This Christmas I asked Santa for one Rachel Riley.
Join Date: Jun 2007
TDL VII: STREAKS ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN - THE RESULTS
TDL VII: STREAKS ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN
GothicBohemian vs BikerTaker vs TEHCOCK vs Double L Should schools enforce school uniforms or allow students to wear their own choice of clothes?
*BikerTaker no shows*
Spoiler for Debates:
Every so often, the question of school uniforms reappears on the local agenda despite the likelihood of such becoming mandatory being dim. It simply isn’t part of the local culture outside of the private school sector but, naturally, there are always proponents who bring the topic back up for discussion.
The most common intro to these talks is what’s seen as an easy selling point to parents looking out for their children’s happiness – school uniforms remove the stigma of poverty by requiring everyone to dress alike. No name brands. No obvious hand downs from older siblings. A nice though, but it doesn’t really work that way. For starters, uniforms are rarely free. It’s more costly for a family to equip everyone with uniforms than to allow for shopping at thrifts stores, if that’s the economic reality. Younger siblings in these situations will still be stuck with used clothes; in this case, used uniforms. The style won’t have outdated, but the clothes will not be the same as new, nor will everyone be able to afford several of each uniform essential. So, besides adding to the already high cost of back-to-school season, someone now has an additional laundry load to keep that single uniform fresh.
Oh, and what are we teaching by removing one of the obvious signs of wealth versus lack? Life does not bend to accommodate one’s social standing. In the real world beyond school, economic reality and the judgments it creates exist. Society doesn't conform to spare adult feelings, why set a precedent for students that will lead to future disappointment?
Let’s just gloss over the reality that children in impoverished areas sometimes are unable to attend school at all if uniforms are required. Not every family is lucky enough to receive financial aid for this very real concern(1).
The next benefit of uniforms to usually be touted is how a standard for dress teaches children proper professionalism and discourages taking on too much individuality, which may not have a place in adult life situations. Are we training kids to plan for jobs requiring uniforms? Ok, exaggeration, since all jobs do have a uniform of sorts, the typical ‘look’ for an industry, so to speak, but not every workplace has the same profession culture. Not every future is best accommodated for by limiting self-expression, even be that via clothes. Many schoolchildren will one day go on to lives where they have to learn creativity or resourcefulness, not conformity. I say let them toss together inspired wardrobes from Goodwill finds if that suits them rather than force everyone into one mold.
Then there’s the notion that school uniforms help kids equate school with a job that requires effort. Is that so? Creating outside motivators to encourage taking education seriously is a crutch. The education system needs to be structured to inspire students and to have meaningful consequences for effort expended (or not, as the case may be). The work and cost involved in creating stimulating classrooms, setting achievable goals for all students – be they slow, average or gifted – and allowing for negative outcomes when individual benchmarks are not reached is huge, making uniforms a cheap alternative to be presented to parents to give the appearance of quality.
And how about the notion that uniforms prevent teachers picking out students based on assumptions guided by how they dress? We choose who we like, who we have high expectations for or, conversely, see little potential in, based on individual criteria. Teachers are no different. Eliminating one avenue for bias – attire – does nothing to prevent a teacher from taking a dislike to a child’s name(2), weight, gender, race, penmanship, attractiveness, family background or even love of the ‘wrong’ type of sandwich at lunch. Guess what, the same thing will happen in the workplace. Appearance, of all things, has an effect on earnings. Better looking people, on average, earn more money. Sad but true(3). Dressing schoolchildren alike won't change anything else about them. They will remain just as vulnerable to prejudce because mom and dad chose the name Bertha rather than Jessica.
Schools should allow students to wear their own choice of clothes. During childhood and especially during our teenage years psychology tells us that this is the stage of a child’s life when they take the journey of discovering who they are.  Any number of circumstances can influence the decisions children make during this time. They need to be able to express themselves. If you don’t let them express themselves, their expression will be repressed inside their inner conscience. Then they may rebel at older ages. A child determines the way they dress because they are discovering themselves and in doing so are developing themselves and who they become. Do not try to change them and make them what you want them to be. Let them grow, experience their personality and become what they want to be. Psychologists believe that over-controlling adults only cause the teenager to backlash against what they see as control from the parents and an attempt to discourage teenage expression.  I believe that attempts to control a child and what they wear, only gives them reason to rebel and will amplify their anger and cause them to avoid becoming what controlling forces want them to become.
As far as the operation of a school goes; I see no reason that a lack of a dress code would cause problems for school operations outside of the potential for problems when specific dress symbolizes gang affiliation. However, enforcing laws against gang affiliation clothing affects kids who aren’t a part of gangs. Whether it is wearing specific colors, sports team brands or accessories, there are children, not affiliated with gangs, who will wear these accessories and will be punished by school code despite doing nothing wrong.
The first amendment to America’s bill of rights is freedom of speech, religion, press, the right of people to assemble and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.  This is done so that individuals can express themselves without any fear of retribution. This is done so that society can grow via expression. Freedom of expression is among the foundations of any free society. I believe in as little control as possible and as much freedom as possible, this is the foundation of childhood; growing and becoming what you are. Do not let somebody else believe they can dictate what you are, because they should be more concerned with themselves and the type of person they are becoming, then be concerned with a child and the decisions they are making, the path they are taking, the discovery of who they are and their transition into adulthood. Childhood is a beautiful thing and should be experienced to the fullest. Take childhood away from someone and you are raising yourself a Michael Jackson.
I do not think any school should be required to have the students wear school uniforms. I’ve had experience in this because my Junior High School required its students to wear uniforms. We were required to wear a white shirt, black pants white or black shoes and gray, black or white jacket. Fro m my experience it has a very negligible effect on schooling in general. While it may have a couple benefits I believe they are not enough to require they be worn.
One reason I’ve heard for uniforms is it stops the poor kids from being picked on or feeling peer pressure to buy trendy clothes. To me it feels like people who say this believe it will solve all the bullying problems or peer pressure problems. That’s simply not true; a person who is a bully is going to find something to bully you about. A school uniform won’t stop a bully from picking on you because you are skinny, fat, have a triple h nose or were like me and braces. Also I feel like peer pressure will be felt at sometime no matter what the person is wearing. Unfortunately it will not stop school violence all that much in my opinion because it doesn’t stop the bullies at all and won’t stop a screwed up kid from taking out his anger in tragic ways.
In one of the quotes from Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union speech he said that if it stops one kid from being killed for his designer jacket then maybe it should be required. My response to that is if someone is that much of a crap bag that they will do the worst thing you can do to someone for a jacket, then they were a ticking time bomb and would have probably killed a person for giving you the wrong look.
Research is also not really supportive one way or the other on whether they have any impact on the actual education. In the article that the bill Clinton quotes came from. A professor at Youngstown State reviewed 64 schools public high schools in Ohio, and found that their graduation and proficiency pass rates were up. While this is good, she couldn’t say that there is any direct relation to the school wearing uniforms when you include things like changing instruction methods and curriculum.
In a study that goes against what that professor said Another Professor at Missouri University reviewed past studies on school uniforms and analyzed two databases and concluded there is no correlation between school uniforms and better safety and grades.
I tend to agree with the second professor, just because again, wearing a uniform isn’t the be all end all to school problems. A bad student is all of a sudden going to become a good one just because he or she is wearing a white shirt and black pants instead of a Lebron James Jersey. And a bad teacher is a bad teacher no matter what his or her students are wearing. Wearing a school uniform can’t and won’t change any of that.
And on a more personal note, I can’t remember a single student say they actually liked the student. I mean I didn’t dislike them as much as I thought I would, but when I graduated and was able to wear mostly what I wanted in high school. I was pretty happy that I didn’t have to wear essentially the same thing day in and day out.
So if they don’t automatically curb the violence like some say, don’t really improve the grades and the students don’t like them all that much. Then why should they be required?
The Lady Killer
GothicBohemian = Good into, but after the first two paragraphs, I basically had to infer which stance you took on the topic. It was an easy inference, but I still would've preferred that you clearly spelled it out. That being said, the next bit is great.
"Oh, and what are we teaching by removing one of the obvious signs of wealth versus lack? Life does not bend to accommodate one’s social standing. In the real world beyond school, economic reality and the judgments it creates exist. Society doesn't conform to spare adult feelings, why set a precedent for students that will lead to future disappointment?"
Take notes on that, everyone. The following quote supported this greatly. This was great. Maybe if I use the word "great" again, it might sink in. Great. Next paragraph is another successfully shot-down counterargument. Yeah, this is still great. I could talk about the rest but I really don't need to. To nitpick, the only thing I'd suggest is a clearly stated stance at the end of the intro. Fuck nitpicking as far as this debate is concerned, though. If something beats this then I'd be fucking shocked. Well done. A+.
Double L = This was good, and provided some different support than did GothicBohemian, but it just fell short. What you said was good, but I think more could've been done to address the opposing side. Debate A did this throughout, and it really strengthened the argument. Good effort, just needed a bit more to compete.
TEHCOCK = Great intro. Stated your claim clearly and delved right into the support by shooting down a potential counterargument. Bullies gonna bully no matter what. The Clinton paragraph I felt was a little weak, but still made a solid point, reiterating what you had started previously about bullying. Hopefully this debate isn't entirely focused on the bullying aspect, however. Next paragraph switches gears to focus on whether or not uniforms can be linked to educational improvement. You state that there is no evidence either way. Hmm, okay. Again, a little weak. Doesn't really work for or against your stance. I did like the personal aspect, as often there is no better support than a direct primary source, but I still don't think it was enough to push it over GothicBohemian. Sucks for Double L and TEHCOCK that GothicBohemian's was so "great," because there wasn't a bad debate in the bunch. Solid effort all around.
Winner = Double L. J/K. GothicBohemian.
I'm going with GothicBohemian here. It stuck with me the most, as it argued better than the other two. I appreciate the effort put into these debates though for sure. All were pretty good, but GothicBohemian's was the best.
Your opening statement doesn't strongly identify which side of the debate you're taking, which is a weakness. I like to know what you're going to be arguing right from the get go. And when I refer to the lack of strength of your opening, I mean that I can kind of assume where you're heading, but things like the "likelihood" of uniforms becoming mandatory appears "dim" and how uniforms simply aren't "part of the local culture" doesn't give your stance a whole lot of strength. I liked the laundry line however, as it helps with your argument about costs (running water, electricity) for low-income families.
Instead of just focusing on lack of wealth to illustrate the divide, what about those with wealth increasing any perceived divide the OTHER way? Just an idea that crossed my mind that you could've possibly used too.
You made an interesting argument about the notion of stifling individualism, and by proxy, one's creativity. I don't know if I fully agree with it, but I'm intrigued by how you showed this none the less. Probably my favourite part of your debate.
The debate kind of loses focus, in my eyes, with the closing paragraph becoming more about the many areas of bias that exist as opposed to answering the question if uniforms should become mandatory.
Simple but effective opening - identifies your stance and you jump right in. Good use of the website in your footnotes to support your argument. However, I would've liked you to address the counter of your argument that some guidance IS required in a child's, teenager's or even young adult's life. The way you word the closing half of the opening paragraph seems really dead-set against the idea of any parental guidance whatsoever. That said, the opening paragraph does inform the reader your logic that informed your stance on the question, which is a good way to bring a reader to your side as opposed to just saying "I believe this is right because I feel like it."
The counter-argument paragraph is a little odd, as you raise a potential counter, but don't really dismiss it either. I know you don't want to spend forever on the opposing side of your stance, but if you're going to bring anything up, make sure to swat that shit into submission. This paragraph does not strengthen your argument.
By the time your final paragraph arrives, now it's clear that you're very much pro-freedom: "I believe in as little control as possible." If that statement was front-loaded, then your opening would've been stronger as I would've anticipated your stance against any kinds of controls. Still, I'm glad that it comes out eventually. There's definitely passion that comes through towards the end of it, which is also a positive about this debate.
The Michael Jackson line is funny to me - I mean, I know you probably intended to get at the point he was a pretty messed up dude living in a fantasy land as an adult, but he was a creative genius as shown in both his music and, specifically, his music videos. If you're arguing that he had a stifled childhood, he damn sure learned how to be expressive through his art. That said, I'm treating this as a throwaway line to give your reader something amusing and considering that you intended the first meaning that I mention here.
Good opening, stating your stance clearly and evoking personal experience. Didn't really need to describe your uniform - I would've believed your had to wear one if you said so. You're also the only person in this debate to use a semi-colon correctly, not that it swayed me on any of the debates. There were some other typographical and grammatical errors throughout, but this isn't a creative writing class so I'm not going to be overly harsh on it.
A decent job introducing and dismissing a counter argument with respect to the bullying aspect. I'd like to see you use stronger language to evoke some passion on the topic area - even if you aren't personally invested one way or another, the trick is making the reader believe you are. For example, "I tend to agree with the second professor" - get rid of that "tend to" and go with simply "I agree" - it's stronger sounding, removing that weak clause that separates you from your action.
The closing is okay, but once again, there's just an overall lack of passion being conveyed. Instead of "NO, they should NOT be required" it's "why should they be?". I don't like leaving a reader with a question, no matter how rhetorical it comes across. Leave them with a definitive statement. GothicBohemian did this too, so this comment applies to both of you.
There are good points in all three debates, but there are flaws in each as well. GothicBohemian's is a little too scattered, without very much focus. I think this stems from the weak opening and filters throughout. It comes down to Double L and TEHCOCK for me. On one hand, Double L definitely brings passion, and presents a concise argument against uniforms although fails to shut down counter arguments well. On the other hand, TEHCOCK lacks passion, but at least tries to counter the arguments for uniforms. After re-reading both debates, the winner is the one who argued more convincingly, and therefore, more passionately. TEHCOCK is my pick.
Winner via Split Decision - GothicBohemian
MoveMent vs The Fourth Wall vs The Ratman vs Lane Should WWE reintroduce a Cruiserweight/Light Heavyweight/etc division?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Fourth Wall
Should WWE reintroduce a Cruiserweight/Light Heavyweight/etc division?
If I had been asked this a couple of years ago, I would have said yes. However, with the current state of the WWE and it's titles, I simply can't say that it would be a good idea. There are many titles currently that are not being utilized correctly and to their fullest potential. For example, for a while now many fans have felt that the World Heavyweight Championship doesn't feel like a Main Title anymore and at the moment I have to agree. The WWE seems to treat the World Heavyweight Championship like it is second best and whilst the WWE Championship is clearly the main title, the Heavyweight Title should be regarded with more importance. Currently, we have a feud going between Rob Van Dam and Alberto Del Rio. I don't have any problems with either man, as I really appreciate their ring work. However, the feud doesn't feel like something we should be regarding as a top feud. As a fan that is willing to give feuds a chance, I don't feel any excitement from this feud and the title just feels like it is going through the motions.
This is the same with the lower titles too. Whilst a great group The Shield is holding some of the titles, the lack of build for the feuds really devalues the titles as a whole and thus ruins any importance the title could have. The problem with the lower titles is that everything seems rushed and whilst it may not be, that's what it feels like from a fan's perspective. Every feud feels very last minute and the guys defending and fighting for the Championships are not able to showcase their talent to it's full potential.
With a Cruiserweight Division added, I feel it would be a lot of the same. The Division just going through the motions but nothing to strike the interest of fans. You want to be able to showcase the Crusierweight guys and make the Cruiserweight Title whilst clearly the lowest title in importance feel important to the fans. Titles such as the Intercontinental Championship were once regarded as a top title and now, not so much. However, that proves that the not so top titles can feel like top titles. You just have to have the right feuds going on and the correct build for them. At the minute, WWE is missing exactly that, enough build. The only feud currently with a great build is Daniel Bryan vs Randy Orton for the vacant WWE Championship and that's because it's been clearly a well thought out feud and the Corporation angle of the feud is what is grabbing the fan's interest.
The titles below the WWE Championship rarely feel like this and it's hurting WWE and it's Championships. The recent Night of Champions PPV was regarded as one of the worst shows of the year by the majority of the fans and crticis and that's because most of the show felt very rushed and forced. If this was a couple of years ago, I would have jumped at the idea, but because of the bad place a lot of the titles are in, there is simply just not a slot where the Cruiserweight Division could fit in and I don't think it would get the attention and development that it deserves. If the Midcard Talent and even some of the Main Talent are not being used well, I can't see the Cruiserweight Talent being utilized correctly either.
WWE first needs to focus on building their other titles and bringing back legitimacy and importance to those titles and also the Wrestlers competing for them before even considering bringing back the Cruiserweight Division. You have a lot of guys sitting out in the back, waiting for their shot and they deserve it. But it's got to be the right moment, striking whilst the iron is hot. If the other titles start gaining importance and legitimacy then maybe they could usher back in the Cruisweight Division and give those guys that deserve a chance, a shot. I don't have faith that the WWE would treat the division correctly right now, which is why I don't want this to happen anytime soon. Unless there are drastic changes in the WWE and the titles are more improved upon than just mainly focusing on the WWE Championship.
There is a lot of talent currently in the WWE that are not being used. Such as Tyson Kidd, Zack Ryder, Justin Gabriel, Curt Hawkins, Hunico, JTG, Sin Cara to just name a few. Bringing back a Cruiserweight/Light Heavyweight division would be a great addition to the WWE. The superstars that I mentioned are not being used a lot and they should get some more TV time, well most of them. If they brought back a Cruiserweight title then these guys could a match on TV once a week on either Raw or Smackdown instead of them not being used at all. Hopefully they could put on some great matches with most of them being high flyers. Maybe something like more ladder, steel cage, extreme rule matches could take place.
A lot of the guys I mentioned are really not popular and no one really likes. With adding a Cruiserweight division, a lot of the guys from NXT can get brought up to the cruiserweight division. Guys like the popular Sami Zayn could pull off some great matches facing WWE superstars. Just look how amazing the match he had with Cesaro was. With a cruiserweight division, guys like Zayn could shine and prove how good they are and deserve to be on TV. Even some main eventers can compete in the division to. If guys like Daniel Bryan or Rey Mysterio aren’t involved in a main event storyline, then guys like them can compete in the cruiserweight division and make the under card wrestlers stand out more.
I know that there has been talk of having a show for just cruiserweights. Instead of creating a new show, I think the best way to go would be to have all the cruiserweights compete on Main Event or Superstars. I don’t know the ratings for Main Event or anything but I’m guessing it’s not that good. Maybe by giving the cruiserweight their own TV time on Main Event, maybe more people would be interested and start to watch shows like Main Event and Superstars.
Another problem that people complain about is that the WWE has too many titles. And I can agree on that with them and by adding a cruiserweight title wouldn’t help it either. So I say that they should drop the United States title all together and replace it with the Cruiserweight championship. I think it’s pointless to have two mid card titles to begin with, so why not drop one of them and give a title to the cruiserweights? Like I said earlier, if Daniel Bryan isn’t in the WWE Championship storyline, he could compete for the Cruiserweight championship. Hopefully this would add some prestige to the title and make it not seem like a jobber championship.
Adding a cruiserweight division could a success to the WWE for the reasons that I’d just mention. It could also be a big flop and disappoint to though. But I say the WWE should add a cruiserweight division just so some of the lower card guys like Tyson Kidd just so can prove themselves how great they are in the ring.
