy on such a tactic.

Now what I do agree with you here is that the H-A-S tactic shouldn’t be allowed when the player doesn’t have the ball in their hand. I don’t think that’s fair that when they’re not involved in the current possession that a team could just go and foul them and put them on the line. Maybe a rule should come into play that if that occurs, you can put anyone on the line you want. So yep, I feel your annoyance on that part.

I also agree with you where you allude to inconsistencies with the law makers, that they don’t allow it to happen within two minutes of each half. It’s pretty silly that this exists. It does make it look like they are saying it’s wrong, but then they say that it’s ok to happen from a certain point. A tactic such as that really needs to be allowed or not allowed at all.

All in all, I don’t agree with the majority of the debate. I think you’re thinking about what you want to see more than how to make the sport better. In my view protecting these players by banning this tactic allows them to be lazy and no help evolve the skill of a big guy. It’s possible for them to perfect this tactic, so they need to do it rather than have the easy way out.

Verdict: JM takes this one for me. He put across his points really well and defended a few counter arguments. I struggled to find flaws in the argument, while with the other one I was able to pick it apart quite a bit. But in Perfect Poster’s defence, it’s very hard to opt for change, so kudos for taking on that challenge.

Winner via Split Decision - JM

TDL Social Division Special Attraction Match
M-Diggedy vs Magic

Is Donald Trump an idiot?

Magic
Is Donald Trump an idiot?

Absolutely not. An idiot can be defined as someone that lacks intelligence or any sort of common sense. Donald Trump has recently declared his intentions to run for president, he’s worth 3.2 billion, and he’s a savvy businessman. It’s quite difficult to be successful or do any of this if you lack any sort of intelligence.

I know what you want to tell me: Have you HEARD the idiotic statements Trump has been making since he first declared for presidency? No intelligent person would make comments that can be considered so politically incorrect and remain hopeful of actually being elected. And yet, after everything that’s happened, he still DOMINATES the polls for the Republican Party:

“The CNN/ORC poll showed Trump with 24 percent support among Republican registered voters -- up 6 percentage points from the last CNN/ORC poll in late July and nearly twice as much as those who backed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who came in second with 13 percent”.

And how is that possible? Because Trump is shrewd; he knows where his support will come from and he is making statements that will invoke a positive response from those people and ignoring the backlash from the people who likely wouldn’t vote him anyway:

“Forty-five percent said they trusted Trump more than his GOP competitors on the economy; 44 percent said they trusted him most on illegal immigration; and 32 percent trusted him most on ISIS”.

He has clearly earned the trust of the people that will be looking to vote for him and he’s done all this since June. He has managed to thrust himself into position to possibly become the president of the United States while having no real politic background and no “idiot” could ever manage to do that.

Not to mention his sheer bluntness has caused him to become more relevant in the media than any other candidate. He has non-stop coverage and so do his policies; his candidacy is being discussed more than probably everyone else combined, which has clearly helped him rise above his competition. Trump is essentially going with the motto “there is no such thing as bad publicity” and it’s working in his favour. You can call him an idiot for implying Mexicans are rapists, that Mexico is purposefully sending their bad citizens to the states, and all his other views, but at the end of the day all of these statements are simply strengthening his campaign rather than hurting it.

And I know you want to place credit to anyone but Trump in this scenario, but the truth of the matter is that Trump is going wildly against the norm in his candidacy. It’s obvious no political adviser would condone what he’s said as they know it will alienate potential voters, but it’s obviously working and that just goes to show Trump’s brilliance. He’s gone from a laughable candidate that stood no chance to a legitimate candidate that might win the republican vote.

It’s obvious that Trump was fortunate to inherit an already successful real estate company. However, Trump didn’t simply sit on what he was given, he EXPANDED on it. Although Trump got off to a rough start for the early portions of his business career, he eventually managed to make an exceedingly perceptive move when he purchased the old bank of Manhattan Trust building in 1995 and turned it into Trump Tower. The building had been neglected for years after the previous owner’s assets were frozen, however, it is estimated that he bought it for roughly a million, without inflation, and it is now worth hundreds of millions.

Previously wary of the stock market world, he decided to join in during the depression in economy in the States in 2011 and bought stocks in multiple businesses while the prices were low, including facebook and bank of America. The moves paid off: “On selling stock picks in 2014, Trump earned a $27 million profit, with 40 of the 45 stocks he purchased generating a profit in 2014”. That is what a savvy businessman does, he waits until opportunities present themselves and he takes advantage of them to make a profit.

In the 80’s and early 90’s, Trump had a personal debt of 900 million and a business debt of 3.5 billion. He has had 5 of his investments file for chapter 11 bankruptcies, however only 1 of those 5 involved his personal wealth, meaning he used them simply to enhance his prospects for sucess. The bankruptcies may be seen as a failure, but in reality it was just Trump being discerning: "I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. … We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal.” This was proven true with one of his businesses, the Trump Plaza Hotel, when he created a deal in 1992 that allowed him to gain more favourable conditions to a 550 million dollar debt as well help massively reduce his 900 million dollar debt and 3.5 billion dollar debt by 1994. In 2 years he managed to take a completely failing business and used it help eliminate his own debt. He takes full advantage of the American policies to turn around his businesses and has done so with great success, which is nothing short of brilliant.

When Trump’s father died, he was worth 250-300 million. As it stands today, Trump is worth somewhere between 3.2 and 4 billion dollars, 10 times as much as his father. He did not simply inherit an already successfully empire: he expanded it and made it what it is. He did not simply throw his name in for presidency: he took the race by storm and has vaulted himself past everyone. He has made mistakes and made even dumber investments, it happens in the business world, but at the end of the day he is still a wildly successful man that is far and away from being an “idiot”.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-leading-gop-field-post-debate-polls/story?id=33152935

http://www.investinganswers.com/edu...g-truth-about-donald-trumps-rise-success-6315

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-favorability-economy-immigration-isis-2015-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

M-Diggedy
Donald Trump is a man who attracts either reverence or admonishment with nary an in between. The man is a misogynist, a racist, a republican, an unrepentant controversy magnet but for all that he is; he certainly is not an idiot. First, to get the pedantry out the way, idiocy can be defined literally as mental retardation or, in modern vernacular, general stupidity. Neither case applies here. [1]

Trump is an easy man to dislike. His comments in his current run for the Republican primary nomination have attracted condemnation from media the world over. However, those who brandish him an idiot not only overlook his substantial list of achievements, they also allow their personal opinion to cloud their objectivity. Let’s do a quick run through of his accomplishments:

• Graduated from Pennsylvania University with a degree in economics.
• Turned an inherited $40-200 million into a $4billion dollar fortune (20-100x the inheritance)
• Successfully revitalised his business – bringing it from $-900million to its current prosperity.
• Turned his name into a brand and earned more than $200million for ‘The Apprentice’.
• Managed to lead a presidential primary race despite having no political experience. [2]

None of the above is conjecture, it’s all fact. Honestly, if you replaced the name Donald Trump with almost any other individual, idiocy would be out of the question and the issue certainly would not merit a debate. To call Donald Trump an idiot is to associate controversy with idiocy. To do so is both misleading, naïve and fundamentally untrue.

I get it, though; his increased exposure courtesy of his presidential campaign has attracted scorn for his views on immigration and his brazen approach to the political world. I’ll even admit the comments he has made are idiotic when taken in isolation. However, in the context they are being made they have proven to be a masterstroke from the presidential hopeful. At the time of writing his average lead in the polls is 13.9%. That lead is built in no small part thanks to his widely derided remarks. That’s because, in spite of the ire, his comments resonate with his target audience. His populist politics are based on an understanding of the opinions of his grassroots electorate. The intelligence of his campaign is based on the fact that he has nothing to lose. If he wins, then he has a chance at becoming the most powerful individual on Earth. If he loses, the worst case scenario is that he goes back to his billion-dollar empire. The best case is that his endorsement of a fellow Republican will be done under very favourable terms. However you look at it, Trump has played an intelligent card. [3]

Even beyond his recent political success, there is very little in Trump’s life that you can attribute to an idiot. One such instance where people try to is regarding his history of corporate bankruptcy. It is true that Trump has filed for this type of bankruptcy (which is entirely different to personal bankruptcy) on four separate occasions. However, it is also true that he leveraged the situation to minimise his personal loss and has used the legal proceedings to restructure his companies into the business juggernauts they are today. While the system may be flawed, the fact remains that Donald Trump manipulated it and benefitted from it to no end – not bad for the work of an alleged idiot. Yes, it may be disingenuous but when the system presents such an advantageous get out of jail free card, the only idiots would be the ones who don’t take it. [4]

It is worth remembering the fact that this is only a debate at all is due to the notoriety of the Trump name. After his business dealings brought him into the public domain, Trump managed to mould his persona into bestselling book sales and $200million of television income as well as gaining untold celebrity. So, in addition to his business success, he has also managed to leverage his image into further financial reward. Sure, maybe an idiot can get lucky in one industry, but Trump has diversified and amplified his business strategy in every facet of his life and, quite frankly, you don’t get that lucky, that often. [5]

It’s not even as though the Trump detractors can label him an idiot due to his need for media attention. He loves publicity, no question, but people like Richard Branson and Tony Toutouni also play themselves up in the media and attract nothing like the accusations of stupidity that are levelled at Trump. Double standards exist when it comes to Donald Trump where success is undervalued and controversy is overstated. [6]

People often say that it’s easy to make money when you are given money. They might say that populist politics are easy because you just have to say the right things. That’s a fantasy that doesn’t have a lot of mileage. If it was easy to turn an inheritance into an empire, the world would be full of would-be billionaires, but it isn’t. If republican popularity was so easy, the polls would surely suggest a rival to Trump, but they don’t. Steadfast belief in your own abilities mixed with political and business nous is what makes a success. Not liking Trump does not and will not change that.

