BikerTaker vs GOON The Legend vs TEHCOCK vs Roy no wait Rigor Are single-sex schools good for education?
*GOON The COWARD and Roy no wait Rigor NO WAIT TWAT both no show*
Spoiler for Debates:
Are Single-Sex schools good for Education?
In a world where the gap between the two sexes is getting narrower by the day and where literacy is playing a pivotal role in curbing gender discrimination,let me make it clear I'm not contradicting myself when I claim Single-Sex schools are good for Education. What I'm about to do is make a case for Single-Sex schools being a way to "enhance" both sexes rather than "segregating" both sexes.
We have a faction of "so-called rescuers of our social system" who on the pretext of modernization and subjective rationale make a lot of hue and cry about how it is a pre-requisite in the 21st century to have both the sexes work,play,study and do pretty much everything together just cause it is in their view socially healthy and anyone who believes otherwise is some religious fanatic, parochial or out of his mind. However, when they take their shades embedded with pre-conceived notions off, their flawed logic about how the two sexes need to do stuff together in order to grow will fall flat.
It is important to understand that both sexes have certain distinguishing traits. Studies have shown that while girls like to work in groups, boys need more direction. So if girls are moulded in a way which works to their strength and boys are made to feel comfortable by letting them have their own way, BOTH the sexes will benefit from better learning. Boys and Girls have different learning styles too.
It is believed there is less pressure and more focus when they are without the unneeded distraction of the opposite sex. Attraction towards the opposite sex may need to loss of concentration on the more important aspect of school-going which one will avoid when in a single-sex school. There is less pressure and more focus on studies. They don’t have to worry about the competitiveness when it comes to dating among their peers, they can focus more on their studies and they would feel more comfortable taking certain classes if they weren’t feeling judged by the opposite sex. The interaction is surely beneficial, but they can get that interaction outside of school. This line of thinking might be a bit old fashion, but sometimes old fashion can be good.
Some research and reports from educators suggest that single-sex education can broaden the educational prospects for both girls and boys. Advocates claim co-ed schools tend to reinforce gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can break down gender stereotypes. For example, girls are free of the pressure to compete with boys in male-dominated subjects such as math and science. Boys, on the other hand, can more easily pursue traditionally "feminine" interests such as music and poetry. To quote a parent whose daughter has studied in a same-sex school for 3 years: "I feel that the single gender environment has given her a level of confidence and informed interest in math and science that she may not have had otherwise."
It is very important to note that according to a study by the Austrian Primary Education Guild, it is better for young children(age 5-15) to be in the same-sex environment because they learn differently, they have stronger areas of development and they need to succeed as early as possible. Boys and Girls use different parts of the brain and they are psychologically, socially and cognitively different.
However, merely separating children by gender is not enough on its own to either modify behaviour or affect learning outcomes. In particular you need teachers capable of handling the situation. In the wrong hands, a class of average to below-average boys could be a recipe for disaster as you potentially have your most challenging students all in one classroom, with no girls to modify their behaviour.
But with a strong teacher, who understands how boys behave with each other and can manage that situation, the results can be surprisingly good. It's not about looking for some holy grail of neutralising the gender gap between boys' and girls' academic achievement. Rather it's about adjusting the performance of both, so that both groups achieve the best possible results.
In this way, Single-Sex Schools are good for Education as there is gender-specific learning which is very effective, there is less drama, obstacles are easier to identify and education prospects can be broadened while still being socially healthy.
To me you go to school to do two things. Learn about things like math and science and learn how to interact with people, both boy and girl. Going to a regular school that is coed is a great way to do both. In a single sex education school system you may not get a better education and you don’t get the social interactions.
In an article I read for the debate it seems like the people who were advocating single sex education were using a One Size fits all mentality. The idea that all boys would respond to a confrontational high energy classroom is flawed in my opinion because not all boys would respond to being confronted. Like was said in the article a classroom that is loud, cold and has balls being thrown around might be great for some people but it will be a hell for other people. And the idea that you need to be gentler with girls as a whole sounds a bit sexist to me.
Another thing that I think is negative about single sex schooling is that studies have shown that people who go to these schools seem to adhere to gender stereotypes. In the two studies I looked at one was at the preschool level, where it showed that boys were more likely to play with toy trucks while the girls played with dolls. And in the other it said that boys that went to single sex schools were more aggressive than those were went to coed. Also in the article the two sexes that were taught separately were less likely to interact with the opposite sex.
I also think that it has some longer lasting effects because you are not learning how to work with the opposite sex. School helps prepare you for the real world too, and if you are going to a single sex school you are only learning how to work with that sex, while in a coed school you learn to work with both. Just about any jobs out there are coed so I think it is important to learn how to work with both sexes and not only have experience working with both. When I went to school whether it was P.E. or a group project we had to learn how to deal with others both boy and girl. So by only having to deal with girls I think that is stunting their education a bit.
People who are four gender separations at the school level will argue about the education kids of single sex schooling being better than those who were schooled in a coed environment. But that may not be the case. The Department of education did some research and found that there is no signifigent difference between single sex schools and coed schools as far as educational outcomes. The same goes for other studies done in other countries. Also while some single schools like the one in Chicago, have been praised for their test scores, when corrected for the differences that were already there, it was found that they were below normal on the basic skills.
Also in the NY Times article the issue of separate but equal came up. While there are some obvious differences between what people of different races had to endure than what is going on in this situation, for example it’s would peoples choice to go to a single sex school. There are some things that are the same. The constitution says that separate but equal is not equal and saying that different sexes learn differently is the same as back in the 50’s when people said different races learn differently.
So in closing, I don’t think that single sex education is a good thing, it appears to reinforce gender stereotypes, limit people as far as coed involvement goes and not provide a better education. So with all that said I would urge parents to seek other forms of education.
BikerTaker covered a lot of topics, made a lot of claims and even quoted someone with no real referencing at all. Please reference your studies or articles in the future and when quoting someone it has to be someone relevant or prominent to the discussion otherwise I could just quote friends of mine to suit my argument. I hope that makes sense. It really brings down the overall debate if I have to go through "wiki" and "other" trying to find evidence to back up YOUR debate. Make it as easy to prove as possible.
While TEHCOCK did the same thing, it clearly referenced what article etc. he was talking about despite there not being a proper, technical reference. TEHCOCK also seemed to take every argument that Debate A covered and tore it to shreds, from the same educational outcomes, to real-world relevance of social development I felt like Debate B covered the important topics concisely and efficiently.
I would have to give the win to TEHCOCK in this instance.
The Lady Killer
BikerTaker's was very good, but also a bit narrow. This was exposed once I read TEHCOCK. I felt your argument for single-sex schools was good, but tended to focus more on academic education and not on the social aspect of education, which TEHCOCK touched upon nicely. BikerTaker seemed to stress that better learning was merely a byprodoct of being segregated, whereas TEHCOCK separated both aspects and drilled the idea home that co-ed schools make students better equipped for the real world, and also shot down the counterargument that single-sex schools provide a better academic eduction. I felt both debates could've used more factual evidence/statistical support for their claims, but two solid debates nonetheless.
Winner = TEHCOCK
Both debates argue their side adequately, and both are pretty well written and cohesive. I liked BikerTaker's bit about how boys and girls learn differently since they are obviously different. Unfortunately for me, BikerTaker also said that a strong teacher is necessary. This is true with all types of learning. I don't think it works well as a good argument for single sex schools because it's true for both types. On the other hand, we that went to co-ed schools are very aware of the distraction girls cause. So arguing that point worked well.
TEHCOCK smartly went to the right place with his side of the debate as I see it. The social aspect can't be underscored here. The world is now integrated with both sexes being prevalent in the workplace. This is the strongest part of Debate B's debate. If TEHCOCK is right and there is no appreciable difference between the two schools, then it goes with reason that co-ed is superior since you get interaction with the opposite sex on a near daily basis. Learning how to interact and communicate is just as important as learning the actual knowledge. In some cases, it trumps it by far.
Both were well done, but I'll give this one to TEHCOCK. TEHCOCK wins.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - TEHCOCK
*Shepard is backstage ready to interview The Wrestling Junkie*
Shepard: So let's cut straight to the chase. After an impressive debut victory you've been on a pretty abysmal run of 2 straight losses without picking up a single vote including a unanimous destruction job at the hands of the artist formerly known as greendayedgehead. Is it even possible for someone to bounce back from such a poor streak?
TWJ: Well first of all allow me to say hi to all the TDL fans and secondly I think
Shepard: No you can't say hello to anyone. Only those with a winning record get shoutouts.
TWJ: Well that must be why I've never heard you give a shout out to anyone then
TWJ: and as I was saying SHEPARD, I think the use of adjective is rather strong. 2 straight losses to very strong competition I may add is hardly anything to turn your nose up at. And if you think my run has been "abysmal" then I'd love to know what you've made of CGS's run of 0-3.
Shepard: Well he's a lost cause. There's no fun in mocking people like him.
*CGS walks past*
CGS: Hey guys!
*Shepard and TWJ wave like you do when a little kid waves at you that you don't know nor want to know.*
CGS: Do you want to me hang by for a quick interview Shep?
Shepard: Are you even on the card tonight?
CGS: Big 4 way vs killacamt, Bullseye and DualShock.
*CGS rubs his hands together in anticipation*
Shepard: I wouldn't want to break up your preperation mate.
CGS: I don't really do any preperation for my debates. Just sorta wing them. Did you know I was the Money In The Bank holder in a previous debate league but never got my title shot that I had earned?
CGS: Did you know that I had a first class degree in accounting despite failing GCSE Numeracy?
TWJ: They're calling you out for your debate you know?
*They're not calling him out at all. They're both just sick and tired of him stealing their interview time.*
CGS: Seriously? Fuck.
*CGS hurries out onto stage and sticks around for an uncomfortable amount of time before being led back to the backstage area to wait a little longer by Headliner. Blacks looking out for blacks I guess. Sweet.*
Shepard: Anyway, lets get back to talking about how badly TWJ is gonna get ASS RAPED tonight?
*Shepard throws a hissy fit at having his smiley expression used against him and storms off cutting the interview short. TWJ smirks.*
The Wrestling Junkie vs Fresh Dougie vs Markc1984 vs Klunderbunker JBL's transformation from tag guy to main eventer: The right move?
Spoiler for Debates:
JBL’s transformation for tag-team competitor to a main eventer was the right move. Take a look at the roster from mid spring through the summer of 2004 and see who was a main eventer on Smackdown at that time. If you take a glance at the list, some names could be argued to be a main eventer. The list does show some reasonable wrestlers that were, at the time, considered main event talents. First off you had the Undertaker. Anytime the Undertaker is on your roster, you already have one experienced and consistent main eventer. Problem with The Undertaker at the time was he had shifted back towards his deadman persona at WrestleMania 20 and could’ve been the Main guy on Smackdown. Brock Lesnar had just left to pursue a career in the NFL. Kurt Angle is another guy you had on the roster for Smackdown that easily could’ve been the Main Event guy for SmackDown. He was for a while for the rest of 2004. Unfortunately for him, he had won numerous World Titles in the past and considering the WWE in 2004 not only for Smackdown, but for RAW as well, was a transitioning year. Enter JBL, aka John Bradshaw Layfield. Not only did the WWE go all in with JBL, they decided to put the WWE Championship on him in the middle of the summer of 2004. JBL was a guy that was talented nonetheless but there wasn’t anything for him to do. After a complete re-package of the former “Bradshaw” the guy was just ready to make a run for the WWE Championship. JBL, previously known as John Hawk, Justin Bradshaw and other terms, was re-packaged from an Enforcer role as a tag-team, and turned into a blonde, wealthy business man. JBL was completely changed. He developed a heel character by turning his back on the fans. JBL was charismatic, from the promo’s he delivered to his chemistry in the ring to the night he won the WWE Championship. JBL’s push was needed at the time. Like I said previously, Undertaker was redoing his deadman character and wasn’t quite ready to make himself a main eventer just yet. Angle was injured with neck problems. Booker T wasn’t ready until two years later. But the WWE made JBL the guy to bring up the development to the up and coming future 13 time World Champion, John Cena. When we look back at past tag-teams that each had one partner become World Champion, JBL isn’t like any other. From the likes of Shawn Michaels, Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, JBL wasn’t in their class or level of talent. The WWE could’ve pushed any member of the tag-team’s Smackdown had at the time. JBL was very crisp and consistent on the mic which further helped him establish his new character as a main eventer. His job from day one was simple; to hold the title until WrestleMania and make John Cena a star.
The Wrestling Junkie
Looking back, the transition from JBL going from a tag-team wrestler to a main eventer is not about whether the move was right, but instead how it was the right move that was needed especially in the dire state that the Smackdown roster was in 2004.
If we rewind time back to nine years ago, remember that Smackdown had lost one of its biggest stars in Brock Lesnar who left in Wrestlemania. Not to mention the injury that Kurt Angle sustained which lead him to being an on-screen authority figure while his real-life injury healed. Losing Kurt Angle immediately lost the WWE their top heel on Smackdown, and this hindered the future of the Eddie Guerrero & Kurt Angle storyline so this meant that WWE needed to find a new top heel to battle Eddie Guerrero.
The main-roster consisted of The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Big Show and also an up-and-coming John Cena. With the absence of Kurt Angle, that meant there were no possible heels on the roster which meant this was an opportunity to introduce the JBL gimmick. The reason why this gimmick worked was for the fact that Eddie Guerrero was Mexican, and the way they introduced JBL was that he was refusing to allow Mexicans to cross the border into America which introduced him as a xenophobic heel. With JBL being Texan and Guerrero being Mexican, the storyline could create itself because Eddie needed a new challenger seeing as Angle was out injured.
Now a lot of people here, including myself thought that JBL could be nothing more than a tag-team wrestler but here is the first promo to introduce the JBL character where he showed that he can actually cut a great promo and pulled in some great heat to kick-start his heel run.
From a publicity perspective, JBL was a respected financial analyst at the time that had released a highly-successful book and worked on Fox news. From a realistic perspective, he was a very good choice because WWE loves exposure and with a man who is already successful outside of the WWE, he was someone who was a very ideal candidate to be a main-eventer. What sets him aside from other people is that JBL is no stranger to having to talk; he had to do it on his radio and Fox news so his ability to talk to the media was no stranger to him. And this effectively showed in his promo’s that he did under the JBL gimmick with his ability to talk to the crowd and come across as a real asshole type of character. Not just scripted, but also his ability to talk non-scripted with an example being ECW One Night Stand 2005.
As I stated earlier, Smackdown was not in a good way back in 2004. There were virtually no challengers for Eddie who was a face champion. Guys like Booker T, Rob Van Dam, and Rey Mysterio were great candidate for main events occasionally but the WWE needed someone to really lead the Smackdown brand and they needed someone who was a heel. Guys like The Undertaker and John Cena were off the cards seeing as Undertaker had recently returned under the Deadman gimmick and Cena had huge popularity and was being given a strong face-run in the mid-card. With Ron Simmons being taken away to a behind-the-scenes role, this left JBL being repackaged and was given the ball to run with.
Now talking from the year 2013, we can look back and say JBL took that ball and he kept running with it all the way up to his longest reign in Smackdown history. And I will go as far to say that JBL saved Smackdown. The matches were not always brilliant, but JBL had the ability to be able to make the storylines work and he played his character to perfection.
JBL made his xenophobic rich-guy heel character work and that is what is so important because Smackdown was in desperate need for a guy like JBL to make the show interesting and he exceeded in every single way possible. Ultimately we now ‘know’ that JBL moving from tag-team character to a main eventer was the right decision because JBL pulled us out from a dire situation and was able to put on some great feuds, and one of my personal favourite matches was JBL vs Eddie Guerrero in a steel cage match on Smackdown. Let’s not also forget that JBL was the guy who was able to help John Cena on his rise to the top to become the face of the company that he is today. Without JBL, thre ‘may’ have been no Cena rise to the top. Although that is a huge unlikely stretch to say.
John Bradshaw Layfield. The self proclaimed "Wrestling God". One of the best mic workers of the past 10 years. Hell, one of the more entertaining workers of Smackdown in the past 10 years. I guess we know what stance I'm taking on this: RIGHT MOVE INDEED. But, let's take a trip back, prior to JBL's rise to main event status.
You see, JBL had been in the WWE/WWF for nearly 9 years, prior to his main event rise. He began as Justin "Hawk" Bradshaw, a Texas cowboy gimmick that kind of reminded me of Stan Hansen. But in that current climate, he never really had a shot at rising past the lower midcard. From there, he was repackaged (along with Barry Windham) as The New Blackjacks. Again, not the type of gimmick that would take him to the top. That lead to a transformation (along with Ron Simmons) into the Acolytes, later known as the Acolyte Protection Agency. They really were nothing more than, initially, Undertaker's "henchmen" and became, well, a protection agency. They split up briefly but eventually reunited. Suddenly, after a few years with the gimmick, WWE decided to no longer use Simmons, which lead to a "what now" situation with Bradshaw.
By this point, the brand extension was on fire. Some may argue that Smackdown was indeed the better brand at the time. I mean, you had Brock Lesnar as the top heel, along with Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero, who was arguably the most popular guy in the company, as well as a strong supporting cast. And it became common knowledge that WWE was very high on Brock Lesnar.
That all changed when Lesnar decided he didn't want to be a wrestler anymore. That left a spot open as top heel on Smackdown. Kurt Angle had mounting injuries and briefly became general manager. This lead to JBL's big break. He adapted the gimmick of a "Texas tycoon", John Bradshaw Layfield. And the gimmick definitely took off. JBL quickly entered the WWE Title picture and in his first WWE Title match, actually won the title.
Now, with the question being was his transition from tag team to main event star the right move? Yes, it was. Adding in all the elements (Lesnar leaving, Angle being injured) it helped open the door for a newer face to appear in the main event scene. To me, that's how things should be. It creates an opportunity for that particular talent and if things go beyond expectations, it makes for great TV. And that's what JBL's transition did. With that type of gimmick, he had to be in the main event picture. He was the perfect old school heel. And what does an old school heel do? He enlists a stable to protect him as champion, which lead to the formation of The Cabinet. And that stable gave opportunity to several workers who, otherwise, would have likely not been used at all. And in the essence of old school heels in the past, most notably Ted Dibiase, when the lead character is so good and so over, anybody that aligns with him instantly gets over.
Not only that but he was a damn good heel. Zeb Colter's gimmick recently, that was JBL initially. Except JBL took it to greater heights.
Bottom line, it was more than the right move. It was the perfect move. Brock was gone and JBL filled the void for the next 2 years, before "retiring". And the cycle continued with King Booker. The big difference between JBL & Booker was Booker had pretty much been established as a main event level talent. JBL was, in my opinion, an experiment that paid off greatly. And even more than that, his character had been pushed so great that he was even able to give a few guys a rub, most notably, Batista and John Cena, 2 guys, arguably, touted as potential replacements for Brock Lesnar. And both needed that mega heel to instantly thrust them into that position. Who better than "The Wrestling God"?
It is my opinion that the move of John ‘Bradshaw’ Layfield from tag wrestling to main eventing as a solo star was the right move. To my mind, he was stale as a tag wrestler; and arguably achieved more success on his own than he ever did as a tag team wrestler.
Additionally, WWE seemed to have killed off the tag team division with the breaking up of several of their best tag teams or allowing them to leave to ply their trade elsewhere. I’m talking about the likes of the Hardy Boyz, the Dudley Boyz and the Holly’s. JBL was better off splitting with Ron Simmons, who I have only ever rated as a poor mid card superstar.
Granted, JBL may have won 3 tag team titles with Simmons, but they held the tag belts for a total of 79 days over 3 reigns. In comparison, JBL went on to have more success as a singles competitor. His WWE Title reign lasted for 280 days. A year, less 85 days. Add into that the other singles belts JBL won, like 17 Hardcore titles, 1 IC, US and European championship and becoming the 20th Triple Crown champion. All told his singles career saw him hold various titles for a total of 422 days. A whole 343 days more than he was a champion as a tag team wrestler.
JBL had some great matches as a singles main eventer, indeed I thought his match in a steel cage against Eddie Guerrero was one of the matches I made a point of catching up with on YouTube as I missed it first time round. Anyone who can get a win over the Undertaker, even if it was by DQ, must be a damn good wrestler to even be considered worthy of being in the same match as Undertaker.