Should WWE reintroduce a Cruiserweight division
Yes, WWE should reintroduce the cruiserweight division. It gives some mid card talents a place. Reintroducing the title can give some of the talents that are deemed too small a chance to hold the brass ring and have a spot light shown on them. This could also lead to the division having their own show if the WWE network ever comes into effect. They have enough talent on the roster to have a division. Adding the division could also increase viewers in the childrens demographic which is very large as it is, but with that style of wrestling it can do nothing but garner more interest from children. Using characters such as the recently signed Samuray Del Sol and Sin Cara that have a unorthodox style and more flashy ring gear will draw kids in to watch these two in a match. It could also be used as a way to return former stars such as Chavo Gurrero if he was released from TNA and who was the last person to ever lose the cruiserweight title (to Hornswoggle.) His return could center around the title he lost while building up other wrestlers. More wrestlers would also get the chance to be signed if the division if the division is brought back. With the new WWE performance center and rumors going around of them wanting to sign more and more talent it gives them a reason to sign so many guys. The indies are full of guys that are under 6ft yet are incredibly talented. Guys such as Anthony Nese and ACH who have a unique set of skills and a good look about them that could be used to enhance this division. It could be seen as a way for them to compete against TNA's X division as well which may show for some healthy competition.
Should WWE reintroduce a Cruiserweight/Light Heavyweight/etc division?
In today's professional wrestling climate it simply doesn't make sense to bring back the Cruiserweight/Light Heavyweight Division. Though it was officially retired in 2008 since 2005 the relevancy of the title was dependent on Rey Mysterio's status. A decade ago it made sense to have this title. Wrestling was still the popular sport everyone knew and loved, WWE not only had a plethora of talent in their own roster they also had many other wrestlers to choose from with the acquisition of WCW. This made both the tag division and cruiserweight division filled with talent thus making it competitive.
However, the climate has now changed. Wrestling isn't the popular sport it once was. I'm not claiming they don't have the talent to make another cruiserweight division because they obviously do. The problem here is they can't afford to have this guys who would otherwise be cruiserweight eligible be in a undercard divison right now. Daniel Bryan is a prime example, he would be in that division but with him in that undercard spot your Main Event is now suffering and unlike a decade ago you don't have the many different veterens to choose from to fill the main event along with the new talent you're building. You have barely a handful of vets now along with a few others who could be considered main event talent. You pull Daniel Bryan away and you're hurting the business. That's why Rey Mysterio eventually outgrew the belt as he became too big for it unless they had a major storyling involved.
Then you could argue well they still have other talents that could fill that division. Guys like Evan Bourne, Sin Cara, Kofi Kingston would be eligible as well. While Kofi isn't doing anything at the moment the other two are injury prone guys. So you aren't exactly gurantee'd a smooth plan. You could also try to sign new talent to the roster. But is that a good idea when you're already struggling to maintain the relevancy of your already established midcard title (Intercontinental and United States Title). It would simply be wiser to focus on your already established titles and strenghten them, use the talents you already have who would be cruiserweight eligible to strenghten this division instead of creating another title that won't have proper air time on your television broadcast.
Maybe in the future, after title's have been brought back to relevancy and perhaps some have been discountinued a Crusierweight title revitilization would makes sense, but sadly now is not the time.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Seabs The Fourth Wall - Pretty one dimensional debate that only really focuses on the prestige of existing titles for their argument. Felt like you started rambling a bit regarding ADR/RVD and used up a lot of words on something that didn't really add anything to your debate. If you're making a side point like that then make it quick so you can get back on track with the actual arguments that are key to your debate. Due to it being one dimensional it feels as though you repeat yourself a lot. Your whole argument is basically the lack of prestige and booking quality to existing titles and your debate needed more points than just that to take it to that next level. I've read the WWE's booking right now isn't very good argument in a few debates now as to why WWE shouldn't introduce something new and I'm not really convinced it's a strong argument because you could point to bad booking and good booking across any show at any point in time. They get some things to work and they don't get other things to work. Just because not everything is a success right now doesn't mean that everything in the future can't be a success either. I get your point though. This needed more points to be made to really strengthen your argument but what's there is good.
The Ratman - I'm reading this and there's a ton of really easy counters that just spring out which means you're leaving a lot of holes in your arguments and probably needed to analyse your arguments a little more before putting them into your debate. Imagine you're trying to counter argue every point you're making and see how easily you can do it. You mention how all these names could get extra TV time but it's not like there's free slots during Raw and Smackdown right now that need filling so look at whose spot they'd take and if the benefits from giving a cruiserweight division outweigh the benefits of giving that time to something like the tag or divas division for example. "A lot of the guys I mentioned are really not popular and no one really likes.". That line really hurts your own argument because you're basically saying all them names you listed are worthless draws. The Bryan argument is pretty easy to counter by saying he's above a nice division like this and that he'd need a partner to go against on the same level to make the move worthwhile. "I don’t know the ratings for Main Event or anything but I’m guessing it’s not that good". Terrible line. Either do the research (not hard to find ratings) or don't mention holes in your argument. Others may be able to easily counter your points but don't do it for them! "Maybe by giving the cruiserweight their own TV time on Main Event, maybe more people would be interested and start to watch shows like Main Event and Superstars.". Be more persuasive in your writing. Maybe it could work isn't persauding anyone that your stance is correct. Pick a stance and make it seem like the obvious right thing to do. Don't sit on the fence with lines like maybe it'd work in your debates. Titles paragraph starts off by pointing out holes in your own argument again but at least this time you turned it around better. If you're mentioning possible counter arguments yourself then you need to make sure you can counter the counter effectively otherwise you're just hurting your own debate when you don't need to. This paragraph was better. "It could also be a big flop and disappoint to though.". Again, don't ever put anything like that in your debate again. You don't need to be critical of your own stance. Argue your stance like it's the god given truth and like your life depends on persuading the reader that your stance is correct.
Lane - If your debate is gonna be so short then it needs to be out of this world. Expand on your points a little deeper and add a few more points to your debate if you can. Also, try and make your debate a bit easier on the eye and less like a big wall of text. Your points are actually good and you'd be onto a good debate if you expanded on them and argued why your stance is the correct stance more.
MoveMent - This was good and could have been really good with a bit more depth to your argument. Argument about the right guys aren't around to make the division work is good and the Bryan, Sin Cara and Bourne examples I thought were really good support. I think there's a really strong counter to that point though in that you could use the division to establish a new act like Sami Zayn or Adrian Neville as big stars and get them over by being the lead in a Cruiserweight division rather than just another Kofi Kingston esque midcard act. Plus there's talent like Kidd and Gabriel who could hold the division together with consistent quality while the Zayn's and Neville's of the world can be the acts who get the big push from the division and the Kidd's and Gabriel's of the world are there to make them look credible and star worthy. Argument for focusing on the struggling midcard divisions rather than adding another division was good too.
Wouldn't call either debate an obvious winner but I thought The Fourth Wall and MoveMent's were the strongest. Giving to MoveMent as his points were slightly stronger and his debate wasn't as one dimensional as The Fourth Wall's.
Winner - MoveMent.
The Lady Killer
The Fourth Wall = I thought this was very good. Made lots of the same points that I would've made (not that this factors into my decision), and backed them well with great examples. Why add another division when you can barely keep the other titles afloat? Debate flowed well, and was convincing throughout. My only piece of advice would be to address some of the counterarguments, and then shut them down with some of the support you offered. It's an efficient way to use your support, as you're essentially killing two birds with one stone (providing support for your stance and also shooting down opposing thoughts), and it's effective in that it bolsters your stance even more when it weakens its opposition. Other than that, solid stuff.
The Ratman = Shaky debate. The premise was there, and I like the initial support you offered for your stance. You merely stated that there is a lot of talent without direction that could benefit greatly from a cruiserweight division. Nice. Then you say that some of them aren't worthy of TV time. OK... Then you go on to say in the conclusion that it could be a big flop. Never contradict your own argument. There was potential, but I think a lot of it was squandered due to instability in your argument.
Lane = I mean, pound for pound, this was pretty good. Sure, it was just one long paragraph, but the content was pretty great. You basically took the same stance as The Ratman, but made it work for what it was. Unfortunately, just when I was becoming interested, it ended. Length doesn't necessarily correlate to the quality of a debate, but here it does. Had you elaborated a bit, providing a few more paragraphs to offer more support while shooting down counterclaims, you likely would've ran away with this. Shame.
MoveMent (the one that got sent out later) = Formulated your stance early, and gave a bit of background as to why the cruiserweight division is no longer feasible in current WWE. Nicely done so far. Next paragraph is pretty great. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention being efficient with your words. You condeded countergument (lots of talent worthy of bringing about the new division), yet turned it on its head by stating that the guy best fit for the division (Bryan) can't be removed from the main event without hurting the company due to the dearth of other main event talent. The Mysterio example with him outgrowing the division was great as well, though it could lend itself to its own counterargument (cruiserweight division breeds new main eventers). Well, next paragraph is pretty good as well. Shot down another counterargument effectively. Why create a new division, even if the talent is there, when you can't even maintain the relevancy of the other midcard titles? Adding that some of the main cruiserweights are injury prone was a good touch as well. Debate was a little short for my liking, but it may still have enough juice to take it down.
Winner = This was very close between The Fourth Wall and MoveMent. The Fourth Wall's debate flowed better and obviously was a bit lengthier which leant itself to offering more support for its claim, but I felt that MoveMent provided more in the way of shooting down counterarguments. Tough choice, but I'm going to give it to The Fourth Wall by a hair.
Evolution The Fourth Wall: I liked your intro for the most part but I felt you got a little wrapped up in explaining the WHC situation when it was just your intro, cut that down and say "like other titles in the WWE" and then elaborate on it later in a paragraph and it will flow better. You started getting into your debate in the first paragraph when you could have seperated it and it would have strengthened your opening.
You built a pretty convincing case for burying the the titles that aren't the WWE title but you could have elaborated more about why a division wouldn't work as that's the actual terminology used in the original question. They wouldn't necessarily have to bring back the title to have an obvious cruiserweight division with matches on Raw etc. so yeah, you could have touched on that a little bit to expand the depth of your argument against the idea.
The Ratman: I liked your position on the debate being able to utilise some unused guys in the roster to have some quick, fun matches and get a bit of TV time. I think you could have explored the benefits to the crowd/product of having those matches a little more further in to your debate instead of looking at where you would put the show or what you'd do with a title. Probably wouldn't have even mentioned a title because the topic question doesn't.
One thing that really killed your debate for me though was your conclusion. You spent all debate saying how you could do such and such with all the unutilised talent and you could bring in others from NXT etc. and how it would be good for match quality in a short set each week but then you undo it all by saying "or it could be a big flop and disappoint too" which completely COMPLETELY undermines everything else you have said for the rest of the debate.
Lane: I think you just need to work on elaborating more in your debates and using the full word limit to your advantage. Formating is your friend too. Separate your introduction, statements and conclusions and you'll find it easier to write more and get a better flow to your debate. I felt like you digressed a little too much from the topic when talking about Chavo and potential storylines as that may be a good way to introduce the title back (even though the question is talking about the DIVISION), which is a very very short term kind of solution. You have to look long term to sustain a division especially if you're looking at bringing something back which waned in popularity last time it was seen.
MoveMent: Loved your intro and justification for it. Perhaps could have saved the line about Mysterio for a follow-up paragraph as it felt a little out of place i.e it felt like the start of an argument paragraph when you were in the middle of your introduction. Everything else was great though.
Your point on Daniel Bryan was pretty good but you could have tied it in a different way by saying that the climate in the WWE has changed since the cruiserweight division was popular and the wrestlers that would be a star of that division now (Daniel Bryan, CM Punk or whatever) are instead bonafide main eventers rather than being restricted to their cruiserweight division and therefore there is no need for it in 2013. Just something like that to make it a little neater.
One big thing that brought down your debate a lot with me was spelling errors. I can understand one maybe two but you should spell-check your stuff before submitting it. I counted 9 mistakes which is entirely too many in a short debate and sometimes the same word was spelt wrong multiple times. Improve on that and it will improve the calibre of your debates in the future. It's all about presentation.
Decision: It was a tight result really, I've had to read them a few times to really come to a decision but I'd have to go with The Fourth Wall over MoveMent and Lane. The spelling errors in MoveMent's debate really killed what started as a strong choice for me and the perplexing conclusion from Lane also killed the momentum that one had making The Fourth Wall a pretty easy choice in the end.
Winner via Split Decision - The Fourth Wall
*The camera cuts backstage to Shepard anticipating an interview. Nobody is in shot. The camera lowers to reveal Shepard sobbing into his Sunderland shirt. It's been a miserable time for Shepard since the last show. He failed to meet his quota of 3 interviews last show so he hasn't been able to feed his 5 daughters for the past 3 weeks and being a single father of 5 isn't easy you know. Add to that his beloved Sunderland have been WOATing on a weekly basis. Everything appears to be getting a little too much for Shepard right now. Rallegrare Shepard!*
RichardHagen vs Srdjan99 vs Alim vs Jupiter Jack Daniels Should the Undertaker vs Mick Foley Hell In A Cell match have been stopped after Foley fell through the top of the cell?
Spoiler for Debates:
Should the famous Hell in a Cell match from King of the Ring 1998 been stopped after Foley fell through the cell? Absolutely not and here is why. This match was a milestone within arguably one of the best eras within the entire 60+ years of the WWE. Just over a minute into the match, Mick Foley took the bump off of the top of the cage, with premature talks of the match being over from commentators Jim Ross, and Jerry “The King” Lawler. Once the cage was put up, and Mick was halfway down the ramp. Foley emerged from the stretcher, only to make his way back to the top of the Cell with Undertaker. At this point, it’s pretty clear that both of them knew what spectacle they were putting on, by just successful executing one of the most famous bumps in history. At this point, at the top of the cell, I believe Foley told Taker to throw him through the cell. Either this or they had this spot planned from pre-match negotiations. I have a hard time believing either of these crazy bumps was planned on the fly. As crazy as Mick is, inside and out of the ring, I don’t believe either of those men would be okay with making that decision on the fly. Since the bump through the cell was arguably planned, I don’t think they were going to stop the match, unless Mick was to take either of the falls wrong. When Taker put him through the Cell, if Foley would have just bent back a couple inches more, he would have landed on his head and we would have a terrible tragedy on our hands. I think that once Foley let the Terry Funk know he was okay once Terry came into the ring to check on him, they all knew this match was going to continue. On the other hand, if this match was going on for a long time and either of the big bumps was toward the end, it would be a different story. Foley was fresh when he fell off of the top of the cell, and shortly after that, less than 7 minutes, he took the bump through the top of the cell. Watching it back, it’s believable that both of the participants had these spots planned and Foley was the best at taking these bumps. Everyone knew that if the match would have just been stopped after the falls, the crowd would leave disappointed, because they paid to see a winner and a grueling match. Like stated, the match was only 7 or 8 minutes in after Foley fell through the top of the Cell. The match would have been over and we would have moved on to the main event and that would have been it. From an entertainment perspective, it would have been boring to see a Hell In A Cell match last less than 10 minutes and this business was all about Entertainment and leaving people at the edge of their seats. Everyone expects to see professionals inside of the ring entertaining us fans for the entire duration of all shows. People don’t like it when their money is taken and they aren’t satisfied with their purchase. Foley and Taker, being legends in the business, knew this. They knew a long with everybody else in the company that they were there to entertain and I don’t think Foley would have taken the bump if he didn’t think he’d be able to complete the match afterwards. If the match would have been stopped, would this still be as well known as it is? Like said, the first bump was only just over a minute into the match. It would have been like Foley coming out, falling off the Cell, and that would have been it, little entertainment. Same with the bump through the top of the Cell, just over 7 minutes into the match, 5 of them being people taking Foley to the back before he came back to the match, people would have left not satisfied with their purchase from the match due to it being so short. Like said, if these bumps were at the end of the contest after a 20 minute Hell In A Cell match, it would have been a different story told in the ring that day. Thanks for reading.
Jupiter Jack Daniels
Yes, I do feel the match should have been stopped. Especially since that bump wasn't exactly planned.
According to Foley, he thought the cage would slowly tear and that it he could be hanging upside down from the top of the cell. Instead, he went through and was knocked unconscious. Now, I'm sure that, at that point, he opted for the match to continue but he obviously hadn't regained all his bearings.
Going into that event, you could say that due to what Undertaker had done the year prior and Mick Foley's reputation, that there would be a pretty big bump. And fans got that when Foley was thrown off the cell. Afterwards, as Foley was being stretchered out, fans were chanting "Undertaker". So, it doesn't seem that anybody would have been upset after the first bump. And Foley, rises, climbs the cage again and goes through it this time. Now, with that bump being more brutal than the first and the fans seemingly not being negative about the impression that the match was over, it makes me think they wouldn't have if it ended after the bump through the cage.
Now, again, I understand Foley's reputation of a guy that thrives off pain & punishment, especially receiving it. He wants to put on a show for the fans. But, after the second bump, it then becomes a question of "Okay, should I continue this match or take it home?". And not even really putting that on Foley because, again, he was completely out of it. It just increases the risk of something else, possibly more serious, going wrong by continuing the match.
Foley gets knocked unconscious, bites through his bottom lip and loses a tooth that goes through the roof of his mouth. That's not counting the injuries he sustained from the first bump, which I think were a bruised hip and dislocated shoulder. On top of that, I think Taker wrestled the match with a broken bone in his foot.
The most memorable parts of the match were those 2 bumps. Nobody really talks about the other 10 minutes after the bump through the cell and have become forgotten. I mean, what else could have been done in the match to follow that? The thumbtack spot was cool but was lightwork compared to what just happened in the minutes prior.
Basically, I feel it should have been stopped. The story was pretty much told: Foley got his ass kicked. There was really nothing else to gain from that match, other than a decisive winner when, from the start, the match wasn't about winners and losers. It was about 2 guys that had feuded off and on for about 2 years in some brutal matches. The brutality peaked with Foley going through the cage. JR seemed to show legitimate concern, as he yelled "stop the damn match". Terry Funk says, from watching in the back, he thought Foley was dead. It was a spot that didn't go as planned and from that point, left little room to be outdone in the same match.
It didn't have to be completely stopped. Undertaker could have dropped down and pinned Foley for the win and without the extra 10 minutes we did get, the impact would remain the same, a defining moment in Foley's career.
Srdjan99 Should the Undertaker vs Mick Foley Hell In A Cell match have been stopped after Foley fell through the top of the cell?
No, it should have stopped after Foley fel from the top of the cell through the announcer’s table
Well no I’m going to go away for a little bit from the wrestling part and say that I own a little shop and my workers safety is one of my main priorities. So yeah I personally would have stopped the match after Mick’s first fall, deinfetely would have stopped it after his fall through the cell.
Now I can remember how Ric Flair once said that Foley was a stuntsman and that he couldn’t work a match properly, so he sold out his body in the ring, calling it “hardcore wrestling”. This, the fact that he still continued this match really made me agree with Flair. Don’t get me wrong Mick Foley is one of my favourite wrestlers of all-time, but he was just an excellent brawler and harcore wrestler, not a tehnical one, and that’s cool, you need main-event guys like this all the time it’s not a problem.
I remember watching this match the first time 10 years ago, and when they started to climb the cage for the first time, you could see how it was giving up in parts because of his and Taker’s weight. Yeah, it seemed like a very bad idea from the beginning, but Mick still went along with it and the result for me personally was just scary. I have read many articles about this match in the past few years and many of them said that Mick Foley shouldn’t have survived after this match. I read a while ago, can’t remember where that he had 14 stitches for his lip, a concussion, a dislocated jaw, a dislocated shoulder and the worse of all a bruised kidney. The fact that he stood up and took punch after punch after he suffered a concussion should have seriously killed him, but I guess Mankind had more lives than a cat. A Chesire one.
I would like to add that Undertaker’s professionalism doesn’t get enough recognition relative to the bumps Foley took here. I remember watching Foley’s DVD, and he said that Vince approached him after this match and told him: “I’m deeply grateful for the thing you’ve done for this company. But, please never do that again.”
So yeah, my final opinion: The match should have stopped after Foley’s first fall. He really cripped himself for the rest of his life by going on.