No matter what you think of Donald Trump’s ethics or choices, this is a man who has taken a head start in life and turned it into a commanding lead. This is an unconventional man who turned himself into a brand. This is a billionaire with a star on the walk of fame, a spot in a wrestling hall of fame, multiple bestselling books and golf courses that host the biggest tournaments in the world. This is a man who has taken a lifetime of business and is so far transitioning it successfully into effective populist politics. This is a man who, despite his many detractors, is a success – not an idiot.

References:

1 – Idiot Definition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot

2 – Trump inheritance and worth

http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/

http://www.alternet.org/story/15623..._government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick

3 – Republican primary polls

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary


4 – Corporate Bankruptcy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ow-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/

5 – Apprentice Money

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/donald-trump-nbc-apprentice-213-million-1201541016/

6 – Toutouni – King of Instagram

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/new-king-instagram-billionaire-businessman-5591230

Andre
I'm going to make this brief because Seabs wants the judging in asap. There's also very little to criticise in these debates (yes Magic, I was winding you up in the chat box :evil), while they are quite similar in content, so I'll judge these together.

Magic has a very formal approach and makes good use of quotes. However, this hampered the use of his own words which would have allowed him to go into greater technical detail, explaining the context of the information presented, rather than a few blunt statements outlining the previous knowlede dump. M-Diggedy avoided this by being far more concise, avoiding quote mining while structuring his debate in a way that allowed greater flow, plus freedom to manipulate words in a way that made for a superior piece of persuasive writing. Magic presented Trump as someone who is a savvy opportunist, while M-Diggedy went further and presented him as a self-branding genius. Both of you gave a good account of Trump's political aspirations, but Magic spent too much of his debate on this (the quote mining didn't help this, as it padded the section out, while many of the quotes didn't really add much more in terms of persuasion compared to the previous ones). M-Diggedy's concise nature meant that he could cover more areas and also make comparisons to other moguls. M-Diggedy also had the brilliant intro where he played the DDMac "some fucking guy" card, listing Trump's achievements before pointing out that this would impress anyone, but the Trump attachment creates subjective bias against these non-idiotic accomplishments. Magic really lacked this, as well as the craft in writing which M-Diggedy had, including gems such as "Sure, maybe an idiot can get lucky in one industry, but Trump has diversified and amplified his business strategy in every facet of his life and, quite frankly, you don’t get that lucky, that often" and "If it was easy to turn an inheritance into an empire, the world would be full of would-be billionaires, but it isn’t". Great stuff. As mentioned previously, M-Diggedy's debate flowed much better and finished with a really strong wrap up paragraph as a conclusion. Magic kind of just stumbled and stuttered from one point to the next, without any real strong links between paragraphs.

Magic's is a very good biography which focuses on Trump's political aspirations, with staccato one line arguments attached at the end of each section. M-Diggedy's is a high quality debate with more depth and greater persuasive writing.

M-Diggedy wins my vote

Anark
Magic
Bold and confident opening and that’s my cup of tea. Your opening salvo is pretty efficient at driving home the point you want to make. He has indeed gone straight for the hearts of the only people who would vote for him anyway. I wasn’t entirely convinced by how you ended that opening segment, with the bit about how ‘he has clearly earned the trust of the people’ and that ‘he’s done all this since June’. There should have been some recognition here that political campaigns are not run by the person running for president or whatever, but by professional campaign managers. Ain’t you seen Parks ‘n Rec?

The following paragraph about his bluntness is interesting. I’ll be honest, I haven’t paid an awful lot of attention to opinion polls etc coming out of the US, but surely his tactics so far can only be judged on his results (as in, whether he ends up with the Republican vote and whether he does well in the final election). Sure, he’s getting a lot of attention now but he’s also ruffling a hell of a lot of feathers. Surely the end game is winning the presidential election, thus surely it would be smarter to not alienate half of the country off the bat, which is what he’s done. He can’t take these statements back. Democrats and Republicans can always rely on their staunch supporters who vote how they do regardless of who it is they are voting for, but there’s also a large swath of people who will vote according to how they perceive the person running. Being so divisive has not worked out for most politicians who have tried it. The most intelligent way of gaining power has always been to appeal to as many people as possible, usually by being bland and not committing to any drastic or divisive policies. Trump may well be a genius if he pulls it off the way he’s going about it, but history suggests he isn’t going to get anywhere near the Whitehouse. I guess we’ll see. I think I just would have preferred a better understanding of how politics actually works here, or at least how it has always worked in the past. If Trump turns everything upside down then I will buy you a pack of Oreos (that aren’t made in Mexico).

I did note that you pre-empted my criticisms above in your following section, but you just throw the line ‘it’s obvious no political adviser would condone what he’s said’ at me without really backing it up in anyway. Is Trump running this campaign all by himself with no advisors? If so then your point is extremely valid, but you don’t show me any evidence of this and that’s crucial because it’s highly doubtful that he is. And surely it would be an idiot who runs for president without taking campaign advice from experts, no? Some more exploration of these points would have done wonderful things for your debate.

Moving onto his financial successes, you make very good points regarding his Trump Tower investment and stock market speculations. You have an excellent section regarding his bankruptcies and how he actually used them to benefit himself personally. You paint a picture of a very clever man who identified and exploited loopholes and policies to his own massive advantage.

You have a nice enough finish which drove home the important points about his overall financial success. I’m still not sold on the whole presidential campaign proving anything though.

M-Diggedy
You have a nice intro with a solid stance reveal. And although the meaning of idiot is commonly known, it was actually good to lay bare its exact connotations as it removed the possibility of considering the term 'idiot' from its more modern slang usage or someone who does something we don't agree with or who makes some foolish remarks etc.

The quick run-through of his achievements was a good idea and immediately set the scene of a man who has achieved a lot in his life. Your opponent led with the presidential campaign, which I think was a massive weak point in his argument as its success is yet to be fully measured. He turned it around toward the end by focusing on the financial achievements, but opening with those was a better idea I think. It means your argument is working from a position of strength rather than playing catch-up.

You then plough into the politics and do a pretty good job of presenting his efforts in a non-idiotic light. It was good to introduce the worst case scenario as this grounded the argument. I felt your opponent got a little too giddy regarding Trump’s outrageous comments being aimed at a certain demographic, but you give it the short and sharp treatment the point deserved.

You also articulate Trump’s bankruptcy manoeuvrings a fair bit better than your opponent. Your passages on this subject felt refined and well edited, while your opponent seemed to be making off the cuff comments in comparison. Another area you surpass your opponent in is how you describe Trump’s moulding of his personality into a brand, using examples like the book sales and television income to back up your statements. Though your opponent made similar points, this extra supportive detail was missing from Magic.

The paragraph about how there aren’t many folks who turned inheritances into fortunes like Trump did and how there are little to no rival candidates running for the Republicans, thus showing that neither is easy to do, was a nice enough finishing argument. Your conclusion is excellent, repeatedly banging home point after point proving Trump is no idiot.

VERDICT
This is a fairly easy decision and the winner is M-Diggedy. It was more organised, more eloquent and most importantly it offered more evidence to back up the statements made. Magic was not poor at all, but it focused way too much on the presidential campaign which is only the most recent (and unfinished) chapter in Trump’s life. M-Diggedy dealt with that part of Trump’s story in a much more efficient manner allowing him to focus on adding much more detail regarding Trump’s other undeniable successes throughout his life.