In my opinion, from watching old YT clips of JBL as a singles competitor; he was a good technical wrestler and brawler. His promos were designed to make him a hate figure for the crowds and it worked by and large. As a wrestler, JBL was a much better main eventer on his own than he would have been had he remained paired with Ron Simmons. Since they split, Simmons has gone into rehab and his career has slid backwards. JBL has gone from strength to strength. This is why I conclude that moving into main event wrestling as a solo star was the right move for JBL.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I'm probably not going to give detailed feedback on all four but if any of the debaters would like some specific pointers PM me and let me know which one your debate was and I'll be glad to do it for you.
Wow, some great debates in this one. Just edged out Markc1984. Klunderbunker & Fresh Dougie spent too much time telling me the story about his career and kind of caged it as a "the WWE didn't have any other option" rather than "it was the right move". The Wrestling Junkie smashed it with the statistics about his tag reigns and how when you think about it they were never really a Tag Team presence. These are the stats I like to see because it wakes the reader up and makes them realise that not everything is as rosey as it seems in retrospect.
The Wrestling Junkie was methodical, flowed well, tied in perfectly to a real-world application (his main stream popularity etc.) and how well he managed to prove himself in the relatively short amount of time it took him to be repackaged to get to where he did.
Very very close, but I have to give it to The Wrestling Junkie just over Markc1984. Had Markc1984 meated out their points a little more I'd say it would have been a strong win for them. Plus The Wrestling Junkie had the link to JBL's promo at One Night Stand
The Lady Killer
Klunderbunker = This debate confused me a bit. You start out by saying the transformation from tag member to main eventer was the right move. Later on, you seem to contradict yourself at times, even if not purposely. You say that WWE has a history of breaking up tag teams and pushing one of them to the moon. You gave examples of HBK, Nash, Hart, etc. Then you say JBL isn't in their league. That doesn't really bode well for your argument. I think I see what you were getting at throughout, but there were times when I was left scratching my head. I know we aren't supposed to be biased towards your argument, but I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE would agree Taker was more than a worthy main eventer in 2004.
The Wrestling Junkie = Already confused by your opening statement, but I'm hoping that doesn't affect the rest of your debate. You claim the question isn't whether the transformation was the right move (I believe that is the question taken directly from the topic), but whether the move was right given SD's dire state at the time (that sounds more like support for your claim that it WAS the right move). Moving along...
You definitely rebounded. That makes me happy. Link to first promo showcasing his new, repackaged heel character was a nice touch. Showed that JBL had the talent to pull off this unlikely new gimmick. Yeah, the rest of your debate was really good, and I like the hindsight aspect of your debate aligning with what the WWE had hoped to create when they made the character transformation. Great stuff.
Fresh Dougie - Damn, this was pretty great as well. At first it read more of a summary of JBL's numerous character transformations and main event ascension, but halfway through you began stating how the experiment paid off and created opportunities for others and gave other cusp-main eventers a rub by going over a top heel. On the fence about whether or not this edges out The Wrestling Junkie, though.
Markc1984 - This seemed to focus more on JBL's kayfabe success as a solo star as opposed to its impact on the company as a whole. When I think, "right move," I think of something benefitting the company. Sure, the transformation benefitted JBL as far as kayfabe accolades are concerned, but I'm not convinced this is what the question was asking.
Winner = Tough to choose between The Wrestling Junkie & Fresh Dougie, but I'm going to side with The Wrestling Junkie because it had that extra "oomph" with the evidence and support of SD NEEDING to fill the void and have someone feud with Eddie.
Klunderbunker - Used the example of a depleted Smackdown roster to justify JBL being moved up to the main event scene. He gave a brief backstory of JBL and then went on to make a very strong point that JBL was perfect for building up Cena. Parts of this seemed a little rambled but overall it was a solid job.
The Wrestling Junkie - States the depleted Smackdown roster at the time and that JBL's character really managed to stick. He also states that his incredible mic work and popularity in the business world kept him afloat. Debater also mentions that without JBL, perhaps Cena wouldn't have reached the heights he has. He was certainly a big part in Cena making the big push.
Fresh Dougie - Debater mentions the injuries of Angle and Lesnar leaving as large factors into why Smackdown needed a top heel. He states that JBL's gimmick pushed some boundaries and got him super over, along with bringing in his own stable. He also believes that JBL was a solid replacement for Lesnar, considering he put over Cena and Batista.
Markc1984 - Debater states that JBL was stale in the tag division and he had nowhere to go. Splitting from Ron Simmons gave him a huge opportunity and he had a long reign. He made his character into a hate figure that garnished quite a bit of heat.
Winner - The Wrestling Junkie
Had some trouble between The Wrestling Junkie & Fresh Dougie here but ultimately The Wrestling Junkie did more for me.
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Wrestling Junkie
*The Wrestling Junkie finds Shepard backstage and begins to gloat about his unanimous victory. Shepard doesn't look pleased, a drastic alteration from his cocky (and rather dickhead) stance earlier in the show when he was mocking TWJ. Shepard flips TWJ off and walks away.*
TWJ: Fucking geordies.
*Shepard hears this, flips THE FUCK OUT and takes TWJ down into THE ANKLE LOCK. Shepard drops the straps and decides to drop himself on his own neck in the form of a one person suplex. This gives TWJ enough time to leap back up (not selling the ankle btw) and locks Shepard into an ankle lock of his own. Shepard tries to fight out but TWJ GRAPEVINES THAT MOTHERFUCKER. TWJ has to be broken off by security. At this point theproof runs into beat on Shepard but Shepard quickly takes him out with a roundhouse kick to the side of the head. Bye-bye until next time proof. Maybe one day you'll win a fight. Shepard and TWJ exchange insults as they're seperated. TWJ challenges Shepard to stop being a scared coward and debate him.*
Crusade vs Concrete Should indy promotions continue using the live iPPV model?
Spoiler for Debates:
Oh those damn iPPV's! The first thought that came to mind when reading this question was the problems ROH were having with their iPPV's. From a technical standpoint they were fragile at best, the stream was lagging, it tended to freeze on a number of occasions and at other times the feed cut out altogether. To put it in short: they were unreliable. But this question isn't about how reliable iPPV's are. This is about whether indy promotions should continue using the iPPV model and considering iPPV's are used as a source of making money, the key word here is model. So without a doubt indy companies should continue doing iPPV's.
In order to deconstruct this question, the actual iPPV itself as a business model should be looked at. The main argument against the iPPV has always been how unreliable they are. However traditionally speaking, all forms of live entertainment via the internet or television have never been 100% reliable. The traditional PPV model itself has had problems in the past for example. Who could forget the disaster of WCW's Halloween Havoc 1998 where the PPV feed cut out causing fans to miss the main event of the PPV. It was a huge business disaster for WCW as a whole. So technical issues are certainly not a problem unique to iPPV's. The benefits of iPPV far outweigh any problems that could arise. An example outside wrestling is battle rap where companies such as King of the Dot have put on iPPV's themselves which have been huge successes. It has given battle rap recognition and a bigger platform than any youtube video could have.
But what about indy wrestling? Before in order to distribute a live show in the comfort of people's homes, the only way to do it was through the traditional PPV model. This is pretty expensive and in some cases like ECW it was hard to even to get on a network. However with the iPPV model, it's a lot cheaper to run and it's more accessible for both the company and the consumer. With it being on the internet, the benefits are great because of how easy, quick and cheap it is promote to the online wrestling community. Before iPPV you would need at least a TV deal in order to promote an upcoming PPV and paying for advertisements for TV isn't cheap. A lot of costs are cut through it being easily promotable across the internet. That can only be a huge business incentive for indys.
Furthermore, the key word here is internet. Before the internet, there would have been absolutely no way companies like CZW and Chikara could have been known about from wrestling fans all over the world. The internet can be a huge benefit and should be taken advantage of. One benefit of the internet for the indys is the amount of buzz that can be created through shows that they do. There is no bigger buzz you can create than doing a live iPPV event where anything could happen. It gives much more of an incentive for wrestling fans to go out of their way to watch a company's product as they can watch it unfold live as it happens.
The most obvious benefit of the iPPV is the amount of eyeballs watching the product at the same time. It gives the incentive for existing fans to watch the product live for big matches that they couldn't see anywhere else or for the blow off of an ongoing feud or storyline. The iPPV especially helps those companies who don't have any form of TV or media deal because it allows fans who can't go to the live shows to watch it live from the comfort of their own homes. From a creative and business standpoint, it allows promotions to actually build their big storylines and matches knowing that putting those matches on a live iPPV will draw much more money than just putting them on a house show. The iPPV has even helped kick start new indy promotions such as Extreme Rising and FWE. Perhaps the biggest benefit iPPV can be attributed to is the role it played in ROH getting a syndicated TV deal with Sinclair Broadcasting. The iPPV's that ROH put on in 2009 and 2010 almost certainly had an impact on the decision made by Sinclair as it showed ROH had a fanbase and a market that they could exploit. Without ROH going to iPPV, this deal may have never happened for them.
Overall the iPPV as a business model can and has been a big benefit to the state of the indys. It's allowed more fans to watch indy wrestling than ever before bringing promotions more exposure and more revenue to their promotions.
Independent wrestling while not a lucrative business is still a business and putting on live iPPVs has become an important decision in these promotions’ business strategy. Doing iPPVs is an avenue that should be taken but all too often are iPPVs criticized for the faults that come about when promotions decide to do one and not make all the right choices in order for it to be a success. Many iPPVs have been successful but it is the ones that have been done haphazardly that have caused a negative reaction.
One major reason for putting forth iPPVs is that if they can be done correctly they become a positive for the promotion especially when a handful of reputable indy promotions have not been able to do them successfully. As a business, if one company offers a product another one does not, or have a better track record with their product, they look better in consumers’ eyes.
Ring of Honor was one of the first major independent promotions to do iPPVs but now they are exiting the market after multiple iPPVs with stream issues. CHIKARA, with Smart Mark Videos, had a decent reputation for their iPPV streams but currently are not active. Dragon Gate USA has had issues with multiple iPPV streams in 2013 that has earned them a negative reputation from a portion of independent wrestling fans. With these promotions either not doing iPPVs or having sizable trouble with them, there is a large gap that can be filled by a promotion that can put forth a consistent iPPV stream. Companies should be planning for iPPVs now more than ever because if they wait too long to test the waters irreversible damage may be done by those who have not made wise choices in regards to their iPPVs.
I’ve mentioned making wise decisions with iPPVs but have not gone into any detail about that so shall we? Whoever is putting on the iPPV should know the venue that is it hosting the event. This means that before the show takes place there should be knowledge of whether the venue has the internet capabilities to provide a stream to the amount of people you expect to be ordering your show. CZW, iPPV through RF Video, planned on running an iPPV on September 7th but had to cancel the iPPV once they discovered the venue wouldn’t have the internet capabilities for it. AIW, iPPV through SMV, had their annual Absolution event in June on iPPV but many customers were unable to watch it without extreme choppiness in the feed because the building was too hot for the equipment. Both of these problems could have been taken care of by knowing the venue. CZW didn’t need to have the show on iPPV or could have found a different venue way ahead of time if more planning had taken place. AIW had ran shows in the summer so they knew how hot the building got. SMV either could’ve been more prepared for the heat or not have done the iPPV knowing high heat and technology don’t mix.
The idea that promotions should not do them until the technology is available is a weak argument. Japanese promotions such as NJPW, Wrestle-1, and Dragon Gate have shown iPPVs with little to no issues. I’m not saying that American independent promotions have the funds of these Japanese companies that’d be necessary to match the video quality but that does not disregard the fact that the ability to stream shows over the internet on a semi-regular basis is completely possible. The more these promotions, and iPPV providers, work to make the iPPV format work more consistently the better the chances that the technology can become more reliable.
Twitter is often overestimated with its effectiveness by many people and organizations but at the same time many underestimate it. Twitter is a perfect tool to measure buzz of a certain event. With an iPPV, with the proper advertisement beforehand, people can use designated hashtags in tweets that, with a large enough amount of tweets, will show up in a list of trends. Even if a iPPV hashtag only lands on a tailored trend list that is probably just as effective as trending nationally since the hashtag will be more likely to pop up in the trends of your potential fanbase. That creation of buzz is hard to capture without a live iPPV.
Not every independent promotion needs to do iPPVs but fear should never be the answer as a reason not to. All it really takes it being prepared. Easier to run a successful streams with low risk than be haphazard and hurt your reputation overall. Fingers crossed that the decisions by some have not ruined it for all.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Crusade - Debater brings to the table the unreliability of the iPPV streams, but also brings to light the unreliability of regular PPVs. He also makes it clear that they've been successful in the past with ROH. He states that the internet is a huge factor in getting fans to follow Indy wrestling. Makes a good point about the price of getting your show on regular PPV and advertising, compared to what it takes to put up an iPPV and promote online.
Concrete - Made a strong argument about companies not properly working their iPPVs and not taking things into account. He states that they are a good idea if done correctly. He also takes into account the effect that social media can have in promoting this type of thing.
I liked both debates quite a bit, however, I felt that Crusade did a slightly stronger job pitching why these iPPVs should stay around.
Neither debate stood out as an obvious winner over the other here for me and I wasn't overly captivated by either debate. I thought both needed to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of Indies running live iPPVs against each other a lot more. Both of you argue in favour of them continuing but neither really addresses the issues in detail and I thought this debate needed one of you to address why your benefits outweigh any risks to take the win. Both of you sorta mentioned a list of benefits and some drawbacks but never really assessed them enough to be convincing that a benefit or a drawback you highlighted was worthy of stopping or continuing with live iPPVs.
Crusade does try to do it but I didn't think they really accomplished it. 2nd paragraph where you try to convince me that the extra recognition available outweighs the risk of technical issues didn't convince me that the benefit was great enough to accept the risk. With the risks you could have also said talked about how any risk can be reduced which would have helped your argument but instead you just highlighted a risk and left it there rather than discrediting it or using it to strengthen your argument much. 3rd paragraph was strong but again I'm still thinking about you not addressing the pretty big risk of technical issues that can and have with ROH reduce or even eliminate these benefits that you're talking about. You do a pretty good job actually listing the benefits of live iPPVs although it does come off more as you listing off benefits rather than using benefits to strengthen your argument for continuing to use them. Read some of the winning debates in title matches and see how they take a point in favour of their argument and use it to convince you that that their stance is better than the opposing one rather than just listing points in favour of your stance that are open to easy rebuttals. This is a pretty good effort but really needed the risks of iPPVs that have caused so many iPPV ventures to fail addressing to convince me that the benefits you listed are worth taking on the proven risks of the iPPV model.
Concrete - your into is a bit iffy. I had to double check it to clarify your stance which isn't an amazing start. Make it as clear as possible in your intro what your stance is. Wasn't sure on your argument that other promotions' failure in the iPPV market make it a good time for promotions to enter the market fresh. I think I see where you're coming from but I disagree and your argument didn't come close to making me question that stance. If I can become a millionaire by jumping off the 5th floor of a hotel and the 4 jumpers before me failed I'd be a lot less sure about doing what they did after they failed regardless of how large the reward for success is. 4th paragraph I thought was good but I don't think it convinced me that your stance on the debate was the right one and probably needed condensing so you could focus on points that were more prevalent to your argument. It felt more like a supporting point rather than the beef of your argument but it ended up being your longest paragraph. Focus most on the points that strengthen your argument most and vice versa. Point about puroesu promotions being able to do it right was a step in the right direction but an example of an Indy promotion that has got it right would have been much more relevant. Off the top of my head I think FWE have done them with little issues.
Both debates really needed to address the risks and failures of iPPVs much more to make the benefits they listed convincing. Neither did and it felt like a pretty large gaping hole in both debates because I'm always thinking well why are these benefits worth going for over the risk of damaged reputation through technical issues with streams. I thought the easier side to argue for would have been against them as you could have pointed to all the failed iPPV ventures and that would have been easier for both of you to use as the base of your argument. Sometimes there's an easier argument to be made for the stance that you don't necessarily agree with and you might want to think about picking the side where the easier argument lies until you reach a higher level of debating. I'd say that's applicable to most debaters though. If there's an easy argument for the stance that you disagree with and you still feel you can be convincing in your debate then go for it.
Winner isn't an easy decision as like I said, neither stood out as an obvious winner but I'll give it to Crusade as I felt he made a stronger effort to at least address some of the risks against their benefits along with having a better structured debate that flowed better when reading it. Both need to think more about addressing the opposing stance in their next debate to strengthen their argument for their stance. Ridiculing counter arguments is sometimes as convincing in a debate as making strong points in favour of your own stance because it not only tells me why your stance is the correct but one but why the opposing stance is the incorrect one. Both of you just focused on telling me why your stance was the correct one and left a big hole by not addressing the big arguments that would come from the opposing stance that would be backed up by hard evidence.
Winner - Crusade
Crusade – If I was being picky I’d say it was a mistake to openly highlight the potential unreliability of IPPVs only to focus on IPPVs making money for promotions, even though a history of unreliability might negatively affect the number of buys from customers who refuse to believe they will get a satisfactory service. Again, it’s being picky, but little things like that could be improved upon as you’re inviting a legitimate counter argument without really offering a response to quash it. I felt the comparison with PPV problems was a bit weak given it doesn’t really offer a defence of IPPV, but the contextual support of Battle Rap utilising IPPV successfully was a stronger point. Next paragraph is very strong and clearly outlines how regular PPVs are unfeasible for indy companies based on lack of available capital and outlining the cost efficiency of IPPV that makes it so tempting to indy companies in addition to its ability to grow their audience. Subsequent paragraph contemplating the popularity and influence the internet now has in everyday life was eloquent and invited justifiable reasoning for indy companies attempting to utilise and exploit the possibilities the internet affords them and establishes its relevance in this current digital age. Looking at the possibilities for smaller indy companies who don’t have a TV or media deal by allowing them to attract a greater number of fans who otherwise would be unable to follow the product was another savvy argument which lends credence to the benefits IPPV affords in terms of diversifying the market and audience watching the product at a cost effective price. ROH and Sinclair TV deal developing through ROH’s successful IPPV model and establishing to Sinclair that there existed a sizeable market to profit from was a stellar closing argument to conclude on by demonstrating how companies looking to invest in indy wrestling can use IPPV to assess the market they would be investing in, as a way to then plan a strategy that might see them exploit and profit from that market.
The structure and flow was strong here but particular praise must be directed towards the persuasive tone and writing style which was evident throughout the debate. It broke down and cited the key strengths of IPPV and applied them to the context of indy wrestling and the typical promotion utilising the model (cost effective, growing an audience) as well as supplying relevant supporting context such as the ROH/Sinclair partnership and highlighting the necessity in exploiting the untapped potential of the internet as a phenomenon in a digital age.
Concrete –Truthfully I felt the structure suffered here as well as the debate truthfully straying from the question. The opening couple of paragraphs felt strange because whilst the point about differentiating yourself from the competition is valid, listing the issues a number of high profile indy companies had encountered through IPPV and the negative impact it registered in terms of publicity and trust to me only lessened the overall argument that a company could profit from the venture. If the bigger independent companies are struggling to successfully profit from the model and are suffering in terms of publicity and loss of brand image, then how can we be sure this hypothetical company wouldn’t incur the same issues? However the bigger problem rests on the fact that the writer is focusing their debate around the need for a company to run a successful IPPV model to exploit the gap in the market....however the writer does not outline what a company can hope to gain by registering a successful IPPV stream. The debate consequently struggles to engage the reader because extensive deliberation of how improvements could be made to ensure reliability with the stream are ultimately moot and ineffective if the writer at no point elaborates on what specifically a reliable stream will offer the company. A reader unfamiliar with IPPV and its relationship with Indy wrestling would not come out of this debate anymore familiar with the concept and advantages IPPV offers companies who can operate it successfully: the writer is championing the necessity for a reliable stream but not arguing conclusively to capture the reader because they’re not made aware of WHY this company requires IPPV. Given the nature of the question is concerned with whether indy companies SHOULD continue the model, seemingly failing to actually discuss the intricacies and benefits of the model appears a clear error. The paragraph relating to social media shifted tentatively into the right area, but sadly came too little too late to salvage this debate imo.
Crusade wins because it offered clear arguments for the retention of IPPV by establishing why it remains the most cost effective model for smaller companies whilst elaborating on its ability to allow them to grow their audience and potentially secure greater financial stability as a result. Concrete focused on how improvements could be made to fix reliability issues with the streams, but crucially offered next to no argument for WHY succeeding with IPPV would ultimately benefit an indy company.