“The show must go on” is a popular phrase in entertainment, meaning that whatever happens, the show must still be put on for the people who paid to see it. On June 28, 1998, the mainstream professional wrestling world had reached heights that it had never seen. Mick Foley, who was performing as Mankind and legendary Undertaker tore the house down at the Pittsburgh Civic Arena when they competed in one of the most unbelievable matches, if you could even call it a match, in wrestling history. This match is so historic that 15 years later we still see clips of Foley being thrown off the steel structure and go through the announce table.
The question is, should the match have continued? Foley took not one, but two hellacious bumps that still give me goose bumps anytime I see them. First we was thrown off the top of the cell and came crashing down onto the announce table 20 feet below. And if that wasn’t enough, minutes later they two combatants climbed the cell again and this time Mankind was chokeslammed on top of the cell where the panel gave away completely which caused Foley to fall through and land on the cold, hard ring canvas with a sickening thud.
The magnitude of the bumps created waves in the industry. Everyone was talking. The amount of injuries sustained by both wrestlers was huge. Huge. But what would have happened if the match was stopped after the second fall? What would have happened if the match didn’t continue, and Foley was taken out on a stretcher?
In hindsight, Foley’s entire legacy would have been tarnished. Although Foley says in his books as well as his latest documentary, “For All Mankind” that his character didn’t really take off until he brought a comedic element to his gimmick, the match still effects Foley’s legacy in a huge way. Mick Foley is seen as one of the toughest wrestlers of all time. He has been named as the hardcore legend because he took an inhuman amount of punishment in the ring and did it with a smile. Foley always finished the match no matter what. This is the same guy who had his ear sliced off by the ring rope and still did his job. Looking back, if the match was stopped and Foley was taken out on a stretcher to receive medical attention, Foley’s legendary status would not exist to the extent it does now.
Let’s look at it from a WWF standpoint right when the match was happening and Foley took the second bump. You have two choices if you’re Vince McMahon. Either you a) stop the match or b) continue. King of the Ring 1998 was right in the middle of the Monday Night War. The Attitude Era was in full force while both WWF and WCW were neck and neck in the ratings war. Both companies were at their absolute peaks for different reasons.
If Vince stopped the match, how bad would it have looked on him and his company? Look at it from a 1998 perspective. On one hand you have the badass Goldberg kicking ass and taking names while the nWo was booming with all sorts of crazy stuff on a weekly basis. On the other hand, you had a company that did not give its fans their money’s worth. Although the PPV had a double main event including a match between Kane and Austin, Hell in a Cell was a huge selling point of the show as it was the feud ender for one of the greatest rivalries of all time. If I had bought the show and the match got cut short, I would have been pissed. With the great product WCW was putting on at the time, I definitely would have thought long and hard about taking a look over at their programming. No matter how many twists and turns WCW had every night, you could always count on their show to be edgy, unique, and one of a kind – exactly what the late 90s was all about.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
The Lady Killer
RichardHagen = I felt this debate never really got off the ground. There were a few good points scattered throughout (Funk checking on Foley and Foley telling him that he was OK to continue is probably your best piece of support for your stance), but overall it felt redundant. You repeated yourself numerous times, and never offered convincing enough support aside from the Funk portion. The effort was clearly there, and I admire that, but I think this could've used some fine tuning to really be a contender. A lot of it was opinionated as well, which doesn't make for as convincing an argument as concrete evidence/examples would. Make use of the Dojo to get some more practice in. You'll get there.
Jupier Jack Daniels = I liked this. A lot. You make your stance right away and offer support in the form of Foley and Funk's respective recollection of the match itself. This was good, but I think you could've benefitted from providing some links to where you're pulling this support from. It's mostly common knowledge to wrestling fans at this point, as the match is one of the most talked about matches in history, but for debate purposes, citing sources is key. That being said, your debate flowed really well - an easy read that was pretty convincing throughout. Well done.
Srdjan99 = Interesting and different opening. Didn't see that stance coming, but I'm intrigued. This intrigue stopped short when you seemingly changed geared and offered the piece about Flair's opinion of Foley. Why was this needed? Waste of words, imo. The next paragraph of your recollection of watching the match was just that - a recollection. This doesn't offer much other than opinion, which imo isn't very convincing. You then start to offer some evidence, though you state you can't remember when you read it. That's an issue. Do you see how this isn't the best way to provide support? "Hey, I believe such and such, and there's some evidence to support this but I have no idea where it is..." If you would've spent some time to track down the source for this info, it would've helped tremendously. The following paragraph on Undertaker's professionalism is rather irrelevant as well. I just believe that after the intereting intro, your train fell off the tracks.
Alim = Great intro. I always like a bit of a backstory. However, you continue with this backstory for 2 more paragraphs and I'm still left wondering what stance you're taking. Hopefully you recover from this, because the quality of your writing is excellent. Well, the writing was still there, but I wasn't as convinced as I thought I'd have been. The Monday Night Wars argument is an interesting one, but it seems like more of an opinion and a shot in the dark. Do we really know if WWE would've lost the battle against WCW had that match been stopped? Nobody knows for sure, but it seems a bit unlikely. Again, that's just my OPINION. Could've gone either way, but without support, it's just a biased opinion.
Winner = Jupiter Jack Daniels
Evolution RichardHagen - Feedback: Good GOD PLEASE FORMAT YOUR DEBATES! Paragraphs and sentence structure. I honestly read the same line over and over at least three times towards the end and it makes it a chore to read; impacting on any points you may be making.
As for the content I don't feel like the flow of your debate and how it was structured really presented well and again I think that links into the formatting. You repeated yourself on a number of occasions again towards the end and I didn't really get a strong feel for what you were getting at. I understand why you think it should have continued but I didn't understand why it was IMPORTANT it was continued. See the difference? Making the extra link in your arguments will take the standard of your work a long way.
Jupier Jack Daniels - Feedback: Work on a proper intro rather than using the question and answering it in one sentence; it will strengthen the rest of your work and make it easier to write around it. In fact don't even include the original question in your entries at the top or whatever because it just chews up words. Create an opening paragraph that establishes context, paraphrases the question, details your side of the answer and most importantly WHY you're taking that side of the answer.
I liked your subject matter, but similar to RichardHagen you could have taken it that extra length and really driven it home. For example when discussing the adverse health effects it had on Foley with the injuries sustained you could have further delved into the long-term effects of those injuries using other examples and also explained how it created an expectation among fans for that level of violence which the WWE is still seeing repercussions for to this day (look at this forum and how much complaining goes on about modern HIAC matches as a great example of this).
Look at your last sentence, it's great. Use that sort of thing in your intro and build your whole debate around it. There is plenty of potential there you just need to look at the topic in the right light.
Srdjan99 - Feedback: Another person who relies on the topic question for their intro if you could call it that. It wastes so much opportunity by letting US define YOUR debate. Use the topic question, paraphrase it and make it your own!
I liked your statement about the severity of Foley's injuries; honestly it was ferocious and to have it put in perspective of just how lucky he was to survive let alone continue to have a relatively lengthy career after that is nothing short of a miracle. A very powerful paragraph.
You should have used that paragraph to outline the importance of why it shouldn't have continued, the adverse health problems not included it created expectations among fans for a certain standard in bumps and probably created similar expectations in a generation of young wrestlers looking to make it on to the scene to entertain fans. Use that and build an argument with it. Open your mind to the topic and not just why it should have been stopped but why it's IMPORTANT it was stopped. There is a difference and if you can identify and use the difference in future debates you'll be a lot stronger for it.
Alim - Feedback: Loved LOVED your opening paragraph and I felt it really set the context of the debate and painted a picture to the reader of the magnitude and importance of the moment in retrospect as a wrestling fan. Really enjoyed seeing someone define their own topic in a way, it makes a massive difference in the overall appeal of reading something (for me anyway).
Now the side of the argument you took was fine but your reasoning was a little weak for mine. You already explained in your opening paragraph how clips of the bumps are still played today and highlighted frequently but further on you say his legacy would be tarnished had the match not been completed? Seems like conflicting ideas. They don't show highlights of him being pinned in that match. One thing you could have touched on in another iconic image is Mick after the match was over; smiling and grabbing the rope. That is still burnt into my brain today. Probably a better example if you're arguing for the continuation as if they had stopped the match the two most iconic and memorable (and defining) moments for Mick had already occured.
I did like the closing argument about the Monday Night Wars and the battle that was raging there. If you had elaborated on that area a little more it would have felt more balanced. Don't forget you have to allocate an equal amount of words for each argument so you can maintain a flow to your debate!
Decision: A very tight contest between Jupiter Jack Daniels and Alim, I really liked the subject matter of Jupiter Jack Daniels' and a lot of the way it was argued and Alim did a great job of intro'ing and signing off their debate which made up for some flaws in their subject matter. I'm going to have to give it to Jupiter Jack Daniels in this one by an absolute razors edge as it just felt better to me on a further reading of both debates. It had a slightly better flow and I felt like they made me genuinely believe in their side of the topic which Alim couldn't do.
If any of the four debaters want further feedback just PM me with your debate and I'll go through more for you.
RichardHagen – First things first, formatting really is your friend. You need to space out your arguments into smaller paragraphs to make it more accessible to read and understand the argument being presented. Presentation is vital here and right away it made it more of an eyesore to read back over the debate to decipher the flow of the argument. The bulk of this was also very descriptive in relaying the context of Foley’s fall and came across as generally very muddled. Sentences were repeated extensively and it just lacked an overall cohesion and came off as rushed and very much like a rough first draft. The argument about WWE being an entertainment company first and foremost and the predicament they were placed into had they called off the match had merit and with sufficient expansion could have made for a stronger entry, but overall this just wasn’t of the required standard. My advice here would be to use this as a learning experience, read through some of the past cards and entries to get a basic understanding of what structure you should use for a debate and just plan your entry before finalising it. It read as if you yourself were unsure with what you were necessarily arguing which will always be a detriment since debating is entirely concerned with engaging a reader and presenting your point of view as strongly as possible.
Jupiter Jack Daniels – This likewise felt very descriptive and really lacking in clear insight and passionate writing to engage the reader. There’s not a lot wrong here mechanically in terms of content, but it’s very basic and struggles to challenge the reader to agree with what is being presented. It’s quite hard to give a real overview of this debate, because there’s really not much that can actually be analysed or critiqued. I’d say the writer established potential talking points (Foley’s resiliency and commitment to entertaining the fans) only to never really expand on them in sufficient detail that could have strengthened the overall argument. It feels very much like the writer believes there’s little room for discussion, but doesn’t present or expand on his feelings in a way that draws agreement when reading it. It might make a sufficient post in the wrestling section, but there’s a stark difference between a post in the wrestling section and a debate where you consciously have to outline your point of view and engage a reader.
Srdjan99 – This is far too brief and guilty moreso of what I discussed in the above debate in addition to further faults. The safety of an employee aspect was actually an intriguing way to open the debate and immediately caught my attention, especially as the writer was utilising personal experience to support his argument. There was potential there to argue passionately for the company’s decision to continue the match being negligent and offering a comparison to the writer’s business, but alas it was presented as a talking point and then immediately concluded without a resolution. I’m not terribly sure why the Flair paragraph was included either, as it doesn’t concern itself with the question and the writer himself certainly doesn’t attempt to infer some relevance by including it. The paragraph outlining Foley’s welfare and injuries he suffered as a result of the match certainly documents the true extent of the pain Foley encountered in finishing the match, but again it merely reads as an illustration of what Foley suffered and doesn’t expand upon that to force the reader to agree it was too much.
Alim – Immediately I’d argue your opening should be concise and immediately clarify your position in a debate. Your word count is vital and whilst basic contextual details can be welcomed at the beginning of debates, your first concern should be establishing your argument and centring your debate around that viewpoint. However what comes after is generally well thought out and enough for me to award the victory to his entry. Considering Foley’s revered status with regard to tolerance of pain strongly emanating from his exploits in this particular match was interesting, although had the respective competition been stronger in this match I do think this paragraph would have had to have been improved to compare favourably. However it does demonstrate a broader consideration of the topic and its ramifications which is always something I enjoy seeing. The contextual argument was also stronger imo than anything contained in the other entries, although again greater competition would have required this to have been improved. Still it considered Vince’s position at the time, rather than merely considering it through hindsight and that alluded to the predicament Vince was placed in given the war with WCW and his desire to deliver the greatest product that would secure him victory over his greatest competition. The basics of this debate were fine, but in terms of constructive criticism I’d suggest the writer look back at past winning entries to gain a greater understanding of how to sufficiently build on starting points to deliver a greater quality in terms of argument. With some crucial amendments, a debate of this ilk could prove a strong adversary to other debaters.
Winner – Alim
Winner via Split Decision - Jupiter Jack Daniels
*Evolution is seen itching at something backstage. What's going on with Evolution?????*
Desecrated vs Kiz vs Rush vs Mr. Lawls Should the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remain in the Summer, be moved to the Winter or given to another Country?
Spoiler for Debates:
Should the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remain in the Summer, be moved to the Winter or given to another Country?
Should the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remain in the summer, be moved to the winter or given to another country? The short answer is Qatar should be stripped of hosting the 2022 World Cup and that it should be given to another country. The long answer, well let’s get into that right now. The other two options stated are whether it should remain in the summer, or whether it should be moved to the winter. Both of these other options that we are given shouldn’t even be considered in the slightest. Who gives a flying fuck about the weather, when there are other issues at hand that show us why Qatar should be stripped of hosting the 2022 World Cup.
There have been several different controversies regarding Qatar hosting the World Cup including reports of slave labour, the whole issue regarding homosexuality, reports of bribery and also not to mention the weather of course.
A report by The Guardian had stated a number of Nepalese migrant labourers have died in Qatar working on the stadiums. All of these people have faced appalling labour abuses in the preparation for Qatar to hose the World Cup. Most of these have been young men who whilst working had received sudden heart attacks. These men have been living in camps with harsh conditions and having promises such as high wages, being revoked as they have not been paid in several months. To make matters worse to stop these workers from running away, the salaries have been retained, forcing them to stay and continue to work. Passports have been confiscated reducing them to the status of being illegal. Some workers have stated that they are refused the basic necessities such as access to drinking water whilst working in the harsh conditions.
In Qatar homosexuality is considered illegal and the president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter mentioned ‘I would say they (homosexuals) refrain from any sexual activities’ as you can expect he was scrutinised for that statement he had made, and then later on back tracked proclaiming that it was just a joke on his part. Several comments were made later on about how no problems should arise regarding the homosexuality issue when the World Cup arrives as well as FIFA not wanting to show any discrimination to anyone.
If Qatar is to host the World Cup temperatures will reach sweltering conditions which can read up to an absurd 50 degrees celsius. They insist this will not be a problem; however I think that it will prove to be one. They state they will use the sun’s rays to create an environment that will cool down the stadiums for spectators and the players. This technique is stated to be able to drop the temperature by up to 20 degrees. The major flaw in this however is that it hasn’t been tested in the bigger stadiums where the big matches will be played, as well as Qatar also coming out and saying it is not guaranteed that it will actually work. Everyone outside the stadiums all walking around will not be saved from the distraught heat however as that is an aspect that hasn’t been taken into consideration.
A report of bribery against two members of the FIFA Executive Committee was presented by Lord Triesman, part of the English FA. These accusations came to light after a whistle blower stated the bribery as they were a part of the bid made for Qatar. FIFA has opened an inquiry from within and if the bribery is proven to have occurred then a revote for the 2022 World Cup is on the cards. It was alleged that representatives from Trinidad and Tobago, Ivory Coast, Paraguay and Cameroon were all involved.
Qatar should be stripped of hosting the 2022 World Cup and it should be given to another country to host instead. They aren’t ready to host the World Cup and many problems have already arisen. The way they are treating workers, the conditions and climate over there as well as the bribery allegations has put the World Cup being hosted at Qatar in a completely bad light. If there is to be a revote to determine a new host, it should be completed as soon as it can be so the new host nation can prepare for what would be a much more better sporting event then if the World Cup were to be hosted in Qatar.
Should the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remain in the Summer, be moved to the Winter or given to another Country?
FIFA in these past few years have found themselves in a million & one problems. From awarding the tournament to Qatar, the Caribbean corruption scandals and their constant changing of directions on their Qatar agenda. And that barely scratches the surface. You are looking at the problems surrounding Russia 2018 & the anti-homosexual agenda from the Russian government, Sepp Blatter running un-opposed once again with his only rival being forced out of the race after being charged with bribery. There are a lot of issues, with Qatar being the main problem on their portfolio.
I never really had a strong opinion around the subject of awarding it to Qatar. If it was going to go ahead, I'd watch it. If it didn't, I'd watch whatever is on tap. But after reading through research to justify whatever side of the debate I was going to go through with, I'd nominate for it to be given to another country or have the bid re-done. Every month is a different issue. The one that has dominated the headlines has been the Summer/Winter dispute. It's already been run through a thousand times that a Summer World Cup in the Arabic desert is very dangerous for the players & tourists wellbeing with rising temperatures of 40-55 degrees celsius possible.
The Qatar had plans to go ahead with pristine, state of the art technology & stadia such as 'Fully air-conditioned open-air stadiums that work using solar power'* including carbon-neutrality. But those plans have since been made redundant by the expenses involved and the lack of guarantee that it will be carbon-neutral. There is also no good idea, plan or strategy how the Qatari's plan to keep the heat down outside the stadiums which is another problem in itself. Footballers should be capable and used to running at wildly ranging temperatures & altitudes, but for a whole month, probably not, but that isn't what the next point is about. Fans from countries like the United Kingdoms, USA, Germany, the Scandinavian trio, Russia aren't used to these heats & it will be their cash that prompts whether the Qatari World Cup has been a success.
While football is the main focus of the World Cup, it lives on through the fans, whether they attend, spend money touring the country and its tourism resorts. Something that has been the biggest oversight from FIFA has been that fans have been neglected in the decision. Everything that has come out about the World Cup has been whether the business of the domestic leagues are happy with it, or the men in the fatcat suits can get a little payday courtesy of a bribe. None of it has been what the fans want, what the fans would prefer. And if the issues surrounding FIFA continue to rage on, fans could very well tire of it all and opt not to watch/tour the World Cup, which would cause even more problems for FIFA.
So Qatar will not be finalising two of the aims of their bid. Once quipped by Sepp Blatter to back up the earlier point, 'Stadiums & fan zones can be cooled but not the city/country', that should of been when that bid took a nose-dive. But, money talks with Blatter in ways that professionals would call 'bordering religious psychosis'. He has once again changed his agenda and opinion. And it hasn't really just been Blatter. Most nations knew about these problems going in, yet Qatar has still won the World Cup bid. Which prompts up the question once again, is bribery involved? Why would other countries take the risk of their domestic league to allow Qatar the chance to host the World Cup? Because money has talked. There is very obviously some economical gain for those involved. Before it's too late, in an ideal world the bid would be re-done. But this isn't an ideal world.
There is absolutely no way that Qatar should be allowed to retain the rights to the 2022 World Cup. Ever since it was announced that they would be hosting the most prestigious event in world football, FIFA have been dogged with controversy after controversy, continual questions and discussions as to how and why Qatar were even considered, let alone given the rights over countries such as the United States, Japan and Australia.
In an interview with insidefootballworld.com, Sepp Blatter, FIFA President stated that it may have been ‘a mistake’ to award Qatar the World Cup due to scheduling complications. If the World Cup was held in the traditional June and July months, players would be faced with ridiculous playing conditions of a Qatari summer, sometimes bringing degrees of up to 50 degrees Celsius. The current compromise suggested is to begin the tournament in December 2021, pause midway through and resume in February 2022. Unsurprisingly, most leagues have doubts over the desires of FIFA, and rightfully so.