Evolution
Magic

I liked your breakdown of the topic and it's definition. I feel like this topic was begging to be broken down and it kind of makes for an easy lead-in for the debate. However, your follow up stating that his intention to run for president and his worth don't strongly dictate whether he is or isn't an idiot or not. "Lacking intelligence" doesn't mean "completely devoid of intelligence" otherwise the question would be "Is Donald Trump a retard?"

Your follow-ups also lost me a bit. You talk about his popularity in the conservative voting polls but popularity is not always indicative of intelligence. Look at George W. Bush (who I'm surprised you didn't reference as a comparison) who most certainly by definition is an idiot yet he was president of the US for like two terms.

I wish you had spent more time talking about his expanded wealth and how he got it rather than talking about his presidential aspirations. I feel you spent way to many words going into it and it didn't really connect to the rest of the debate for mine. I understood what you were getting at but you didn't explain that in the debate.

Your points on his wealth and the ways in which he expanded on it were well founded and I just wish you had focused more time on that aspect of your debate than trying to focus on the moronic comments he's made and how popularity is somehow a defence against idiocy.

M-Diggedy:

Again, loved the intro and you really strongly followed that up with a list of achievements which strongly back up the statement that you lead into it with.

It's good to see that you distinguished between an idiotic remark or statement and being an idiot as an individual. I think that's something that Debate A missed out on. It's easy for anyone, of any intelligence level, to say stupid or idiotic things but those things do not literally make that person by definition an idiot. They may simply not understand social dynamics or etiquettes.

Pretty well structured debate as you followed your key-points from the beginning and systematically explained them in relation to your definition of the topic. Well done. I enjoyed reading it.

Conclusion:

Pretty easy victory to M-Diggedy here. Magic suffered from a lack of structure and spent too many words stuck on the wrong part of the topic. M-Diggedy had a sound structure, defined the topic well and elaborated on the points concisely and convincingly. A great entry.

Winner via Unanimous Decision - M-Diggedy

TDL Sports Division Special Attraction Match
Baxter vs CGS

Who was most deserving of being the 2014/15 Premier League Manager of the Season?

CGS

Gary Monk, Alan Pardew, Ronald Koeman and of course the league winner himself Jose Mourinho. These were the four main candidates vying for the title of “manager of the season 2014/15”. All have a rightful claim to the crown, all had majorly impressive seasons. Jose even won the PFA manager of the year award for what he achieved…that’s not to say he was the most deserving winner though. In fact for combating everyone thrown at him in superb fashion the man who deserved this award MORE than Jose or the other two candidates in this discussion was in fact the Southampton man Ronald Koeman.

With the loss of five key players from the 2013/14 season in Adam Lallana, Rickie Lambert, Dejan Lovren, Calum Chambers and Luke Shaw not to mention the loss of their manager Mauricio Pochettino to Tottenham the words “meltdown” and “disarray” was becoming pretty synonymous with Southampton. Koeman had to come in and pretty much rebuild the squad from the bottom up. Starting of course by replacing the key men lost from the previous campaign. He didn’t do too badly to be fair recruiting the likes of Graziano Pelle, Fraser Forster, Dusan Tadic, Sadio Mane, Toby Alderweireld (loan deal) and Ryan Bertrand (loan deal which became permanent in January), all of which went on to become key men for the club.

These additions helped ensure that defensively Southampton enjoyed their best season in the premier league to date. Their new goalkeeper Fraser Forster along with their new look backline ensured that Southampton finished with the 3rd most amount of clean sheets while also conceding the 2nd least amount of goals in the campaign (1 less than the champions Chelsea) an improvement on Ponchettino’s Southampton the year before by 13 goals. Forster himself was even able to keep the joint 2nd highest amount of clean sheets only Joe Hart was able to keep more.

On the other end of the pitch Koeman’s move to bring in both Pelle and Mane proved to be highly successful. Pelle went on to become the clubs top scorer in the league with 12 goals with Mane not far behind on 10. Tadic proved to be a creative spark as well creating the most chances for the team and finishing as the clubs top assister for the season. (1) All of this while also having to deal with the loss of their top goal scorer from the previous season Jay Rodriguez due to injury for the entire season.

Koeman’s tactical understanding of how his team should play mixed with his brilliant transfer outlook helped ensure that Southampton achieved their highest point’s tally ever of 60 points for the season and helped them secure European football for the first time since the 2003-04 season.

Pretty impressive for a team that was widely tipped for relegation back in August.

This whole factor becomes even more impressive when you realise that they actually spent more time in the top 4 than the typical “top 4 contenders” Arsenal, Liverpool & Spurs (2) while also managing to bring the wage bill down even further. Before he arrived Southampton were ranked 14th in terms of their wage bill. They are now ranked 16th. Better than any other manager in this discussion.(3)

Achieving more while spending less. Surely the mark of a brilliant manager.

So why exactly was he better than the rest?

Just like Koeman Monk wasn’t supposed to be in this discussion either. He should have failed due to his inexperience as a manager but instead thrived under the conditions. Not many managers out there could do so well while also losing their star striker half way through the season. However where Koeman has Monk beat was simply down to getting more out of his team. Monk’s Swansea finished on a negative goal difference and even scored the least amount of goals within the top 10. Offensively, defensively and on the points board Koeman has him beat.

Similar scenario with Alan Pardew, He wasn’t supposed to have such a brilliant campaign but instead achieved 57 points between both Newcastle and Crystal Palace. He left Newcastle in tenth place to join relegation battlers Crystal Palace in January and by the end of the season both clubs had done a complete 180. A Newcastle with no Pardew found themselves narrowly surviving relegation while Palace ended up finishing 10th. That being said At Newcastle Pardew pretty much moulded that team himself and at Palace he didn’t inherit a squad stripped off all their best players. Two adversities that Koeman had to face head on and thrived incredibly despite it. He even would have finished above “Pardew united”.

Then you have the man on the other end of this spectrum. The “special one” Jose Mourinho. Chelsea’s list of achievements go on and on this year. Title win, most amount of wins, longest unbeaten run, and the least goals conceded I mean the list goes on. However Jose inherited an almost complete and title winning squad. He got the bare minimum he was expected to while not really pushing Chelsea to any higher standards.

Koeman deserved to be the manager of the year not because of where his team finished in the league or what they won. He deserved it for exceeding everyone’s pre-season expectations by a HUGE margin while also making Southampton an even more formidable and threatening outfit than they were the previous year. All this while maintaining a similar attractive level of football that the club had become known for and even saving the club a few pennies in the process.

Southampton should have been battling relegation, not competing for a champion’s league spot. Koeman thrived under conditions many would have crumbled under and breathed life into Southampton squad everyone claimed was dead and buried. For what he was able to do in such a short space of time he most certainly was the most deserving choice as the manager of the year for the 2014/15 premier league campaign.



References​

(1)http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896...lin-to-clyne-southamptons-2014-15-full-player

(2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32836906

(3)http://www.skysports.com/football/n...ing-good-value-in-performance-and-wage-stakes

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/may/25/premier-league-2014-15-manager-of-season

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2476242-201415-premier-league-manager-power-rankings/page/22

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...r-of-the-season-goes-to....html?frame=3257376

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

http://tle-online.com/sport/manager-of-the-season-southamptons-ronald-koeman/28/05

Baxter

Last season Alan Pardew was the most deserving of winning the Manager of the Season award.

Before we get into the bulk of this debate it’s critical to stress that the winner of Premier League Manager of the Season shouldn't just automatically be the manager who put in the 'best' managerial performance; it should be the person who put in the best performance in relation to the expectations of their club and the resources at their disposal; obviously managing a team like Bournemouth to 4th place would be infinitely more impressive than managing Chelsea to the title.


CRITERIA

Any manager vying to win this award should first and foremost fit the following criteria;

- As this is manager of the season, it should only be fair that managers who managed a significant amount of League games (let’s call it 75% of the season/29 league games) should be considered
- They should have gotten good results in relation to the expectations of their club and ability of the players at their disposal
- They should have put in a solid performance in the transfer market, demonstrating a real nous when it comes to both buying/selling players.


THE CANDIDATES

When looking at the above criteria, the 5 outstanding candidates for this award are Jose Mourinho, Alan Pardew, Nigel Pearson, Ronald Koeman, and Garry Monk. Although other managers such as Sean Dyche, Arsene Wenger, Mark Hughes and Sam Allardyce put in a respectable performance, it should be clear to anyone who has kept up with football over the past 12 months that their achievements just don’t quite reach those of the 5 managers listed above.


VALUE FOR MONEY?