Winner – Crusade
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Crusade
*At this point in the show DDMac comes out to a roar from the crowd to say a few words. Headliner makes his way down to say a few words and also and puts DDMac over as a TDL Hall of Famer. This brings Evolution out who proclaims himself a TDL Hall of Famer also. The crowd disagrees and boo him. Evolution doesn't react well to the negative heat coming from the crowd and demands the tyep of respect that fellow retired champion DDMac was getting. Mac can't be doing with this and leaves. Evolution continues to demand respect and starts getting in Headliner's face demanding that he open a TDL Hall of Fame and personally induct him in as the first entrant. Headliner aint taking any of this and shakes his head like black men shake their head with such a lack of competence and a hint of ghetto swagger. Evolution eventually backs down but lets Headliner know that he'll regret this move. At this point DDMac reappears and finally shuts Evolution up with a viscous lariat to the back of the head. The crowd pops HUGE.*
CGS vs Bullseye vs DualShock vs killacamt Does TNA having their champion as Bully Ray, who was at best a midcarder in WWE, make them look like the minor leagues?
*DualShock bitches out like a bitch bitches out of an assk kicking*
Spoiler for Debates:
Having Bully Ray as TNA’s champion does not make them minor league in any way. When you look at the business and you want your company to have a heel as a champion then you need to go to who is best. Bully Ray is by far the best TNA has to offer right now. Bobby Roode is a decent heel as is Daniels and Kaz but they can’t hold a candle to Bully Ray on the mic. Bully Ray’s delivery at times is flawless. When he started doing his calfzilla thing along with the live tweeting he really won me over. I don’t recall him having too many singles matches in WWE. I have always thought of him as a tag team wrestler. Breaking him from D-Von was needed to see if he could shine on his own. I liken his success to that of Jeff Hardy when he split from Matt. TNA does not look minor league because of this. If anything, it’s because of Terry Bollea aka Hulk Hogan. I look forward to watching TNA every week for Bully Ray to see what he is going to do next. He is that entertaining and one of like 3 or 4 reasons I stay glued to the TV on Thursdays. I somewhat believe Bully’s title reign is like Hogan’s in WCW when the NWO was alive and fresh. Bully does what he does with such finesse and amazing delivery every night. I really hope he can carry Sting to a decent match this week. If anyone says TNA is minor leagues it has nothing to do with Bully Ray. I believe TNA needs to build Bully up with the title for a good six to nine more months all while getting a fresh face to take the title from him. Once Aces & Eights does end I hope Bully stays in that heel role he plays so well.
"Does TNA having their champion as Bully Ray, who was at best a midcarder in WWE, make them look like the minor leagues?"
The phrasing 'minor leagues' has been associated with TNA Wrestling since its inception back in 2002. When having to address the question of whether having Bully Ray as their champion makes them appear to look like the minor leagues, the obvious conclusion that I will make is that no, having Bully Ray as champion does not make TNA look like the minor leagues.
Bully Ray, the performer, has been involved in professional wrestling since his debut as Mongo Vyle in 1991. In the span of his 22-year career, Bully Ray has amassed a resume of championship gold that is the envy of the majority of his peers. A 23-time Tag Team Champion from WWE, WCW, ECW, NWA-TNA and NJPW, Bully Ray is arguably one half of the most successful tag teams of all time, the Dudley Boyz. Through mainly having won tag team championships, the view could be held that Bully was only a 'midcard' act in the WWE and as such, his place as TNA Champion labels them as a 'minor league' association. This would hold merit if there were not several examples that could be used to disprove the notion, and two that I will discuss are from my favourite tag team of all time, Edge and Christian.
Edge held the WWE tag team championship on 14 occassions, and after losing the stigma of being a 'tag team specialist' he propelled himself into folklore after his tag team days, moving on to capture 11 World title reigns, as well as 5 Intercontinental reigns. Christian has held the WWE Tag Team Championship on 9 occassions, and has moved on from his days of tag teaming to capture 2 World Titles and 2 ECW Titles. Prior to 2005 both Edge and Christian were both viewed as 'midcard acts' before their breakthrough years of 2005 launched them into the upper echelon of the wrestling landscape. Their various world championship victories did not portray the WWE as a 'minor league' organisation, rather, it showed its diversity to expand and propel new talent to the top of the pool.
Is Bully Ray as TNA Champion reason to label TNA as 'minor league?' Absolutely not. The true reasoning for why TNA is viewed as being 'minor league' simply rests with the apparent lack of the company being able to advertise to attract large crowds to shows, garner large ratings and attract large buys for the PPV shows. The lack of legitimate competition for Bully Ray to face for the TNA World Championship also devalues the legitimacy of both the title and the company. Rather than having Bully be launched into the upper echelon as Edge and Christian before him, he has remained stagnated in a feud with Hulk Hogan and Sting, feuds which in this current landscape of professional wrestling, have no reason to exist, especially when it involves the World Championship.
 Anderson, S. (October 2000). "Those Damn Dudleys! - Buh Buh Ray and D-Von, wrestlers". The Wrestling Digest. Retrieved April 26, 2009
[center]Does TNA having their champion as Bully Ray, who was at best a midcarder in WWE, make them look like the minor leagues?
In 2005 alongside his half brother D-von, Bully decided to jump to TNA after being released from their WWE contracts. For the following 5 years the Dudleyz under a new moniker “Team 3D” continued to tear up the tag division as they had been for the past 2 decades winning plenty more tag team gold along the way and increasing their tally to 23 world tag team titles across 5 companies(1). Until December 2010 that is, when the illustrious tag team came to an end and from it a new dynamic character was born. Bully Ray. After a huge transformation and perfecting his character down to a T, Bully has proven to be one of the best characters in professional wrestling today.
Now I believe that TNA are seen as the minor leagues. But this isn’t down to Bully Ray being their World champion.
Let’s take a quick look at another star to appear in both companies. Christian. Up until his departure in 2005 Christian was very much just like Bully. A predominantly midcard star who flirted with the main event on one or two occasions but essentially spent the majority of his career in the midcard/tag team divisions. From the moment he debuted in TNA though his fortuned changed. World title reigns, huge matches, big feuds and huge pushes that many fans feel he should have been getting during his WWE run. While he may not have been the biggest star to come through the WWE he was certainly a huge coup for TNA when they signed him and he was very much treated as such. So did TNA signing one of WWE’s best talents stop them from looking like the minor leagues? No.
What about another star to appear in both companies. Kurt Angle. While both Christian and Bully can be seen as nothing more than strong midcard stars, Kurt wasn’t. Kurt was a megastar. A multiple time WWE and World heavyweight champion, a Grand Slam champion (2), King of the ring winner, Triple Crown champion (3) consistent main event star for many years and even a Wrestlemania headliner. A huge star for WWE and an even bigger coup than Christian for the company when they signed him in 2006, and yet the question once again has to be asked, As another former TNA heavyweight champion has, his presence over the past 7 years really helped TNA come close to being seen in the same light as the WWE? Again the answer has to be no.
Convinced yet? Well let me give you one more example anyway. Actually no. let me give you three key examples. Sting, Hogan & Flair. Three of the biggest names in pro wrestling history. All of which have competed at the highest possible level, all of which have huge accomplishments to boast on their CV’s and all of which have competed in some of the biggest matches and most memorable feuds in wrestling history. Hell Hogan even has a good claim to call himself the biggest star in wrestling history. A mass of star power right at their fingertips and does TNA look any better for it? You know where I’m going with this by now.
Simply put a wrestler’s prior star status has shown little correlation with TNA’s overall reputation, therefore you can’t really try and justify that Bully Ray being their world champion is the reason for the company being viewed in the way they are when bigger stars have come and gone and done nothing to truly change people’s mindsets on TNA.
If you really want to highlight the issues that have potentially caused TNA to be viewed as the minor leagues then you could look at the persistent failure to increase viewership despite making high profile acquisitions over the years such as Hogan, Flair, Hardy, Angle, Ortiz and many more, the constant questionable booking decisions, the attempts to push themselves into situations they clearly weren’t financially ready for (4), failing to fully sort out superstar contracts before shows (5)and even failing to check that their stars have a license to wrestle in a specific city (6). Whatever the issue may be I feel it’s safe to say that Bully Ray being their TNA champion isn’t one of them.
So in closing, the question asked whether Bully Ray being the TNA world champion makes them look like the minor leagues, and the answer is an indisputable no. If bigger name stars who can sell themselves on name value alone couldn’t change TNA’s reputation then the issue certainly isn’t one guy. Bully could have been a lower card, midcard or megastar in the WWE. You cannot justify that TNA being looked upon as the minor leagues is down to him being their champion.
(1)WWE, ECW, TNA, Hustle & IWGP. 1 WWE tag team championship, 8 World tag team championships, 1 WCW World tag team championship, 1 NWA world tag team championship, 2 IWGP tag team championship, 1 hustle supertag championship & 8 ECW Tag team championships (source: wikipedia)
(2)A WWE, World Heavyweight, World Tag Team, WWE Tag Team, Intercontinental, European & Hardcore champion over the course of their career (source: wikipedia)
(3)WWE: WWE/World Champion, Intercontinental champion & Tag Team Champion. TNA: TNA World Heavyweight champion, X-Division Champion & World Tag Team Champion over the course of their career. (source: wikipedia)
(4)Failed move to Monday nights, leaving the impact zone and travelling on the road. All this has only been highlighted further with all their rumored financial problems.
(6)Chris Sabin (Then TNA World Heavyweight Champion), Garrett Bischoff, Jay Bradley, Wes Brisco, Gail Kim & Brooke Tessmacher all not cleared to wrestle at a house show in Cape Girardeau, Missouri on the 20th July 2013 due to not having a license http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/ne...-Missouri.htm/
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs killacamt - I've got to be honest and say that this wasn't a good debate at all. Might sound harsh but you'll be grateful when it comes to writing your next debate and you know that you need to do a lot more when writing a debate compared to typing out a post in the forums. I suggest reading through the old shows and paying attention to the debates at the top of each card, reading through them and trying to get a grasp of what we're looking for in a debate. Don't approach it like you're replying to a thread because that's not what TDL is. It's a much higher standard of posting. That might sound elitist but it's not meant to be. It's just the difference between stating an opinion and arguing an opinion. Do some reading up through past debates (the good ones obviously, title matches and #1 contenders matches) including the feedback and come back with a stronger idea of what a debate needs to consist of.
Bullseye - Fair debate but lacking the depth to really stand out as an obvious winner over C. The Edge & Christian comparison started off well with the basis of it but I didn't think it was entirely relevant to the topic of Bully Ray in TNA because you just compared it to their transformation in WWE which is totally different to a tag team guy in WWE transforming into a main eventer in the #2 promotion rather than the #1 promotion where they were previously a tag guy. If Bully had been transformed to a main eventer in WWE then it'd be a relevant comparison but it's not. Sadly that's basically the entire argument portion of your debate and you need a lot more depth to the actual argument no matter how strong it is.
CGS - First paragraph I didn't think added anything to your debate for the length it took up. When you're just stating history like that for an intro try and condense it as much as humanly possible because it generally doesn't actually add any strength to your actual argument and the word count is really valuable in these debates. The Christian comparison is where Bullseye should have gone with his argument when he brought up a similar point but didn't follow it through well enough. With the Christian one it's relevant to this context unlike Edge or even Christian pre and post TNA in WWE. However, I thought you needed to actually prove that Christian as their champion didn't make them look minor leagues rather than just stating it and hoping everyone assumes it to be true. It's basically just an empty statement without any proof and evidence to back it up. There's potential to back it up with some figures there too to really make that point a great point. I started getting confused when you brought up the Angle comparison and it wasn't really until a couple of paragraphs later on my first read that I think I grasped where you were going with the debate from this point. I think it's maybe because you go a little off track with your debate here and start focusing too much on an argument that TNA will look like the minor leagues regardless and if they do it's not Bully Ray's fault. Reading it for a second time it's clearer to me now what you were getting at but I didn't think it was entirely relevant to Bully Ray. At least I get it now rather than being totally befuddled like I was originally when you went off at this tangent and I couldn't figure out why. I would have focused more on Bully Ray's context relating to people's perceptions of TNA because that's what the topic is primarily about but this part did work. Maybe just make it more concisely next time and focus more on the actual context of the topic. But good stuff overall after I understood it.
Winner - CGS
killacamt - Advice: Formatting, formatting, formatting! Split your entry into paragraphs and you will not only write more but you'll probably find it easier to get a flow going to your debate. You explained how good of a heel Bully is but didn't really explain why, I felt you could have touched on that.
I think you spent too much time saying how much you liked Bully Ray and what you would do with him on the show, when you really need to focus on why having him as the champion doesn't make TNA bush league. You should try and focus your entries more around the question. Formatting will help you do that.
Marked for the calfzilla reference though
Bullseye - Advice: I liked the way you added context to the question in your opening statement, I feel that really helps to build strength in what you are going to side on, however you went on to simply restate the question pretty much. Make it your own, tell us briefly why it didn't matter and link it to your phrasing of the question. An example might be "With many other examples showing that a midcarder making the leap into the main event it's ridiculous to imply that the reason TNA is considered a minor league promotion is due to Bully Ray being the World Champion" or something similar.
I felt like you spent too much of the debate talking about where Bully had come from or his past. You have to remember the audience you're debating to and adjust your language and structure accordingly. If you were debating in a class of kids who 85% would have no idea about modern wrestling or TNA, I'd suggest that sort of back-story but on here we are all pretty familiar with him and TNA so use those words for better thing.
I loved your last paragraph and the direction you took it, if anything you should have used the first sentence in that last paragraph as the entire basis of your debate and it would have come across a lot stronger. Justify why TNA is a minor league and why that has no bearing on Bully Ray or his championship THEN link back to previous examples like Edge (probably wouldn't use Christian as an example tbh). That will help your flow a lot better.
CGS - Advice: Your opening paragraph sets the tone of your whole debate. Giving us a bit of a back story on your topic and then stating in one sentence your position establishes a weak argument because you should be spending those words on establishing your own version of the question, explaining why you're taking that side of the question and pre-structuring your debate. Maybe switch that opening paragraph underneath your opening statement and it will be fine.
I loved your subsequent paragraphs though. Example after killer example of why TNA is a minor league DESPITE what talent they have as their world champion. I really enjoyed reading all of them because they are great. Do you see what I'm getting at about the intro? The rest of your debate is so strong you should make your intro as strong as the rest of it. You used a good amount of time with examples and then tied it in beautifully with justification.
One side note is I don't like your last footnotes. You're essentially extending your argument through the footnotes. Footnotes should be factual or references ONLY. So links to websites or statistics on championships etc. they shouldn't give context or explain situations further especially in a word-counted debate. I decided to ignore them from the passage that I read and luckily it didn't really affect it either way but in the future it could cost you a match so please don't do it.
Decision: Despite the disappointing lack of CALFZILLA references in the debate, I would have to give this one to CGS[/size][/b]
Way too short. Seemed like a wrestling post more than a debate. More detail and better structure was extremely necessary here. Go deeper into booking, credibility, past examples, etc to add strength to your debate next time.
This debate was ok but not convicing enough for a victory. You explained his tag background and tried to use Edge & Christian's rise to show that Bully's World title run doesn't make them look minor league, but I don't think it correlated well and it didn't add any strength to your debate.
Quite frankly this debate had potential to be good but you fell off a cliff at the end You didn't need to mention anything about TNA's failures as a business. It didn't fit the structure of your debate and it weakened your debate. You did do a decent job of showing how a wrestler's past has little correlation with their reputation in TNA. Like the other debates, I was looking for you to get into the booking of Bully Ray to show how they developed him into a World title contender. Sadly you didn't.
Winner - CGS
Winner via Unanimous Decision - CGS
Mozza vs Desecrated vs Raging Eboue Should the winners/runners up of the English League Cup continue to be rewarded a spot in the Europa League?
*Mozza kills Raging Eboue before the show so he doesn't show up. Rumour has it Raging Eboue was £2.50 in debt to Mozza's ma for "services".*
Spoiler for Debates:
Should The Winners/Runners Up Of The English League Cup Continue To Be Rewarded A Spot In The Europa League
Football is all about entertainment and is the number one sport in Europe, without question. So, when it comes to weighing up the pros and cons of whether cup winners and runners up should qualify to play in Europe, I believe the key point is this: Who, in their right mind, would choose to spend their Thursday nights with Channel Five on the box and watch the thuggish on and off the pitch Millwall FC vs Ferencvárosi TC when they could get to watch a Premier League quality side competing on their television? No sane person would wish watching a massacre of the beautiful game like that on their worst enemy, ask any football fan and they would want to watch the best teams in Europe compete against each other.
I, as an Everton Football Club supporter have held somewhat of a grudge for some years due to this rule. In the 2010/11 campaign, Birmingham City beat Arsenal Football Club 2-1, in that same year Birmingham City got relegated from the Barclays Premier League after finishing 18th in the league. This result meant that Birmingham City got to compete in the 2011/2012 Europa League tournament and got knocked out of the Europa League in the group stage of the competition where the squads consisting of milkmen and postmen are generally disposed of. Everton Football club finished 7th in the Premier League that season and that would have seen them qualify for the Europa League through their position in the league table. We missed out on playing in Europe, a much needed cash boost which comes with competing in the tournament and the chance the attract a higher caliber of player due to ability to offer them European football, yet it was snatched away because a team of yard dogs fluked their way to a cup upset.
As a sports fan, there truly isn’t anything better than watching a real life fairytale unfold before your eyes on the pitch but unfortunately, the stats don’t lie and in European football, the minnows very rarely have a happy ending. Previous Capital One Cup winners and runners up who earned their way into the Europa League via that route:
Birmingham City, competing in the Europa League in the 2011/2012 season – knocked out in the group stage.
Middlesbrough Football Club, competing in the Europa League in the 2004/2005 season - knocked out in the qualifying round.
Leicester City, competing in the Europa League in the 2000/2001 season – knocked out in the first round.
Comparing that to teams who qualified for the Europa League through their league standing in the previous campaign alone:
Newcastle United – Quarter Finals.
Tottenham Hotspur – Quarter Finals.
Chelsea Football Club, after dropping into the tournament after dropping down from the Champions League – Winners.
Factoring in the entertainment value and the fact that the minnows of English football will very rarely progress further than the group stage when competing in European competition, I do not believe that Cup winners and runners up should qualify for the Europa League. The top 7 sides in the Barclays Premier League table should be the only ones who qualify for European Competition and represent the country.
Should the winners/runners up of the English League Cup continue to be rewarded a spot in the Europa League?
In recent years, the league cup has taken a hit. In revenue it generates, in attendances, in value & in prestige. What would happen to it if the European spot was to be taken away? In English football, it's no longer about putting on the best possible football for the fans. It's not about putting on the most possible matches you can for the fans. It's all about league placement and commercial revenue. Which the league cup does not offer. Teams outside the prestigeous top six have small squads. Guaranteed of 40 games a season (if they do not further progress in cups) with roughly 12-16 players of good quality, an injury to any one of them can hinder their chances in league football. All of that surveyed out to them, the league cup tournament takes a serious backstep.
But in case of a fanciful owner, one who desires to push his club to the next echelon and isn't settling for the crumbs of the big boys, the league cup is an excellent entryway to the larger arena. It kickstarts European ambitions for a club that may not have that quality to breach the top six. Swansea this season has taken that route. Their League Cup victory has kickstarted their evolution into a big club. It has given them European football, which has found them a bigger pool of players, more value in the eyes of other players throughout Europe. The evolution of the club will bring in new fans from the world wide and it will undoubtably give them even more revenue streams through match day attendance. Whether they can deal with the new found pressures & guarantee league prosperity will be something that we as fans will have to anticipate & look out for as this current season progresses. But all things point up for Swansea and almost undoubtably because of the Europa League spot guaranteed by the League Cup.
Then we are into the discussion of the 2011-12 seasons winner. An ever falling giant who yet hasn't hit the rockiest of bottoms, Liverpool needed the League Cup win. Why? European football. With the potentiality of losing their fabled image & lineage of European Champions League victories, they needed the allure of European football to once again be allowed the opportunity to rebuild, reinforce and refund their team. After spending beyond the call of duty in the January of 2012 and August 2011, they needed a little something. And as I typed before, the allure of European football is that. They went off & claimed the League Cup, guaranteed European football and 18 months on, are looking once again like their former selves. Sitting top of the table (albeit after 3 games), with a squad of internationals and hungry wonderkids, they are very capable of challenging for what they have sought for so long. I'd say it's very safe to say that the League Cup helped build the flow of progression and gave an esteem of confidence to their fanbase.