This has been an absolute logistical nightmare for Blatter and FIFA, who are scrambling for ideas to try and fix a terrible plan seemingly influenced purely by greed. The idea that there would be air conditioners that fly around the stadium cooling people down is just absurd and ridiculous. Incoming FA President Greg Dyke expressed his concerns, saying that the tournament cannot be played in the Qatari summer and needs to either be moved to their winter or to another country. Due to the difficulties of holding some of the world’s biggest leagues to a standstill, moving countries is the obvious solution.
Now it has been revealed through The Guardian newspaper that workers were working in appalling conditions to build the facilities required, because Qatar currently does not have any stadiums up to the standard required to host a World Cup. The ITUC believes that these conditions, which are described as a lack of food and water, poor working and safety conditions, combined with the 50 degree heat, will result in the deaths of 4000 workers before a ball is kicked in anger at the World Cup in 2022. In 2013 it was reported that organizers have requested for the list of stadiums to be cut down due to growing costs involved in the project. Obviously these costs have not gone towards the safety and well-being of those building the stadiums.
When considering the other countries involved in the process, United States, Japan, Australia and South Korea, all have previous backgrounds at the World Cup. All four have qualified for previous tournaments, and all four are currently qualified for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. All four countries have modern infrastructures in place capable of hosting a World Cup, with only upgrades needed on a few stadiums to get them up to standard. None would have competitors facing such extreme temperatures as the 50 degree summer, in fact for three of the four it would be winter conditions in June and July. Yet all four were soundly beaten by a country that has no prior history or significance in the World Cup, have a national team currently ranked 108th in the world, and the 2022 World Cup currently looms as their only World Cup appearance, unless they can qualify for the 2018 World Cup.
I understand and support the belief of allowing different countries to experience the joys of football, but surely it is too soon for Qatar, especially with the lack of a good national team mixed with the logistical and other problems coming out from Qatar. Compared to Australia, where football is one of the nation’s fastest growing sports , experiencing an ever growing local league product following the boom of the 2006 World Cup performance. Only two months ago 95,000 people pack into the Melbourne Cricket Ground to see Liverpool vs. Melbourne Victory, but Australia and the other three countries cannot get a look in over Qatar? This is why people do not take FIFA seriously, and continually questions the integrity and reasoning behind the decision. FFA President Frank Lowy is currently demanding $43 million plus additional expenses over the failed bid, believing that the process was flawed and now that it has been discovered that FIFA want to move the tournament to the winter, it will compromise the A-League in Australia, and believes that other nations will follow suit if the plan to move the World Cup to the winter goes ahead.
Overall, there should be no conceivable way, from a footballing standpoint, that Qatar ever got to host the World Cup in the first place. Numerous concerns that were obvious before voting now seem to be important to FIFA. It has been an absolute farce and there’s still nine years to go until the World Cup takes place.
Should the 2022 World Cup in Qatar remain in the Summer, be moved to the Winter or given to another Country?
It is inconceivable that the world’s biggest sport can be run so poorly yet FIFA continues to astound when it comes to making those poor decisions. At the forefront is their decision to stage the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. The bidding process for the 2022 World Cup was already been mired in controversy, with accusations of bribery to voting members, and reports are coming out that their workforce who are building the stadiums aren’t being paid, are working in horrendous conditions and are essentially slaves. However the biggest factor currently is whether the tournament should go ahead in summer as stated when nations were bidding for the hosting rights or whether they allow it to be moved to winter. It is in my opinion that Qatar should be stripped of hosting completely, and rights should be given to another country.
There are 4 major factors currently revolving around the proposed move to a winter event by FIFA. Firstly the temperatures in Qatar in the summer reach upwards of 40 degrees Celsius which makes player safety paramount. This is a major reason why there is plans to move the World Cup to a northern hemisphere winter, as opposed to being held in June/July which has been a tradition since the 1930’s. On the surface this is an easy solution and means that Qatar should host the Cup, however this creates more problems than it solves.
The second factor is that a move to a winter event creates havoc with many leagues run worldwide. It will cause disruptions in every major footballing league and nation. In addition to that it will affect other international tournaments such as the Euros 2020 as it makes the qualifying for the World Cup occur in a condensed time, Confederations Cup in 2021, and the Winter Olympics in 2022. Condensing the schedule creates problems with broadcasters, and international players with the likelihood of injuries set to increase if the workload dramatically increases.
The problems with broadcasters isn’t just limited to their contracts with the leagues currently which brings me to the third factor, Fox and its 1 billion dollar contract to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. Fox has the American broadcasting rights for the World Cup with their bid being 1 billion dollars. This was made on the understanding that the World Cup would be shown in June/July. A move to winter puts the event in competition with the NFL and college football. As such this means a bid of a billion is a gross overpaying due to the already scheduled NFL matches which are on Fox during that period. It would be a breach of FIFA’s contract with Fox if the games were move potentially costing FIFA billions from other broadcasters in a similar position.
That is a dramatic loss of revenue, and if a move to a winter World Cup is voted for then it may not be the only revenue it costs FIFA. Australia, one of the bidding nations alongside United States, Korea and Japan, has already signalled its intention to sue if the 2022 World Cup is moved with the United States having a watching brief on the situation. President of FIFA Sepp Blatter claimed that FIFA had the ability to move the event at will, saying 2022 bids were made for a summer event ‘in principle’. However it has been ascertained that the relevant documents never included that phrase, specifying a June or July 2022 World Cup, after a Confederations Cup in June 2021. This opens the door to legal action from the other bidding nations as they were bidding on the explicit understanding that the World Cup would be held in June/July of 2022.
As previously mentioned there have been accusations that Qatar bribed their way to winning the event. As of now these are unproven accusations but regardless they still hold some weight when it comes to stripping the event from Qatar and any hint of bribery is still being investigated. Along with the appalling treatment of its workforce, and the four factors of temperature/player safety, logistics, broadcasting rights and breach of contract with other bidding nations I see no reason why the 2022 World Cup shouldn’t be held in a different country. Legally and contractually, Qatar are obliged to stage a summer event. If this cannot be done, and it is likely that is the case, then the hosting rights should be awarded to another nation.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
It came down to Kiz and Rush. Not that the other two were bad, I just felt that Kiz and Rush did a better job of dealing with the crux of the matter here. Not knowing much about this situation, I think I'm bit more informed just reading these debates, so well done there by all. It sounds like quite the clusterfuck.
lol @ anyone thinking it was a good idea to play a demanding physical sport during the height of the Arabian heat.
Ok, so it's down to Kiz and Rush. I give the edge slightly to Kiz. It's pretty close between these two though.
All 4 debates make the same main point with mostly the same supporting points but I thought Rush's was the strongest overall. The Fox point was brilliant and the main thing that I thought separated D from the pack on top of his communication within the debate being more persuasive to me. The other 3 debates are all good too and mirror the bulk of the winning debate by referring to the ethical issues in Qatar and the implications of moving the tournament to the winter. Mr. Lawls, I'd try and list a source when you refer to a source that isn't commonly known to everyone like the Guardian article you referred to but didn't source. For all I know you could have made it up to assist your argument and just namedropped The Guardian to add credibility. Desecrated, I thought your point about the fans possibly boycotting the World Cup was weak. It's a very bold statement to make and if you are to make it then I thought you needed to convince me much more than it could be a realistic possibility and not a headline grabbing claim which it came across as. Kiz's debate was really close to Rush's but Rush's Fox argument game them the edge for me. Little to fault with Kiz's debate though. Thought the points about Qatar's footballing history and potential were great although you could counter it by arguing that maybe this is just the event that Qatar needs to become a footballing country that can compete with other nations, all be it not a counter worthy of discrediting the argument presented. Thought that all 4 debates possibly could have been improved by looking at the impact on FIFA such as on their image by revoking the World Cup from Qatar and maybe arguing that the damage done by that would be less than the damage that will be caused by keeping it in Qatar, winter or summer.
Winner - Rush.
Mr. Lawls – For me this was just too descriptive and listing various aspects relating to the question without properly expanding upon them. It introduced a lot of potentially intriguing arguments but I don’t really think the writer was able to string together one consistent argument of true quality that can separate a good debate from a great debate. The homosexuality paragraph for instance really felt unexplored and rushed and just immediately stood out as being touched upon without being fully exploited for its potential reward. The debate certainly introduced various talking points, but it read more as a concise summary as opposed to an in depth analysis. The same could be said for the second to last paragraph concerning Lord Triesman. It introduced a strong argument but the writer merely provided a descriptive outlook of the scenario without considering it in a more broad manner and I just feel it’s little touches like that which can prove the difference in questions like this where you get a similar mix of debates in terms of arguments proposed.
Desecrated – I liked the consideration of the fans and how the World Cup takes on a greater importance than merely showcasing football to the entire world, but I felt the debate as a whole was a bit too rigid and marginalised its focus and in the process ignored other arguments that could have strengthened the debate overall. If I was being picky, I’d also refrain from acknowledging your apathy towards the question itself, since it indicates a lack of certainty in your own argument when you admit to having given it little thought outside of this question. Much like the first debate, the extreme heat and its effect on player performance was considered, though again I felt perhaps this could have been expanded upon in greater detail to leave a greater overall impression, especially as it was one of only two arguments you made to support your POV. I’m not suggesting you need a plethora of talking points to succeed in TDL (a great debate is a great debate regardless of the number of points raised), but I would encourage the writer to perhaps work to truly encapsulate everything he can about an argument if he is going to persist in condensing his focus to a couple of arguments as opposed to a broader consideration.
Kiz – Nice opening, clarifies the viewpoint immediately and sets up the tone of the debate well. I liked the consideration of re-arranging the schedule of the World Cup constituting a logistical nightmare, however it was disappointing to see the writer steer away from this line of thought as it was certainly a unique talking point compared to the first two entries and outlined the broad consideration for how the Qatar issue is proving a frustrating problem FIFA appears unable to solve. Breaking down Qatar’s credentials for hosting the tournament in comparison to their competitors was a good base to undermine the decision, especially in conjuncture with the acknowledgement of the building issues and stadia problems that have been apparent so far. The writer further considers this with the Australia example, which again is a solid argument in outlining how Australia has embraced football on the back of their impressive 2006 World Cup showing and how a real opportunity exists to develop and promote the growing impact the game has in Australia. The conclusion was concise yet blunt and very direct and leaves a good impression. Whilst this was by no means a perfect debate, it did get better as it went along and the writer certainly raised some intriguing arguments to support their POV and explored them in greater detail than Mr. Lawls & Desecrated.
Rush – The winning entry for my money. I’d say the opening could be improved as you opened with a strong opening sentence signifying intent before meandering a bit and then clarifying your position, but what comes afterwards is definitely of a strong standard. The writer drew attention to the scheduling conflicts that were briefly discussed in Kiz's debate, however he elaborates on them in greater detail and enhances his argument by considering how a distorted schedule could impact on greater injuries with players afforded less time in between domestic seasons to remedy a poorly organised international schedule. The real strength however lies in how the writer then further elaborated on this point by bringing into consideration the impact it would have on broadcasters. The Fox example was a suitable reference and I loved how the writer shrewdly drew attention to how rescheduling the World Cup for the winter would conflict with Fox’s American Sports commitments and therefore leave them out of pocket and unable to properly profit from their investment. The subsequent focus on the legal ramifications of FIFA’s decision to potentially reschedule the competition wasn’t the strongest argument, however it did once again outline the trouble FIFA has created upon themselves with regard to Qatar appearing unfeasible due to the climate whilst efforts to remedy this would then conflict with broadcasters and the bidding nations who lost out to Qatar in the first place. Overall, this debate just touched on a few more broader issues and presented a more varied consideration of the factors FIFA would have to consider in arriving at their decision. I think each debate could be improved in some way, however this debate read as the strongest entry based on the structure and points raised, which sufficiently differentiated itself from its competitors and left a greater overall impression.
Winner – Rush
Winner via Split Decision - Rush
The Wrestling Junkie vs Scottish-Suplex Should TNA continue to take iMPACT on the road or keep iMPACT to one venue for the vast majority of TV tapings?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Wrestling Junkie
When TNA decided to take IMPACT on the road, it was a move that was very welcomed personally by me because I could understand the reason from a business perspective view. Just like any company in the world, to have more exposure – you need to expand more in certain areas and in this case a company like TNA decided that taking it business on the road would expand their national fan base which would result in more exposure and better ratings for the company itself. But from a realistic view, TNA are correct in considering heading back to going back to one venue. And it should happen sooner rather than later.
From a business model perspective, not many would disagree with TNA motive to take IMPACT live on the road because it should realistically help the company gain more exposure. Not to mention that TNA decided to cut back from 12 pay-per-views to 4 to support better financial costs for the venues when it comes to the big events. In an interview back in March, Dixie Carter said she stated that touring on the road could cost from 600 to 700 thousand dollars which is a lot of money to make up in ticket sales. So this really leaves the question whether keeping IMPACT on the road is the best decision.
TNA have recently been cutting back to help their financial implications which has resulted in them cutting back on talent, and renegotiating their current stars contracts. As stated above, when you’re paying out 600 – 700 thousand for venues on a show, and you’re in a financial crisis – it is a no-brainer really to not want to consider cutting back those heavy costs and heading back to a place which you can support financially in a comfortable state.
With the company being on the road for a couple of months now, the company has not seen an increase in ratings which makes the whole process of being on the road feel completely in vain. My problem with what TNA did was that for many years they have resided in Orlando, Florida. So it confused me as to why the company thought they should expand their company to the west or a place like California in a place where people may not have watched TNA wrestling. For me, that was completely pointless and is one of the reasons why I feel TNA should go back to one venue such as Orlando where they have a good a fan-base or at least scout areas around Florida.
TNA has come a long way no doubt, but they are not a global company like the WWE is and I realise now that it really was the wrong move to do because they do not have that fan base in the territories that they were going to. With a company like WWE, they are a world-wide company known by millions all around where-as TNA does not have that international exposure. So it’s more or less money down the drain on TNA part because they are not ready as a company to even consider expanding their company to different regions – especially in territories where people would not even know what TNA is.
By taking TNA off the road, this does not kill their chances of exposure. They can return back to Orlando, Florida which some people may hate seeing as a lot of people got tired of seeing the same people each week. But TNA could always venture to Nashville which is TNA headquarters or even travel up to New York which gets thousands of tourists and wrestling fans. So there are other possibilities that TNA can look into rather than keeping them on the road costing them thousands of dollars.
Overall, I feel that right now would be the best decision to take TNA back to one venue for now and wait until they feel financially comfortable. They can always try again in the future. But what TNA should be focusing now is heading back to one venue and cutting back on their costs, but also maybe start to focus on places like Nashville and New York where there is a potential fan base rather than going to places like California in which they will not get much revenue for the amount of money they are spending. And for all we know, in a couple of years time – TNA may be ready to tour again and it could be more successful the second time round but at this very moment the most logical option is to head back to one venue and understand that right now they are not in the position for their company to be on the road.
Should TNA continue to take iMPACT on the road or keep iMPACT to one venue for the vast majority of TV tapings?
So TNA has failed. Well maybe it hasn’t entirely failed except in my eyes. I began watching in 2012 just in time for Bound for Glory PPV when everyone was talking about TNA rise in quality compared to WWE’s struggling product. For years TNA had a chance to exploit the struggling beast that was WWE and it has thoroughly failed in doing so and create what I’ve always wanted in 21st century wrestling, decent competition to force the WWE to consistently up their game. But WWE has woken up now while TNA continues to flounder.
Is the on-tour nature of TNA hurting it right now? Obviously it can’t be said to be the sole cause. Money is strapped and talent is either being let go or left with temporary contracts, leaving the X-Division and Knock-Outs a skeletal remain of its former self. Booking is average on a good day and a poorly thought through inconsistent mess on a normal day where talent is unable to remain over and relevant for decent periods of time. And production values like theme music are lacking on the best of days.
Whilst they hold better wrestlers in my mind then the best WWE have to offer, without anything else, it falls flat on its face.
However the lack of Impact Zone home now hurts them as well. It costs money they’re not getting back in return. While the Impact Zone could rely on casual albeit not the best audiences, the on tour nature exposes their small following and damages their reputation and the quality of their shows when presented with such a small crowd at times. TNA right now burns through money with little return for a show left lacking through a combination of all the mentioned reasons.
The IMPACT Zone is one of many problems facing TNA right now, but importantly it is one easily solvable one. Find a new home, and with the money offered by the Carter family it is surely an easy task to find a city with a good wrestling community and casual fan base with a venue they can call their home to give a new surge of life to TNA.
So go ahead and find a new. Deal with one problem facing TNA. Better writing is incredibly subjective based on tone of show and audience. New wrestlers can take time. Production value improvement can also be a long term thing. Finding a new home though could surely be much quicker and to the improvement of TNA. The questions asks whether TNA should find a new IMPACT Zone and I say that whilst it’s definitely not the only thing it should do, it is something that will only help TNA in the long run if done right.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
The Wrestling Junkie - Was this a late type and submit debate? It felt like one. Your points were sort of basic that I think most people could have made off the top of their head with a basic knowledge of TNA's current situation and it felt like you rambled without actually driving points home at times. Also there's a lot of spelling and grammar errors that could have been easily corrected with a quick proof-read, or a more concentrated proof-read. Errors like that really disrupt the flow of a debate for me because it leaves me re-reading sentences to check I understood them properly because the error leaves a cloud of doubt. Great debates you can just flow through without any trouble so when you're going back straight away to re-read a sentence because you're not sure what the point was or what the word was supposed to be then it's an immediate road block in your debate that is rather easily avoided. As I said before, I thought your points were pretty basic. It's costing a lot and providing little return is really the argument that everyone will come up with and provides a sound base but I was hoping you'd kick on from that base and pull out some really well thought out points but I didn't think that happened which held your debate back. The sort of stuff I'm talking about is going a bit deeper into a point than your standard forum post would. Compare the attendances and ratings pre and post iMPACT Zone to clarify your point and tie that into the point about the money that it costs to take the show on the road and if the investment is returning a suitable return in the form of measuring sticks for success such as attendances and ratings. Then look at the consequences of staying at a fixed venue for iMPACT such as stakeholder reactions (internal management, Spike TV, fans, wrestlers, etc) and if it sends out the wrong message of one step forward and two steps back and asking is it too soon to give up on a project they've invested so much into. I came up with them points just while I was reading both debates so it didn't require me to sit down for hours to delve a little deeper into the question. That's what turns a solid debate into a great debate. Among other things but that's a big one.
Scottish-Suplex - This debate was here for the taking for I thought but I also thought you passed up a great opportunity to get a big win with just a good debate. I wouldn't call it bad but there's some pretty glaring issues with it that really hurt it. The most important one being that very little of the debate actually answers the question and goes off into other associated areas of TNA rather than focusing tightly on the touring situation. First paragraph is a fine intro to the context but it doesn't really state your stance. Neither does the next paragraph which just lists a load of issues that TNA has right now. Again, not really answering the question and bringing other topics into the mix that aren't needed. It isn't until the midway point of your debate that you finally start to state your stance and focus in on the actual topic at hand. 4th paragraph I thought was great btw but it's outnumbered by the paragraphs that don't really add anything to the actual question. "The IMPACT Zone is one of many problems facing TNA right now, but importantly it is one easily solvable one.". If it's an easily solvable problem then maybe suggest how to solve the problem in a bit more depth? "it is surely an easy task to find a city with a good wrestling community and casual fan base with a venue they can call their home". Well then give an example of a wrestling market that fits the criteria then. New York? Chicago? Orlando? Conclusion starts bringing in other topics again that aren't the touring situation. You can bring these topics in but if you're doing that then you need to tie them in with the actual topic rather than just throwing them out there on their own. If you bring in production values then that's something you can tie to location and travel cost.