Arguably the best way to assess the skill of the players available to a manager (and hence if they’re matching the expectations of their club) is to look at how much money it took to assemble their team, and this is one area in which Alan Pardew really stands out:



Despite the fact that his Crystal Palace side was put together on a relative shoestring (only Burnley’s squad took less money to assemble), Pardew managed to get an insane run of results out his Palace team to steer them away from relegation and towards a top half finish. Even though other managers like Koeman, Moruinho and Monk may take the plaudits, they all manage squads that were put together with much bigger budgets than what Pardew had at Crystal Palace last year.

His achievements at Newcastle weren’t too shabby either: when he was in charge Pardew had them on course for a top half finish, however following his departure Newcastle went on to win only 3 more games, ultimately seeing them end up in a relegation dogfight. The graph below illustrates just how much the fortunes of the two teams he managed last season changed for the better/worse when he was/wasn’t with the club (Pardew left Newcastle for Palace at the start of January):



TRANSFER MARKET

Despite the fact that Pardew’s net spend in the transfer market at both Palace and Newcastle was greater than that of Mourinho, Koeman and Monk;



It is worth noting that the net spend figures for those three are heavily skewed by one expensive outgoing that was worth over £30m (see David Luiz for Mourinho, Wilfried Bony for Monk and Adam Lallana/Luke Shaw/Dejan Lovren for Koeman), whereas Pardew’s income came from a steady sale of expendable players.

It’s also worth noting just how little Pardew spent improving Palace in comparison to the gain in points they hypothetically would have made if he’d been there for a whole season; at just £600k spent for every point of progress they made last season, he completely destroys the likes of Mourinho and Koeman who spent upwards of £15m on every point of progress last year. Even if you include the money spent by Neil Warnock at the start of the year, he STILL has a better points gained to money spent ratio than anyone else in the Premier League


CIRCUMSTANCES

Another factor that makes Pardew’s achievements even more impressive is the circumstances surrounding his reigns at Newcastle and Crystal Palace (especially the former). Whilst the likes of Koeman, Mourinho, Monk (and to some extent Pearson) all went into the 2014/15 season with team morale high off the back of a successful 2013/14 season, Pardew went into a Crystal Palace side low on morale and stuck in the relegation zone before gaining a run of results that would have seen them finish FIFTH if maintained over the course of a season. His tenure at Newcastle was hardly an easy time for him either, as he was constantly in the media spotlight and placed under huge amounts of pressure by their fans.

Another one of the arguments often used in favour of Ronald Koeman winning the manager of the season award is how he had to 'deal' with the sale of numerous star players, however it’s easy to flip this argument on his head and argue that although he did lose some of his better players (see Lallana, Shaw, Chambers), he received a ridiculous amount of money for each of these that allowed him to strengthen and make signings that he wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford; for example, the money gained from the Luke Shaw sale alone allowed him to pick up the much influential Graziano Pelle, Dusan Tadic and Ryan Bertrand. Selling your best players isn’t always a bad thing if you’re getting paid a premium price for them.

There’s no doubt about it, pound-for-pound Alan Pardew was the best Premier League manager during the 2014/15 season and his achievements, particularly at Crystal Palace, should have seen him deservedly win the Manager of the Season award.

Seabs
CGS - Typo first word in. Vintage. Shout out to "Ponchettino" later on too. Ok in these either or debates I'm not big on spending half the debate arguing for your stance and then the other half posting counter arguments. For some topics it can work (see the Balor NXT topic this card) but in this one and especially against top of the card opponents I think you should be looking at a method of arguing for your stance throughout and using the argument for as an argument against other options simultaneously. See how Baxter did it by arguing factors for Pardew and also showing how the other candidates don't match up. Argue for and against at the same time. It'll also help you get more production out of your word count too. Your first half reads like a season in review which isn't a good thing. Yes Koeman invested well and built a new team in great fashion. But so what? That needs to be relative against what Pardew and co did. Pardew was in a similar position when he went to Palace except he had to inherit a squad and didn't have the money to spend that Koeman did. Yes Koeman had to replace a lot of top stars but he had lots of money to do so. Errr you might want to check the dates on your wages sources. "Offensively, defensively and on the points board Koeman has him beat." I really don't like as a argument because it doesn't factor in relativity. You could say that Van Gaal had Pearson beat on the same factors (idk if he did) but would you say Van Gaal had a better season than Pearson? The Pardew counter is really bad. He didn't have the money to spend to rebuild that Koeman had and he didn't have the talent already there either. Your inability to factor in that some Managers have less to work with really hurt your debate. It's not like that would kill your stance against Koeman either but it really hurts your counter against Pardew, as does your lack of statistical evidence to back your arguments up with. Baxter goes in to way deeper depth with his analysis which is what you should have been doing to compete with a top debater. Your penultimate paragraph you could say exactly the same for Pardew bar the saving pennies part.

Baxter - This was definitely good without ever really wowing me at any point. Hopefully that comes across as I want it to. There's not many faults with it but I'm also just sorta nodding along rather than being taken aback at the quality of the arguments. Maybe your arguments just lacked the SEX FACTOR. "As this is manager of the season, it should only be fair that managers who managed a significant amount of League games (let’s call it 75% of the season/29 league games) should be considered" - did this eliminate anyone? If not then I would have cut it. I agree with adding Pearson to the 4 that CGS chose to focus on too. More deserving of a counter than Monk and Jose imo. Value For Money part is good, especially the graph at the end. It would have been good to have had a point per £m spent on their squad like you had in the transfer market section. Rest is all really good so I won't waste much time on it. You could have mentioned in the circumstances part about how Pardew didn't have a pre-season to prepare his Palace team and had an immediate turnaround unlike Koeman and co. who had a pre-season to prepare his new. Penultimate paragraph nicely counters CGS too.

Winner - Baxter

Andre
CGS

Your intro is TOO long for the point you eventually reach.

I’m not sure whether I can accept your argument for giving Koeman credit in regards to rebuilding Southampton player wise. In this day of common occurring directors of football (WBA until Pulis took over), transfer committees (Liverpool) and super scouts (Graham Carr with Mike Ashley’s insistence on cheap gems at Newcastle) it’s really difficult to pin point who is the actual driving force behind player recruitment. It’s something that really needs a source. If Koeman did in fact choose the signings then yes it’s a good argument, but it needs clarification in this vague world of modern transfers.

The transfers point kind of bleeds in to the idea that excellent recruitment gave Southampton a solid looking rear guard, so I’m not certain whether you can credit Koeman for transfer dealings which have led to Southampton’s solidity. The defensive stats provided were decent, but you should have improved this by adding context, such as how Southampton didn’t need to play an ugly style (Pulis or Allardyce teams) to achieve this, or how it didn’t create a glass ceiling for them whereas other teams struggle to go beyond 8th playing more conservatively.

Again, I’m not sure how much credit I can give you for stating that Koeman made good attacking signings when I’ve not been made aware whether he sort after those players, just rubber stamped them or got in with the job while others above him dealt with transfers. Sources were required. A better argument is that Koeman managed to gel a largely new first XI together while improving on the previous season results wise, while making comparisons to other teams (Spurs 13/14) who failed to do so.

The point about Europe is fair, but I’m going to penalise you for backing up the lowered wages argument with a false source. The comparison you made was from 12/13 to 13/14, not 13/14 to 14/15. I don’t know if you’re aware, but the wage bills for 14/15 will only be released towards the end of the 15/16 season.

The pros you present for Monk are strong and not really countered. You criticised him for not getting as much out of his team as Koeman, yet overlooked how both teams had a comparable improvement from 13/14 to 14/15. It’s not like Swansea were an upper mid table team before 14/15 like Southampton were. In fact, Saints only improved by 4 points, whereas Swansea improved by a whopping 12. Achieving better league results (without context, that is) doesn’t necessarily mean having done a better job, otherwise the league winning manager should always be MOTY. If anything I’m left thinking that Monk might have done a better job.

On Pardew, I must point out that presenting Newcastle as strugglers without him is a tad silly and wrongfully harmful to your own cause, because Newcastle had a village idiot in charge when they nearly copped relegation. Pardew didn’t mould the Newcastle team by himself; Graham Carr was the driving force, with Mike Ashley insisting on uncovering cheap gems. Pardew might have had a big hand in a few of them, but he wasn’t largely responsible for moulding the team as you suggested. You’re correct that Palace didn’t lose their better players before Pards arrived at Shithurst Park, but this overlooks how Palace had a far worse squad than Southampton’s to begin with, being comparable at worst after the St Mary’s fire sale before the new additions were brought in. Okay Pards won slightly less points in 14/15 than Koeman, but should Newcastle/Palace be performing to that level? Maybe there’s an argument that Newcastle should be close to that level, but definitely not Palace. So in context I’m left thinking Pards did at least a comparable job.