Using the two former winners of the League Cup, we can see that while the League Cup has taken a hit in popularity, it is building a newer image in helping clubs take that next step. One that may of never of come naturally. And while I shouldn't say this since it's sports, I would say it is to football what the Money in the Bank is to the WWE.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
I enjoyed this debate even if it maybe wasn't the highest quality debate you'll see. I didn't have an existing stance on the topic going into reading this so I guess there was a great opportunity for a clear winner when both took opposing stances if one could end up swaying me one way at the end. I'm not sure either fully convinced me to agree with their stance over the other though. Partly because neither debate blew the other away but also because both debates do a good job of raising valid points in favour of their respective argument. Where one of you could have really made yourselves an easy winner would have been addressing arguments for the opposing stance which shouldn't have been too tricky to at least attempt here. As such neither of you did so I guess it comes down to whose argument for their stance was more convincing. For that reason I'm going with Mozza.
Mozza - Intro could do with a bit more clarity on the side you're arguing for. I got it but I wasn't 100% sure after reading your opening paragraph and had to re-read to double check. "Who, in their right mind, would choose to spend their Thursday nights with Channel Five on the box and watch the thuggish on and off the pitch Millwall FC vs Ferencvárosi TC when they could get to watch a Premier League quality side competing on their television?" Loved this line. Character in the debate is really good and another little edge that got the vote over Desecrated. "I, as an Everton Football Club supporter" So much for anonymity lid ay. I thought that paragraph was really strong in swaying me to agreeing with your side of the debate though. Follow up with the comparison and producing some cold hard FACTS was brilliant. It felt like a debate that was maybe a bit rushed and could have been an easy winner with a bit more detail. Or just addressing some potential counter arguments. Strong debate, could be great with the considerations I listed.
Desecrated - Not a whole lot to pick flaws with besides not addressing counter arguments. It's just not as convincing as Mozza's though which is where you lost it. Your points are valid, good even. Just needs a more persuasive style of writing. Try and read some of the winning title debates and get a feel for their persuasive writing style and hopefully you'll understand better what I mean. Grammar put me off a little too. Stuff like full stops appearing mid sentence where they shouldn't be really disrupt the flow of a debate. For example, "After spending beyond the call of duty in the January of 2012 and August 2011, they needed a little something. And as I typed before, the allure of European football is that." just needs to be one sentence. There's a few cases in here where you've got one sentence as two and it doesn't read very well to the reader.
Winner - Mozza
Mozza, 2 things, one you’re an Everton fan so you can fuck right off and 2) you said “there truly isn’t anything better than watching a real life fairytale unfold before your eyes on the pitch” which is pretty much what winning the Cup and getting into Europa is when a minnow wins it. For the record, neither count against you here. I just wanted to point out that Everton and their fans can eat a dick.
Now onto the debate, you really didn’t do much in the way of persuading me why the winners of the League Cup should get denied a place in Europa. All that comes across is a bitch that Everton missed out on Europa League money which completely disregards the fact that under your proposed scheme Birmingham would’ve received no benefit in a time when they desperately needed some cash having been relegated from the top flight of English football and are thus receiving less money as a result.
It would’ve been fine if you gave some reasons why that should happen, for example prize money for winning the cup should be the only reward, and expanding on how league placing’s should determine qualifying rather than a cup which few top teams bother to use full strength sides in. You kind of glossed around that, and instead went for the “they’ve got no chance of winning” route (which would still be an argument against Everton). Since the inception of the Premier League, only 5 teams have won it. Does that mean that the other teams should not bother? Course not. Really have to go further than the “they cost us money” and “they couldn’t have won it” arguments as neither do anything to address the question. I do like that you addressed the factor of a lower ranked team winning, but I feel it needed more.
Desecrated, I really really really hated that last line. Almost tempted to bitch slap the rest of your debate for using a wrestling analogy in a sports debate. What do you think this is, some kind of wrestling forum?
Also not a huge fan of just answering the question in a one word opening but I’m taking a stab and saying this is Desecrated’s debate and this is his way of saying fuck you to the other judges that didn’t like him waiting a bit before giving a side to his previous debate. If so then I chuckled. If this isn’t Desecrated’s debate then I chuckled, but it annoyed me so don’t do it again.
I did like that you addressed the current criticisms of the League Cup, and argued against them in the case of Swansea, and for Liverpool in that the cup has merit for teams. I feel that you didn’t cover enough about lower ranked teams winning which debate A did a lot of. I also feel that your argument was fairly narrow, and only covered a small part of the question. Having said that I still feel you answered the question better so I’m giving the win to Desecrated
Mozza – Overall I felt this was too descriptive and really lacking in clear cut analysis to make the reader agree with their point of view. Writing from a personal perspective and being victims of this rule was an interesting stance to take, but so much of that paragraph was purely descriptive and lacking the focused analysis and critical argument that is sorely needed to succeed in debating. The comparison with teams who qualify through this ruling against those who qualify via league positioning was better, although again largely unable to expand upon the data to make the argument resonate beyond reason with the reader. I also felt the writer missed a valuable chance to focus and expand upon their initial point regarding their team losing out on revenue Europa League football provides and the knock on effect this could have in terms of long lasting implications. Furthermore the entertainment aspect could have been explored in greater detail, perhaps with regards to TV revenue/marketability purposes, again just something creative and which offers a unique perspective on the topic. When you keep your debate concise and short, you really need to make up for the lack of quantity with an abundance of quality, and sadly the emphasis on descriptive rather than critical writing is where this debate struggles to succeed. The conclusion was concise, but would have read stronger had the arguments before it been of a higher standard.
Desecrated – Initial argument highlighting the growing lack of importance and intrigue in the competition and the extent to which this would accelerate if the lure of European Football was taken away had strong potential, though I do feel with this debate again being concise and brief it could have been touched upon in greater detail: perhaps looking at the top teams playing reserve level sides against minnow opposition as well as drive home how the competition is sorely reliant on the promise of European Football to legitimise and retain some relevance to it. However the subsequent consideration of Swansea as a case study was a strong argument, looking at the stronger quality in player they can now realistically pursue with the offer of European football in addition to marketability with the current fanbase unfamiliar with seeing the side playing European football. It considered how vital European football can be for a side looking to progress and how removing this route of access from a competition where bigger sides generally play weaker teams would be detrimental to long term growth. I must confess the Liverpool paragraph wasn’t as strong overall, if only because I’d say good scouting and negotiating on top of financial backing has seen them improve their squad and gradually become a bigger force with Rodgers’ playing style and commitment to building a familiar starting eleven, as opposed to the Europa League campaign being primarily responsible for this success. I understand where the writer was coming from, but I do think it was a bit misguided as I found myself unable to be convinced after reading that that their point was strong. Conclusion was sparse and could have been improved upon to really sell the merit of offering European football as a means of access for sides like Swansea.
I’m giving this to Desecrated as I found the Swansea case study to be a stronger argument than anything in Mozza's. Neither debate was without flaws and I’d suggest both writers remember that if you’re going to keep debates short and concise that making every word count and establishing strong arguments is essential. Descriptive writing isn’t necessarily a problem at the start of longer debates as a means of establishing the argument, but in shorter debates it becomes more problematic if the writer fails to raise enough strong arguments to challenge the reader.
Winner – Desecrated
Winner via Split Decision - Desecrated
*CGS is walking around backstage looking for someone to celebrate his unanimous victory with. He gets turned away quite a lot. He approaches Evolution who has an ice pack on the back of his head and looks PISSED.*
CGS: Hey Evo! I'm coming for your title brother!
*CGS must have forgot that Evolution lost his title and "retired" at the last show.*
Evolution: Is that supposed to be funny?
*Evolution gets up and walks away.*
*CGS continues along on his merry way before being taken down by a returning Evolution. Evolution drags CGS into one of the dressing rooms and slams the door shut behind him. What does he have in store for him?*
Brye vs Notorious vs Aid180 vs Cobruh Should Pete Rose be inducted into the MLB Hall of Fame?
Spoiler for Debates:
Should Pete Rose be in Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame? Yes. Although he bet on the sport, he should not be penalized that majorly for it especially for how talented he was. He bet on baseball games and games he played in which is bad, but not bad enough for him to be out of the hall of fame in my opinion. I think that should just result in him not playing anymore and maybe a fine of a large extent, but taking a man this talented and not allowing him to be in the Hall of Fame even though he was one of the best baseball players of all time? That seems a bit harsh.
Let me get your brain working: Pete Rose betting on baseball games that other teams play in isn’t really that big of a deal, but since he bet on games that he was playing in it was made a huge deal which is understandable, but even though he bet on the game it’s not like it made him amazingly good at baseball, the only real thing he could do is throw the game. Also, it’s not like he did it his whole career or for a very long extended amount of time, he had only done it for 2 to 3 years of his career. There is also no real proof that he bet against his team while playing for them, only possibly while managing them. So in Rose’s long 23 career, in which he definitely had a hall of fame career prior to the gambling at the very end of his career (possibly not even his playing career), he is being excluded from the Hall of Fame for only 2 to 3 years of gambling whilst he wasn’t even playing.
Pete Rose’s career highlights and awards include 3 World Series Rings, 2 MVP Awards (NL and World Series), 3x National League Batting Champion, 2 Gold Gloves, 1 Silver Slugger Award, NL Rookie of the Year Award, and the two astounding facts that possibly place him as the best baseball player ever: 17 time All Star and has the most all time hits of any other player in the entire history of Major League Baseball. All of this was prior to the gambling, and that isn’t even all of his accomplishments. Pete Rose did a bad thing by gambling, but you also have to understand that it’s like a disease, it’s an addiction. It was to the point that he had to see a therapist to get over his gambling addiction.
In closing Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, and he is being treated unfairly in my eyes. Yes he did bet on games that he managed and possibly even games that he played in, but are those games towards the end of his long and illustrious career really worth docking him the honor that is being inducted into the Hall of Fame? I mean the guy leads all players in the entire history of the league in hits, singles, at bats, and games played and he isn’t even in the Hall of Fame over something so minor. Pete Rose should be recognized despite his wrong decisions later in his career.
Should Pete Rose be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame? It’s one of the more controversial topics in the sport of baseball. Pete Rose received a lifetime ban from the MLB for allegedly gambling on baseball games during his career, both as a player and as a manager, which also meant he was banned from being allowed into the Hall of Fame. I am of belief that Pete Rose should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame, mainly because of his contributions on the field.
Let’s focus on the career Pete Rose had. He was a key contributor to three championship teams, with him getting a World Series MVP in one of the title runs. Pete Rose had 17 All-Star selections, which ties him for 7th all-time in MLB rankings. He’s a former MVP winner for the 1973 season. He’s had numerous accolades and recognitions such as being the National League batting champion, winning the Gold Glove award multiple times, winning the Silver Slugger Award, winning Rookie of the Year. He’s also the MLB’s all-time leader in base hits with 4,256. Some argue that Pete Rose is the greatest baseball player of all-time.
Now yes Pete Rose’s actions were wrong. Gambling on games is something that should not be allowed in any sport but what he did off the field should not prevent him for getting proper recognition for what his contributions were on the field. He’s admitted to his mistakes, he shows remorse for the decisions that he made when he was younger. Furthermore, there is no proof that Pete Rose ever gambled on games. Sure Pete Rose admitted to doing it but at the same time, there is no proof or evidence that Pete Rose ever gambled on games. He’s banned from baseball for doing something that there’s no proof he ever did. Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t players selected for the Hall of Fame based on their contributions on the baseball field? So why is a player that is one of the greatest to ever step on the baseball field not allowed in? The all-time hits leader is not allowed to enter the baseball Hall of Fame because he “allegedly” gambled on himself to win games. Meanwhile, there are other players who took performance enhancing drugs that are either already in the Hall of Fame or allowed to be nominated to be a Hall of Famer.
Not only is there no proof of him actually being guilty but Pete Rose also never cheated the game. He never took performance enhancing drugs and he never intentionally lost games for his team, there is no proof of that and Pete Rose has denied all claims of that. Also the majority of his alleged gambling took place after he retired as a player. He had a gambling addiction, yes. But that gambling addiction did not enhance his game. Him having an addiction to gambling didn’t suddenly make him swing the bat better or become a better fielder. What he did was wrong, I’m not justifying that. However, it did not affect his on the field play and it should not hinder him from being properly recognized for his contributions on the field to the game of baseball.
If you go to the Baseball Hall of Fame website, you’ll see their motto is “Preserving History. Honoring Excellence. Connecting Generations” I guess I can sum this to one sentence, if you want to preserve history and honor excellence from players in your sport and their contributions on the field, why would you not allow one of the greatest to ever swing the bat into the Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose should not only being un-banned from baseball, but put into the baseball hall of fame, where he rightfully belongs. To those who aren't aware, Pete Rose has a hall of fame worthy career, easily. Rose has the most games played and most hits in the history of baseball. Just those numbers alone would generally put you in the hall of fame, but it doesn’t stop there. Rose managed to win three World Series in his career, two with the Reds and one with the Phillies, and was the MVP of the 1975 series. Let’s also not forget that Rose was the MVP of the entire league in 1973. Pete Rose also managed to win the rookie of the year in 1963, multiple batting titles and was a doubles machine. Rose placed in the top ten in doubles every year he played, including having the most multiple times. These numbers are those of not only a worthy HOF candidate, but an all-time great in the baseball world.
However, with his great accolades comes great controversy. Pete Rose was caught betting on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds, primarily on his own team. This caused him to be banned and blacklisted from baseball, despite being one of the greatest hitters in baseball history. Now, it’s true that there is indeed a rule in the MLB about gambling on the sport, but Rose didn’t harm the game in the way that some make him out to have. Rose admits that he bet on the Reds just about every night. He bet on his own team. There was no foul play from him trying to tank games to get money or anything, he was just confident in his team and it probably gave him a competitive edge. There is no evidence that he bet against the Reds, which would be similar to the Black Sox scandal of the early 1900’s that set the ground for these kinds of rules.
Pete Rose isn’t the criminal that some of the hall of famers are. Ty Cobb was a notorious racist and asshole. Babe Ruth was a womanizer and a drunk. Just because their legacies have aged well when media wasn’t as prevalent, doesn’t make them any better people. This is the Professional Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Good Character Hall of Fame. Rose didn’t technically tamper with the game because he was betting on his own team. Guys like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, etc were tampering with the game by using PEDs. They’re not banned from baseball, although unlikely to make the HOF. Pete Rose, the baseball player, not the manager, was one of the all time greats and undoubtedly deserves to be in the hall of fame with the numbers he put up. He has the most hits of any baseball player in game’s long legacy, cleanly, and yet he will always have a black mark on his record that the MLB will acknowledge more than the good he did for them. Rose was incorrect to gamble on the game of baseball, however, his gambling didn't change the outcome of games and he's still one of the greatest hitters to ever live. Undoubtedly he deserves to be in the hall with the other greats.
I'm a stats man. While numbers may not tell the whole story, they never lie. I am a firm believer that what you do on the field should be the biggest judge when inducting a player into the Hall of Fame. Judging Pete Rose on his numbers alone, he should have been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame twenty years ago. Let's take a quick look at Rose's MLB accolades:
Most career hits.– 4,256
Most career outs.– 10,328
Most career games played.– 3,562
Most career at bats.– 14,053
Most career singles.– 3,215
Most career runs by a.switch hitter.– 2,165
Most career doubles by a switch hitter.– 746
Most career walks by a switch hitter.– 1,566
Most career total bases by a switch hitter.– 5,752
Most seasons of 200 or more hits.– 10 (shared)
Most consecutive seasons of 100 or more hits.– 23
Most consecutive seasons with 600 or more at bats.– 13 (1968–1980)
Most seasons with 600 at bats.– 17
Most seasons with 150 or more games played.– 17
Most seasons with 100 or more games played.– 23
Record for playing in the most winning games.– 1,972
Only player in history to play more than 500 games at five different.positions.– 1B (939), LF (671), 3B (634), 2B (628), RF (595)
That is a huge list of records, achievements, and accomplishments. Anyone that played that well should be a first ballot Hall of Famer, right? Apparently not if you are Pete Rose.
For those that don't know, Pete Rose was permanently banned from baseball due to gambling on baseball games, including betting on his own team, the Reds. Rose ended up violating the gambling rule even though he claims to have never bet against his own team. The Major League Baseball rule Rose broke establishes no distinction between betting for or against your team. All that matters is that Rose bet on his team and was in a position to influence the outcome. The rule is: "Rule 21 MISCONDUCT, (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES, Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." Does this rule warrant a permanent ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose said himself last month, “And to be honest with you, I picked the wrong vice. I should have picked alcohol. I should have picked drugs or I should have picked up beating up my wife or girlfriend because if you do those three, you get a second chance.” In the world of sports, not everyone is the squeaky clean Tim Tebow. There are several shadier characters. There are guys like Michael Vick, who participated in dog fights, and guys like Ryan Braun, who lied to people about taking PEDs and took PEDs. They are allowed to return to their sport. Even when looking at the Hall of Fame, OJ Simpson is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame despite being in jail for murder. Though his murder case happened after he was inducted, OJ remains in the Hall. So how can a murderer be in a Pro Sports Hall of Fame, but a guy gambling on his own team to win can't be in it?
Gambling can be addictive. Many consider it wrong. It's even worse if you have a huge effect on the outcome. If Pete were throwing games and purposely managing a team to lose because he bet against them, then that is obviously a detriment to the integrity of the game. However, I believe that if what he said was true and he did not bet against the Reds, then he wasn't doing much wrong. Did he change the outcome as a result of his bet? He, as a manager, was being paid to win. Rose has said that he bet on the Reds to win every time because he thought they would win. In this case, I don't think he was destroying the game's integrity, especially compared to PED users like Braun or Alex Rodriguez. All Rose did was attempt to increase his payout for his own team winning.
What Rose did was wrong, but I don't think it was bad enough to get him banned for life. There are drug users, liars, and cheaters that have been given second and third chances. Why not Rose? Rose did break a rule, but was his rule as bad as cheating and doping? If he didn't purposely lose a game, is there a problem? Looking at his numbers alone, Rose was one of the best ever. That should be enough to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I love this topic and it was handled very well by all of you. Maybe it's because it was the last one I read, or maybe it was because of those STATS, or maybe it was that quote by Rose where he says he chose the wrong vice, but Debate D resonated with me the most. I really wanted to read opposing views here since this such a divisive topic for baseball, but all of you want him in the HoF.
Solid job put in by all, but Aid180 wins.
The Lady Killer
Cobruh - While the effort was clearly there, I didn't find this debate very convincing. You were able to laundry list his baseball accomplishments, but your argument for why he isn't in the Hall of Fame (gambling) seemed a bit unsteady. At first you claimed that some of the gambling was at the end of his playing career, then go on to say "maybe" it was, then conclude that it was only while he was manager. It basically read as, "I'm not sure about Rose's gambling problems, but he had a shitload of good stats, so he should be in the HOF." I think had you cleaned up those few paragraphs and done a bit more research, you would've been right in the mix.
Notorious - Great introduction. Short and sweet, and stated your stance and your justification being Rose's on-field contributions. Very nice.
Next paragraph, you dive right into some of these on-field accomplishments as support for your stance. Again, good flow here.
Opening sentence of third paragraph is where you really state you claim: "Now yes Pete Rose’s actions were wrong. Gambling on games is something that should not be allowed in any sport but what he did off the field should not prevent him for getting proper recognition for what his contributions were on the field." This is great. You then follow this up with reasons why his mistakes off the field shouldn't prevent him for being recognized for his accomplishments as a player. I like that you made it clear that HOF selections are based on playing accomplishments, and also that people are still in the Hall despite use of PEDs.
Conclusion was superb. You tied that HOF quote in greatly to the theme of your debate. Well done all around on this one. It will be tough to beat.
Brye - This debate was short and sweet. It was basically a shorter version of Debate B. Lots of the same arguments and support, but up against Notorious, I just found this debate to be a bit thin. Nothing really wrong with it, but Notorious' is just a better, more thorough version.