Neither debate was bad but I wanted at least one to really kick on past the basics. Spelling errors and getting sidetracked by other topics really hurt too. Gonna give the win to The Wrestling Junkie as they answered the question stronger despite leaving a lot of room for an opponent to improve on the basic points they made with deeper arguments of the same points.
Winner - The Wrestling Junkie.
The Wrestling Junkie's was ok. I felt like you left room for counter arguments with your discussion on TNA's lack of international exposure, and TNA's expansion out west, but using Dixie's article to discuss Impact on the road combined with the saving costs argument put you over the hump. Much like Scottish-Suplex, I would have liked to seen you dig deeper into the business side of TNA. STATS.
Scottish-Suplex's was ok. You did good with the topic at hand, but the debate overall was short. I would have liked to seen you branch out more. What are the marketing opportunities on the road vs in one location? That's just an example. More content would have gave your debate more strength. Otherwise it was kind of one dimensional.
Winner The Wrestling Junkie.
Evolution The Wrestling Junkie - Feedback: I feel your intro could have been a bit stronger, I felt like you almost explained the other side of the debate and justified that really well but then in the last couple of sentences stated that your side of the debate was actually opposite. It felt a bit muddled to me as a reader i.e I thought you were going to support them staying on the road.
From a personal standpoint the way I would have taken the debate with your subject matter, is used all the positives you explained about being on the road, offset them with the negatives (i.e the cost and TNA's current financial situation) and used that to maybe argue for a limited road schedule in a small handful of locations or something similar. So don't forget in future you can look at your topic a bit outside the box which is why your intro is so important. Sustainability vs. benefit is a perfect concept for this sort of topic.
I liked the subject matter of your debate for the most part, had you explained in a little more depth the benefits for having a live show other than ratings like fan experience etc. then it would have strengthened it further, but like I said with the intro and even conclusion/last two paragraphs worded the way they were I feel the meat of your debate would have been taken to the next level with more careful definitions in your intro to actually mould a topic around what you wanted to/did talk about.
Scottish-Suplex - Feedback: I felt like you spent a lot of time talking about TNA's short-comings but not enough time talking about the topic at hand. Look at your introduction for example; it's THE opportunity to set the tone and topic for your debate to make it stand out and really leave an impact on the reader and you didn't mention the actual topic once.
Rather than focusing on everything else TNA may or may not be doing correctly, you should be focusing on why or how them touring will affect that either way. If you had spent more time focusing on the subject matter of the debate I feel it would have resulted in a much stronger entry for you. It's just practice. Don't forget there is the Dojo in the Debate League section for you to refine your skills in practice debates.
Winner via repeated, ruthless and almost unnecessary knock outs: The Wrestling Junkie
Winner via Unanimous Decision - The Wrestling Junkie
Scott Hall's Ghost vs Crusade Could CM Punk have still been a main eventer during the attitude era?
Spoiler for Debates:
Scott Hall's Ghost
COULD CM PUNK HAVE BEEN A MAIN EVENTER IN THE ATTITUDE ERA?
There’s little doubt that CM Punk’s charisma, in-ring performance, top tier mic skills, and ability to engage the audience have allowed him to become one of the current era’s biggest stars in WWE. In many ways, Punk has become the face of the better things currently happening in WWE, which raises the question; could he have been a main eventer in the Attitude Era (AE), a time many fans uphold as the peak of the industry?
Simply put—yes he could. However, stating Punk’s effectiveness, and its cause, in the current era isn’t enough to make the case. To properly understand how Punk could have been an AE success one must look to the AE itself and, in particular, some of its more effective stars.
Bret Hart was a great in-ring worker who had a chip on his shoulder and was often overlooked as the true ‘top guy’ in the company. Never seeming to fully have WWE’s support, and constantly fighting to keep a ‘1b’ status to whomever WWE ‘really’ wanted as ‘their guy’, his eventual heel turn was as believable as it was effective.
While we all know how his story ended in Montreal, the comparisons between Bret and Punk are obvious. Despite being a unique performer, and always having the support/engagement of the crowd, Punk has also found himself often overlooked as the real ‘face’ of the company. Instead of Bret’s Shawn and Diesel, Punk has had to see Cena and the Rock pushed ahead of him.
Much like Bret with Vince, this has created an opportunity for Punk to play the perfect disgruntled employee to Vince, HHH, and John Laurinaitus. All of this points to the fact that, even as an alternative option, Punk has the makings of one of the beginnings-of-the-AE’s greatest stars.
The transition between era’s, and arguably the greatest villain to come out of the AE, hinge on the foe to both Bret and Punk: “The Boss” Vince McMahon. In creating the “Mr. McMahon” character, Vince also greatly defined what was to become the main crux of not just the AE, but the industry at the time: rebelling against authority and impossible odds.
To be a great villain, you need a great hero; someone the crowd can get behind, someone who, despite being screwed and put against seemingly impossible odds, somehow finds a way to rise above, both giving hope to the audience, and giving the villain their comeuppance.
Vince McMahon was this villain. His feuds with Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, and the Rock defined the era and remain the standard to this day for what great storytelling can look like.
Much like those stars, CM Punk perfectly fits the mould of the guy who an evil Mr. McMahon would want to hold down. He’s an anti-hero, he rebels against authority, he speaks his mind, and he doesn’t have ‘the look’ that a corporation would want to represent it. Punk can be mentioned alongside those great stars of the AE because he represents the perfect opposite to Mr. McMahon.
That brings one to a natural pinnacle: Stone Cold Steve Austin. When talking about any of the aforementioned stars, or the AE in general, you can’t escape the magnetism and effectiveness of Stone Cold Steve Austin.
He was the perfect moon to McMahon’s sun. He was the perfect hero to the corporate villain(s) (for so many of the other great stars of the era played this role against SCSA—Bret, the Rock, HHH, etc.)… In short: for the AE, SCSA was perfect.
The only other superstar to quite possess the same characteristics, and who could possibly fill a similar role, would have to be CM Punk. His scathing “Pipe Bomb” was a verbal mishmash of Austin’s 3:16 speech and every stunner Austin delivered to Vince. Punk’s ability to blur the lines between kayfabe and reality mirror Austin’s palpable loathing of his foes and his irreverence. And both believed they were the best, able to defeat anything put before them.
Neither was cowed by the power and authority of corporate, deflated by the evil scheming of HHH or Vince, or silenced by the charisma and magnetism of the Rock. Both were equally effective as face and heel and both engaged the audience as tweeners for much of their latter careers as a result. The angry, charged charisma of both superstars is similar, as is their ability to take what they’re given and make an all-time classic character, feud, or promo.
When viewed in light of the stars, villains, and principles of the AE, it’s quite obvious that CM Punk could have been every bit the main event star as those names we hold in such high regard looking back.
CM Punk as a performer has been compared to those in the attitude era and many believe that Punk's style and character may have been a perfect mold for it. But would Punk have been a main eventer in that time period? Punk whilst arguably having all the tools necessary to do so I believe would have not become a full time main eventer in the attitude era.
Let's first look at the main reason why Punk became a main eventer in the first place. Punk since arriving at WWE has made a conscious effort to keep an edge and attitude to his character. At a time where people were yearning for an alternative to Cena they finally got it with CM Punk whose a throwback in character to the attitude era. The fact that CM Punk is so different from other main eventers from the PG era is a huge reason why he has become a top star in WWE.
If you applied this into the attitude era where the envelope was being pushed on all sides of programming, Punk has less for him to stand out with. An example of this is his infamous shoot promo where at the time because of Punk's professional circumstances and its timing became his career defining moment. If this exact promo would have been delivered in the attitude era where shoot's were more common it wouldn't have had nearly as much impact.
Another problem with Punk being a top star at that time would have been his look. Whilst smaller wrestlers were definitely more accepted, the attitude era still embodied the larger than life look that WWE loves. Punk himself was having problems with WWE in regards to not having the look of a superstar as Michael Hayes documents about officials having problems with Punk's "scruffy" look in 2006.  If Punk was having problems in 2006 you can only imagine what it would have been like in the 1990's where it was even harder for smaller guys to reach the top. An example of this is Kurt Angle who had problems getting pushed because he was deemed too small by other wrestlers.  If Kurt Angle of all people was having problems, you can only imagine what it would be like for Punk.
Punk is argued for being able to main event in the attitude era because of his overall talent as a performer and as the perfect foe to Stone Cold Steve Austin. However neither guarantees Punk as a main event star in this era as shown by two comparable wrestlers: Kane and Chris Jericho. Kane as The Undertaker's brother had the perfect back story as Taker's arch nemesis but only in 1998 where Kane main evented 5 PPV's can he be considered a full time main eventer. Kane for the rest of the attitude era floated in and out of the main event at best which shows despite being the perfect foe to a top guy; Kane was not a main eventer for most of the time. So Punk being the ying to Austin's yang would have not guaranteed him prolonged main event status. Jericho is often compared to Punk as a great well rounded performer; excellent in the ring, brilliant on the microphone, charismatic and having a well defined character. However despite having all these gifts like Punk he was not cemented as a main eventer until Vengeance 2001 which proves sometimes pure ability isn't enough.
Jericho's main reason for not breaking through to the main event till then is the biggest reason why Punk would struggle to main event in the attitude era: the main event talent. The Rock and Austin were mega stars and would have in no way been replaced at the time. Triple H not only became the top heel due to his ability but also secured himself a fantastic political position dating Stephanie McMahon. The Undertaker spent close to a decade at being at the top and was a one of a kind attraction for the company. Similarly Mick Foley became a top draw due to his multiple personas that were hugely unique and had built Foley a huge connection with the audience. Finally, Kurt Angle nearer the end of the era was also unique having the legitimacy of being the first and only olympic gold medalist in WWE which gave him the credibility to be built into a main event star. With these five names plus others in the undercard such as Kane and Chris Jericho waiting in the wings, it is hard to imagine Punk ever breaking through that barrier in this time period.
So overall whilst Punk as a performer and character may have been a great fit for the attitude era, it would have not been the right era for him becoming a main event star.
I loved reading this debate. Opposing sides debates are always extra fun to read because they offer the chance for a great debate to just ridicule a good debate and I thought that's exactly what happened here. Scott Hall's Ghost's debate was definitely good and I didn't have much criticism coming out of it. Definitely nothing major anyway. Only thing that really stood out to me was that you were comparing Punk to character traits within the Attitude Era too much rather than assessing how big of a star he would have been relative to the competition. Yes he would have fit the Austin role very nicely but that role was already taken by Austin so where does Punk fit in during the same era as Austin? That was the big rebuttal that I thought your debate left wide open and B really jumped hard on it. Crusade's debate I thought was awesome. Great debate in its own right but fantastic in the way that it countered Scott Hall's Ghost's debate. Great comparison of the competition for main event spots during the two eras along with the culture where pushing the boundaries stands out more in Punk's era than it would have in Austin's era. Size argument is brilliant and the Angle example just drives it home even further. Great job backing your points up with examples. Comparisons to Kane and Jericho were brilliant. This is where I thought Scott Hall's Ghost really missed out, comparing the contexts of each eras and how different the contexts are. Great debate to read and a fantastic effort by Crusade.
Winner - Crusade
Scott Hall's Ghost – I liked the idea in theory of how the writer went about breaking down this question, but truthfully I’m not certain the execution was of the required standard. The opening is fine in clarifying the viewpoint and trying to apply a contextual consideration to justify the argument, but I have issues with the subsequent examples. The Bret paragraph immediately raises concerns in my mind with regard to how well it supports the writers’ argument. All that is mentioned is that Punk like Hart was overlooked by management which presented itself a natural storyline that brought about his eventual departure: but it doesn’t clarify Punk’s assets or how Punk himself could have fulfilled the role of Hart to equal or greater results. It merely indicates the position existed for Punk to potentially be utilised in that role, without really expanding upon that which hinders the overall strength of the example. Much the same can be said for the Vince paragraph. The closing paragraph at least provides a summarisation of Punk’s attributes which are indicative of establishing himself as someone who could believably oppose the machine, but again the bulk of the section focuses on Vince as a performer rather than considering Punk first and foremost. It feels like the writer is establishing scenarios in which Punk could succeed, without really affording themselves enough time to argue WHY he could succeed.
Sadly much the same can be applied to the Austin example. Again, the writer outlines how Punk possesses similar characteristics to Austin, but I cannot conclude that by the end of the section I was left convinced Punk could recreate the same success Austin enjoyed in the role. I do admire the intention behind the writer’s strategy, but sadly the bulk of each example focuses on who Punk is being compared to and then rests on a brief description of Punk to justify how similar attributes render Punk an unquestionable success story. There isn’t much consideration for how Punk himself would feasibly replicate the same success of the people he is being compared to, and that is where the problems lie in this debate for me. There is definite potential to utilise the breakdown of the question to string together a strong entry, but I don’t feel this was accomplished.
Crusade – This overall just feels like a stronger entry than the first debate. Whilst the writer concedes Punk possesses an array of welcomed attributes and skills, they smartly rest on the context of the attitude era to draw upon the wider considerations and conclude that Punk through no fault of his own would have struggled to permeate the competition and become a main eventer. The first two paragraphs were particularly strong imo and smartly broke down how Punk’s character shines in the present era and invites comparisons to the attitude era because the landscape and typical characters of today are very vanilla, thus Punk is immediately distinguishable and separated from the rest of the roster. Sadly placing him in an era where his character seems ideally suited would render him as another edgy character and forces him to find alternative ways to forge a long lasting identity for himself: crucially this forces the reader to accept Punk would have had an immediate obstacle which we cannot convincingly argue he would have overcome. Considering his look was more concisely touched upon, although again the writer makes a fair point that the same issues Punk was faced with in 2006 would have existed in the Attitude Era and when we consider the abundance of talent Punk would have had to compete against in that timeframe it does indicate he might have struggled to become accepted as he was in the middle of the decade. I liked the idea behind the Kane & Jericho comparisons, essentially arguing Punk’s character and all round talent could not undisputedly secure himself a permanent main event position. It wasn’t the strongest argument in comparison to the first two paragraphs, but that says more about the strength of those paragraphs rather than suggesting this paragraph was fundamentally weak. The final paragraph likewise does a serviceable job in outlining the main event talent Punk would have been in direct competition with, which taken in conjuncture with the earlier argument that Punk’s image and character which separates himself from his current peers would not have been applicable in this timeframe does leave one questioning just how Punk would have realistically been elevated to such heights. His image certainly isn’t as immediately identifiable in that timeframe as it is today given the array of characters and personalities that were at the heart of making WWE such a refreshing product during the late 90s resurgence, and given that has been a strong staple for him successfully forging a connection with today’s audience it does leave his position precarious to say the least.
Overall I felt Crusade's was the stronger entry and more effectively considered Punk’s attributes but concluded circumstances outside of his control, rather than a lack of talent on his part might have impacted on his potential to become a main eventer in the attitude era. There was a broader consideration of what it took to succeed during that era in this debate, whereas the first debate felt lacking in terms of arguing strongly for why Punk would succeed. The first two paragraphs in Crusade's were stronger than anything in Scott Hall Ghost's, and overall it just read as the stronger entry.
Winner – Crusade
Two very differing debates in style and one very interesting topic that I have my own personal opinion on so it will be interesting to see what we get here in terms of results. Let's get into it...
Scott Hall's Ghost - Now normally I'm not one to stray too far from the standard debate formula and normally atypical formats don't do it for me but I've got to say I was kind of impressed with the structure of your debate. It gave it a clear flow that was really smooth and really gave it a unique experience to read. So bravo on that one.
However, I was somewhat let down by your following arguments after the intro. If you had defined what you considered a main eventer to be it would have really brought the Bret Hart comparison into the next level. I guess what I'm saying is that in order to really truly sell me on this side of the argument you needed to be realistic about what a "main eventer" would qualify as, had you done that in your intro I think it would have made your debate stronger and I'll tell you why...
In your closing section about "the star" you make a lot of parallels to Stone Cold and Punk... Now I'm a big Punk mark but from reading that it seemed like you were almost implying that Punk would have become a star on an equal level to Austin (who is arguably the greatest of all time) and I'm not really sure anyone could argue that effectively enough to me in 800 words and convince me that's remotely true.
Now getting back to the intro had you defined what you considered to be a main event star as someone that competes in the main event with x frequency or whatever else you want to define it as and you created a more realistic expectation you could tie that in during that section and it would have been more convincing for me. Am I making sense? PM me if you want me to try and explain a little better.
Overall I loved the style of the debate you took and you used some great examples and parallels to build a convincing argument, a little more direction in your introduction would take this to a pretty much perfect entry for mine. Well done.
Crusade - Great introduction, I loved how you defined the question as a "full-time main eventer" although it would have been nice if you had further elaborated on that but it doesn't matter THAT much. Now as unfair of a definition as I think that is because really there was only like a small handful of main eventers during the AE it doesn't matter because YOU have defined what it means to YOUR debate. I instantly know this is going to be a strong entry.
I loved how you connected Punk's modern day success to the AE throwback style of his work and how that makes him excel in a seemingly soft environment, plus you created a perfect destruction for his shoot promo and what I feel is a completely valid point being that it would have been lost in the other moments given the intensity of the whole period. That's a subject I think you could have explored a little more but that doesn't affect your debate negatively it's just a topic I'm interested in hearing.
I'm not sure who has argued that Punk would be the perfect enemy for Stone Cold I'm not sure I've ever heard that argument before but regardless I thought it was a little unfair/unrealistic of a comparison to use Kane as a measuring stick for that sort of thing lol. Kane's character and strengths as a wrestler are like the complete opposite of Punks skillset and his strengths. That comparison made me legit lol. However the Jericho one that followed was perfect and I felt really hit home what you were saying. Leave out the Kane comparison next time though, I get what you were trying to say but honestly it's a piss-weak argument at best.
You pretty much summed it up perfectly in your closing paragraph but it would have been cool if you had let the reader do a bit more thinking for themselves by maybe listing the full-time main event talent of the time without going into too much depth then adding the Jericho/Kane (lol) thing at the end as a tool to show that while he may be in their class he wouldn't be big enough to full-time it.
Decision: Look I really enjoyed reading both debates and I've had to read them a few times to really come up with a winner. Now it's hard because while my head agrees with Crusade my heart really warmed to the idea of Scott Hall's Ghost's debate which going into it I really didn't expect to happen. I'm probably going to cop heaps of flack for this but while I thought Crusade's was technically a better debate, I enjoyed and found myself more persuaded by Scott Hall's Ghost. It not only changed my mind on the topic at hand, but also felt more personal to me and had flavour to it. It's for this reason that I've got to go with Scott Hall's Ghost here. Complete with the Stone Cold comparison and all (lmao).
Winner via Split Decision - Crusade
*Post match adrian_zombo comes out to congratulate Crusade and lay down a challenge.*
adrian_zombo: Crusade. Crusade. Bravo. Another impressive victory. It's quite the streak you've developed here but let's not get carried away. With all respect to Rah, Concrete and Scott Hall's Ghost, you've only been beating the lower leagues and to me that's not THAT impressive. You wanna REALLY make a name for yourself in this division? Then step up to where the BIG BOYS PLAY and see how you handle yourself against one of the big boys.
Crusade: Are you challengine me on behalf of someone? The Lady Killer? Seabs? THE CHAMP?
adrian_zombo: GOD DAMN IT I'M TALKING ABOUT ME!
Crusade: Ok. You got it.
*zombo tries to look serious but really isn't the intimidating serious looking type so everyone gives him a loveable awwwwwwww. Crusade vs adrian_zombo is set up for TDL VIII.*
Anark vs KLEEBLATT Should the 2014 Winter Olympics be taken away from Russia in light of their new "anti-gay" propoganda laws?