I’m totally lost with the Jose inherited a near title winning squad comment. Chelsea were miles off the pace for years in the league, while Costa, Fabregas, Matic, Willian and Zouma (to a lesser extent) were signings made after Mourinho took over for a second reign. Can’t really say that Jose just walked into the club and all he had to do was successfully manage a ready built title winning team. Again this goes back to whom actually is the driving force behind these signings, but alas.

All I’m left with is Koeman exceeded expectations, but while thinking there’s still an incredible shout for all of the other managers that you named to be ahead of him. You also omitted Mark Hughes, which I think is really harsh considering that Stoke spent very little money in the first two seasons he was there. You also failed to include the definition of what makes the MOTY, which debate B had. I’m sure that at this point you can tell I’m not a big fan of this debate. Sorry.


Baxter

Champion’s intro at the start, defining what makes a manager of the year candidate. I also appreciate how you omitted Pulis and Sherwood with the 75% rule. I can go along with that. A quick point before I go on; I’m not going to give you credit for signings made by managers arguments without citations (said the same to CGS, check his feedback for more) as it’s difficult to tell who is the real driving force behind transfers in the modern transfer market. I also thought your omission of Hughes was incredibly harsh as his Stoke side achieved just 2 points less than Monk’s Swansea. Considering how little investment Stoke had made transfer wise from 2013 – 2015, I don’t see why Hughes should be ruled out (barring a lazy excuse because you ran out of words :side:).

Okay, so I can actually give you some credit for the cute table with total transfer costs for first choice XI’s plus subs, because you’re not arguing that these managers made the signings or chased them/chose them, but that they performed to certain standards with differing budgets. This is pretty clever and avoids the dodgy ground of net spends. I think the counter to this is that one club could use world class scouts and a top quality DOF to bring in better players for much cheaper than another club who brought in expensive flops, but your argument at least works for Pardew at Palace (who have poor infrastructure for scouting, as Holloway and Steve Parrish said in 13/14) compared to most. On a side note: I said similar to CGS, but I think it’s a tad disingenuous to prop up Pards as having overachieved at the Toon by comparing his results to the glorified P.E teacher who took over afterwards.

The counter for better net spends at other clubs being down to individual overpriced outgoing sales is decent. I think you could have rammed this point home by arguing that the steady stream of cheap sales did more damage to Pardew’s squads than any one player sale could have at the other clubs (Chelsea in particular, still LEL at David Luiz going for so much). I’m not so keen on the £ per points argument, as it’s quite clear that the higher you go up the table, you need to spend more money to achieve results. You need to buy world class ACM’s, forwards and strikers when you’re coming up against a parked bus most weeks, whereas lesser sides can get by with cheaper signings when opposition teams are more likely to open up against them on a regular basis. Basically I think it’s a harsh knock on Mourinho, although the comparison to Koeman is fair.

The section about circumstances is fantastic and probably the peak of your debate for me; a simple and obvious but well-made argument. It’s obvious that Pards had a harder job than most, by having to deal with the deluded Geordie mongs and working in a hostile atmosphere, while his efforts to turn around a despairing Palace side were not just impressive, but remarkable when considering the results they ended up gaining. I think you could have included the “first manager to take a side from the bottom three in January to the top ten” stat to really hammer this home, but otherwise this was on point.

I like the counter to Koeman losing star players that would have made his job easier. It’s clear that there was scope at St Marys to spend a lot of money on a new team with existing cash generated from largely overhyped and overpriced players. The only issue with this is that it overlooks how well Koeman did to gel the new team together.


Decision:


This is an easy one for me. CGS convinced me of basically nothing regarding his stance. Baxter was far from a perfect debate, but was plenty good enough to convince me that Pardew was one of the leaders of the pack.

Baxter wins my vote

Curry
CGS

As much as I'd agree that GARRY Monk is a good candidate for manager of the season and as much as I'm not going to mark you down for spelling errors, misspelling literally the first word of your debate really doesn't set you up for a great start.

Keeping the focus on how well Koeman battled the adversity he was thrust into was definitely a great way to frame this debate as you have so much to work with. The loss of those 5 players (6 had you included Jack Cork) was obviously huge and showing just how much work Koeman had to do to get things back on track so quickly was a good step to take. Though this was generally good, I would've liked to have seen more direct comparisons to the teams of the other contenders in this section, similar to your opponent's debate.

When talking about Pardew it's difficult to say that he had it easy at Palace because they hadn't been stripped of their best players given that their best players weren't really of a comparative level to Southampton's. As your opponent points out, the cost of their starting XI and bench was dwarfed by Southampton's. This then calls in to question your point about Koeman “Achieving more while spending less”.

While Mourinho did achieve the bare minimum that was expected, to say he inherited an almost complete title winning squad is a little dismissive as Chelsea had finished a full 14 points off the lead the year before he arrived and 4 points off in his first year and he took them (largely through shrewd transfer business) to the point where they could afford to coast towards the end of the season.
Although the areas of your debate that covered Koeman's strengths were very good, your counters were a little dodgy, particularly those for Pardew's merits as Palace manager could have let you down here.

Baxter

I really like the setup of your debate with the simple opening, the well-defined criteria for what makes a manager of the season and establishing the only real candidates (though a Pearson claim would've been difficult it's always better to be safe with counters I guess).

Basing so much of your argument on the managers' merits in the transfer market was bold but this largely draws back to the same argument “He did better and showed more improvement given the lack of funds available” where I felt this point could have been made more concisely, leaving you room for other issues, or even for an expansion on your rather convincing graph showing the performances of Crystal Palace and Newcastle with and without Pardew at the helm, perhaps looking at why he succeeded so much where Warnock and Carver were on relegation form.

Your section attempting to counter Ronald Koeman's claim to the manager of the season award was very odd given that you had set out “demonstrating a real nous when it comes to both buying/selling players” as one of your criteria earlier on in your debate. Even with a £61m net spend, Koeman went into the season without (through sale or injury) Lallana, Lambert, Shaw, Lovren, Rodriguez, Cork and Chambers who had made 38, 37, 35, 31, 33, 28 and 22 league appearances respectively the season before. Just throwing money at a team to replace such a wide group of quality players who had been so important to the team the season before could well have resulted in a Tottenham-esque lineup of Capoue-shaped flops or the season Sunderland spent £45m on the likes of Kenwyne Jones, Craig Gordon and Michael Chopra only to finish 15th. Koeman absolutely demonstrated his tactical nous with almost all of his signings, regardless of price, finding success last season.

While this debate is well structured and your tables are well presented with some very nice information. the content in the body of your debate did feel a bit limited compare to what could have been covered across the scope of this topic.

Decision: This was a tight one as both debates did different things very well but were not without their flaws. I'm giving the win to CGS as they were able to cover a wider range of areas Koeman was superior in than Baxter could for Pardew.

Winner via Split Decision - Baxter

TDL Wrestling Division Championship Match
Seabs vs Curry

Should WWE re-introduce time limits to matches?

Curry

Moments where the clock is ticking down and time looks to have run out only for the result of a match to change in an instant are some of the most entertaining moments in sport. Whether it's Shane Williams' last-minute try against Scotland, Auburn's Iron Bowl-winning touchdown or Sergio Aguero's title-winning goal against QPR, these moments can reduce fans to teary, screaming wrecks. In these moments commentators will often resort to the same cliché: “You couldn't write a script like this”

But when you're the biggest sports entertainment company in the world, you can write a script like this.


WWE should re-introduce time limits to SOME matches.


By this, I mean that WWE should bring back time limits as a gimmick for certain matches and use them sparingly when a feud merits it, roughly half a dozen times a year with the majority of those matches ending before the time limit is reached.

Time limits provide variety. In the past year, WWE Pay-per-views have seen awful chain, flag and stairs matches as well as expensive elimination chamber and hell in a cell matches and multiple potentially dangerous ladder matches. The addition of time limits as a gimmick offers WWE a safe, cheap way to completely alter the structure of a match in a way that will seem unique to the modern audience.

The audience perception of any match changes as soon as a time limit is announced. Immediately they have to consider the idea of a draw or consider how the match might be structured around the time limit. The tension is built naturally through the match and can be matched with the rising pace of the match and amplified by a WCW TV title-style countdown announcement of the last 5 minutes. Filling these last few minutes with quick-fire pin attempts or a title challenger taking bigger risks knowing that they only have minutes left to take their opportunity can then add to the importance of the match and push the audience to sympathise with the desperate scramble of the babyface as they throw everything that they have at the heel to close out the match before time runs out.

