Austin Region, New Orleans Subregion, First Round (8)Chris Benoit vs.(25)Dean Ambrose

[NSL]

You're just quoting people who think Benoit should have won. That's not even an argument, that's the 'appeal to popularity' logical fallacy. Which isn't even very effective in this instance; the only thing stopping me from throwing it right back is my own sense of propriety.

The fact that people voting under the same criteria I did, all also voted for Benoit, is merely a coincidence. The only person whose main argument in favor of Ambrose, who made their case based on wrestling, was Navi, and I gave her credit for that, did I not? It was just a few posts ago, if you need help finding it.

You share your opinion with people. I share mine with people. Since you aren't linking anything that states people are required to use certain criteria in their selection, we are once again back to you trying to dictate your opinion as if it were rule.

I highlighted the part where NorCal said that voting is supposed to be based on their legacy, and impact on the business. Did you know he's a former G-mod here? As well as yet another person that submitted a list that was used for seedings?

If there were nearly as many people arguing Ambrose's skill over Benoit's skill, then there wouldn't be an issue with the result. The issue is Ambrose was voted over someone who is far superior than him, based on something completely arbitrary to the discussion.

 

[Rayne]

Someone sharing an ill-formed opinion doesn't make it right. This is why 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy.

Am I safe in assuming at this point that you cannot quote a rule for this tournament supporting your opinions concerning voting criteria?

 

[NSL]

Someone sharing an ill-formed opinion doesn't make it right. This is why 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy.

Am I safe in assuming at this point that you cannot quote a rule for this tournament supporting your opinions concerning voting criteria?

You only asked me to prove it was not a personal opinion. I quoted 18 other people with the same opinion, and was kind enough to only quote the first post from each person, so as to save some time here.

Is it in writing that the voting should be done based on that criteria? No. Does it need to be? Also no. This is the 10th tournament, and it's always been done the same way, because it's a fucking wrestling tournament. When the tag team tournament comes up, we vote based on who the best tag team is/was, not which team had the best coordinated outfit. Why would you come to a wrestling forum, to vote on a wrestling tournament, and then use any criteria other than wrestling?

That's what I mean by common sense, and your apparent lack of understanding goes to show that you don't have it.

 

[Rayne]

And I think it's 'common sense' that if people are intended to vote in a certain fashion, that they are directed to do so. Clearly, you have none.

See how that argument cuts both ways? Just like if I were to quote everyone who voted for Ambrose, and act like that meant anything.

So I am correct in saying that (beyond your personal wishes) there is nothing preventing people from voting using whatever methods they choose? Including color coordination? (Besides the risk of your personal displeasure, of course.)

 

[NSL]

And I think it's 'common sense' that if people are intended to vote in a certain fashion, that they are directed to do so. Clearly, you have none.

You really are this stupid, eh? It's okay. We can't all have highly-functioning brains. You're talking yourself in circles here. If it's common sense to vote in a wrestling tournament, based on wrestling ability, then there is no need to be "directed" to do anything. Who could have known that anyone would vote for any other reason?

See how that argument cuts both ways? Just like if I were to quote everyone who voted for Ambrose, and act like that meant anything.

It would mean something, had we been voting based on personal character. But, if you wanted to quote everyone who voted on Ambrose, based on him being a better wrestler, you'd have Navi...and maybe Kapu, but I can't always figure out exactly what he's saying.

So I am correct in saying that (beyond your personal wishes) there is nothing preventing people from voting using whatever methods they choose? Including color coordination? (Besides the risk of your personal displeasure, of course.)

You can go ahead and vote under whatever criteria you want, but I don't think your arguments in any match will hold much weight, with the posters knowing that you're probably not giving the better wrestler a shot at winning.

Also:

Five years ago I could see Ric putting Cody over, sure. And I like Cody Rhodes. I like Stardust too. But people solidified in the mid-card don't get the big surprise pin over the legend.

This was your argument in the Flair/Stardust match. If you voted based on wrestling ability there, why didn't you use the same criteria here?

 

[Rayne]

You really are this stupid, eh? It's okay. We can't all have highly-functioning brains. You're talking yourself in circles here. If it's common sense to vote in a wrestling tournament, based on wrestling ability, then there is no need to be "directed" to do anything. Who could have known that anyone would vote for any other reason?

You accuse me of talking in circles, and yet you just said "if it's common sense as I say, then it's common sense." This is what's called 'circular logic'. Me, I'm forced to go in circles because you won't admit that your personal preference is nothing more than that, and I have to keep hammering the point home because you continuously insist that your personal preference or belief in how things 'should' be should hold any weight.