Spoiler for Debates:
No, a boycott would make hypocrites of us all.
China’s human rights record is terrible but the Beijing Olympics were awesome. Tony Blair lied about WMDs to invade Iraq, yet Britain was subsequently awarded the thoroughly enjoyable 2012 Olympics. Is banning gay propaganda really worse than causing over 100,000 civilian deaths under false pretence?
Another interesting precedent is the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. There’s much debate about extreme temperatures, but little about consensual gay sex being completely illegal in Qatar with penalties of up to five years in jail. Russia, incidentally, has legislation protecting adult gay rights. Their new law only bans the ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors,’ while Deputy PM Dmitry Kozak has assured the IOC that Russia will fully comply with the Olympic Charter's provision against discrimination of any kind. Kozak also stressed that this legislation ‘does not impose any restrictions on sexual orientation.’
Of immediate concern though is whether athletes publically supporting gay rights at the Games will face prosecution. Russian officials say the law will be enforced, and although foreigners face much smaller fines than resident Russians for breaking this law, they also face additional 15-day jail sentences and/or deportation, which is indeed worrying.
Crucially, insight into this particular concern was gained during the recent World Championships in Moscow. There, controversy arose when Swedish athletes Emma Green Tregaro and Moa Hjelmer protested by painting their nails in rainbow colours, with Tregaro posting a picture on Instagram alongside messages of support for gay rights. The only authorities who took any action were those of the Swedish Athletics Association on advisement of the IAAF, who reminded them that political statements of any kind contravened the rules of the World Championships. Tregaro quickly re-painted her nails red, and the only other consequence was Russian pole-vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva embarrassing herself by claiming the Swedes had ‘disrespected Russia’, though she later retracted her statement claiming misinterpretation.
So the World Championship experience strongly suggests that Russian authorities will rightfully allow the IAAF and national athletic organisations to police the matter themselves.
Consider now that if politics starts designating hosts, then world events would likely only ever be hosted by neutral nations like Switzerland or Liechtenstein, who often don’t have the requisite resources or conditions. It’s just not practical to only assign big sporting events to countries that meet certain political criteria. The criteria should be relevant and thus always based on the sporting event-hosting attributes of the potential host; their venues, stadia, transport and conditions for the athletes. It doesn’t make sense to organise it any other way.
Besides, with legal and political action already taking place via the proper channels (Russia is currently being addressed and fined by the European Court of Human Rights), sport need not involve itself. But it can still shine a spotlight on issues, as the 2008 Olympics did with China’s human rights record, and we shouldn’t deny this spotlight from Russians opposed to the law, nor their opportunity to be supported in their stance by athletes and confederations from around the world. In fact, allowing Russia to host these Games has ensured the controversial law far more coverage than it would have received otherwise.
And the fact remains that the Olympic Charter simply doesn’t allow for political actions, but instead demands a casting aside of our political and religious agendas.
Chapter 5 of the Olympic Charter states: ‘No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas.’
Chapter 1 also defines the Games as: ’…competitions between athletes in individual or team events, and not between countries.’
Thus, the Olympics exist for individuals to compete against each other and, despite national media often glorifying medal hauls, the event really isn’t about country versus country and certainly not about politics versus politics.
The Olympics do not and should not care about Russia being unfair to gays, or China repressing its people, or Britain engaging in illegal wars. The Games are where we disregard political and religious differences and gather together as a united human race. It’s where we as a species convene without prejudice to discover exactly how good we are at stuff.
Olympic Games aren’t about politics and they certainly don’t belong to a handful of liberal nations. The Olympics aren’t our ball to take home. They are simply about the human race’s quest for excellence, about finding out how great we truly are and exactly how far we can push ourselves. They’re about our desire to go faster, higher, further than ever before. The Olympics are not about what we think of this law or that holy book, of this legislation or that set of beliefs, but about throwing all of that nonsense out of the window and just being the best damn humans we can be.
KLEEBLATT Should the 2014 Winter Olympics be taken away from Russia in light of their new "anti-gay" propoganda laws?
Yes. I believe the 2014 Winter Olympic games, scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia, should be taken away from them in light on the recent “anti-gay” propaganda laws.
Whilst I fully believe that the 2014 Winter Olympic Games should be taken away from Russia, I don’t believe cancelling the games altogether is the right way to go. The journey that the athletes undertake between games and the preparation that they have to go through means that they deserve a Winter Olympic games every 4 years. I propose moving the games to an alternative host country; that upholds basic human rights and that won’t endanger the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community.
There would be big financial implications of moving the games, to minimize this the best option would be Vancouver, Canada, hosts of the 2010 Winter Olympics. They would already have the venues and knowledge that would be invaluable to successfully host consecutive games.
During these games Pride Houses were set up in Vancouver and Whistler. They served as venues to offer support and education for LGBT sportspeople, coaches and visitors during the games. Proceeding with the games being held in Sochi, Russia would feel like a step back in the quest for equality. Instead of finding a caring likeminded community with which to share an experience, the propaganda laws will be enforced and people will be forced to lie about who they really are and not be able to express themselves.
It was a mistake to award Sochi, Russia the games in the first place.
To host an Olympic Games or Winter Olympic games the city must apply to the International Olympic Commission (IOC) and they must comply with three primary checks. They must prove that they are big enough to host the games, including having adequate venues and arenas, the cities must convince residents that the benefits of hosting outweighs the cost of hosting an event. The third criteria I’ve quoted is key.
“The city needs to maintain a highly positive media exposure to carry the games. Fourth, the tangible effects of hosting the Olympic games may not prove beneficial if the bid committees do not exercise proper judgment in developing the city to host the Olympics.”
There is no way they can attest to being able to maintain “highly positive media exposure” during these games in light of these new laws because it is blatant discrimination and highly controversial.
Without question, there will be negative media coverage of certain aspects of the games in relation to these anti-gay propaganda laws. Even though the IOC have come out and said that they will proceed with the games, there will be unavoidable clashes between the LGBT Community at the games and the enforcers of the anti-gay propaganda law being imposed. There are already demonstrations taking place across Russia, in light of the laws, some think it is a precursor of what’s to come; based on the fact that the policing of such an event is usually very vigilant, as the games in Vancouver showed.
Whilst the anti-gay laws in Russian seem like a bad joke to some people and unfathomable in todays more liberal society, they are taken rather more seriously in Russia. There are legitimate militia groups on patrol that will use force. It’s shocking that the IOC have decided to give the green light for the games to take place.
It was Russian President Vladimir Putin, who signed into law a bill punishing people for homosexual "propaganda”. There is no doubt that the social media coverage of the proposed 2014 Winter Olympics to be hosted in Sochi, Russia will be heavily focused on this point, people will take to Twitter and facebook to convey their opinions.
Dimitri Kisilev, Deputy General Director of Russia’s state owned 24 hour news channel declared on live TV “the hearts of gay people should be burned as they are not suitable for the continuation of life”. This statement was met with support from the studio audience. This is simply adding fuel to the fire, should we send our LGBT athletes into a hostile environment where they are forced to not be themselves? No.
The LGBT community is now at risk of imprisonment for merely displaying affection in public.
The new laws are totally against the Ethos of the Olympic Games. Which revolve around contributing to building a peaceful and better world, by educating the youth globally, through sports, without any discrimination and in accordance with the Olympic spirit. With these new anti-gat propaganda laws, you could say the Olympic spirit is broken.
Why should people “go back into the closet” and hide who they really are? Why should they also put themselves at risk of being vilified by local supporters of the new anti-gay propaganda laws?
First off, just want to say co-existence is the most important part of human existence. Let's just fucking be friends. Otherwise, we're gonna kill each other. Ok, really good debates here. I'm glad we have opposing stances. While I like Anark's debate more, I do think the Olympics are more than just athletics. It's trying to unite the world for just a little bit through athletics. At the end of the day political differences really do mean more than how high some guy can jump. Athletics can make us forget all that as we get caught up in how awesome we are watching people ski jump, run fast, jump far etc. And that fucking bobsled. That shit is great. Even this paragraph itself is self-indulgent (and this sentence extraneous).
Ok, so Anark says PLAY ON and KLEEBLATT says Russia doesn't deserve the Games. I gotta say Anark convinced me better. I was leaning toward moving the games, but as I read Anark's debate, I realized that putting places like Russia under the microscope is the subversive agenda of things like the Olympics. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the Olympics should attempt to shine bright here.
Anark wins. Congratulations (or not if you wind up losing)
Anark – I don’t think this was a particularly strong debate, but there was a lot of intriguing points raised and overall I think the writer did a good job even if considerable improvement could be made. I liked the contextual approach that was evident throughout, especially the consideration of the recent protest by the Swedish athletes and how the matter was handled which did a good job at outlining how the authorities would be allowed to oversee and pass judgement where appropriate, rather than Russia exercising complete control. I wasn’t a big fan of the paragraph talking about neutral countries being awarded world events if hosts were judged via political ideals: it just felt very basic and without much consideration and truthfully I think the writer could easily have cut it out if he wasn’t going to expand on that argument. The next paragraph was improved though and I liked the argument that the Olympics need not concern itself with disciplining a country when the proper channels are already exercising that right. The consideration of the Charter was also a strong aspect to touch on and examined the purpose of the Olympic Games which focuses on the athletes rather than the setting of where the games are staged which supported the argument that political differences aside, the aspirations and success of any Olympics will always rest first and foremost with the athletes themselves. Overall, I’d suggest the writer could improve by perhaps utilising a more sophisticated speaking tone in some areas (‘to discover exactly how good we are at stuff’) and analysing more with regard to key points rather than littering the debate with brief paragraphs which occasionally entertain a point of view but conclude before sufficiently examining it. However I felt the writer did a good job at focusing on the ideology of the Games and how that can be set aside from political undertones of the host nation in addition to considering the recent protest by athletes and the means in which this was handled.
KLEEBLATT – Immediately I’m compelled to believe the focus on Canada at the start might have been ill advised. The comparison between the two nations and how Russia by comparison represents ‘a step back for equality’ is merited, but could have been achieved without eating into the word count (the third paragraph in particular really offers nothing to the question at hand and is mere background detail which is largely wasteful). I also felt the writer’s main argument was undermined in some manner by China having been awarded an Olympic Games. So much was made in regards to negative media publicity that I couldn’t help but feel Anark’s argument that the spirit of the games run separately to political undertones/ideologies was heavily substantiated in comparison to the argument at hand here given China’s well documented media scrutiny with regards to human rights abuses. The writer definitely wrote passionately about how a gay athlete may feel uncomfortable given the unease with regard to the new legislation, but I couldn’t help but feel Anark appropriately acknowledged the proper channels for discipline and enforcement existed outside of the Olympics in addition to how the Olympics allow for contentious issues such as this to receive greater publicity and coverage and thus raise awareness of the issue for those actively against the new legislation. The closing argument is certainly capable of forcing the reader to empathise with athletes who may encounter discrimination within the setting of the Games, but overall I feel Anark's was a more well rounded debate in acknowledging the problems the new legislation represented morally, but yet was able to focus objectively and create an argument that suggested the ethos of the Olympics does not concern itself with politics, but rather healthy competition between nations in a manner encouraging sportsmanship and dignity.
Winner – Anark
Outstanding work guys. This is exactly what TDL Social Division needs in battles like this are example of the quality continues to be raised in every show. Both of you did what you needed to answer the question but there must be a winner.
KLEEBLATT, you were very conscious in to make note that you would take the Olympics from Russia but not from the athletes who worked so hard for the opportunity to compete, or the spectators looking to watch the event. You did provide some incredible quotes from Russian officials, I must say.
Before I go more into your great use of quotes let me mention I really liked that you not simply said take away the games from Russia but you provided an option that when you factor in financial location and prep it is a seemingly logical alternative.
You also hit the nail on the head with your list of qualifications that Sochi is not meeting according to the argument you built against them. This is such a credible quote to use that made your debate more convincing. You gave the reader up to date news information on the social climate which is exactly what I was looking for in the beginning of the debate and you eventually followed through. So you successfully managed to cover the social, ethical, and political aspects surrounding this issue. Your use of quotes are absolutely striking and added a vibrant picture to how big of an issue this is in Russia and the implications it could mean for the Olympic and international media. Debate B covered the propaganda aspect with the 24 hour news cycle news source as well. Only criticism I'd say is the close could have been a bit stronger, especially compared to the other debate and check spelling at the end. Great job KLEEBLATT
Now Anark. You asserted your stance immediately with an opening line that forces the reader to consider not only how they view the question but how they potentially view themselves if they think one way or another on the issue. Your examples of other countries who hosted the Olympics and their political fallacies did not affect their bids for the Games. Excellent research on the laws that are planned to be enforced. Great pointing out what the “propaganda laws” actually entails. You made some valid reasons why it would be incorrect to allow politics interfere with this matter. The conclusion could not be any more brilliant. While the excepts from the Olympic Charter were added greatly to enhance your point, I felt the quotes KLEEBLATT used supported his argument even more and that’s what put his debate over the top for me, personally.
Close one but I declare KLEEBLATT the victor.
Winner via Split Decision - Anark
*Scott Hall's Ghost is caught heading back to the locker room. He heads up to his bags and finds a gift wrapped present on top of them. He leans down and opens to find A PIE with the word HUMBLE dodgily sketched on the pie in icing. I hope nobody tries to eat this or they might be missing a few shows through illness. SHG looks at the attached note to reveal a short but effective note from Crusade.*
Spoiler for message:
TDL Sports Division #1 Contenders Match
JM vs Aid180 Does the designated hitter rule enhance the quality of Major League Baseball?
Spoiler for Debates:
The Designated Hitter Rule was adopted by the American League of Major League Baseball in 1973. The rule allows teams to have one player, known as the designated hitter (abbreviated DH), to bat in place of the pitcher. This rule was not adopted by the National League, the other half of Major League Baseball, and sometimes this creates issues during interleague play. Now that interleague play is an everyday thing, it feels like a bigger issue. While the some purists dislike the rule, I believe it is what’s best for business.
As a fan of a team, would you rather have your ace pitcher attempting to perfect his fastball or practice his contact hitting with the ball? That’s the question fans need to ask themselves. With the inclusion of the DH rule for the entire league, pitchers wouldn’t have to practice hitting. Let’s flashback to May 20th, 2013. San Francisco Giants pitcher Ryan Vogelsong was pitching against the Washington Nationals. During the game, Vogelsong went up to bat and was hit in his pitching hand by the ball, fracturing it. He would return to pitch on August 9th, roughly 11 weeks later. While Vogelsong is only making $5 Million this season and isn’t the Giants’ best pitcher at this stage in his career, but it’s still a blow to the team. What would have happened if that was a more prominent pitcher? Milwaukee Brewers GM Doug Melvin told ESPN in April:
Now, when we're starting to pay pitchers $20 million a year, don't we have to start thinking more about whether we want pitchers hitting? When you think about the competitiveness of a Zack Greinke or a Kershaw when he's hitting, there's a danger of those guys overdoing it in any at-bat and getting hurt. Think about the money factor. If Felix Hernandez were to get hurt, it would be devastating to Seattle -- to their season, to their franchise, to their fan base. A guy like that, he's a draw. When he pitches, people come to the park. I know I get nervous every time a pitcher squares around to bunt, even guys we're not paying $20 million.
While hardcore fans see the pain of losing a guy, you also have to look at it from the point of view of the casuals. What if the star pitcher goes down? Immediately some fans who only go to games to see that player pitch would be turned off. Teams would lose a draw and potential revenue.
There’s a counter point. It isn’t common for pitchers to get hurt at bat. It happens, but not everyday. It still hurts a team on something that could be avoidable with the DH rule though. Baseball is offense and defense, hitting and fielding/pitching. Purists argue that it’s nostalgic to have everyone on offense and defense. It was part of the game for many years. Sometimes things just need a little updating. If things always remained the same and rules never changed, Women couldn’t vote and there’d be leather helmets in football. Besides, the DH can be exciting.
David Ortiz is one of the DHs currently in baseball. He is a great hitter. However, his defense is terrible. The DH allows him to focus on his good qualities. Now his job is just to hit. The team doesn’t have to worry about a guy blowing a play with an error. The on field quality is better if a good fielder is on the field instead of Ortiz and Ortiz is hitting for a bad hitter. In fact, his 2004 Performance was one of the reasons Boston won the World Series. His post-season even earned him MVP honors for the ALCS, a first for a DH. Without the DH rule, a bad fielder like Ortiz wouldn’t have had a shot. Baseball is also a business, and what's best for business and casual fans are big names and big hits. That's Ortiz's job, to get the big hits. The DH is an option for the aging legend too. For example, Reggie Jackson, a 14 time All-Star and Hall of Famer, ended his career on the DH. Jackson was losing a step at the end of his career, but he was still able to hit and was a draw for fans to come to games and watch him hit.
Remember, not every baseball fan is a number cruncher that cares about WAR, OBP, and other out there stats. Many watch for the big bats and the excitement. Home runs are exciting. The DH allows for good hitters to play if they can't field and allows legends who lost a step to keep playing. The DH can draw fans and is ultimately best for the quality of baseball on the field and for the business of baseball.
The often-debated designated hitter, or DH for short, rule in Major League Baseball was added following the 1972 season in an effort to increase offence and through this, increase attendance. The rule, which is only in the American League, allows teams to use a hitter to replace the pitcher in the batting order. These hitters are usually players that struggle in the field, which allows teams to get the benefits of their offensive abilities without having to deal with their defensive incapability. The DH rule is generally something people really like or something people really don’t like. There are many arguments to be made for and against it and many directions the debate can go. People can say it allows teams to use guys that they otherwise may not be able to use. A purist may say that baseball should be a game of nines; 9 innings, 9 strikes get you out of an inning, 9 guys in the batting order and therefore should be played with only 9 players. Looking at this purely from a quality standpoint, it does not improve the quality of the game.
For a purist, there is nothing more exciting than watching a National League playoff game. Not for the Homeruns, although they are fun part of the game as well, but for the strategy and careful thought involved. Two managers carefully managing their line up card in an effort to out maneuver the other manager and ultimately win the game. There are simply aspects to the National League game that you either don’t see or you don’t see nearly as often in the American League game. These things include suicide squeezes, stealing bases and the art of manufacturing runs. These are all exciting parts of baseball and things you simply don’t have to do as much in the American League as you have that extra slugger in the line up all the time that can get you back into the game by clobbering one over the fence. Something else that is exciting is seeing a pitcher helping his own cause, either by getting a key hit or laying down a good bunt. Carlos Zambrano has always been a great hitter as a pitcher and this has given him a decisive edge on the mound when he is able to help his team score runs.
An important and exciting part of National League baseball is line up management involving the pitcher and fielders. When managers are trying to determine when to make a pitching change, they must consider when the pitcher is next due up to hit versus how badly a pitching change is needed. In the American League this decision is much easier as you never have to worry about when the pitcher is up to bat and can simply just take the pitcher out when he is tired. Again, from a purist stand point this is something that makes baseball, baseball and sadly is something that has been removed from the American League game since the DH Rule came into effect. Also in the National League, when that manager does decide to change the pitcher he must also decide if he wants to do a double switch to move the pitchers spot in the batting order. Again, this is something that isn’t involved in the National League game.