Many people seem to be in the mindset that a time limit on a match means that it will usually run to a draw. WWE can actually take advantage of this assumption to create some fresh and exciting scenarios. The perfect example of this would be Summerslam 2013. If the John Cena vs Daniel Bryan WWE title match been built up with a time limit, most fans would have assumed that a time limit draw was inevitable to keep the title on Cena while allowing Bryan to look strong. WWE could have used this to make Bryan's win with the busaiku knee towards the end of the time limit an even bigger surprise than it was.

Another advantage of re-introducing time limits to certain matches is that it gives heels a chance to act like heels. A normally boring rest hold becomes a tactical move to stall out the match and break up the babyface's momentum and in rolling out of the ring the heel is physically taking away the time that the babyface has to chase the match. In a 2015 WWE where Seth Rollins has held on to his WWE world heavyweight championship via disqualification, Kane's gatekeeping shenanigans and a mid-fall game of tug-of-war, a match where he stalled and ran from Dean Ambrose to force a time limit draw would have provided a sensible way to prolong the feud, allow Ambrose to look competitive and keep the title on Seth Rollins while gaining him heel heat.

WWE have already proved that they have the ability to effectively book matches with time limits involved during the Moxley/Black feud in FCW. The two squared off to two time limit draws in 15 minute matches in order to build to the eventual pay-off of a 30 minute iron man match built around the idea that neither had been able to pin the other in the previous matches. With the right competitors, this proven feud could be recreated over two RAWs leading to the Pay-per-view iron man match.

But if time limits are so great, why not re-introduce them to all matches?

Re-introducing time limits to all matches immediately spoils the variety of the idea. In that scenario time limit matches replace singles matches as the new normal, taking away any chance they offer to create different or innovative match dynamics as they will quickly become standards of WWE wrestling, rather than special stipulations and be seen as an average match rather than an interesting twist that changes the complexion of the match or feud.

Time limit draws can be incredibly anticlimactic. It can often feel like a slap in the face to the audience if two wrestlers put on a great 15, 30 or 60-minutes match only to leave the crowd with no pay-off for their investment. If time limit matches are see limited usage in specifically selected matches, WWE can better judge when the appropriate times to make use of the time limit draw are. If time limits made the standard stipulation for all WWE matches, they will be forced into using the “cop-out” option more often in feuds as they aim to keep all participants looking strong and may begin to rely on this option as a booking crutch much like the current situation with disqualifications in pay-per-view or major RAW matches. This leads to fans being disappointed far more often with the finishes to matches and being soured on the idea of time limits because of it.

WWE should absolutely re-introduce time limits as a gimmick for certain matches as this allows them to explore different booking options and create dramatic and memorable moments. By keeping this stipulation limited to a small number of matches, they can retain the fresh feel of the idea and prevent any downsides the idea can have if overused.

Seabs

Should WWE Re-introduce Time Limits to Matches?​

Billy is preparing for a fight after school and has been told he can bring a knife, a gun and a dragon with him. Billy decides to just bring the gun and the knife with him. Billy sounds like an idiot yes? Well WWE are just the same as Billy. They have a great weapon (granted not a DRAGON but still) that they could, but for some reason choose not to use. It's all a bit daft really but alas, here we are, arguing for time limits to be re-introduced.

The major benefit of time limits is the time limit draw, a brilliantly effective storytelling tool with proven success.

Building a Rivalry
The time limit draw is an extremely effective way to build a rivalry. Take the Rollins/Ambrose feud1/2/3 for instance. You didn't need to be following FCW to hear about the series of matches they were having. First time out, 15 minute draw. Second time out, 20 minute draw. Then you get to the third bout where they have a 30 minute time limit and guess what, people were hyped for it.

And it's a simple formula too. You send two great workers out to do a 15 minute time limit draw. They're great workers so they have a good match and leave fans wanting more because they've seen them have a great match in 15 then 20 minutes, they'll probably have an even better one with 20 then 30 and they still want to see which of them comes out on top. All it requires is two good workers (something WWE have plenty of) and you now have a formula to create a memorable rivalry and make your talent look like stars that you didn't previously have.

WWE's current toolbox just doesn't allow a rivalry to build in the same way. DQ/Count Out/Double Pin finishes just don't show the same parity, are overused in modern WWE and are historically more deflating conclusions to a great match.

"Neither guy can really afford to lose".
A phrase heard on pretty much every WWE PPV these days. This is why the time limit draw would be such a valuable asset for WWE so they didn't have to resort to beating their top guys so often or using the rubbish and predictable interference finishes to save face (also see Eddie/Malenko4, Rock/HHH5, Flair/Reed6, Danielson/McGuinness7).

Take the upcoming Owens/Cesaro feud for example. Neither guy should be losing but by WWE formula they'll be trading wins. By re-introducing time limits you give yourself the option of protecting both guys by avoiding defeat until the final match. Then after 2 draws the guy who wins the 3rd comes away with a lot more than the guy who only lost once rather than twice.

Another example is the Cena/Rollins build to Summerslam8. Rather than having Cena submit Rollins clean to set the match up a time limit draw gives you the option to set a future match up in a logical fashion without having to beat your champion.

The "win-win" outcome
Take Flair/Sting for example9. That was as effective of a star-making match as there's been and Flair didn't even have to lose. Just by going the distance with the Champ put Sting over huge in a way and made him a star with fans (also see Hennig/Bockwinkel10, Flair/Luger11). All the while Flair still is credible as Champion by not losing and even gets extra heat by retaining the Title without actually winning either (also see Danielson/Cabana12, Regal/Steamboat13, Rock/HHH5). It sets up easy aftermath too. The challenger has a legit claim for a rematch, the heel has easy content to draw heat and the anticipation for the rematch is ramped up from the first match.

"1 minute of time remaining"
Time limits aren't only an effective tool for when you want to execute a draw either. As you get to the final minute of allocated time all of a sudden everything means more. A submission locked in with 30 seconds remaining is no longer just can he get out, it's now can he last9/10/14. A roll up is no longer just a pin attempt, it's now a dramatic act of desperation and a more believable (near) finish15/16. Orton hitting the RKO with 10 seconds of time remaining is no longer just an ending, it's an adrenaline rush and a much bigger pop17/18.

The need for variety
WWE's stories they tell are pretty stale at this point. The Champions pretty much always lose on TV to setup PPV matches, every non-title feud seems to need to be a best of 3 series with one guy coming out on top at least once each and if WWE don't want a winner we regularly get the same DQ or interference finishes where nobody really goes over. They need more options to create rivalries and to end matches. That's why we get weird feuds that we're not sure what they're based on like Reigns/Wyatt and finishes that are different for the sake of being different like Rollins/Ambrose19 and Ambrose/Wyatt20. Time limits give WWE variety in a logical and non-bullshit form during an era when they badly need it.

"We demand a winner"
But time limits just provide WWE another means to rob the viewer of a proper outcome. Well WWE do that constantly anyway. The time limit draw however is a more dramatic less bullshit conclusion than the double count out and protects WWE's assets better than everyone trading wins. Plus it's not like time limit draws have historically crashed business and they're unlikely to be met by negative live reactions by WWE's increasingly ROH esque audience who are familiar with time limit draws21.

At the end of the day WWE is in the business of making stars and selling matches. Time limit draws are a provenly effective storytelling device in achieving both of these, yet for some reason WWE chooses to neglect it despite them needing it more than ever. It really is a bit daft.

References:

Andre
Curry

This is a brave and creative take on the topic arguing for the pro side. Definitely a worthy title contender. However, unlike Seabs, this has quite a few flaws that brings the overall quality down. Your intro creates wonderful imagery without being overly wordy. Then you hit me with the swerve. For this to have really worked you needed to point out flaws with Seabs' take on the topic, aka it will damage business, become stale, etc. You didn’t really do this.

I do like the point that WWE overuse the typical gimmick matches (good point about safety too), but do you need to water them down with time limit matches rather than standard matches? Do WWE really rely on gimmick matches to keep their business afloat which necessitates replacing shit/dangerous gimmicks with time limits? I guess this was a crucial argument that was missing. More to the point, are six time limit matches per year really going to dilute the amount of silly gimmick matches to the required level?

The section about adding tension to finishing stretches is GREAT. Nothing more to add.