Aid180 - This was a really solid debate. It's gonna be close between this and Debate B. The laundry list of stats was an eye-opener for those who aren't really familiar with Pete Rose's baseball accomplishments. However, this took up ~150 of your 800 words, so I'm wondering if half of this could've been exluded to make room for other support. It did tie nicely into making a case for Rose to be inducted solely on baseball talent, so perhaps I'm wrong. Once you stated the rule against gambling, I think you may have shot yourself in the foot. If there's a rule strictly prohibiting gambling, and expelling any and all offenders, why should Rose be any different? Why should he be an exception to the rule? I think you should've followed this up with a reference to the origin of the rule and it now being outdated. You made a good case for why the rule seems bogus when other people like OJ are in the HOF, so at least that's something. I do like that you mention he wasn't betting against his own team to affect the outcome of games. Notorious edges this out, though, because it wisely never made reference to the actual rule, and because it emphasized that Rose "allegedly" gambled despite there being no actual proof.
Winner = Notorious
Cobruh's was ok for a general presentation but it was too short. Not enough detail. Not enough convincing. As I was reading, the potential for a good debate seemed to grow, and then it suddenly ended.
Notorious' was a solid well rounded debate. I really liked how you mentioned that there was no actual proof of him gambling and it's not fair to exclude someone for something they were never actually convicted for.
Brye. Same with Cobruh. Had potential for a good debate but it started to end. Just like Cobruh, there wasn't anything wrong with it but it needed more detail and more convicing.
Aid180 was good. Did a good job showing his stats to show why he should be in the HOF. I think after your stats you focused too much on why he was banned and not why he deserves to be in the HOF. That hurt your debate. I did like your OJ WHITE BRONCO reference to Pete Rose and the HOF. Just like how you mentioned other sport stars who were allowed to return to their sport.
This is between Notorious and Aid180. I'll give the edge to Aid180 based on the stats alone.
Winner - Aid180.
Winner via Split Decision - Aid180
*Evolution drags a bloody and beaten CGS out onto the TDL stage as the crowd gasps in horror. Evolution gets on the mic and demands respect for all he achieved during his TDL run. He looks over to Headliner and demands he be inducted into the non-existent Hall of Fame. Headliner refuses. A fit of rage comes over Evolution and he lifts CGS up into a tombstone piledriver position with CGS draped well below his knees. Evolution threatens to drop CGS on his head if he doesn't get shown the respect he deserves. The entire judging panel (minus Evolution. Duh.) gets to their feet and look on in horror.
Headliner: Fine. Just put up him down and we can talk.
*Evolution shakes his head menicingly and fakes Headliner out with a jump.*
Headliner: Ok ok. We'll promote you to Admin. Ok?
Evolution: I want an honor much greater than that role. I want to be..... an OVERLORD. :ramsay
*Headliner, Seabs and The Lady Killer stare over at each other in an uneasy manner knowing that they've been backed into a corner. Do they stop Evolution from turning CGS into a cabbage or sign CGS' death certificate?*
Seabs: Fuck it. It's only CGS. Drop him.
The Lady Killer: No wait!
Fine. You got the overlord spot. Now put him down safely.
*Evolution lets go off CGS as TLK runs down to check on the fallen solider.*
MoveMent vs Scott Hall's Ghost Is The Miz really a good promo guy?
Spoiler for Debates:
Scott Hall's Ghost
There's always a lot of talk about the Miz and his place in the business; is he a decent talent who's best served as a mid-carder? Is he a wannabe who'll never really 'get it'? Is he genuinely a talent who could be utilized as a b-main eventer?
There is plenty of debate and plenty of opinions. One thing, however, that can’t be debated- the Miz cuts a great promo. In fact, he’s awesome.
From his debut, through his early days, it was clear the Miz had talent on the mic. However, when he truly established himself as a mid-card threat in his singles career, he was also establishing himself as one of the better promos in the business week to week.
2010 was particularly notable as the Miz produced some of the sharpest, most scathing promos seen for several years—the likes of which wouldn’t be experienced again until CM Punk delivered what many considered the promo of our generation. That’s ‘awesome’ company to be in.
Off the top of any wrestling fan’s head, when asked the top few promo men in the biz the last five years, you’ll hear the Miz mentioned along side the Rock, Cena (IF and when he’s on), CM Punk, and Chris Jericho. You might slot Miz near the bottom of that list, but that still leaves him ABOVE every other superstar on the roster and clearly sets him as one of the better promo cutters we’ve seen in recent memory.
2010 to early 2011 is perhaps his greatest year in promos, much like the summer of 2011 will forever be remembered as Punk’s high point. On RAW in January, the Miz cut a promo that was heralded as one of the year’s best. He talked about being bullied when he first came in to WWE, naming JBL specifically, and mentioned being reviled and how everyone wanted him to quit. He methodically walked and paused from the back to the ring. The “WHAT” chants that normally dominated a segment like this quieted after a few as the crowd realized what they were witnessing. It was one of the more perfect promos of its time.
He wouldn’t finish there, however. Over the rest of the year he would cut great promo after great promo. It only takes a quick Google or YouTube search to come up with a dozen great Miz promos that are on-point, believable, and engaging.
This is perhaps the key to why Miz is such a good promo worker—he’s believable. Every word seems to ooze a pointed confidence that came from being “Mike Mizanin, Wannabe Wrestler” and having to work his way up. There is a pent up anger and frustration in his delivery matched only by a natural egoism that plays as the perfect heel (or, likeable arrogant brat, as he’s often booked now). He’s a man who has a chip on his shoulder and believes he is truly meant for greatness, and every time he picks up a mic, we are allowed to experience a glimpse into that greatness.
All of this may have perfectly culminated in another of his highlight promos—the build up to his Wrestlemania match with Cena on RAW in March of 2011. Miz had staged a sit-out as he felt the Rock/Cena build was overshadowing him, despite the fact it was the Miz who was in the main event for the WWE Championship.
At the end of the night, as Cena tries to cut a promo on the Rock, the Miz comes out of nowhere to flatten Cena with the belt and deliver one of the best promos of the last 5 years to the Rock.
“Hello, Rock, we haven't been properly introduced; I'm The Miz - the WWE Champion and star of Wrestlemania. You, on the other hand, are only the host of WrestleMania, so you should know your role and be the best Ryan Seacrest that you can be!
And if you have the guts to show up to RAW or Wrestlemania let me tell you exactly what will happen— I will take your little eyebrow, your 45 catchphrases, your sunglasses, your father, your grandfather, roll 'em up into a ball, flip it sideways, and stick it STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY-ASS!! Because I’m the Miz, and I’m…”
At this point, the Miz hits Cena with his finisher, then rips off his armband, and drops the People’s Elbow on Cena, finishing with, “AWWWWWWSOME!”
The Miz has a backstory/motivation that’s easy to believe. He’s an egomaniac with a chip on his shoulder. His promos deliver the passion and sharpness few others can muster.
He says he’s awesome.
After watching dozens of his promos you can’t help but think that whenever he picks up the mic, he certainly is.
Can the Miz cut a Promo? 5 or 6 years ago this question would seem just as absurb. The only difference is 5 years ago it would be "HE'S TERRIBLE WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ASK THAT" and now it's more to the effect of "DUHHH"
Miz seemed like the perfect candidate to be a wrestler, by perfect candidate meaning he was already known for being an annoying guy on a MTV show people vaguely remember. But being that he was already a TV personality he seemed like the perfect person to be a "talker" above everything else coming into the business, and he was just the opposite. He lacked the delivery, his confidence was nonexistent, it became obvious that live TV in front of thousands of people was a new realm he wasn't ready for. Miz spent the first half of his career with no positives other than being well known from a MTV show people vaguely remember.
Miz's 'breakthorugh' came once he started teaming with Johnny Nitro/Morrsion/Shaman of Sexy/Got His Girl Took From Batista. Neither of them had the in ring or mic skills needed to be successful but after starting a goofy internet series on WWE.com they slowly started to show character and charisma (In Miz's case he showed a less annoying character.) But Miz's second and most important breakthrough came from winning MITB. It obviously made him into a main eventer but Miz's subpar ring skills were accompanied by a new level of confidence.
All the qualities a good mic worker needs are present here, his confidence, demeaner, delivery. He's no longer trying to act like some annoying brat from a MTV Show blah blah blah he's acting and carrying himself like a PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER. Once he realized the distinction it allowed his character to flourish.
There's something to be said for a man who can walk in the ring and not look like a jobber against one of the most popular wrestlers of all time who JUST returned after 7 years. The Miz did a great job of making his presence known throughout his title reign despite WWE wanting us to forget him for Rock vs. Cena and he did it because of his MIC skills. (Before The Rock came back to finish his burial at Survior Series.) Since becoming a main eventer Miz has stood toe to toe with the likes of The Rock, Cena, Punk, and many others and held his own on the mic each time. So the next time Miz is the champion (lol) and you're wondering why WWE loves to send him to do promo on other shows and radio interviews. Remember it isn't because of his wrestling skills.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
THE DARK ANDRE Scott Hall's Ghost:
You started with a nice short sharp intro that defined that the Miz is a talent who has many doubters regarding different areas of his work, but his mic skills generally aren’t included in that. This set up your stance with clarity and confidence. The awesome pun was predictable and cheesy but I’ll let that go…for now.
While I agree that Miz cut some fantastic “scathing” promos from 2010 onwards you didn’t really assist your opinion with any supporting evidence or persuasive language to explain why you believed this, whether that be in regards to techniques used to hold audience attention spans, boosting ratings and selling pay per views, how his verbal beat downs were effective in making a triumphant babyface get over in revenge, etc. Then there was another awesome pun, that wasn’t so awesome.
Then you went on about fan’s opinions without any real supporting evidence to suggest how he made himself likeable to some or even drew the ire of others through legit heat, something that could be supported by evidence of crowd reactions (which is the most important thing in audience interaction, even if negative reactions) that could have even been contrasted with the general average reactions of the other also rans from the WWE. Without anything like that I’m just left with a bloke/lass/whatever telling me that some fans will tell me that Miz is up there as one of the best. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m sure that a lot of fans love him or rate him highly, but I could quite easily find a load of people who hated his work, which doesn’t make for a good argument either without plenty of supportive reasoning and strong persuasive language, both factors of which are lacking here. Opinions are fine, but remain useless without explanations.
You picked it up with your recollection of the bullying promo that referenced JBL’s hazing; the description of crowd control through the silencing of “what?” chants really boosted your cause, that’s how you should support your arguments right there. You could have enhanced that by including a few more Miz promos while explaining how they made good promos, but instead you were lazy and wrote “It only takes a quick Google or YouTube search to come up with a dozen great Miz promos that are on-point, believable, and engaging”. What? That’s your job, not mine pal.
I liked your paragraph which explained how Miz’s mic work was believable due to his confidence and arrogance that stemmed from his non-kayfabe personality. Most of the best wrestling stick men tend to perform as exaggerated versions of their real life selves, so this was definitely on point and served as a strong explanation as to why Miz’s promos work. To have supported this you should have added a linked promo with a small write up of how that projection was apparent while also explaining its effect on the audience, but this was decent none the less.
The suggestion that Miz was able to hang with two of the biggest modern day wrestling stars in Rock and Cena due to his mic work was another strong point. However, I’m not sure why you needed to waste loads of words by copying and pasting a transcript, at this point I’m starting to think that you don’t know how to add links or encode YouTube videos …Some explanation as to why Miz was heavily reliant on his mic work in this scenario would have been appreciated, maybe concerning how Cena and Rock were far more over due to the powers of the WWE machine, something like that.
You finished with a nice little re-cap of your thoughts, followed by another cheesy pun that lost its power due to repetition. Using the same joke three times? Really? This was an okay debate that touched on a few points with some very basic coverage. In future you will need to use far more persuasive techniques and use different methods to convey your points *hint, hint, YouTube encoding, followed by mini write ups*. This also lacked any counter arguments regarding Miz’s earlier dodgy mic work which has made up a large chunk of his overall promo work, but fortunately for you nobody argued against Miz or used that as an argument, but just be weary of this in future.
“Can the Miz cut a Promo? 5 or 6 years ago this question would seem just as absurb”. Straight away I have to point out two problems (not including the spelling of absurd, unless someone put your d button on the wrong way round, sorry if so); the question was “is the Miz really a good promo” not “Can the Miz cut a Promo?” which are two different things altogether. Anyone can cut a good promo on their day (okay maybe not Curtis Axel) but you have to be on a different level to consistently cut a good promo. Just be careful how you comprehend topic questions in future because it could leave you exposed against skilled debaters who know how to deconstruct questions with purpose. With that in mind you also acknowledged that Miz was a terrible mic worker for quite a long spell in his career, so that wasn’t the strongest start when you consider that Miz being a good promo guy would rely on his entire work during his short WWE tenure, much of it which is patchy at best.
You then continued to savage Miz’s promo work in a biographical style piece. Again, bear in mind that the question doesn’t ask whether he’s good “now”, therefore you would have to assess Miz’s back catalogue of mic work over the span of his career to truly establish his level as a mic worker, therefore your admittance of his long time short comings was a bit of an own goal. This could have been safely negotiated by acknowledging the previously mentioned with less venom while also counter arguing with the point that most wrestlers take a while to settle on the mic, or even that it’s unfair to take his early work into account due to his currently short career, but you didn’t do anything like that.
You almost touched on a very good point about how Miz’s new confidence on the mic carried his “sub-par ring skills” to the main event, a little more elaboration on that would have helped you. Finally you made a solid point by contrasting Miz’s early mic work with his 2011 Rock confrontation (yay, you can link videos ), which was something that did establish his potential to be great on the mic while also defining a rapid improvement half way through his career in 2011. While that didn’t entirely save your previous slagging of Mizanin it did use that angle as a platform to show how Miz’s mic work can be good. This could have been improved by displaying more promos to present a level of consistency that could have declared Miz as someone who has now become a reliable stick man rather than some bloke who had a one off stormer. The explanation that followed was a bit crude in terms of describing technicalities but the essential point did scrape though somehow.
However, your final paragraph was good. Miz managing to appear on the same level as Rock and Cena, overcoming WWE’s neglect of him when he was brushed aside by the “two real stars” (should have left out the bit about Rock burying him at SS2011 though, more of a booking thing to be honest and it didn’t help you). Then you bowed out with a very valid point; Miz is a great mic worker, hence why he’s the voice of WWE’s outside marketing, a gig that is secured by confidence within speech and the ability to connect to other people through talking. Miz has become so good at what he does that WWE trusts him with a job like that. That was an excellent ending to an otherwise (generally) off
I’ll be honest and say that this wasn’t the strongest contest due to the lack of effort in using varied persuasive techniques and detailed explanations. I honestly think that either of those debates could have easily been defeated by a debate arguing against Miz where his whole back catalogue of work was referenced, including the pre 2010 messes and post 2011 mediocrity, because quite honestly when his entire repertoire of mic work is brought up (by MoveMent in this case) then I’m really struggling to think of too many good/great Miz promos outside of 2010-2011. Noticeably none were included in either debate. That’s not to say that I don’t think that Miz is good on the mic, I just don’t think that either debate would have stood up to a half decent counter debate.
Choosing a winner in this contest was really difficult because both debates were of a similar level of overall quality, with Scott Hall's Ghost being consistently average while MoveMent was half awful and half good, levelling out as an average debate. There was also a complete failure from both debaters to safely negotiate any counter points, while any coverage of Miz’s catalogue of promos was scarce.
Honestly, I’d prefer this to end as a draw because I don’t think that either contestant did enough to DESERVE to win, but I have to pick a winner…
In that case I will pick the debater that implemented the strongest/most explanations as to why Miz excels on the mic, which is something that Scott Hall's Ghost managed through his references to Miz/JBL and crowd control, how Miz’s true life narcissistic personality is effectively projected in order to irritate fans while also entertaining others, as well as the brief explanation of how Miz was able to upstage the Rock with mic skills (MoveMent also managed this but not the latter two points). With SOME video evidence and extra explanation to support other areas Scott Hall's Ghost would have won easily. MoveMent was actually more entertaining to read and MoveMent’s use of aggressive, persuasive language really came through when he eventually made some strong points at the end (although that use of language fell flat when his debate was missing the target). With that kind of quality displayed consistently throughout his debate he would have won easily, so he needs to keep aiming for that level of quality (or higher) while trying to improve his consistency in future.
Congratulations to Scott Hall's Ghost.
Evolution Scott Hall's Ghost: Advice - Not really much to improve on here. Pretty much flawless, I loved the opening positioning and putting his star-power in context to make his mic skills a bigger asset than most people credit for. I think you could have strengthened your argument by comparing him to the rest of the roster a little more both in his main even phase and his current position. Showing just how much better he is than others is probably a better option than telling us who he isn't better than.
I'm not a big fan of letting a youtube video or photos do the talking for you so I liked how you quoted the promo from pre-Wrestlemania. One thing that might have been good though is when you said a few times that there was countless youtube videos, maybe tell me something in particular to search.
Those criticisms are me REALLY stretching to find stuff to improve on though. Thoroughly impressed with your entry, congratulations.
MoveMent: Advice - I know there is a minimum word limit but when you're trying to argue for something it's really hard to be convincing using as few words as you did, I would recommend expanding on your ideas in more detail so that you can strengthen the overall perception of your debate.
I actually really liked the points you raised after the two videos you linked, it would have been great for you to base your debate more around those points and maybe spend less time giving us a back story on the Miz's rise and start in the WWE. Focusing on what makes him a good mic worker and why (i.e compared to the rest of the roster, or his consistency etc.) would be great. This is where utilising the whole word count is so important.
The winner via a kick in the nuts, three pedigrees and a bodybag:Scott Hall's Ghost
The Lady Killer
I think this topic was kind of tough because it mostly boiled down to opinion. What some people view as a good promo artist, others find boring. This rang true throughout Scott Hall's Ghost. If this was an opinion piece, this would've been great. The debate didn't really pick up until later on when you claimed The Miz was engaging during his promos - evidence like the crowd no longer chanting "What?" is the kind of stuff I'd be looking for. The rest of your support ("go google/youtube it and see for yourself") doesn't do anything for me. The ending piece where you cite his promo against The Rock was a nice touch, as I'm a fan of that promo, but personal bias aside, it's still an opinion.
MoveMent - This gave a bit of a backstory, from Miz beginning as a timid jobber, to becoming a confident, well-spoken jobber. You criticize the Miz in other areas, which, intentionally or not, actually make a claim for why WWE puts him in the position he's in. Your final 2 sentences actually won this for you. WWE choosing Miz as their social media guru because he can talk, and not because can wrestle. That's what I'm looking for. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you or I think he's good, but rather whether he's perceived as being good. Clearly, WWE execs hold that belief.
Winner = MoveMent
Winner via Split Decision - Scott Hall's Ghost
*Rookie interviewer The Fourth Wall is supposed to be on hand to give us an update on Froooot's condition after falling into a coma due to his horrific fall off the VIP balcony on the last show. Sadly The 4th Wall got to the hospital 3 days ago as he was so excited at the prospect of a potential big break. When we get there he's fast asleep on the floor causing a lot of inconvenience. I guess we'll have to wait until the next show for an update on Froooot's condition.*
TehJerichoFan vs scrilla Which artist best represents 2000's hip-hop?
Spoiler for Debates:
As one dissects hip-hop culture in the 2000's, you can observe several distinct periods characterized by the genre's continued commercial success from the previous decade in the early-2000's, dwindling record sales as part of a broader shrinkage in mass appeal during the mid-2000's, and the launch of a hip-hop renaissance in the final years of the decade. We have witnessed a rapid evolution in the fabric of hip-hop culture, and while the previous decade spawned a number of successful artists, only a handful evolved to keep up with changing demands in the music industry, leaving all but a permanent dent in the hip-hop terrain, and an even smaller number captured the essence of the genre. Thus begs the question; which artist best represents 2000's hip-hop? For his ability to sit in the forefront of hip-hop's evolving landscape, it is Kanye West who is the indisputable face of 2000's hip-hop.
We all know Kanye West as the egomaniacal, ambitious, brash provocateur who once longed to make a lucrative career as a respected hip-hop artist. His ambitions would momentarily take a backseat up until after a fatal car accident in 2002. His experience inspired "Through the Wire", where West raps about being on life support "in the same hospital where Biggie Smalls died" and spits out cultural references to Vanilla Sky and Jay-Z, among others, with a meticulous wit. It was one of a collection of creative, thought-provoking songs on The College Dropout, touching themes of racism in "Never Let Me Down" and Christianity in "Jesus Walks", assaulting gender stereotypes with "The New Workout Plan", and expressing how he "decided [he] was finished" with school in "School Spirit". The album's brooding themes and soulful production were dramatic departures from the gangsta image and bravado messages that consumed the hip-hop market at the time, forming a visceral connection with the public.