From a statistical stand point, all things likely point towards the DH improving offensive stats, and as they should. Statistics however, aren’t everything. Managers should be required to MANAGE their team during the game, not simply walk out and switch pitchers when they are tired and then spit sunflower seeds the rest of the game. Baseball should be a game of thought and skill. There’s nothing more exciting than seeing a player break for the plate as the pitcher drops his bat down to lay down that all important suicide squeeze bunt. Despite added offensive statistics the DH may bring, and its ability to prolong older player’s careers, it does not improve the quality of the game.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Good intro. Good well rounded debate. I like how showed how the DH rule can effect the business side of things. I also liked how you showed the rules must evolve with time like everything else in history that evolves. Good job branching out from just baseball and the game itself.
JM's was good for what it was. Focusing on the game itself. I would have liked to seen you reach out to other issues like Aid180 did. Try not to be one dimensional. Strength comes when you are able to convince the reader across multiple topic platforms.
The Lady Killer
Aid180 = "Best for business" reference . Loved the intro - bit of a background on the topic and ended with your clear stance. Yeah, this is pretty great. Wonderful support for your claim in that pitchers getting hurt could spell doom for your franchise - both in its ability to win and its ability to draw fans (make money). Loved the quote you used. Then you effectively address some of the counterarguments, and even provide some great non-baseball examples of things needing to evolve despite purists longing to keep tradition alive. Very well done.
You go on to address the topic from the batter's perspective. If a DH can hit, but can't play D, he's putting his team at risk in the event he blows a play. "The on field quality is better if a good fielder is on the field instead of Ortiz and Ortiz is hitting for a bad hitter." Boom. Really great debate here. Congrats.
JM = Lengthy intro, and you even bring up some of the counterarguments (purists notion), which is odd, but you eventually take a stance which opposes that of Aid180. This should be good. Well, it was solid, if but a bit narrow in its perspective. You seemed to basically expose yourself as a purist who sees the game more from a managerial standpoint. You then concede that the game would be more exciting from a statisictal standpoint. Although that isn't the persepctive you're taking, this seems a bit contradictory to the topic on a whole. I think that's the issue with taking such a narrow approach to the topic. Not a bad debate by any means, just a bit outclassed by Aid180.
Winner = Aid180
Neither brought up the DH's existence giving us two styles, and thus variety to the game. Baseball is life and variety is the spice of life. We all like SPICE.
Seriously though, solid debates by both and I'm glad you guys took opposing view points. You both understand the crux of this ongoing debate. I'm gonna give this one to Aid180 though. I just think he covered his side of the debate a bit better and JM seemed to botch the last part of his 2nd to last paragraph.
LONG LIVE THE DH. (I actually love both styles of play)
Winner via Unanimous Decision - Aid180
Mr. Lawls runs out as the winner is announced and beats Aid180 down with a Tennis racket. Mr. Lawls gains a rare victory of late I guess
Oh no scratch that. Seabs just tripped him up with the cable wire on his way off the stage. Lawls trips over the cable and falls off the ramp landing ass first. Oh well Lawls. Better luck next time!
Clique vs SPCDRI The race and sex of members on a jury has an effect on the court case and it's outcome. Agree or Disagree?
Spoiler for Debates:
Social Division Championship Debate:The race and sex of members on a jury has an effect on the court case and its outcome. Agree or Disagree?
The effect of jury composition on trial outcomes is unquestionably prevalent in the U.S. courts system. If not, there would be no need for the meticulous process of jury selections by the prosecution and defendant’s attorney. We should acknowledge the exclusion or underrepresentation of one gender or a particular race from juries gravely undermines the reliability and credibility of the criminal justice system in the same way their inclusion does (6). Historical and recent evidence shows that racial and gender bias in the outcome of a trial is inevitable and deeply rooted in empathy.
Despite the impartiality we expect in the handling of decision-making in court cases, identifying vicariously with the ideas, volitions, or feelings of another person with respect to one’s own values and experiences is still a predominantly inherent human nature (1). It follows, therefore, that for as long as race and gender remain significant factors of individual identity, court cases will be influenced by empathic reactions (4).
The counterargument may mention that the process of jury selection picks jurors who will be impartial and without prejudice and bias, and that is the socially conventional goal of jury selections (3). However, assumptions like that is what betrays the expectations of those wrongly convicted due to the bias in the selection of juries. Those who believe that juries are incorruptible should bear in mind that attorneys will only decide on jurors they can persuade and, ironically, not those who will exercise impartiality and fairness to both sides. Attorneys of both sides use manipulation to precondition members of the jury to their clients’ advantage, and they will purposely exclude those with tendencies that seem “hostile” to their clients’ interests (2).
Legal research over the last three decades has shown that when jurors view the circumstances of a case as a threat to a group they belong to and picture themselves as possible future victims, they will most likely identify with the plaintiffs (5). For instance, a female juror in a rape case will most likely identify with the female plaintiff and the female juror’s judgment will be in the victim’s favor after connecting to the story of the alleged rape. The rape victim’s story could be her story, or her daughter’s story.
Another example, the Zimmerman murder case, was a manifestation of how jury selection is flawed by racial exclusionary practices by a defense team. None of the jury members were black and all were female, which was greatly advantageous to Zimmerman considering the overt racial overtones attached to the circumstance in this case. Why else would a jury in a case in which a black person was killed by a white one strategically exclude even a single black member? Defense attorney logic would suggest that the jury was selected to work against Martin (who was killed) and favor Zimmerman, whereby racial empathy evidently prevailed over discretion.
Research also established that female jurors will most often than not empathize with perceived victims of assault (4). We can assume that a black jury would have strongly considered that the black teenager was unarmed and screaming for help, as opposed to the white one that concluded Zimmerman was defending himself. Their verdict was scathingly consistent with other juries that found non-blacks and whites who kill or physically attack blacks to be within their constitutional rights to act defensively and eventually acquit them. The influence of racial prevalence was made obvious by the manner in which Zimmerman, and not the unarmed black teen who was shot dead, was portrayed as the victim (6).
Following the Zimmerman case, research by Duke University found that between 2000 and 2010, the outcomes of over 700 felony cases were greatly swayed by the defendants’ and victims’ race relative to that of jurors. The number of black defendants convicted was more than twice that of white defendants, and most of the juries were made up of a higher percentage of white members while others were entirely white. It was also drawn from this research that juries with even one black member convicted white and black defendants at a similar rate (6). Clearly then, an all-white jury is more likely to convict a black defendant while the inclusion of a black member greatly alters their voting pattern. It is not a coincidence that a white-majority jury will decide on a case involving a white defendant. The jury selection process sees to it that the composition of juries work this way.
Determining race and gender of the jury is arguably the most important part of trials because juries interpret evidence crafted and presented to them by the attorneys. The selection itself is the first step in shaping the course the case will follow, and the attorneys make it their priority to exclude certain people. The above examples demonstrate that the relation between discriminatory jury verdicts and empathy has long prevailed in courtrooms. Jurors are subtly aware of the similarities they share with people of their own race or sex. It is worth noting that does not mean they have a particular liking for such persons. On the contrary, they could even dislike them, but strongly feel that they understand them better than those who are different from them (5).
You see most people want to believe, ideally, they can be purely objective in a court of law. That they cannot possibly be one of those “unfair, biased people,” and therein lies a largely negating issue. How does one get to the core of the problem when the apple does not believe it needs to be bitten into? Acknowledgment of these biases (which we all inherently possess) and its effects on trials must occur for the integrity of the jury selection process’ ideal purpose of voir dire, which means "to see and speak the truth” (2). A juror’s similarity or difference to either the plaintiff or defendant determines what they will be responsive or unfavorable to hearing, and ultimately reach a verdict that could be the decision between life and death.
It is incontrovertible FACT, stone cold FACT, that sex and race composition greatly impact the outcomes of trial by jury. Stacking a jury racially or sexually has long been considered to be an un-constitutional practice that denies a defendant due process under law and a genuine trial by a jury of his peers. This is not my mere opinion: This was agreed upon and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1986. Furthermore, jury selection does not only affect the verdict but the sentencing, with some race groups and sexes being more inclined to give lenient or harsh sentence. This is shown to be of crucial importance in trials in which the harshest penalties capable of being meted out, life imprisonment and the death penalty, are on the line. I want to stress that this is a debate to PROVE that race and sex have profound effects upon the outcome and sentencing in trial-by-jury and that it is not my duty to in any way suggest how this process may be improved to be less racially and sexually biased.
I want to first bring to your attention the first portion of the question in the debate: Does race affect a trial by jury? It most emphatically does! A jury deliberately chosen to exclude members of the defendant’s race in order to benefit the prosecution was challenged in Kentucky by a Black man named Batson in 1986. During jury selection, every Black juror was struck by the prosecution and Batson was convicted. He later appealed on the grounds that he was denied a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers as mandated by the 6th and 14th Amendments. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling stated that the jury selection process in which both the prosecution and the defense can exclude a certain number of jurors without justification cannot be used to ensure that a jury consists of nothing but a certain race. This was furthermore elaborated upon and extended to sex in the 1994 J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. case. Racist people and sexist people do exist and to deliberately pack a jury in a way that prejudice could manifest itself in a most hateful fashion and condemn somebody to life imprisonment or execution by sheer dint of racial or sexual animus must be prevented and the law is right so to do with rulings like Batson and J.E.B. (1 and 2)
A jury that is nothing but a certain race could be swayed by explicit, conscious prejudice or sub-conscious, implicit prejudice and racism. A 2012 study by Duke University has recently shown that an All-White jury is 16 percent more likely to vote to convict a Black man for a crime than a White man for a crime. As little as one Black juror is enough to counteract this increase in sentencing (3) This is corroborated further by Sheri Lynn Johnson’s study that showed White people were less likely in a mock jury situation to convict a White and if a White victimized a Black the Whites were less likely to convict. The exact same racial correlation was demonstrated by Blacks being less likely to convict Blacks and to care less about non-Black victims. (4)
A White person is 20 percent more likely to vote for the death penalty than a Black person, even when sex is taken into account. 71 percent of Whites favor the death penalty while only 44 percent of Blacks do. (5) Does race influence trial by jury? If somebody is facing execution, you’re goddamned right it does! Furthermore, men are shown to be more in favor of the death penalty than women are by a substantial proportion. The likelihood of a death penalty sentence has been definitively shown for decades to be at its highest if a jury composes of 5 or more White men. (6) As stated, I do not need to weigh in upon the morality of that nor do I need in any way to propose a way to “fix” that. All I have to do is show that race and sex do affect trial by jury and in conviction percentage as shown by Duke University studies and in sentencing in studies undertaken by groups such as the Capital Jury Project both race and sex have important ramifications in jury trials.
In sentencing in a trial by jury, the sex of the defendant and the race and sex of the victim of a crime is of overwhelming importance. A crime in which a White person or a woman was victimized or murdered was substantially more likely to result in a death penalty. The odds increased even further if a Black person was charged in the crime.
“In "US: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases," (7) (April 23, 2003) Amnesty states that: "Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims. More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.”
Trial by jury and prosecutors is enormously lenient on women when deciding to vote for the death penalty. Women commit 12 percent of murder in the U.S. but juries rarely hear a case in which the death penalty is sought against a woman. When it is, juries inevitably vote against it. Less than 1 percent of women wind up with death penalty convictions. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 1099 have received it and of that number a mere 11 women were executed. (8)
Race and sex have enormous consequences on the outcome of trial by jury. Dozens of studies prove it and The Supreme Court has affirmed it. This is not opinion, this is undeniable fact.
6. Death Penalty Focus: Arbitrariness In The Application of the Death Penatly
7. "US: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases,"
8. Death Penalty Information Center: Women and the Death Penalty http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2311
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
Clique wins because he isn't a dickhead
Ok then. Both debates were brilliant and very similar in their approach to the topic by looking at hard cold facts and constructing their argument around them. Giving the win though to SPCDRI because his communication in his debate was more persuasive to me than Clique's. Debates so evenly matched don't get separated by much and the only thing I could find that separated one from the other was their communication to the reader. Lines like "This is not opinion, this is undeniable fact." got SPCDRI my vote.
Winner - SPCDRI.
This was good.
Clique-A very well rounded debate from start to finish. Everything you said fell into the place at the proper time, allowing the debate to have a great flow from paragraph to paragraph. I like how you inputed the references and stats into your content so that it enhanced your debate. Sometimes people use stats in an incorrect flow and it hurts their debate.
SPCDRI-speaking of...I think this was a strong debate as well.
SPCDRI's was just as good. I like how you presented your argument and used major US history court cases to back it up. I think you overused stats to a certain degree. Not too bad but noticeable enough that I felt like I was reading the exact same thing, just in different context. A good debate though so there's nothing to be shamed about.
The Lady Killer
Clique = Damn. This was pretty great. First sentence stated your claim and the rest was support and shooting down of counterarguments. The empirical evidence was carefully selected and effectively backed your stance. I really don't have much to critique on this, aside from some minor grammar issues. Loved the structure as well.
SPCDRI = Although a little shorter than Clique's, this still packed a mean punch. Some of the same pieces of support were used, but I felt this bordered upon a laundry list of statistics at times, whereas Clique did a little better job of working these stats into the narrative. Small nitpick, though, as the debate was very solid. I just felt Clique was more complete and thorough in its display of supporting evidence.
Winner = Clique
Winner via Split Decision - Clique
TDL Wrestling Division Special Attraction Tag Match
WOOLCOCK & Seabs vs The Lady Killer & adrian_zombo Could WWE increasing the focus on tag team wrestling at all levels on their show benefit them?
Spoiler for Debates:
Could WWE increasing the focus on tag team wrestling at all levels on their show benefit them?
For some reason during this current generation of WWE, the "WWE Universe" has been trained to believe that tag team wrestling is inferior to singles competition. However, could an increased focus on tag team wrestling actually benefit WWE's product? The benefits of an increased focus on tag team wrestling to any promotion are considerable but to a promotion in WWE's current context? The benefits are MASSIVE.
"... but tag team wrestling doesn't draw brother!"
First of let's squash that nonsensical rumour that tag wrestling doesn't draw. TLC 2009 was main evented (as in last match on the show AND the main focus of the build) by Jeri-Show vs DX. The PPV drew 228,000 buys, up 18.1% from the previous December PPV and a higher number than the PPV has drawn since main evented by singles matches. Plus the buyrate was drawn by four regular wrestlers at that point so can't be attributed to a short term spike such as Survivor Series 2011's strong buyrate due to Rock's return in a tag match. So clearly, focusing more on tag team wrestling at the top of the card doesn't hurt business and main eventers/great programs will still be able to draw regardless of the end destination being a singles or tag match.
Magic Trick 72: Making Beefheads Look Like Good Workers
The question doesn't just ask if the increased focus will benefit the main event scene. It focuses on all levels of the card and the benefits to be gained for WWE apply to all levels of the card. One of the great beauties of tag team wrestling is how it can make wrestlers look better than they really are. Take Batista for example, someone who wasn't a naturally blessed worker when he first debuted. 2 years of teaming with Haitch and Naitch later, he's promoted to "walk alone" and he's suddenly able to work great singles matches that go longer than 5 minutes. Not a coincidence at all. Batista's a prime example of the vast development that an increased focus on tag team wrestling can provide to a wrestler and can also benefit WWE by producing a talent that is actually ready to finally breakthrough as a top singles guy, evidenced by Wrestlemania 21 drawing the 3rd highest buyrate ever. Tagging with great in ring workers is bound to improve your ring work and just sheer association with established stars can really help get a new act over like it did with Batista.
For me, Ryback is an obvious example of an act who's just crying out for an increased focus on tag team wrestling to benefit him ala Batista. Like Batista at the start, Ryback's hardly a great in ring worker. However, there is something there. Go back to his babyface run and he was getting over when he was squashing guys. That's because he was good on offence. Then he started to have to work longer matches on his own, his weaknesses got exposed and ultimately his momentum derailed. I go back to the benefit of hiding weaknesses and exposing strengths. This is what Ryback was just begging for. Showcase the guy in a tag team where you can highlight his strengths that were getting him over and hide his weaknesses such as selling and inability to work a singles match of any length. Pairing him with an established babyface such as Christian could've helped him get more over with the audience by tapping into their star power and really developing his in ring skills by working with high end workers on a weekly basis.
The Never-Ending Road Schedule
Another benefit for WWE is a significantly reduced physical load for wrestlers. The current WWE schedule is extremely gruelling and even on house shows the majority of the matches are singles matches. Obviously it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's more gruelling to work a singles match than a tag match and the risk of injury is reduced in tag matches. With WWE's reliance on a small number of genuine numbers moving superstars they should be taking every measure possible to maintain the health of them stars and an increased focus on tag team wrestling would definitely do that. As I showed earlier, main eventing shows with tag matches won't suddenly kill business so why aren't WWE taking the opportunity to protect their prized assets?
So if you're WWE, which do you prefer? The current system where your top stars run a higher risk of injury on multiple shows every week and your undeveloped prospects have their potential for stardom reduced by exposing their weaknesses, or an increased focus on tag team wrestling that protects your prized assets better and aids development in your next generation of stars. Doesn't even seem up for debate does it?
Could WWE increasing the focus on tag team wrestling at all levels on their show benefit them?
The key concept of the title rests on ‘at all levels’. Therefore a broader consideration of the diverse attributes that encompass tag team wrestling is applicable, which when sufficiently evaluated should signify the immense potential a renewed commitment to tag wrestling could bestow upon WWE. It is through this metric that I conclude WWE would absolutely benefit from a renewed focus on tag wrestling.
Historically, tag team wrestling has been a vital device in protecting marketable assets by limiting their exposure and accentuating their strengths whilst disguising their weaknesses. This takes on paramount importance to WWE, where a historical preconception exists in relation to necessary attributes to become a face of the promotion. There forever exists an opportunity for chiselled behemoths such as Ryback or Batista to achieve success in WWE where the concept of visceral imagery retains importance through years of conditioning the audience with how a superstar ‘should appear’, however WWE is still very much a performance driven company whereby potential commodities require a level of competency in the ring to succeed. Where else bar tag wrestling could one expect limited wrestlers to gradually flourish without being overexposed? You only need to look at Roman Reigns, someone very much considered unworthy of sharing the limelight with Ambrose & Rollins during The Shields’ inception, in order to appreciate how tag wrestling presents Reigns in a manner that invites praise whilst deflecting from his lack of singles wrestling experience.
Outlining how WWE could prosper from tag team wrestling requires contextual consideration, where again The Shield serve as a key proponent. WWE’s depleted roster significantly handicaps their ability to protect whatever marquee matchups remain at their disposal, with the roster so sparse in terms of recognisable and marketable individuals that an abundance of rematches dominate booking and render the product stagnant. The Shield however are approaching one year on the roster and unlike anyone else, the potential programs that await each individual are staggering.
Given their sparse singles outings, they avoid the issues that befall numerous superstars as their connection with the crowd has steadily grown without reducing the number of wrestlers they could work with in the future. Given Miz plummeted from main event to midcard fodder in just over a year precisely through a lack of sustainable opponents, WWE’s ability to safeguard The Shield through tag team wrestling is a luxury they can ill afford to squander given the position they find themselves in with regards to identifiable stars.
Inserting recognisable faces into the tag division, thereby giving precarious talents a sense of direction they require is also crucial with regards to what tag wrestling offers WWE. Miz is a telling reminder that impenetrable talents such as Punk & Bryan are not commonly acquired and that mismanagement and a lack of direction could see promising talents flounder when not in the title picture. Consider the potential that could arise if someone like Cena were to be integrated into a tag team, not only could this enhance the legitimacy of the division by positioning a star like Cena into the fold, but the long term implications could be remarkable. A respected division allows for uppercard talent to maintain direction and have options when they’re not in the main event, which avoids stagnant and unremarkable booking. When you recall the level of detail that went into developing a respected and valuable tag division during the height of the Attitude Era where WWE was bestowed with a plethora of singles stars, it seems highly dubious to not entertain the possible long term benefits that could be reaped should they adopt a similar approach in an era not blessed with an array of cash cows.