“Many people seem to be in the mind set that a time limit on a match means that it will usually run to a draw” Evidence for this? Otherwise it’s just a throwaway statement. I think you also fell into the trap of thinking surprises = good booking, which is often not the case. I’m also not sure that Daniel Bryan’s win at SS 2013 could have been much more of a surprise judging by the initial flat crowd reaction to the finish. More to the point, don’t you want the audience to have a strong belief that a finish can go any way, in order to keep interest (read: business) high and so that the crowd is anticipating the finish they’re given in the required (read: HOT) manner? I suppose this links back to the aforementioned match where nobody really believed Bryan would win (incredibly low buy rate for that Summerslam, which links to my other point. Since then, Bryan has been proven as someone who can draw when made to look like a legit threat), let alone via a clean victory. Thought that whole paragraph was lacking.

Your section about time limits allowing heels to act like heels was great and something that Seabs didn’t really cover. Great job. Your section on Ambrose/Rollins in FCW (under different names) was also really well done, although Seabs topped this by going into a bit more detail.

However, to win you needed to master the counter against Seabs' stance. You didn’t achieve this. “Re-introducing time limits to all matches immediately spoils the variety of the idea. In that scenario time limit matches replace singles matches as the new normal” Why would it become stale when you wouldn’t always have to go close to the time limit or the fabled “five minutes remain”? Without that factor, the time limit given by the announcer pre-match kind of becomes an afterthought, therefore making the match a standard match in all but name. That way, I can definitely see how time limits can be added as a stipulation to every match without spoiling the concept. Regarding “may begin to rely on this option as a booking crutch much like the current situation with disqualifications in pay-per-view or major RAW matches”, in theory this could be true, but really it’s just an assumption that WWE would book that way. If anything wouldn’t they go with a split of time limits/DQ’s/count outs/dusty finishes (the latter two were abused at summerslam)? I just don’t see why WWE would go from every finish apart from time limit draws, to anything but them for the most part. It seemed like a strange jump in logic. “This leads to fans being disappointed far more often with the finishes to matches and being soured on the idea of time limits because of it”… isn’t this an issue with the dumb finishes that WWE already abuses on pay per views? Seabs made a good counter to this.

Seabs

Okay, so this is fantastic. If I was a Uni lecturer going over this like it was a paper, there would be a shit load of ticks and ego boosting comments with arrows pointing to the appropriate sentence. You covered the Ambrose/Rollins example with greater effect than Curry, while your argument for protecting star workers, which Curry failed to cover, is completely spot on. The “we demand a winner” portion is also an excellent counter and rings even truer after some of the debacles that occurred at Summerslam; A very poignant argument in this current WWE climate of booking.

One MINOR nitpick is that you should have explicitly stated that you only save these types of outcomes for matches involving two guys who you don’t want to job out regularly, therefore keeping the finish meaningful (kind of ties into the idea that WWE should go back to using jobbers for squashes more regularly). I kind of got that impression from your debate anyway in an indirect manner, but it would have erased any doubts. If I was going to be an arsehole (oh dear, I am one…) I’d also call your metaphor in the intro a bit silly, but it DEFINITELY got the point across. No points for style, but plenty for effect. Curry also had a great section about the positives for heels, but I realise you have a word limit.

I’m going to call this a classic debate. Okay, so you would have to be a nutjob to argue the opposite side, but this was as convincing and thorough as you’re likely to be, given 1000 words to argue this incredibly deep side of the topic. A Gold star goes you.

Decision:

This was a really enjoyable match and certainly worthy of a wrestling title main event slot for the most part. Curry used a lot of creativity with his stance, but with that came a lot of flaws. Seabs nailed the topic with a far more straightforward answer.

Seabs wins my vote.

Evolution
Curry:

Good intro with other sports comparisons. It felt natural to me which is nice.

I felt as if the theoretical implementation of your time limits was a little broad and didn't paint a vivid enough picture for me as the reader. You used the old WCW Television Title as an example of how it can work in a good amount of detail, but your idea for implementation wasn't as in-depth as your example.

You could have suggested using the time limit for title matches on Raw/Smackdown (Cena's open challenge?) LIKE they did in WCW and then followed on with the spiel about the babyface/heel bit. See what I mean? It paints a more vivid picture for the reader of how you would see it implemented and how it's worked in the past to back that up.

I liked your piece on the heel psychology. I liked the idea of bringing a modern feud into play and re-imagining it with time limits added. Would have been nice to use the ability of a time limit to protect certain wrestlers from taking a pin and still prolonging the feud instead of the "draw mindset" bit. There's nothing wrong with that paragraph but the other idea would have flowed a bit better with your entry is all.

Decent section reiterating the select use of time limits to bring it to a close. A good entry all in all.

Seabs:

Your intro was funny at first, until I had to read it twice to figure out what side of the argument you were on. Holy hyperbole Batman! However, once I figured out your angle, I loved it.

I really like that you're taking a more specific look at why time limits should be reintroduced and going into many layers of detail with that specific look as opposed. Applying the reintroduction of time limits to one hypothetical feud makes it a lot easier to demonstrate the benefits of it than trying to apply it to countless hypothetical feuds and making it fit for everything. Clever.

You should list some of the workers that WWE have available to them to pull your time limit draw rivalries off if you've go the words. Get the reader excited at the idea of an on-going sequence between Owens/Cesaro, Rusev/Ambrose or whatever floats your boat.

I liked your sub-points, but I liked how you spent time on protecting people from eating pins more. You could have thrown Ziggler in there because the man knows how to take a pin but I'm still happy you included it because it's really the biggest upside of a time limit to a match that I can think of.

It would have been nice if you had mentioned or gone into detail how often (or not often) the WWE should actually book a time limit draw as I feel that's an important part of the recipe for variety.

Other than that, a great entry, well structured, well thought out and a good angle on the topic. Well done.

Conclusion:

I think it's a pretty resounding win to Seabs. Much more specific on the topic, well researched and referenced, despite their weird intro and attempt to be funny I think they did really, really well.

CGS
Curry

Pretty good Introduction. Nothing wrong with the sport analogies. Plus it reminded me of the GOAT Aguero goal that crushed the hearts of Manchester United fans across the world….good times.

Ok so the first question I gotta ask. Are you petitioning for the return of time limit matches or the return of the ironman match? Because you’ve pretty much pitched to me the idea that the WWE should just do more ironman matches.

The majority of the other stuff you bring up is fine. The fact that the audience perception of any match changes, the Daniel Bryan/Cena example was a good one to bring up and a very true statement as well. Same goes with the Rollins statement. Can’t make any complaints against them. Discussing the Rollins/Ambrose feud from FCW is probably the best modern day example to use so yeah again great example to use.

Fair point about time limits potentially being overused however. I do believe this paragraph helped counter your opponents “1 minute remaining” and “need for variety paragraphs nicely.

From here on out though it once again feels as if you’re pitching me the idea that the WWE should do more Ironman matches rather than re-introduce time limits themselves. It may sound petty but that’s the vibe I’m getting.

Conclusion is good and sums everything up nicely. No problems there. All in all this was actually a good debate but I can’t help but feel that if you wanted to bring time limits back you should have just gone all in with it. Like I keep saying it may sound like a stupid complaint to make but I feel that your petioning for more iron man matches than actually brining back time limits. I mean“iron man match” sounds like a stronger seller for a big game match than “a 30 min time limit match”. That’s the vibe I’m getting from all of this.

Seabs

BILLY!

So the “building a rivalry” section was pretty well done. Like your opponent you decided to go with the Rollins/Ambrose FCW feud which was fine and probably the best modern day example so nothing wrong with that. Same goes with the “neither guy can really afford to lose” section. Good examples used both past and present. I reckon you could have used the Rollins/Ambrose feud from the last few months to sell this point better than the upcoming Cena/Rollins feud though. Still a good example regardless. The win-win outcame was pretty great too.

With the “1 minute” paragraph and even the “need for variety” paragraph I do have one major question. Earlier in your debate you mentioned how DQ’s/Count outs/double finishes are overused with the reintroduction of time limit matches and knowing how WWE can be don’t these matches and finishes now run the risk of becoming overexposed really quickly too?. Is the whole thing a better idea for short term excitement rather than a good idea in the long term? I mean your opponent brought this up and made a good point with it. You do run the risk of becoming over-reliant on it very quickly.

Like Curry you have a good solid conclusion which summerimises everything up nicely. Not really much to pick at with this debate. You back all your points up nicely, loads of examples past and presents. Huge catalogue of matches to show off your points. yeah good job all around.

All in all both did well. Certainly a much better match than me and Seabs had :side:. In terms of a winner I’m gonna give the edge to Seabs. I do feel Curry shot themselves in the foot slightly with the idea of introducing it to only a few big name matches and left themselves a bit exposed.