Graduation has been credited for introducing elements of house music into the hip-hop soundscape. "Stronger" samples Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger".
Arguably Kanye's greatest assets are his abilities in songcrafting. Rarely did he restrict himself in his first four studio efforts; rather, he explored various genres and clashed them together for a bold, fresh product. It, in turned, reshaped the soundscape of hip-hop music. We can observe this in all four of his first albums, particularly in Graduation and 808s & Heartbreak, with the latter at one point being West's riskiest bet to date. Graduation has been credited for introducing elements of house music into the hip-hop soundscape, a feat continued by 808s & Heartbreak, which possessed a minimalistic, AutoTune drenched sound. Furthermore, West understood the significance of sampling in the hip-hop industry and the creative freedom that came from the process for production. His techniques in tempo alteration is what, NME believed, distinguished him from his contemporaries.
West presenting his 2009 LV + Kanye West footwear collaboration with Louis Vuitton director Marc Jacobs.
West's impact on other artistic facets in hip-hop culture has been detailed particularly in fashion, playing an important catalyst in the cultivation of the Kanye West brand. While crafting tracks for Jay-Z's Blueprint, Roc-A-Fella A&R Lenny Santiago found West's polished sense of style to contravene with the conventional, infinitely harder appearance of hip-hip fashion at the time, merely being a "Chicago whiz-kid geek in jeans, a button-down shirt, and a baseball cap worn with the bill forward." Let's examine the gritty, harsh urban streetwear that defined hip-hop fashion in the former part of the 2000's. Oversized tee shirts, baggy pants and shorts, bling, and grills were all unwritten requisites for male artists and personified Dirty South's hypermasculine undercurrents. West, on the other hand, adopted a sophisticated, sometimes flamboyant sense of fashion, at one point marketing himself as the self-professed "Louis Vuitton Don". His endorsements of Ralph Lauren, Christian Dior, etc created a platform for West to venture into a realm outside of hip-hop music; in addition to regularly attending haute couture events events in New York and Paris to enhance his dapper style, the Chicago export expanded his business empire and collaborated with the likes of Marc Jacobs in producing fashion lines.
Because of his contributions to hip-hop culture over the span of 2000–2009, it is without a doubt clear that Kanye West best represents 2000's hip-hop.
Which artist best represents 2000's hip-hop? Two names come to mind, Jay-Z and Kanye West. Honorable mentions would include Weezy, Andre 3000, Eminem, Nas, and TI.
Addressing each honorable mentions in extremely short fashion due to character limit:
Andre: amazing, but not enough content to be representative of this era.
TI: very consistent, but peaked in 2009 and never got his steam back after prison.
Weezy: see T.I. (except not as consistent peaked in 2008 and remained somewhat relevant commercially, but fell off a cliff critically.)
Nas: consistently great, but not enough mainstream success to be considered representative of this era.
Eminem: huge record sales like Beatles of hip-hop levels, but was absent for five years of the thirteen years and made Encore and Relapse. Eminem even panned Relapse himself. Two outta five whack albums disqualify him.
The answer to the question is Kanye. I will now make Ye’s case and then address the 900lb camel in the room.
Kanye’s first album, College Dropout, is a genuinely soulful classic which he followed up with an arguably more soulful album, Late Registration. It was nearly on par quality-wise, although not quite a classic. Then the evolution began. Graduation lost a lot of the soulful sound in exchange for a pop sound i.e. Stronger and Flashing Lights. Despite the change in sound, the quality of the music improved from Late Registration and Kanye managed to diversify as an artist.
From there Kanye took a more drastic shift with 808’s and Heartbreak. While this is personally my least favorite Kanye album, it’s not a bad album by any means. It’s arguably good and more importantly, it’s highly influential and representative of the time. Kanye “did autotune” better than anyone else when autotune began creeping into mainstream hip-hop. As far as influence, go listen to Drake’s So Far Gone. Drake’s success can be traced back to that mixtape. That mixtape is clearly heavily influenced by 808’s. Kanye literally gave Drake the blueprint for a highly successful career.
Kanye followed it up with possibly his greatest and most diverse album featuring the melding of various styles and artists, MDBTF, which is generally accepted as a classic and praised by most critics. After that collaborative effort, Kanye again switched it up releasing Yeezus, an album with no mainstream singles and very little collaboration. It’s his only album that has not gone platinum, but it was released only three months ago. So Kanye has two classic albums, two GREAT albums, an extremely influential album and Yeezus.
Many people associate Jay-Z with hip-hop, but here’s why Kanye is more representative than Jay-Z. Jay’s career was critically revitalized by The Blueprint. 4/13 tracks on The Blueprint were produced by Kanye. Blueprint was hailed for its production, so Kanye is getting 30% of the credit in critically revitalizing Jay’s career which had been slowly declining critically since Reasonable Doubt. Jay’s first ever top ten single was produced by Kanye. Jay’s first top five single on The Blueprint 2 (which was an average album btw) was produced by Kanye too. Jay can take full credit for The Black Album where he faked his retirement allowing him to deliver a BORDERLINE classic.
Jay-Z returned after his three year “retirement” with Kingdom Come. Kingdom Come and Magna Carta Holy Grail are critically considered Jay-Z’s worst albums of the millennium. Between the two of them they feature one song produced by Kanye, go figure.
Jay-Z would ride Denzel’s coattails with the release of American Gangster, which was just a good album, but still left Jay without a hit single. The man hadn’t cracked the top five on a HIP-HOP song in four years. Then Kanye produced Swagger Like Us and once again allowed Jay to crack the top five on the charts. Next Kanye produced and featured on Run This Town, which became Jay’s biggest hit of all time peaking at #2 on the charts until it was surpassed by Empire State of Mind that year, which Kanye had nothing to do with. It remains Jay’s only hip-hop #1 single (Kanye already had three at that point). Thanks Alicia.
Finally, there is Watch the Throne. Kanye finally forced Jay to step his game up. Watch the Throne is Jay’s third best album of this millennium. It’s Kanye’s fourth or fifth best album of this millennium. That alone should really say it all. Kanye receives credit for his own career which is better than Jay’s both critically and commercially this millennium.
Plus, whatever Jay-Z represents in the 2000’s, a large chunk of it should be attributed to Kanye for helping him remain relevant.
Thus, Kanye is the most influential and diverse hip-hop artist of this millennium while simultaneously maintaining consistency both critically and commercially. This makes Kanye West the most representative artist of the 2000’s.
Seabs TehJerichoFan - Good debate but I felt too much of it read like a review than a debate. You did a good job talking about how Kanye become what he is but it needed less of that and more ARGUING why Kanye is the best representative. The base is there I think but you just needed to turn stuff like your paragraph reviewing The College Dropout into an actual argument. Intro I didn't overly care for and it felt like filler from the very start. Everything up to "Thus begs the question" I thought could have been significantly condensed while serving the same purpose and giving you more words to use in the main and most important part of your debate. Final paragraph I thought was by far your strongest as it looked at hip-hop past just being a genre of music and being a lifestyle which I thought was super. Again you could have used less reviewing and more arguing why what you're writing about makes him the best pick though. Very aesthetically appealing formatting too I'll give you that. Not sure if I'd prefer debates left aligned rather than centre but that doesn't matter if your debate is good enough.
scrilla - This debate ruled. HARD. Effectively eliminated the other key contenders quickly and concisely before focusing on the two obvious main picks that I'm sure nearly everyone would agree on. "I will now make Ye’s case and then address the 900lb camel in the room." That line I thought kinda hurt your flow but not at a crucial part at least. It felt a bit strange. Just do it rather than saying what you're about to do. Argument in favour of Kanye is great. Point about his influence on an artist like Drake is super. Then you get onto the Kanye/Jay comparison and discrediting Jay in favour of Kanye. This part was unreal levels of brilliance. Made any argument for Jay-Z look like garbage by arguing his limited success and then rightly so mentioning that Kanye is largely responsible for a lot of his relevance in the 2000's. I was hoping someone would go down that road but I didn't expect anyone to go down that road in the way you were able to do. Amazing stuff. Even giving credit to Keys for Empire State of Mind was a great touch in further discrediting any argument for Jay-Z. There's probably some who will disagree with it but I think it's a very valid point. Liked how some character really started flowing through in the debate during this half too with lines such as "go figure" and "Thanks Alicia". More of that where it's appropriate.
Winner - scrilla
It’s interesting that you both picked Kanye for this question but the style of each debate was very different. Debate A went for solely talking about why Kanye is the correct choice, while Debate B went for a more varied approach talking about other rappers, and dismissing their claims to be the best while also talking up why Kanye is top. Onto the debates;
TehJerichoFan: I really liked this debate but I’m really not a fan of using youtube videos and the like in a debate. The caption for the video “Graduation has been credited for introducing elements of house music into the hip-hop soundscape. "Stronger" samples Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger".” would have been fine to include as a part talking about Kanye’s evolution in style, and how he is at the forefront of introducing new techniques, samples etc into hip hop. I don’t really need a video in there.
I enjoyed the opening and talking about the various issues Kanye has covered on his tracks and his evolution as an artist from album to album, his increasing success, and the fact he paved the way for other artists. All the talk of his music was very much on point and what I expect from a music debate, and so I was pleased you expanded beyond the realm of music and onto fashion which is another area where Kanye has a strong foothold. In any debate I judge, I don’t just look for the standard response. I look for what sets the debates apart and that paragraph is a great one for doing that. Closing sentence was a bit brief, and I suppose the word limit influenced that but it was the only weak point as far as I can see. You didn’t mention any other artists which is fine as long as you cover everything about your pick well which you did. Debate flowed well, was on point, could’ve been summed up better but overall good job.
scrilla, I liked that you addressed the other candidates but I feel that it could’ve been done in a better way. I like the opening of any debate to flow and yours felt really disjointed. Establish your position on the debate, then address what needs to be addressed. Also having a line like “Addressing each honorable mentions in extremely short fashion due to character limit:” is wasting words which is exactly what you’re worried about. Having the candidates you’re ruling out first really disrupts the flow of your debate.
I liked that you mentioned both critical success and mainstream success which is an important point to make when discussing who the face of hip hop is. I liked that you talked about how Kanye has influenced other artists and I feel that you could’ve expanded on that point more. It could’ve been mentioned in amongst the stuff where Kanye producing great tracks on Jay-Z’s album. I feel that you talked more about Jay-Z than you did about Kanye.
Overall I feel that you had all the elements of a good debate, but while you mentioned a variety of points you didn’t expand on any of them fully. Like the other debate, I feel that the word limit interrupted you somewhat so next time you could try eliminating stuff you don’t need, ie the explanation that you’re running through people briefly because you’re short on words, ending sentences with unneeded stuff (ie Thanks Alicia.). Overall it was a good effort, just needed a bit more polishing.
Giving the win to TehJerichoFan
Strong debate. You showed his music success but more importantly you did a good job showing Kanye's effect on fashion. This was a strong illustration of Kanye's influence over the entire culture of hip hop. Not just the music. Good well rounded debate.
You did a solid job showing Kanye's versatility in the hip hop world, but I would have liked to see more. Isn't hip hop more than just music? What about fashion? What about culture? Lifestyle? Media? I would have liked to seen you branch out more.
Winner via Split Decision - TehJerichoFan
*Backstage Kiz is walking around the Sports lounge looking to make friends. There's no takers. Kiz approaches Mozza in catering and they share an arkward stare. Kiz's eyes drop down to Mozza's thighs (deja vu hey guys ). Either Mozza has concerningly abnormal thighs or he's just stuffed a fuck ton of food down his pockets.*
*Rush walks up to Kiz.*
Rush: Hey there.
Rush: Wanna be friends?
*Rush and Kiz share a friendly hug.*
THE DARK ANDRE: :smashit
*Rush and Kiz glance over the Andre*
Rush & Kiz:
THE DARK ANDRE:
*THE DARK ANDRE backs out of the potentially sticky situation by once again transforming into THE INVISIBLE ANDRE and vanishes away.*
Seabs vs Mr. Lawls Should athletes found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs be allowed to compete again?
*So Perfect Poster didn't end up submitting a debate and was forced to vacate the title sadly. To ensure Lawls had a debate to go up against I whipped up a quick debate in a couple of hours so we didn't have another long wait for the results just waiting for one debate to be submitted and judged like we've had before. It's no longer a title match either. Mr. Lawls will retain his #1 Contenders spot win or lose and face another #1 Contender to be decided between JM and Aid180 on the next show for the vacated title.
Spoiler for Debates:
Seabs Should athletes found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs be allowed to compete again?
Lifetime bans are a great headline for media outlets and who doesn't love a great headline. "Usain Bolt banned for life after positive drugs test" is a much bigger news story than "Usain Bolt suspended for 6 months but will be back in time for the Olympics". Sadly though a world centred around creating epic headlines and a world centred around fairness don't correlate. Yes it would be a great message to send out to anyone considering taking performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) to act as a deterrent but cases of athletes being found guilty of taking drugs aren't always as black and white and because of the lack of clarity around how positive drugs tests come around it's just not possible to start handing out lifetime bans willy nilly off the back of just one failed test.
Let's take a look at examples of sportspeople who have failed drugs tests in shady circumstances that leave a big grey cloud of doubt over the outcome of the test.
Zach Lund - US Olympic skeleton racer who was banned for testing positive for Finasteride, a drug that Lund said was used to combat baldness. This is a drug that Lund said he'd been using for seven years prior to his suspension, wasn't even on the banned substance list until 11 months prior and well after he started using the drug and Lund had always declared his use of the drug on any medical forms. It's clear to see there was no negligence or motive to gain an unfair advantage over his competition as was backed up by the Court of Arbitration when they reduced his suspension. So Zach Lund was found guilty. After reading a brief overview of his story does anyone believe this athlete should be banned from ever competing again? Unless you're totally delusional then of course you don't. That's because the motives behind a failed drugs test are never black and white and it's impossible to say that anyone found guilty is lacking of any morals and should be banned from competition forever.
Martina Hingis - Now before you go off and Google image search sexy pictures of her just stick around and hear this one out. In 2007 she gets a two year suspension for testing positive for cocaine. Again though the situation isn't as black and white as a positive test would suggest. Failed test means the book should be thrown at her right?. What if I told you that if she'd been tested by the US military that her test would have come back negative? Probably a bit hasty with that book throwing weren't you? Clearly the cloud of doubt is far beyond just a shade of grey in this case yet the ITF still handed her the maximum suspension. Now imagine if that maximum suspension had been a lifetime ban. For a failed test that is so hard to determine beyond any reasonable doubt that the miniscule trace of cocaine in the urine sample was even there intentionally? Of course that wouldn't be fair.
Jessica Hardy - She's not that hot so no need to go to the image search on this one fellas. Hardy tests positive for a banned substance after accidental ingestion from a nutritional supplement made by one of her sponsors, AdvoCare. Like I said, just testing positive for a banned substance doesn't always equate to a conspiracy to cheat. Is it worth the risk of ruining the career of an athlete such as Hardy who made an innocent mistake where the percentage of the blame on her is minimal? Of course not because a lifetime ban has serious consequences. You're taking someone's career away from them and to do that you have to be 100% sure beyond any reasonable doubt that such an action is justifiable. Yes Hardy tested positive but can you seriously tell me that there's no reasonable doubt that she acted with intentions to cheat?
Now I'm not saying that lifetime bans should be strictly taboo. If there's damning evidence and no reasonable doubt and you have a case like Lance Armstrong where the lengths taken to cover up the cheating go beyond the norm then beyond the norm consequences are warranted. But the question doesn't ask if athletes in that context should be banned from ever competing again. It asks if any and every athlete found guilty should be and as the cases highlighted above show, a failed test doesn't always equate to a conspiracy to cheat and it's in no way fair that one mistake should be met with the harshest punishment an athlete can be handed within the sport.
Obviously not all sports play by the same rules or even on a level playing field but I think it'd be fair to say that if Athletics were the only ones handing out lifetime bans for a single failed test it'd be unfair on the athletes as other sports don't play by that rule. Football, Cricket, NFL, NBA & MLB all don't hand out lifetime bans after one failed test. Shit, even WWE doesn't. So why should Athletics become the exception to the trend? Is an athlete using PEDs worse than any other sportsperson? Of course it isn't.
Athletes make mistakes for many reasons. The pressure of competition, peer pressure from bad apples, personal issues. All sorts of reasons. Yes athletes found guilty should be punished because otherwise everyone would cheat but to hand out a punishment so harsh that it takes away their career is in no way a fair punishment to reflect the consequences of one mistake and like I've highlighted here, a positive test for a banned substance doesn't always equate to the worst intentions or even prove beyond all reasonable doubt that guilt is even there. Due to this level of doubt and the strictness of the punishment for just one mistake, the punishment in no way fits the crimes that can fall under the context that the question poses.
Should athletes found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs be allowed to compete again?
Let’s look at the question in a different light first of all. The question states whether athletes found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs be allowed to compete again. I think that if athletes are knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs, to improve their performance, then yes they should not be allowed to compete again. However if athletes are taking performance-enhancing drugs but are not aware that they are, I believe that they shouldn’t be banned from competing again.
What do we call athletes who are found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs? We call them cheaters, and do cheaters deserve second chances? No they don’t, and this is why athletes who are found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs should be banned from ever competing again. Why should we offer forgiveness to these athletes who have put themselves and the sport they are competing in to shame, and offer them a second chance? These athletes are also role models to thousands of children around the world and to stoop so low as to take performance-enhancing drugs is just wrong and should be banned from ever competing again.
A prime example of this is the case involving Lance Armstrong. Armstrong retired from competition during the time he was facing an investigation into doping. In June 2012, around a year and a half after announcing his retirement and continuously denying allegations against him, Armstrong was found to have used illicit performance-enhancing drugs. After USADA had completed its investigation and charging Armstrong, they then punished him by stripping all of his Tour de France titles, as well as handing him a lifetime ban from competition. The UCI accepted the findings that USADA had made and Armstrong had decided not to appeal the decision, even after all this time of denying the allegations against him. Early this year Armstrong finally admitted to doping on an interview with Oprah. I believe that the punishment given to Lance Armstrong should be given to every athlete who takes performance-enhancing drugs, thus giving them an unfair advantage against the rest of the competition. They should be stripped of any titles or awards that they have won over their career and also banned from ever competing in the sport they were competing in.
Denise Lewis a former British athlete has come out and stated that there is no place in sport for you, if you have been cheating.
"For those that have genuinely made a mistake then there might have to be some leniency but, for me personally, when you a cheating your number should be up," she said. "There is no place in our sport for you."
This was said after a trio of Jamaican athletes had all tested positive for banned substances. These people are drug cheats and should be cut out of the sport straight away, as they are willingly taking these performance-enhancing drugs, which will tarnish the sport, and the sport is better off without athletes like this.
Recently there has been an example where performance-enhancing drugs have been used, but the athletes it was used on were not aware that this was the case. This happened in the Australian Football League regarding the Essendon Football Club. The club was included in the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) report on ‘Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport’. The club conducted its own internal investigation into the allegations that they were using peptides on their football players. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) then got involved creating their own investigation and then the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) joined them creating a joint investigation. The club was eventually found guilty of creating a supplements program that was experimental, inappropriate and inadequately vetted and controlled. All penalties were imposed on the club, including a fine and premiership points being taken away from them. Obviously the players of the club were not imposed with penalties due to the fact they had no idea that they were being injected with these substances. I believe if this is to happen to any sort of athlete, where they are completely unaware, they should be let off the hook and able to continue competing in the sport that they are a part of.
Some may say to implement a strike policy to give athletes a second chance if found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs. I don’t believe this would be a good policy to put in place. Once someone has taken a banned substance, what’s stopping them from taking it again once they see the effects that it gives them in the competition against other athletes? I any other sort of profession, if someone has been deemed to have done something wrong they are punished fairly, and even in serious cases get a criminal record and jail time. There are a whole lot of side effects that men can develop from the use of performance-enhancing drugs which can include baldness, infertility and shrunken testicles. And let’s not forget about the women who can develop a deeper voice and increased body hair.
Athletes shouldn’t be given any leniency in regards to taking banned substances. If they do they should be banished from the sport and not be able to compete or be involved, in anyway shape or form. They ruin their own reputation, bring a bad light onto the sport, and don’t prove to be positive role models to younger people. If we give them second chances, the odds are they will just do it again. Once you’re a cheater, you’re always a cheater, there is no going back.