Therefore, I find it unquestionable that WWE could only benefit from a commitment to tag wrestling. Tag team wrestling is a key component in allowing unseasoned wrestlers to nurture and develop at their own pace, a crucial aspect given WWE’s proclivity for hiring based on marketable appearances first and foremost. Furthermore, a more rigid focus on tag wrestling could alleviate current problems that hinder the creativity of the product due to a depleted roster where talent is plummeting down the card when available programs are exhausted. Given the long term success of Edge, Jeff Hardy and Daniel Bryan, there is also a clear argument that tag team wrestlers much like singles wrestlers can steadily connect with an audience when properly presented in a respectable manner. When you consider the company is currently in critical need of additional stars, surely refusing to acknowledge the historical and contextual merits for refocusing attention on tag team wrestling is a harmful mindset that may ultimately hinder the long term aspirations of WWE to develop a crop of current stars? Well, I believe so.
The Lady Killer Could WWE increasing the focus on tag team wrestling at all levels on their show benefit them?
The days of well-built internal struggles ultimately leading to the creation of a breakout superstar have been replaced by comedy acts and directionless jobbers being randomly paired up with one another while their remaining credibility is thrown through the nearest barber shop window. Indeed, if anyone saw the abysmal debut of Los Matadores (complete with “BORING” chants) on tonight’s episode of Monday Night Raw, they’d quickly be reminded why an increased focus on tag team wrestling would NOT be beneficial.
My detractors will likely argue that a renewed interest in the tag team division improves the chances of establishing the next breakout superstar. However, when was the last time a tag team successfully generated a big star? Don’t worry, I’ll wait. Perhaps Batista in 2005, but that was mostly due to turning on Triple H and not his partnership with Ric Flair. In other words, recent evidence suggests that focusing on tag teams is not the best use of the company’s resources, especially when the product is suffering from a dearth of true main event caliber performers. Regardless of how many vignettes WWE airs to promote a new or repackaged tag team, it’s very uncommon in the current era to strike it rich in creating new superstars due to the declining popularity of professional wrestling.
Placing such a great emphasis on how difficult it has become for a superstar to emerge from the depths of the tag division speaks volumes about the minimal value-added potential of a renewed focus on tag team wrestling. The truth is that superstars, not tag teams, are who draw the big money. From Hogan to The Rock & Austin to John Cena, the names and faces of the past three decades aren’t tag team specialists. As great as The Road Warriors, Demolition or Harlem Heat were, they won’t be remembered as the flag bearers of their respective companies. There will always be a ceiling in terms of the heights members of the tag team division can reach which falls well below that of singles competition.
Proponents of an increased focus in tag team wrestling fail to realize that the evolution of the business has proven that individuality is the key to success. In a recent interview, Shawn Michaels qualifies the idea that tag team wrestling may not be viable given the current professional wrestling business model that values individual success over teamwork.
As for any resurgence of tag-team wrestling? I really can't say, it's impossible for me to get into the minds of individuals, but I don't know if that's a real focus now with the guys. Not a lot of guys seem to go into tags looking to make that team the absolute best it can be. Whether the company standpoint is that guys have to be individuals in order to be successful, or that comes from the wrestlers themselves, there does seem to be more emphasis on single success now than there was back when I started.
It’s evident that shining more of the spotlight on tag team wrestling would ultimately be detrimental to the goal of creating individual superstars. As it stands, only one of the four singles titles (yes, I’m excluding the Divas title) holds any weight, and this won’t change if the focal point of the company shifts towards bolstering the tag division. Some may even make the claim that since The Shield are involved in the main event storyline, the tag titles currently mean more than the World Heavyweight Championship. While that may be true, one should not mistake this as a reason to focus on reestablishing the tag division as a major focal point. The Shield are a clear exception, as they were thrust into the main event with singles superstar potential from the moment they debuted. This special case can and should not be extrapolated to assume that The Shield’s success is indicative of the potential of the other current teams.
Ultimately, increasing the focus on the tag division could only be seen as beneficial if a singles star emerges from the fray. Of course, quality promos and matches are fine and dandy by-products, but given WWE’s current affinity for booking the same matches week in and week out across all shows, the concept of diminishing returns takes center stage. As aforementioned, it’s unlikely for a singles star to be born from a tag team in this day and age. The product is clearly driven by an emphasis on individual success, so attempting to manipulate this formula would only cause harm to an already exposed weakness – an imbalanced roster. The less we see of 3MB/Tons of Funk/Los Matadores, the better.
Regardless of what wrestling era you grew up with, you’ll remember numerous iconic tag teams. From the opening of the card to the main event, tag team action bolsters any wrestling show. If the WWE invests in a tag team renaissance, committing to long-term cohesive teams, the on-screen product will most definitely benefit.
An increased focus on tag wrestling brings all of the benefits that come with using tag teams generally. In tag formats, you can cover the weaknesses of competitors (be it on the ring or on the mic) with greater ease. The New Age Outlaws reached crazy heights of popularity with one guy who was unimpressive on the mic (Billy Gunn) and another who was mediocre in the ring (Road Dogg). Tag formats lessen the workload on top-level or older guys. When Scott Hall and Kevin Nash arrived in WCW, they could work main-event matches weekly without putting an overt amount of strain on their bodies.
Tag wrestling is beneficial because it gives fans variety – workers with differing styles can match up against or pair up with guys with completely different skill sets. Recall the excitement when the Hardy Boyz, the Dudleyz and Edge and Christian matched up. There’s many recipes with which guys can find tag team success, so any focus on the WWE’s part on tag wrestling is also an opportunity for guys to find success that might be otherwise unachievable as a single’s competitor. If you were a wrestler, wouldn’t you rather get seven minutes of exposure in a tag match on Raw instead of appearing in a throwaway midcard singles’ match on a Superstars taping? Absolutely! It’s more exposure! Greater emphasis on tag team wrestling from the top of the card to the bottom also gives freshness to matchups, as long as WWE avoids the Teddy Long special of throwing together the two heels and two faces in the ring at any given time and making a tag team match, playa! Let rivalries develop organically. Allow teams to form, and stick together more than a month, based on kayfabe friendships and alliances.
The naysayers arguing against increased emphasis on tag team wrestling will say that when we’re looking at the megastars of wrestling, tag teams are a level below the names that pop into mind immediately. If guys like Sting, Steve Austin, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels can start their careers in big organizations in a tag role, that’s the foundation of one high-quality undercard. Gaining experience in a team helped cultivate these guys into well-rounded, confident stars in the future. Essentially, tag team wrestling easily increases the quality of the product, both short-term and long-term.
Being able to build up wrestlers in a tag format is undoubtedly helpful to WWE brass. Why have one over superstar when you can have two? If a team catches fire, you instantly have an over tag team, and the option to eventually break that team up for a hot singles feud or push one (or both). Look at what happened with Shawn Michaels, Jeff Hardy and Edge, when they were pushed to the moon after establishing themselves in a tag team. Being able to begin a single’s career with a wave of momentum, experience and familiarity with the fans is in invaluable, and competing in a tag team affords a wrestler these things.
The notion of credibility in the fans’ eyes is especially critical. How many teams actually pose a legitimate kayfabe threat to The Shield’s tag reign? We, as the audience, don’t really have any reason to believe that the tag titles will change hands because any given team is a number one contender this month, then losing to Ryback in a 1-on-2 squash match the next. However, the more the WWE puts on consistently competitive tag matches without making the guys looks like complete pussies against main-eventers, the more threats exist to The Shield’s dominance over the division. The potential for title changes is fun, right? Speaking of main-eventers, having main-event guys going after the belts enhances the prestige of the titles as well. Recall Rated RKO, the Two-Man Power Trip, and the Outsiders in WCW. These were main event guys holding the tag titles like they meant something.
The question is whether or not an increased focus in the tag division across the card will benefit the WWE. An increased focus on the tag division not only brings with it the common benefits of tag team action, but also improves the quality of the present day undercard, which propagates into a healthy long-term future for the company. Not everyone can be a main eventer NOW, but give as many undercard guys screen time as possible, and there’s a greater chance of finding something that connects with the audience. That’s definitely good for business.
Spoiler for Judging Cards:
First, I would like to say I find this tag team concept for TDL to be refreshing and fun concept that I welcome more of and any other new ideas to come. This match was very impressive, which should be no surprise with four of the best in the league throwing down.
Seabs' high-lighted the financial gains from tag team wrestling opposed to any selfish reasoning from a fan's perspective that is subjective. Although there are people in the business including respected voices like J.R. have stated tag team wrestling is not a draw in WWE today, you provided evidence on multiple instances in the last few years where tag matches have drawn PPV buys at the main event level. Providing officially recorded numbers adds objective points and credibility to your argument.
I thought the Batista/Evolution example of hiding weaknesses and showcasing strengths was a solid example of how teaming a new star with veterans can be a very useful function in the process of building the next main event talent that can sharpen his in-ring skills as well. This point possibly could have been expanded to a modern example on Roman Reigns' protective booking currently in The Shield and tag title partnership with Seth Rollins who is a superior worker and more experienced.
Your debate wins because you focused on the areas of (current) business, creative, and physical well-being of the talent who are assets to the WWE. You succeeded in answering the question pertaining to "all levels" on the show as well because with your argument the tag team model productively enhances rising young talent but also can serve as a featured main event for the big stars like The Rock.
WOOLCOCK's was well-written and provided the example I was looking for from Seabs. Smart choice to use the Roman Reigns example because we can see the process in motion on current WWE TV every week. WOOLCOCK, you pointed out the long-term positive effects of tag team wrestling which is to sustain fresh programs for the wrestlers not in the WWE/World Title picture. This was a great base to your debate to center on this idea because there is a lot of WWE TV airing every week as you also pointed out and this keeps them from floundering outside of the individual title programs. Your debate provided effective support and depth to the argument your partner made. Awesome job team.
The Lady Killer/adrian_zombo
The Lady Killer, incredible use of reference with the Shawn Michaels interview. At the opposing viewpoint it only made sense to bring up the Batista point and shoot it down immediately as that was one of Team 1's big supporting examples used. Like an astute debater you anticipated your opponents' and any detractors' move and made the argument to strengthen the basis of your stance. Your point about the current model in WWE is echoed by various people in the industry and you proved that with the words of a recently retired WWE Hall of Famer. I was impressed with how your debate takes a look at how realistically conducts business and you gave valid reasons why the individual success model will continue; this is opposed to the idealistic way some fans including Seabs/WOOLCOCK would like to see the division IF WWE made the efforts to change.
Now here's what led to my decision on who won this debate. When I read the debate presented by adrian_zombo, I was impressed by how well-written the entire piece was from open to close. However, I think I may have expected the debate to take the same viewpoint of his tag team partner. I know it was not required but with the two debates combined in Seabs/WOOLCOCK's argument to me it came off as a comprehensive "team debate" and the points they made had the opportunity to be expanded thoroughly without restating what each person already said but also decisively hitting the nail home for what felt like a team argument oppose to two great individuals providing two great debates no matter if they chose to cover separate sides of the argument.
adrian_zombo's was brilliant in his introspective look at the purpose and benefits of tag team wrestling, points Debate 1b made but you did it in greater detail. You also did well with your examples to answer the debate question in how tag wrestling can be prominent from the midcard to the main event and how main event stars are born out of tag teams with your historical examples. This was an engaging read and a lot of inarguable statements were made. You could have even connected those points with the potential you see with the modern tag teams in WWE today. Your write-up was awesome but I am deciding this main event in favor of Seabs/WOOLCOCK. I really liked their current examples and how they covered so many aspects to how tag team wrestling can benefit WWE from the bottom dollar provided by the big stars in featured main events, to the health of the performers constantly on the road every week, to the amelioration of the rising talent.
Winners - Seabs/WOOLCOCK
Gentlemen, this was match for the ages archives!
This was fun.
Seabs-I think this debate was laid out nicely. I like how you used bigger font to emphasize your main points in the debate. Your main points were solid. Proving that tag wrestling does draw in the right position is an important fact considering the wide belief that nothing draws in this current era. I also liked how you showed the benefit of putting a weaker guy in a team with a stronger guy to get him over (with the expectation of eventual singles success) by hiding his weaknesses. You basically stated that tag wrestling is important for the development of future stars. Nice. The road schedule deal was a decent touch. While it benefits the health of the wrestlers and protects them, I don't think this point was as strong as the other two points although there's nothing bad about what you said.
WOOLCOCK-Great debate from start to finish. Like Seabs you started out by showing the benefit of putting a less experienced guy (Reigns) in a tag team, but what you did next was outstanding to me. Showing that tag team wrestling actually provides a much more healthy and non stagnant singles career for each wrestler because the individual opponents stack up while they still pursue tag wrestling. Good job. I also liked how you showed the benefit of putting a main-event star in the tag division by showing that direction would be maintained without there being a hole in the main-event. Your finish was also good. A nice showing of wrestlers who became big singles stars from tag teams and how this way of booking allows newer wrestlers to develop properly. Great well rounded debate.
The Lady Killer-This debate was good for it's argument. WWE's business model in the last few years have been centered around individual success rather than tag success. This is true, and you did a good job showing how tag wrestling has suffered in the last few years because of it. But overall I think you left too much room for counter argument. By mentioning you the atrocious debut of the Mexicans, you also indirectly admitted that they were booked like shit. So in theory if they were booked better, or rather the entire tag division was booked better, the division itself would be more credible and enjoyable. I don't think you did a good enough job shutting down potential counter arguments. Other than that was a solid debate.
adrian_zombo- This was also a good well rounded debate. While you mentioned what everyone else mentioned about hiding weaknesses and showing strengths, I also liked how you mention the style variety in tag wrestling that you often don't get in singles wrestling. Good way to show how this benefits the product from a variety standpoint. The rest of the debate was good as well. You showed how big starts benefited from their tag split, but what I really liked was your ability to show how crucial booking really is. You acknowledged the current era's suffering of the tag division because of incompetent booking, but also mentioned how the audience would receive tag teams of the booking was more consistent and stronger. Showing how main-eventers enhance the credibility of the tag division and titles as also a nice touch.
Overall Seabs/WOOLCOCK win. Because together their debates were better and stronger than The Lady Killer/adrian_zombo. Good showing from everyone. I feel like The Lady Killer's room for counter argument dragged the team down a bit.
Looking forward to the Superkick and face in the barbershop window treatment.
I'll start off by saying wow. What an exceptional collection of debates. Really setting a brilliant standard for the rest of the league to follow (not exclusive to the Wrestling division either).
I'll judge the debates as a team and if any particular debate wants specific feedback just PM me with your debate and I'll clarify.
Seabs/WOOLCOCK: Wow, absolutely brilliant, some of the best work I've seen so far. Seabs fucking crushed it, from start to finish. There isn't much for me to pick on with this as it perfectly established the tone of their debates while complimenting WOOLCOCK's debate perfectly. I'm not sure if they worked closely with each other or not but I felt like they were matched up perfectly together.
Using facts and figures (buyrates etc.) to dispell the myth that wrestling can not only be profitable but also beneficial to the workers was perfect and an argument I would never have even thought of; when you combine that with 1b's debate which further hit home the benefits of tag team wrestling to the development of the product and the talents then it's quite hard to argue against what they were putting down.
The only real criticism I have is WOOLCOCK got a little bit too jargony with terminology etc. Maybe it was just too much for my miniscule brain to understand but it kind of detaches me from the debate a bit when there is TOO much technical language in there. Throw a big word or two in every now and then but when there are too many in there (especially in your intro) it makes the debate seem... Cold? I guess that's the best way I could describe it.
The Lady Killer/adrian_zombo: I was super-pumped when I saw The Lady Killer take the opposite side of the debate and then I was super-crushed/confused when I saw adrian_zombo take the same side as the opposing team essentially arguing against their team mate. Again I'm not sure if they communicated or ran the debates by each other for proof-reading or whatnot as was recommended I'm pretty sure but adrian_zombo essentially crushed The Lady Killer's debate and left them looking silly.
The Lady Killer had some issues with some of the subject matter too; using Los Matadors as an example for a bad debut is fine, but saying no real succesful stars have come from tag teams when the most recent example is Daniel Bryan, combine that with the fact that you cited Austin as one of the mega-stars and he was originally in the Hollywood Blondes with Brian Pillman (my personal all-time favourite tag team ever) and he credited a lot of his success to that tag team as it helped him refine his talents while minimising his weaknesses to create the calibre of superstar he eventually became. Which is EXACTLY what your partner and other team were arguing.
Not to mention that Shawn Michaels was another great tag team success story that you over-looked just made me feel like there were too many holes in the debate. Obviously no debate is perfect but if I'm reading something and as I'm going through it I have multiple, massive counter-arguments going off in my head to the point of almost frustrating me then it's hard to present a convincing case in the rest of the debate.
Decision: Like I said earlier, a great bunch of debates and I would have really liked to see a bit better communication on The Lady Killer/adrian_zombo's side as I feel it could have been a lot closer but I have to give this debate pretty convincingly to Seabs/WOOLCOCK. An outstanding example of teamwork, and a crushing display of dominance over a topic.
Winners via Unanimous Decision - Seabs/WOOLCOCK
*The Lady Killer falls to the floor as his undefeated streak is shattered. He's not sure whether to look sad or PISSED. He sure aint looking anymore though!*
*The Rose Brothers begin to gloat briefly and contemplate another show ending beatdown but then collectively stop (like a great team does ) and decide that their debating prowess was beatdown enough. They leave taking pitty on the fallen icon. As they leave gloating to themselves The Lady Killer rises back up and stares at them leaving with REVENGE in his eyes.*
Re: TDL VII: STREAKS ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN - THE RESULTS
Happy that I won although as Seabs stated, my opponent could of had that win in the bag because mine was very rushed and surprised I did win it because that debate I sent in was not the standard I find acceptable and not a standard you would expect from a debate league from both competitors. Very disappointed in that.
Congratulations to all winners, and although I should be happy I got another unanimous decision winner I do not feel that I feel like a true winner.
Location: Sailing on the Spanish Hamada with Buff Bagwell's hat and THE DARK ANDRE's Watermelons.
Re: TDL VII: STREAKS ARE MADE TO BE BROKEN - THE RESULTS
ROSE BROTHERS UNITE. FORM OF, DOMINANCE.
Great debate all round I thought. Special props to each judge who sufficiently expanded on their choices and produced some great reads themselves. Feel Seabs needs to receive a lot of the plaudits as he was on the ball in terms of structuring our effort, both in terms of what stance we'd take (having each of us write pros & cons to see which proved more natural to argue) and ensuring we were always on track in terms of the deadline and what we were arguing. Great to see that approach paid dividends with each judge acknowledging the symmetry in our effort.
Hard luck to Zombo & TLK though. Worthy adversaries and further proof of the quality that resides in the Wrestling Division currently. A part of me really wanted Zombo to win given how close he's been throughout in TDL, but he once again submitted a strong entry that on any other day would have blown away the competition.
Well done everyone else. Actually forgot Rush was in the World Cup debate so that was a pleasant surprise. Special commendation to Kiz for a strong opening entry which was only bested by Rush's consideration of Fox and how broadcasters would suffer from FIFA's proposed rescheduling.
Crusade . I really loved your debate and it's great to see another bright upstart gaining momentum in the division. SHG I did enjoy your unique presentation, but I do think you rested more on comparing Punk to each individual to the point that Punk's qualities were overlooked, whereas Crusade acknowledged Punk's credentials but used that to justify how it wasn't necessarily his fault to struggle in the Attitude Era.
Respect to Aid180 as to my recollection that might be JM's first loss to date (?). Good to see some of the lesser known individuals slowly begin to leave their mark on the league, more of the same next time around please!