Here’s something for both of you actually. Why didn’t either of you consider re-introducing it on a smaller scale to begin with? Curry you brought up the fact that you would do it in SOME matches but not all, Why not do it for the NXT matches and take it from there. Would have been perfect during the Zayn rise to redemption story. Similar with Seabs you brought up right at the end how WWE have an increasingly ROH esque audience, NXT is their Niche ROH esque brand so why not bring it back on that show first and take it from there. Neither of you needed too but I felt it’s something you both could have considered.

Winner: Seabs

Winner via Unanimous Decision - Seabs​
 
See less See more
1 15
#4 ·
Jupiter Jack Daniels a day before the deadline said:
I suppose it would be a good idea if I get started on my debate.
results said:
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Flay
:eek:hh :lose

Normally I'd be more gracious and just take my W quietly but I have to point out that this is what happens when you take me lightly. A 3-0 bodybag will be waiting for you. This goes for you too TDL brass. Stop doubting me or you'll meet the same fate...well, that's if you ever decide to step in the TDL ring with me. :brodgers

I know you guys won't though because there is as much fear and doubt when stepping in the ring with someone you think nothing of as there is when you are stepping in the ring with your maker. You know why? Because of the chance of an especially devastating loss. Not the type of loss where you lose to a rival and can say 'at least I put on a good performance', but a loss so embarrassing because you never thought it would happen. A loss that would send you into TLK like hiding. You know what? I'd be scared too. So I'll shut up now and look forward to my next opponent. Let's see the next wrestling match above mine on this card...

results said:
TDL Wrestling Division Championship Match
Seabs vs Curry
Should WWE re-introduce time limits to matches?
results said:
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Seabs
:uhoh
 
#5 ·
YEEEEAHHHHHH :drose
Thanks for all the feedback. The line about Burger King, City and Pepsi was my first real foray into adding 'flair' to my debates. Clearly I didn't think it through enough :jericho2 but ehhh I'll never get better if I don't take risks :p

Also the title debate went the way I thought it would. The JUGGERNAUT Seabs rolls on.
 
#33 ·
I've been saying that line with the juggernaut stuff after my victories but, y'know, use it for Seabs or whatever.

Looking forward to getting the feedback on the Trump debate. I was actually quite pleased with it so I'm glad it's won regardless of unanimous or split.

Anyway, the M-Diggedy juggernaut rolls on... :cole
 
#8 ·
TKOK got a win, and a unanimous one too :hb

Really good debut debate from @JustJoel

@Poyser The Streak continues! :yay

@Mr. Socko I need to hear an explanation on that first paragraph :lenny2

@JM That's what you get for all those times you voted against me. Shame I couldn't cost you the decision :evil Seriously though I could have easily gone either way on that one (and totally crushed either of you :side:)

@M-Diggedy not letting his booker down :frankie Please at least deliver something great with Anark.

@Curry great effort with your debate. Nothing to be ashamed of despite not getting a vote. You did make a calamity error by saying "The two squared off to two time limit draws in 15 minute matches in order to build to the eventual pay-off of a 30 minute iron man match". It was 15 -> 20 -> 30 and all FCW 15 Matches are technically Iron Man Matches. Surprised none of the Judges SHAMED you for that given I even pointed it out in my own debate. Your point about heels using it for heat was great though and something I didn't think of including.

@CGS I don't really think how WWE chooses to use them frequency wise needs to be argued in this debate. It's a bit of a sidetrack argument. You're only really arguing for them to be re-introduced rather than how WWE should use them. I guess they're somewhat linked but yeah there were obviously more important things to argue. I actually had a big part at the start mentioning the semantics I guess of re-introducing them with a suggested formula for set time limits and how to deal with main events ending with less time remaining than the actual time limit but I scrapped it all because a) it wasn't relevant enough and b) it read so bad. Last point you made was actually pretty smart but again it's a layer for a different follow up debate almost rather than just arguing for the re-introduction of them (in any form). Although you could also argue there's already enough modern evidence they work but that's all neither here nor there really.
 
#15 ·
Ah well, I can live with losing to a debate like that. Well done to Seabs for keeping the streak going (Y)

You did make a calamity error by saying "The two squared off to two time limit draws in 15 minute matches in order to build to the eventual pay-off of a 30 minute iron man match". It was 15 -> 20 -> 30 and all FCW 15 Matches are technically Iron Man Matches. Surprised none of the Judges SHAMED you for that given I even pointed it out in my own debate.
Yeah, that was some incredibly lazy fact-checking on my part, I think my source for that might have been a post on the forum :side:
 
#16 ·
Yeah, well, anytime I lose via unanimous decision, I refuse to read the judging because I know I got buried and I know what I did wrong: EVERYTHING.

From the jump, I wasn't sure how to book a match that I felt shouldn't have even happened. And because I'm no quitter, I threw something together at the last minute for the sake of upholding my obligations.

And then I was drinking when I typed it and upon reading after I submitted, I was like fuck, this doesn't make sense but oh well. This loss don't hurt nothing.

No excuses, tho. Simply put, I beat myself.
 
#18 ·
So, I finally decided to read the judging.

Seabs basically let me know it was bad.

Evo gave me hope by letting me know I could've won if I elaborated.

Andre completely emasculated me with the first sentence. I've never been buried that bad by a judge and I've been losing for a long time. That actually hurts.


Maybe I should give up.
 
#19 ·
You really shouldn't do. You have great debates in you. For a bad finish you argued it pretty well actually. Wasn't like you took a poor stance and didn't even attempt to back it up well. It wasn't long ago at all you were unlucky not to win the Eliminator and get a Title shot. Plus you gave me the biggest challenge of any of the midcard debaters with that Colon debate. Everyone has some stinkers (well.... mere mortals do) but you have far more good debates than bad ones.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Yeah, I kind of outworked myself with that opening paragraph. I wasn't sure which way Oxi would go since I felt Joe was the obvious choice and I knew he isn't a fan of him so I thought he'd do something else. I basically tried to counter every idea I thought he could realistically go for and ended up with a pretty shitty rebuttal of the Balor heel turn. :lol

Thanks to all the judges and my opponent, Oxi.

I'm going to be signing out for a while now though as I get some stuff in order now I'm back to school.

If you keep getting wins while I'm gone, Oxi, I might let ask for a rematch in my return :positivity
 
#21 ·
Happy with the win - 800 words wasn't a lot for a debate when you have open/close, re-book/justify, cover loose ends, and dismiss alternatives. I did what I could. It would've been much easier to just argue Owens or Cena straight without re-booking, but I didn't believe in it. Hard to write a paper that I can't put my heart into.

Some of the judging was...odd. I think CGS isn't/wasn't aware I've not competed in TDL before:lol My original debate was 1000+ words, so chopping it down definitely hurt the flow. Look forward to the next one :cantwait:
 
#22 ·
Some of the judging was...odd. I think CGS isn't/wasn't aware I've not competed in TDL before:lol My original debate was 1000+ words, so chopping it down definitely hurt the flow. Look forward to the next one :cantwait:
All the judging is done anonymously so I didn't even know it was you until now :lol. Tbh I thought it was MichaelDD's debate (didn't realise he flaked) since it read like someone who had debated heavily before.

The fact that it was you makes the whole thing even more impressive.
 
#28 ·
You do realise I wrote that debate on short notice (in a few hours) right? :kobe9 Plus I don't think getting a vote off Anark (THE SOCIAL CHAMPION) is that bad after what was said pre-results:

Anark in the CB said:
i'm assuming bruiser did the relatively competent one in the lotr/potter match, he could go far if he learns from his mistakes
Anark in judging said:
Whoever wrote this has a promising future in Social if they can analyse their own arguments a little better to discover where they falter and fix them before submitting. ...The winner is Flay
:banderas

So even in this loss I can take a victory. Anark basically said I could take his crown after I put in the work. :woo



Well done to @BruiserKC tho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MOX
#29 ·
pretty sure you also said that you had a much easier time with the LOTR/HP debate than the other one. :drake1


i also wrote my trump debate in roughly an hour. if i had a few hours...goddamn how cant you write a proper debate in a few hours? :what?
 
#30 ·
Maybe it's because I try not to sit at my computer + write stuff for an hour straight. :ann1

And just because it lost, doesn't mean it wasn't a 'proper' debate. :kobe

How long did you have to write your title matches? :mj

Yeah this debate felt more easier to write because I had more immediate thoughts about it. May not be the better arguments but HP/LOTR is infinitely more fun to discuss than wrestling.
 
#32 ·
the title match banter coming from people that have never had even a title match, let alone a title, is pretty funny. :kobe10
TDL XXV said:
TDL Wrestling Division Championship Match
ZOMBO vs The Acquired Taste
Who should face Brock Lesnar for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship at Wrestlemania 31 out of Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose, The Rock & Daniel Bryan?
:kobe9
 
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