Seabs – The problem I have with this debate is that I don’t believe it continually applies itself to the question. The overall theme is to stress that a failed test in of itself cannot indicate a motivation to cheat: therefore a mandatory lifetime ban in such circumstances would be grossly unfair. That’s a fair argument in its literal sense, however bar Jessica Hardy I feel the examples used to aid this argument are inappropriate. Hingis’ ban for cocaine immediately springs to mind. Cocaine has been concluded by scientists to not constitute as a PED, therefore any ban for a failed test rests on prohibiting illegal drug use rather than a lifetime ban. Whilst the argument that Hingis’ test would have shown up different due to the low traces (therefore arguing a failed test can deviate depending on the tester) has merit in supporting the overall argument, it doesn’t apply to this question which concerns itself with performance-enhancing drugs where the motivation is to earn an unfair advantage. Hingis would never have been in danger of incurring a lifetime ban as a result of failing the test & furthermore no-one would have concluded she intended to benefit through improved performance (the British anti-doping agency even issued a call prior to London 2012 to impose more flexible punishments for athletes shown to have taken recreational drugs). The same can be said for Zach Lund whereby he was clearly honest and open about taking the drug for medical purposes, something even acknowledged in having his ban reduced as it was accepted he in no way attempted to deceive or gain an advantage in using the drug. Again, whilst the substance at the time was banned, the context isn’t applicable to arguing if someone using PEDs should be banned for life. It is a good argument that alternative punishments should be devised for people like Lund who were merely victims of circumstance with the drug unknowingly being banned after he had already started using the drug, but it doesn’t concern itself with an athlete using PEDs where an intention to deceive and profit can be inferred.
Therefore the Jessica Hardy example has more merit as the substance she took was banned and judged as a PED, however in her case it was established she was unknowingly administered the substance and therefore a motive to illegally aid performance was not apparent. This is more factually relevant in aiding the writer’s argument that a clear motive to profit from PED use must be evident before a lifetime ban can be considered, although it is clear that through a proper investigation Hardy was able to substantiate her claim and thus avoid any possible career ending ban, which in a way weakens the writer’s argument as the investigation distinguished her case from that of someone where the motivation to benefit was identifiable.
The debate also suffers from the fact that when the writer considers Lance Armstrong, a clear cut case of an athlete knowingly using PEDs to deceive officials and improve his performance and the lengths he took to hide this deceit, he concludes the punishment was justifiable. The writer is therefore acknowledging that when an athlete can reasonably be proven to have knowingly used PEDs, a lifetime punishment is appropriate. This becomes a problem when we see he is arguing against lifetime bans based on using case studies which considerably differ from that of Lance Armstrong. Hingis’ substance was recreational and not considered a PED, whilst Lund & Hardy were able to clearly demonstrate a lack of intention to benefit from the illegal substance. Therefore, the writer is arguing against imposing lifetime bans using examples where a lifetime ban would not be considered as a punishment, whilst then supporting the punishment in the most clear cut example which relates to the question: an athlete being found to have knowingly used a PED to improve their performance. This renders the debate largely muddled and almost struggling to identify itself. There seems to be a broader consideration of general drug use as opposed to instances of showing signs of using a PED. The Hardy example is certainly more appropriate in that regard since it considers how a failed test of a PED substance alone should not warrant a lifetime ban, however even this example is somewhat undermined as an investigation administered the right decision in accepting Hardy did not knowingly intend to benefit from the substance and thus did not deserve the most severe punishment.
The biggest problem I have is I find the writer is concerning himself with general drug use and failed tests which ultimately fail to be applicable to the question. The Lund & Hingis examples are cited as justifying a decision to not impose lifetime bans for failed drug use: crucially however neither case featured a PED and in the case of Lund a clear upfront manner would have ensured he never faced a possible lifetime ban. Therefore whilst I can understand the intention on the writer’s part to stress that a positive drug test must be supported by clear evidence of an intention to cheat/profit on the athletes’ part, the examples used to aid their argument are largely ineffective and not relevant. The writer actually supports this form of punishment in the case of Lance Armstrong, but uses case studies which are wholly distinguishable from Armstrong as a means to argue against the punishment. That ultimately is where it fails for me.
Mr. Lawls – This is by no means a perfect debate (a bit too descriptive in parts and perhaps more care and attention in using more direct and profound language to argue your point more forcefully in future), however it is the winning effort in my opinion. Like the first debate, it makes a point to distinguish between an athlete who knowingly uses PEDs to gain an advantage and an athlete who unknowingly takes such substances but does not possess the intention to illegally benefit. The writer makes a good summary of why cheaters should face the most severe punishment, taking into consideration the integrity of the sport, how the punishment serves as the most clear deterrent to this form of drug use and acknowledging the impact and morals these athletes possess to impressionable youngsters. I also found this debate faired better when considering athletes who may fail drug tests without knowledge that they have illegal substances in their system. The first debate fell apart for me because the writer spent the brunt of his debate arguing against lifetime bans by focusing on athletes who would almost certainly never incur such punishment for their failed drug tests. Here however, the writer makes a point to distinguish cheaters with cases of plausible deniability and achieves a better balance as a result as a strong dismissal of cheaters is found whilst having sufficient time to explore a situation where an athlete is unknowingly administered an illegal substance. He thereby argues where an intention to illegally benefit from improved performance through PED abuse cannot be ascertained, a lifetime ban is a wholly inappropriate punishment which should only be reserved for individuals who can conclusively be seen to have attempted to deceive the sport for their own personal gain. This debate appropriately distinguishes intended/unintended PED use and the repercussions of administering a lifetime ban to someone who exhibits a lack of intent to damage the integrity of the sport.
Winner - Mr. Lawls
THE DARK ANDRE Seabs
Zingy little opener here that firmly imposed the debater’s stance upon the subject. The idea that it would be impossible to send out a booming message that drug cheats will be automatically shafted (like Sakho on Henderson after a victory at Goodison Park) because of large grey areas in drug testing automatically defined the major flaw within the topic’s concept on the ‘arguing for’ side. The use of “black and white” and “lack of clarity” also effectively summed up what would follow in the rest of the debate in terms of examples and arguments. Great job.
Using three examples of athletes who had borderline type failed tests (especially in Lund’s case) immediately reminded me of the case of Paddy ‘Benylin Bill’ Kenny who was banned from English football for roughly a year due to what he claimed was testing positive for an ingredient found in a cough syrup medicine that he used for a cold, which is a claim that would be hard to prove either way. You followed up with this exact concept by declaring that “a failed drugs test are never black and white”. Now while I disagree with the use of NEVER, it’s certainly true that the motivation behind substance abuse or misuse in many cases is extremely hard to pin point. Just be careful with how you define these situations, but other than that minor discrepancy you made a relevant point, the use of that one word didn’t grossly alter the context of your statement, unlike one of the sentences in Debater B’s debate. I also enjoyed the humour with pervs being pervs on google images, someone must have told you I was judging this debate…
I appreciated the declaration that damning evidence should be used to ban certain numptys such as Lance Arsehole, then you explained how the question’s context doesn’t mean that his behaviour should put a dent in your argument. Lovely jubbly question deconstruction right there. However, you lost me with the separation of athletes in athletics and athletes in other sports since the question doesn’t actually ask about banning’s in a specific sport since ‘athletes’ isn’t a term that’s exclusive to athletics. Maybe the question was worded badly (bit of an own goal if this is Seabs )? You might have had a point in there somewhere but in that case it obviously wasn’t elaborated on very well. If you meant to say that it’s unlikely that all sporting industries would be in agreement to this ruling and that it would be unfair to do this to just one sporting industry then that’s fine, but in that case you worded your argument so poorly that I couldn’t comprehend your point with genuine clarity, so I can’t really give you any positive points for that. Never mind, that’s just one big issue so far in a very tidy debate.
The final paragraph was an excellent summary of your debate that incorporated beautifully constructed and articulate sentences. This was an excellent debate that only suffered from one obvious flaw in terms of brief vagueness. The strength of this piece was the fact that you took the biggest glaring issue within drug testing and went to town on it like Mozza’s ma does on me after I’ve saved up on Liverpool Echo coupons. I would like to give you more praise but I wasn’t cuddled enough as a child, so “well done” and a pat on the back (I washed my hands after leaving Mozza’s Ma’s gaff) will have to suffice.
Interesting take on the topic at the start here. The deconstruction of the word guilty was well worked like a William Regal rest hold, the idea that “knowingly” is the key word that separates guilty and not guilty in drug tests rather than the black and white idea of “positive is guilty”. Yep, in those terms definitively guilty athletes should probably be banned. I can roll with this.
The bit about “cheaters” was rather cheesy and sounded so much like a primary school English essay that Wagg started knocking on my door while I was judging this. Okay I got your point but try to be a little bit less clichéd and formulaic in future, great writing can be the difference between two very similar debates. The point about setting an example to children (hello again Wagg) was well made though and supported the desire to instantly ban those who are clearly guilty (in your definition) of taking performance enhancing drugs. The example of Lance Armstrong was also completely on point and again strongly supported your definition of the question, there was conclusive evidence available that damned him to infinite shame and incredulity so in your terms this made complete sense. The quote from Denise Lewis, a credible figure head within sports, also solidly reaffirmed and supported your stance.
Then your debate started to fall apart, much like Robert Green’s goalkeeping career after that infamous night in Rustenberg. When discussing the ‘Essendon Football Club’ you said “I believe if this is to happen to any sort of athlete, where they are completely unaware, they should be let off the hook and able to continue competing in the sport that they are a part of.” Well, how can we always prove that these athletes are genuinely unaware in these situations? What happens if someone is banned when “proven guilty” after making a genuinely innocent mistake or after being fed supplements that they trustingly believe are legal, especially if they can’t be saved via external investigations? Debater A covered this ground extensively and produced a firm but saveable shot which you somehow fumbled into the back of the net. It would be ridiculous to instantly ban genuinely innocent athletes for accidents that can’t be proven as accidents. Debater B really burst far ahead of you at this point in the race towards victory.
You kind of answered your own question when asking “what’s stopping them from taking it again once they see the effects that it gives them in the competition against other athletes?”. Erm, maybe the fear of being caught the next time, much like they would be in fear in a situation where they would be instantly banned through first time offences, you know, the thing that you’re arguing for? It’s not as if these athletes don’t know how much of an advantage these illegal supplements offer without having taken them, anyway. Effectively you argued that instant banning’s wouldn’t have ANY effect on ANY drug cheats, many of whom get away with it throughout their entire careers, so that definitely damaged your take on this topic. You could have argued against a second chance system with more care, possibly by stating that it gives many legitimately guilty athletes a bit of breathing room in terms of giving into temptation (the first time) whereas an instant ban for legitimately guilty athletes could theoretically strike the fear of hell into them. You took the wrong turn there by just momentarily taking your eye off the victory road (yeah, fuck Headliner for deleting the Meth smiley, ruined my joke), that is something that should encourage you to proof read with more care in future. The bit about side effects was an irrelevant load of bollocks, a wrinkled, shrivelled up pair of bollocks at that. If you had a point with this part then you definitely forgot to include it.
The conclusion of your mass debate certainly left you with shrunken danglers in any case, a meek and contradictory statement of “Athletes shouldn’t be given any leniency in regards to taking banned substances” undid a lot of your good work earlier on where you defined the question by suggesting that some athletes SHOULD be given some leniency. Maybe this wasn’t your intention and this was just worded badly, maybe you just slipped up, who knows? Adding the words “Clearly guilty” (again, by your own definition) at the start of that statement would have done you the world of good. Little details, etc. The rest of that paragraph was solid yet became damaged by that slip up which changed the context of your argument at the end.
Seabs wins due to the deployment of a consistent level of quality which despite being fairly narrow in outlook was strong enough to exploit the flaws in Mr. Lawls' debate. Mr. Lawls' wasn’t bad, in fact it started off magnificently, but the second half seemed really rushed and sloppy. If Debate B was produced by a certain admin (I don’t know which is which for certain) then fair play to both debaters due to the extenuating circumstances that arose when Perfect Poster regrettably couldn’t find the time for this. If Debate B was produced by a particular Crystal Palace sympathiser then I hope you take the advice that has been offered because it’s likely that you will need to improve in order to defeat a solid challenger in your future title contest.
Congratulations to Seabs.
Seabs - I liked your separation of what's good in media vs. what is fair and right in sport, defining it as not being black and white is also a good point that linked well with the rest of your debate.
Loved the first and third examples, especially the first as he was open and even declared he used it, the second example was a bit of a miss for me as cocaine isn't really a performance enhancing drug and more of a recreational one. That is unless in the years I played tennis I was missing something
I probably would have ditched the Hingis paragraph and instead used the opportunity to use an example of someone who has had repeated suspensions in the past and perhaps provide an example of what would be required for a lifetime ban and then link that to your Armstrong paragraph. This whole debate screams A-Rod in MLB but that's just me.
I like the affirmation of the distinction between athletes knowing and doing it intentionally or athletes who are simply taken what they are told to take. Definitely made me look at the topic in a different light.
Mr. Lawls - Feedback: I liked how strongly sided you were on the argument, I was really excited when you talked about athletes maybe not knowing what they're taking because I thought you were going to take the debate against the people surrounding the athletes who either give them the PED's or pressure/persuade them to do so. I think going in that direction would have really set this debate apart.
As good as your section was on Essendon, I thought it almost undermined the rest of your arguments that the athletes are the cheaters and are disgracing the sport when it's really the trainers, the medical staff and organisations that are playing a part in this. Who is to say that other athletes that have been caught in the past weren't told to take something or pressured by staff etc.? You could have distinguished the difference a little more because otherwise you are banning players for life for something they aren't entirely responsible for.
Armstrong should have been a more integral part of your debate imo, making a clear distinction that because of people like him, there should be a more permanent ban put in place as it's the only way to truly punish those who show no regard for the sport or true competition.
Decision : Taking both sides of the argument into consideration, I have to give this by a razors edge to Seabs as he defined his topic in that grey area and affirmed it strongly. Mr. Lawls defined his debate in a very black and white way but used Essendon as an example which put is in all essences the opposite of black and white. I just feel like that contradiction was what cost them the win.
Winner via Split Decision - Seabs
*Lawls rages off shouting screwjob conspiracies at anyone who will listen aka nobody.* Seabs:
TDL Wrestling Division #1 Contenders Match
The Lady Killer vs obby The Sin Cara Project: Does it still have the potential to be a success?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Lady Killer
Rocky Maivia. The Ringmaster. Isaac Yankem, DDS. What do these three names have in common? They are the failed former gimmicks of three individuals who, after being repackaged, went on to become some of the most successful characters in the history of the business. Indeed, professional wrestling is a microcosm of evolution – if at first you don’t succeed, try and try again. It is for this very reason that Sin Cara still has the potential to succeed in WWE.
For the sake of simplicity – as success isn’t necessarily the gauge to determine my stance on this topic, but rather a parameter – let’s define “success” as putting asses in seats, having a lengthy career and winning a few titles. Generally speaking, your average WWE superstar would be ecstatic with these accolades. The true measuring stick here is potential. Allow me to elaborate.
It is no secret that Sin Cara is one of Triple H’s pet projects. Whereas former WWE superstars have received the axe for lesser offences (read: any jobber released within the last decade), Triple H has remained supportive of Sin Cara despite the botches, injuries and even a wellness violation. Who is another superstar guilty of suffering numerous injuries as well as two wellness violations? Oh, that’s right, the reigning WWE Champion, Randy Orton (also a Triple H buddy). Other Triple H pet projects? Multi-time world champion Sheamus and current Mr. Money in the Bank Damien Sandow. When you have Hunter’s support, there will always be potential for you to succeed.
Sin Cara was Mexico’s top star at the time of signing a WWE contract. The CMLL sensation was the company’s biggest draw, and WWE hoped to replicate the success of other Mexican imports, such as Alberto Del Rio. Despite being in some hot water backstage after the Wellness Violation, WWE officials were reluctant to pull the plug on Sin Cara due to his immediate popularity upon signing. “With Rey Mysterio on the mend, the WWE needs Sin Cara to carry the load that Mysterio did, and the merchandise sales are just too high to kill the character all together.” Kids love masks. Sin Cara wears a mask. Parents buy masks for kids. Vince is happy. When Vince is happy, there will always be potential for you to succeed.
That brings me to my next point: Rey Mysterio’s inevitable impending retirement. Mysterio’s body has already begun to betray him. At 36, he has been wrestling for close to 20 years, and his high-octane in-ring style has taken its toll on his knees. Enter: Sin Cara. Mysterio himself relished the signing of Mexico’s biggest prospect, Mistico, as it signified a continuing trend of talented Mexican workers making it to the big leagues. It comes as no surprise that WWE caters to a wide variety of international markets. The Latino/Hispanic market is one of WWE’s primary focal points, and has been ever since Mysterio emerged as an international sensation. As you can see here, Raw is the most watched entertainment program on cable among Hispanic men, and the USA network’s most watched program among Hispanic viewers. Same can be said for the Syfy network and Smackdown. The potential to further tap into the Hispanic market is huge, and with Mysterio winding down and Alberto Del Rio better suited as a villain, Sin Cara has a green light to carry the torch. When a vast majorty of viewers are of a similar heritage as you, there will always be potential for you to succeed.
Now it’s time to come full circle. I began this debate by addressing the failed gimmicks of WWE legends. Rocky Maivia was hated. The Rock is beloved worldwide. The Ringmaster was a bland mat technician. Stone Cold Steve Austin is a renowned badass. Isaac Yankem, D.D.S. was a demented dentist. Kane is regarded as one of the best big men of all time. All it takes is a bit of repackaging to obtain the right fit for talent and character, akin to finding a missing puzzle piece. Sin Cara could be repackaged simply with a name change. The mask is a hot-selling merchandise item, as aforementioned, so I don’t believe it’s wise for WWE to advise Sin Cara to follow Del Rio’s footsteps and abandon luchador heritage. Much like Mysterio, Sin Cara’s flashy in-ring style is enough to get him over with a majority of the audience, but a slight tweak in character – whether it be a change of attire, a change in name, or adding a mouthpiece – is synonymous with granting a grappler a “clean slate.” Second, third and fourth chances are given all the time. Therefore, the potential will always be there. Can he remain healthy long enough to realize his potential? That’s a topic for another debate.
From day one, the “Sin Cara Project”, an attempt to get celebrated Mexican superstar Mistico over in America, has been an almost universal failure. He’s been ridiculed by wrestling fans worldwide ever since his debut over two years ago, and for good reason. Whether it’s his refusal to learn the English language, his inability to work the WWE style, his constant injuries, or his persistent botching, not much has changed throughout his WWE tenure. It’s evident that any hope the WWE ever had that Sin Cara would be the next Rey Mysterio is gone, what with him being dropped down the card at a constant rate and his utilization as an enhancement talent after his tag team with Mysterio reached its end. Could the WWE turn things around and make Sin Cara a big hit with the fans? Possibly. Should they? No. It’s obvious that attempting to mend the damage that’s been done would prove to be a complete waste of time. The company’s best course at this point in time would be to cut their losses and send Sin Cara back to Mexico.
When Sin Cara made his WWE debut on April 4, 2011, the hype surrounding him was unreal. Here’s someone who had been hailed as nothing short of a hero in his home country. He’d been the main ‘tecnico’ (babyface luchador) of CMLL for years, and was even popular enough to have his own comic book. In 2009, Wrestling Observer Newsletter named him the “Best Box Office Draw of the Decade”. When he was signed, the story was on the front page of WWE.com. Within weeks of his pro wrestling debut, he was tagging with John Cena and taking part in a nearly four month winning streak. It was obvious that the higher ups saw big things happening for the so called “International Sensation”. Unfortunately for them, he didn’t prove to be as sensational as first anticipated.
The first mistake the WWE made when they brought Mistico in was rushing him straight to the main roster. His in ring work upon debuting was awkward, and rough around the edges. His inability to flow with the majority of the roster in the ring has led to four injuries in two years, a ridiculous amount of time off that would be sure to kill the momentum of a still unproven talent like himself.
If the WWE were to make an attempt to push Mistico, the fact of the matter is that no matter how much momentum they managed to get going for him, the man under the mask would still be the same. His injuries would still be constant, he still wouldn’t know English, and, more likely than not, he would still botch at a constant rate.
While age 30 is by no means “old” by wrestling standards, it still has to be considered than Sin Cara isn’t getting any younger. If an attempt were made to salvage his WWE career, he still wouldn’t have much left in the tank compared to one Samuray Del Sol, another luchador recently signed by the WWE. Not only is Del Sol four years younger than Mistico at age 26, but he’s also bilingual, as well as more competent than Cara in a general sense. If the WWE are truly looking for a replacement for Rey Mysterio, Del Sol is their man.
The Spanish translation of Sin Cara is “without face”, and this indeed proves true for his character. Sin Cara never speaks, conveying his emotions almost exclusively through basic hand gestures. Unless the WWE sees big money in promos that consist entirely of pointing, it’s rather obvious they won’t (and shouldn’t) grant Sin Cara any big time feuds, even if his status were to be restored to a half decent level. A character that doesn’t speak can’t cut a proper promo, and a character that can’t cut a proper promo can’t get involved in a proper feud. There has never been a mute WWE champion, and for good reason.. Being one without a voice is just another contribution to the long list of reasons his time in the WWE has backfired on him.
Sin Cara isn’t necessarily a bad performer. In his years at the WWE, the good matches he’s participated in seem to suggest that there is a little light left at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, the long list of reasons for the ‘Sin Cara Project’ to be cancelled greatly outweigh the few excuses to keep trying. What’s done is done, and nothing can change that. It isn’t too late for Mistico to go back to being a superhero in Mexico, and for the WWE to try their luck once more. Perhaps one day they’ll find a true successor to the legacy that Rey Mysterio has left behind.
The Lady Killer – A truly excellent debate. Absolutely loved the meticulous analysis of ‘potential’ and how it was prevalent in each paragraph as a means to convey the multiple parameters on which Sin Cara still possessed ‘potential’. Each paragraph was intricately written and captured the reader’s attention and flowed superbly to consistently leave the reader enamoured and unable to argue against what was being written. Thought the Vince & Mysterio examples were the two standouts given the broader consideration of financial success and international marketability respectively. HHH being a known advocate of Sin Cara was a strong point to allude to how that faith could translate to Sin Cara forever having a modicum of potential based on HHH’s commitment to signing him to the company. The debate really captured the nature of the question, eloquently broke down the metric of potential with supporting examples to strengthen their argument and apply it back to Sin Cara. The conclusion was strong, but the real weight here can be seen by the structure, flow, persuasive writing style being dominant, concise but critically astute arguments with supporting evidence to support the POV. A tremendous effort.
obby – Opening here is critical and a sense of passion can be immediately detected. The writer is establishing a strong POV right from the offset which is always enjoyable to witness. I understand where the writer is coming from in the next couple of paragraphs, though I do think he missed a trick by arguing Sin Cara was incapable of improvement when that cannot be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt. I do see the validity in arguing his inability to improve so far paints an ominous picture of the success he could realistically achieve, however I find the writer to be arguing almost in absolutes rather than considering the broader picture. The Samuray Del Sol comparison was intriguing; although I’m not sure it was best contained to such a short overview. Given the topic is asking us to evaluate whether Sin Cara is a viable long term project, using Del Sol as a greater alternative feels like something that should either have been left aside to focus on Sin Cara’s faults, or expanded upon and utilised as the centre of the debate by demonstrating what makes Del Sol a greater long-term investment. As it is, the writer establishes Del Sol as a greater prospect but struggles to sufficiently outline why WWE would be wise to invest heavily in him, which ultimately weakens the argument Sin Cara doesn’t have the potential. The same can be said to a degree with the WWE title argument. Again I understand the basic origin of the writer’s point that the current incarnation of Sin Cara’s character is unsuitable for a WWE title run, however the question doesn’t specify that the metric of success is related to winning the main title. ‘Success’ is a broad term and can be realistically achieved in a number of instances, so again whilst I understand where the writer was coming from, I do feel in the context of the question it doesn’t sufficiently render Sin Cara unable to achieve success; but rather just limits the potential to which he could succeed.
The Lady Killer wins. The breakdown of the question and continually relating each argument to reflect how there existed ‘potential’ to succeed was a shrewd layout which continually answered the question and posed reasonable defences to suggest Sin Cara as a project still had potential. obby by comparison introduced promising arguments, but didn’t expand on them in a sufficient manner in addition to a couple of the arguments in their format struggling to directly relate to the question.
Winner – The Lady Killer
The Lady Killer
Good showing here. I think you could have did without the "If Vince is happy there's always a chance for success" and the "if you're Triple H's project you always have a shot" deals. But the strength of your debate was showing how some of the biggest names in history had failed gimmicks. That was huge. Good stuff.
This was a good debate for your argument. You did a good job showing the failures in the Sin Cara character that both WWE and Sin Cara were at fault for.
Ultimately The Lady Killer's ability to show big stars who had failed gimmicks and still became a success overshadowed obby's debate.
Winner - The Lady Killer
The Lady Killer - Great debate. Breaks the topic down brilliantly by focusing on the potential for it to work and the reasons why the potential exists. Austin/Rock/Kane examples I thought were the highlight of this. Weak on addressing counter arguments though I thought. I thought there was a pretty easy counter for being able to change a character around with someone who can't speak English so can't cut promos and will really struggle to develop any type of character past the bare basics. Other than that it's hard to argue against any of your other points regarding the potential at least being there even if it might not come to fruition.
obby - I think you had a different topic in your head. Something like "Should WWE carry on with The Sin Cara Project?" rather than what the actual topic was. "Could the WWE turn things around and make Sin Cara a big hit with the fans? Possibly. Should they? No." That was where your entire debate basically became a default loss sadly. And I mean sadly because if the topic was what I think you thought it was then it would have been a really good debate that could have challenged for the win. But alas you didn't and the hard work was for maybe not nothing but very little. That sucks. Let's assume the question was the question you answered though for a bit for feedback purposes. Your argument for dropping the project is pretty convincing and raises plenty of valid points. Bringing in Del Sol to your debate as someone who could fill the role better was a strong touch and the lack of character than can be portrayed in a WWE environment by Sin Cara is what I was talking about in TLK's feedback that I thought he should have addressed as it was an obvious counter argument to raise as you proved. Oh well. I guess if in the unlikely event that you get this topic as one of your future debates then you're in luck.
Winner - The Lady Killer
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Lady Killer
TDL Wrestling Division Title Match
WOOLCOCK VS STEVIE SWAG Do wins and losses matter to Brock Lesnar's character in his recent return?
Spoiler for Debates:
Unless you're not an internet nerd who calculates every minute of TV time, tracks down every pop in decibels and counts every t-shirt sold in every little town, wins and losses are the two things you generally use to measure a wrestler's success. Do wins and losses matter in pro-wrestling? Although there's much more to wrestling than just winning or losing matches, yes, they do. But the question here isn't about the affect of wins and losses on pro-wrestlers in general, its about Brock Lesnar. So do wins and losses matter to Lesnar? Just like with other wrestlers in general, they do.
A dominant heel is always built at the expense of a strong babyface. And every win the heel gets is just a pretense to his eventual loss to the babyface. That's how the story usually works with the heels. But the thing with Lesnar is, even after that eventual loss, the guy can come out without a scar on his body. A year and a half ago, Brock came back to the WWE after 7 years. And surprisingly, he lost his return match against Cena. On paper, it looks like a terribly booked match which spoiled Brock's return. But if you actually watched the match, you'd think otherwise. Although he lost the match, the way he brutalized Cena, he had already won the war. Leaving the PPV covered in Cena's blood, Lesnar showed up on Raw the very next night and decimated Hunter. And guess what? Brock looked just as strong as he did the moment he returned, despite losing his huge return match just the night before. And going into his match at Summerslam that year, he stood just as much or even more of a chance than Hunter (kayfabe-wise) despite the fact that Cena proved that Brock can be beaten. That's what's great about him. He can lose a match and still not come out the weaker man. Because at the end of the day, he is here to hurt people, and that's exactly what he does - which brings me to his current character, that is in question.
Character-wise, the Lesnar that we have today is much more different from the one we had in his first run. The man who came in as 'The Next Big Thing', today is, the big thing. The things Edge said in his promo with Cena weeks before ER 2012 sums up today's Lesnar perfectly. Brock's in this not for the wrestling. He's in for the money. And as Heyman repeats it like a parrot, Brock's in this just because he loves to hurt people. And that's the best part about his character. Why? If Brock wins, well, he did what he said he would do, and that's hurt his opponent. And if he loses, he still did what he said he would do, and that's hurt his opponent. Just like that, they can make it seem that he isn't affected by his losses. Besides, because of a limited schedule, Brock just has to go away regardless of a win or a loss, so when he comes back after a gap of few months, its almost like starting fresh. So if he comes back after a loss, he can just kill someone trying to do their job, throw around some furniture at a talk show host or tear a rock band apart and get right back on track - sounds funny but all of this has actually happened, and it has worked.
Brock has that aura about him, that every segment and match of his has a special feel to it. And the guy who gets into a feud with Lesnar can get benefited big time. If the guy beats Lesnar, he might very well cement his place in the main-event. And if the guy loses, he would grow further as a character. So either way, its a win. But just because you can have Lesnar lose and get away with it, doesn't mean you should have him lose often. Why? I've got two words for ya - Chris Jericho.
Jericho's a 6x WHC, but a win over him today doesn't mean as much as it would've back in the day. With Jericho giving a rub to so many wrestlers, winning over Jericho doesn't even seem like a rub anymore. Yes, using part-timers to create new stars is the way to go, but there's a limit to it. Although its the merchandise sales and connection with the crowd that gives wrestlers the top spot, one's got to win to after getting to that spot. Because kayfabe-wise, the only explanation behind a wrestler being on the top is because he's good at it, because he wins. That's where winning's important to a wrestler's character. Again, Jericho's a perfect example. When Jericho contract ended this past month, he just worked his last match on Smackdown and left and people didn't care about it. And rightfully so, because he did nothing with his own character, and more importantly, he didn't win matches. He came in, repeatedly put a bunch of mid-carders over and left. If losses can affect someone like Jericho, who's basically done it all before, then it can affect anyone else as well. And the thing about Lesnar's character that helps him cover up for his losses, it wouldn't work in every situation as Brock certainly won't be able to pull off the 'You won the match, but I won the war' thingy when he's working a more normal match against someone like Rocky or 'Taker, because you can't expect them to take bumps like Cena and Punk. And the aura about his character that I was talking about, losing often would certainly take a toll on it.
So, do wins and losses matter to Lesnar? Although his character is such that he can get away with a loss here and there, it would definitely affect him in the long run, just like it would affect any other wrestler.
It is important here to note the question is not asking us to consider whether wins and losses are most integral to Brock Lesnar’s current character, moreover it is merely asking us to ascertain if they have any semblance of significance to Lesnar achieving success in his current role. Once we consider the extent of the purpose Lesnar currently possesses to WWE, it becomes apparent the logical conclusion is that wins & losses do matter & that any assertion to the contrary is a fallacy.
Wins and losses historically are a key determinant in enhancing the credibility and name recognition of a wrestler in the eyes of the audience, by way of establishing a hierarchy and marketing the individual as superior to his peers. It is here where critics would attempt to diminish its applicability to Brock Lesnar. A naive mindset.
Detractors would argue Lesnar overwhelmingly enhanced his name recognition by establishing himself as a marquee attraction in UFC, therefore negating the primary purpose of regulating wins & losses – to establish a visceral connection with an audience through dominant booking that can be manipulated for monetary gain. If Lesnar’s image already distinguishes himself as a different entity to anyone else on the roster, then what purpose does regulating wins & losses serve? This is a terribly misguided view, because accepting Lesnar is not as dependent as young talent on wins & losses to enhance the way they perceive him merely illustrates how his case distinguishes itself from others. It DOES NOT indicate wins & losses are not directly relevant, rather it forces us to consider a broader perspective on how wins & losses are of consequence to Lesnar. An examination of Lesnar’s current purpose can most accurately identify this.
Wins & Losses matter to Lesnar’s character because they convey a spectrum of careful consideration on WWE’s behalf as to how they can achieve the expectations Lesnar is burdened with satisfying. WWE has made a concerted effort since Lesnar’s return to capitalise on his name value by distinguishing him from anyone else on the roster with his schedule minimised to curtail the frequency in his appearances and continually capture that magnetic aura when he appears in any capacity. This approach demonstrates a mindset that WWE recognises the lucrative asset they have at their disposal and furthermore an understanding that every measure must be explored to protect the marketability potential of their cash commodity.
Therefore, with such a rigorous approach evidently conceived on WWE’s behalf to strategically maximise Lesnar’s appeal, in an effort to recoup the significant expenditure afforded to Lesnar in his contract by devising multiple programs building to matches on Pay Per View with a desirable outcome of improved PPV performance through Lesnar’s involvement, to conclude that WWE would place little to no importance on the actual outcome of Lesnar’s matches seems unconscionable and highly ludicrous. When WWE is making such a concerted effort to continually maintain Lesnar’s revenue potential by devising unique schedules to bolster his image and prevent overexposure, to surmise the same meticulous process would not be evident when booking the finish of each of his matches is undeniably naive.
Arguing wins and losses pose no relevance to Lesnar would also be overlooking the context of Lesnar’s character. As an antagonist, a conscious effort is devised in each Lesnar feud to date to make any Lesnar loss a momentous occasion. That cannot be achieved if no regard is given to the outcome of Lesnar’s matches if the company operated under the belief that wins & losses were inconsequential in the grander scheme. The CM Punk feud this past summer rested heavily on establishing Lesnar as the perennial scalp Punk needed to achieve to justify his persona as ‘The Best’. The foundation of the feud would have been irrevocably compromised had Lesnar not won a return match to date, which demonstrates WWE meticulously segueing each Lesnar program at its culmination into the next and thereby carefully considering the outcome of each match.
Concluding wins and losses do not matter to Lesnar would indicate a mindset that Lesnar could consistently lose with PPV buys unaffected, however by continually diminishing the significance of someone defeating Lesnar by making it common occurrence, how can WWE realistically expect to profit long-term if they condition the audience to expect the same result? Critics might argue that someone such as The Rock losing numerous times adds credence to the belief that established stars remain untouchable once they establish that profound connection with the audience. Lesnar however cannot be compared to The Rock, primarily as Rock was a protagonist whose defeats were part of a greater story that built to his victory. Rock was also a full time wrestler, which allowed the company to have him redeem losses and retain his heat, whereas Lesnar is a specially designed part time wrestler which hinders WWE’s ability to recapture his heat and image if they employ a reckless mindset that wins & losses do not matter to Lesnar.
Therefore, it is perfectly clear that wins & losses DO matter to Brock Lesnar. Whilst his historical name value distinguishes him from a young wrestler where wins & losses directly affect the value of their name recognition, Lesnar’s matches still necessitate scrupulous attention with regard to the outcome given the vested interest WWE has in Lesnar consistently generating good business on PPV. By giving no regard to protecting Lesnar’s image and subsequently communicating to the audience that Lesnar’s long-term direction in terms of progression are scarce by having him continually lose, WWE would be hindering the potential difference Lesnar can bring to business. Diminishing the significance of Lesnar losing would not only lessen the appeal of Lesnar himself, but furthermore would significantly dilute the magnitude of someone like CM Punk defeating Lesnar. If WWE in addition to lessening Lesnar’s aura are not making conscious decisions to create a star-making moment in Lesnar losing to a younger guy, then what exact purpose does Brock Lesnar offer the company?
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
STEVIE SWAG - You really lost this one when you made a better job arguing that wins and losses DON'T matter to Brock's character even though that wasn't the side you were arguing for. It was weird. I'm not sure which side paragraphs 2 and 3 were supposed to be arguing for but to me they left me thinking that maybe they don't matter to Brock based on the example you used of the Cena defeat not really affecting him and him still being able to come out the next night and put Hunter out and Brock's schedule making it seem like he can come back fresh after every break so any wins and losses are almost forgotten. I keep going back to your intro to double check which side you stated your stance was on but you definitely said they matter yet you're arguing here as if they don't. You bring it back round at the end by trying to reclaim the argument for your stance but you spent more time basically arguing that they don't matter in Brock's case so you ended up creating a stronger argument for the side you weren't arguing for. This felt like a very on the fence debate and you needed to fully commit to either one side or the other.
WOOLCOCK - First off I didn't feel that either debate was either person's strongest work. This one I thought didn't get going until 6th paragraph which is where I thought you finally started making good points rather than solid points or just pointing stuff out without really using it to strengthen your argument to the topic at hand. It's hard to word but I wasn't thinking to myself "good point" until the 6th paragraph which is a bit late to finally impress the reader. Fortunately the final couple of paragraphs I thought were much stronger and got me thinking "good point" more than I ever did in STEVIE's debate or the first half of your debate. I wished you would have expanded more on the Punk example you used and how Brock needs to win for a loss to mean anything to the person who beats him. That was easily the strongest part of your debate imo and where you should have built your debate around. The Rock comparison I wasn't really sure what you were going with. At first I assumed his own part time run in relative comparison to Brock's similar schedule but then you mention Rock working a full time schedule and talk about Rock as a character who lost more often than not which I don't remember ever being the case. I think that point would have benefited better from throwing some examples out. Actually your whole debate could have been stronger by using some past examples of how wins and losses have mattered to back your points up and take them from good to great points. Obviously really well written but try to get carried away by making your debate read articulately at the expense of easy readability to the reader. More food for thought for the future than an actual critique of this debate.
Winner - WOOLCOCK
The Lady Killer
STEVIE SWAG - Your intro seemed long and winding, but you eventually reached your stance on the topic - wins/losses matter, even for Brock Lesnar. OK, now I'm confused. Your entire second paragraph explains why despite Lesnar losing to Cena at ER, he came out looking like a beast and returned the following night to destroy HHH. If losses mattered, as you claimed them to, why on earth would you go on to say that Lesnar is just fine even when he loses? This seems totally contradictory.
The next paragraph seems to compound this even more. Brock's current character is based upon kicking people's asses and he can disappear after a loss so that it lessens the impact. This sure doesn't sound like you believe wins/losses matter. I hope I'm not the only judge confused by this or I'll end up looking like a giant ASS.
After the Jericho reference, you seem to be circling back around to wins and losses mattering in the long run. Why wasn't this used from the get-go?
WOOLCOCK - Intro paragraph is oddly worded - you're trying to distinguish between Lesnar's current character (ass-kicker) and Lesnar's current role (kicking ass). Let's see if you're able to make this distinction.
You start out with a counterargument - a bold move. Typically, I'd like to see a bit of support before reading about potential counterarguments, because now my mind is wired to all the rebuttals. Might not matter in the end, but just throwing out some advice. Do what you will with it.
Your support turned out to be pretty great, so I guess it didn't matter in the end. You used the Punk feud superbly as an example of why Lesnar's prior win/loss record was important. Pretty great debate, tbh. Well written and convincing. One other piece of advice I'd offer is to try and condense some of your verbiage. When I have to go back and reread sentences multiple times, it makes it harder to discern your intention. Clearly you're a great writer, but sometimes I feel a lot of "fluff" can be cut to avoid convoluted phrases and enhance the overall flow. By cutting some of the fluff, you also allow yourself a few more words to toy with elsewhere. Really a minor qualm, though. Awesome debate regardless.
Winner - WOOLCOCK
STEVIE SWAG confused the fuck out of me. Unless I'm suddenly on PCP, I didn't understand how you can say wins and losses matter to Lesnar while completely showing that wins and losses doesn't effect or matter to Lesnar. And the Jericho references didn't have proper relationship with Lesnar considering their differences. It was kinda off topic. I didn't see how it added to your debate. Next time pick a topic, strongly argue for that topic and try to reference things that will only add a lot of strength to your debate.
WOOLCOCK's was marvelous. I had to clean my computer screen
You started with a counter argument and did an awesome job knocking that counter argument out of the park with the business logic because Lesnar's booking/wins and losses while also explaining why the wins and losses do matter. I thought I was reading something out of a wrestling business journal. Great job man.
(I could have provided more feedback but what else is there to say?)
Winner - WOOLCOCK
Winner via Unanimous Decision - WOOLCOCK
*As WOOLCOCK celebrates on the stage following his first successful title defence the new #1 contender and heated rival, The Lady Killer approaches him on stage.*
*WOOLCOCK's disturbing antics create enough of a distraction for Seabs to run down and clock TLK over the head from behind. The Rose Brothers stand united over TLK until they are run off by MoveMent and adrian_zombo making the save. TLK gets back up and vows vengeance on WOOLCOCK and Seabs at the next show.*
Past Seabs. Silly Seabs. Present Seabs. Sad Seabs.
Originally Posted by The Manager of MANCHESTER UNITED