The idea here that's escaping your 'highly functioning brain' is that you might not have the ability to simply declare something "common sense" and have that stick. For further information on the 'common sense' fallacy, I direct your attention to the following links; you may google search other resources at your discretion. You have a highly functioning brain however, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you already knew how worthless the 'common sense' defense was, and were just sticking with it to see if you could get an easy one by. No harm in trying, amiright?

https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/common-sense-fallacy/
http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/
http://scienceornot.net/2014/02/06/the-appeal-to-common-sense-garbage-in-the-guise-of-gumption/

It would mean something, had we been voting based on personal character. But, if you wanted to quote everyone who voted on Ambrose, based on him being a better wrestler, you'd have Navi...and maybe Kapu, but I can't always figure out exactly what he's saying.

Except I wouldn't be quoting the people who voted based upon your opinion of what criteria should be, because that would be making the assumption that your argument is valid, which I disagree with.

You can go ahead and vote under whatever criteria you want, but I don't think your arguments in any match will hold much weight, with the posters knowing that you're probably not giving the better wrestler a shot at winning.

Looking at the top of the page, and talking about who's opinions weigh what? Just gonna let that softball go by.

This was your argument in the Flair/Stardust match. If you voted based on wrestling ability there, why didn't you use the same criteria here?

Neither Ric Flair nor Cody Rhodes ever murdered their families, so I was unable to take that into consideration concerning my vote. Had one of them murdered their families, that would have been a major deciding factor.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I've chosen to focus purely on wrestling ability for this match, which is why I went for Benoit, and I am a big Dean Ambrose fan.

Chris Benoit was one of the finest technical wrestlers I've ever seen. He very rarely (if ever) had a bad match and put on some phenomenal masterpieces with the likes of Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho and many more. Ambrose is a totally different animal, much more of a brawler but I think Benoit's expertise would be too much for Dean in this one.

If we are looking at accolades, well Benoit dominates Ambrose there too, but his World Title reign, Royal Rumble win, multiple Intercontinental and Tag Team titles, WrestleMania main event dwarf Dean's accomplishments, and that's just Benoit's WWE career.

However, Ambrose is young and is very likely to be a World Champion in the future, but right now I think The Rabid Wolverine is the right pick in this match.

 

[X]

I ask again, NSL; if someone feels that the person who makes the best Eggs Benedict would be the better professional wrestler, what rule prevents them from casting their vote along those lines?

If this is a 'should' or 'well I think' argument, save it for next year and take it on the arches.

What a stupid, contrarian for the sake of being contrarian stance on this tournament. As NSL said, it's a professional wrestling tournament. It does not take a fucking rocket scientist to realize "Hmm, guess we should judge these guys on their abilities as professional wrestlers". If we had a Guitarists tournament you could feel free to vote the lad from Fall Out Boy over Jimi Hendrix because you don't agree with Jimi's drug use, but you'd look like a moron doing so. Kind of like here. Because it's irrelevant and the only reason to use it as an argument is that you literally have no other points to your argument other than you just personally don't like the guy. And hey, none of us do either. We're just able to separate an artist from their art. I suggest giving it a shot.

After a quick look I also see you voted for Sid earlier, a man who attempted to murder Arn Anderson by stabbing him TWENTY TIMES in the chest. So, murder = bad, attempted murder = acceptable? Gotcha.

If you want to just make up your own reasons for voting, go for it man. Vote for who has the best hair. Vote for who you think has the coolest sounding name. Pick names out of a hat for all I care, just don't sit here and try to present your argument as anything resembling logical or reasonable, because it's not, it's entirely personal and against the very spirit of this entire tournament. And before you respond with "Well it doesn't say anything about the criteria in the rules!", first off, in years past yes it has but I guess most of us thought this shit was common sense to judge these guys on their abilities and work alone, but I guess not. It's shit like this that drives away people like me from even participating in these things anymore, because people want to use whatever dumbass criteria they can think of to pick their favorites and argue against guys they don't like, even if that match up is Heath Slater vs. Hulk Hogan.

 

[Rayne]

After a quick look I also see you voted for Sid earlier, a man who attempted to murder Arn Anderson by stabbing him TWENTY TIMES in the chest. So, murder = bad, attempted murder = acceptable? Gotcha.

We've dispatched with the whole moral equivalence argument earlier.

If you want to just make up your own reasons for voting, go for it man. Vote for who has the best hair. Vote for who you think has the coolest sounding name. Pick names out of a hat for all I care, just don't sit here and try to present your argument as anything resembling logical or reasonable, because it's not, it's entirely personal and against the very spirit of this entire tournament. And before you respond with "Well it doesn't say anything about the criteria in the rules!", first off, in years past yes it has but I guess most of us thought this shit was common sense to judge these guys on their abilities and work alone, but I guess not. It's shit like this that drives away people like me from even participating in these things anymore, because people want to use whatever dumbass criteria they can think of to pick their favorites and argue against guys they don't like, even if that match up is Heath Slater vs. Hulk Hogan.

So what you're saying is that people are free to vote however they wish, but they won't get your personal seal of approval for it?

OK, bro.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

So what you're saying is that people are free to vote however they wish, but they won't get your personal seal of approval for it?

OK, bro.

That's a strawman, and you know better than this.

X is saying you have the liberty to vote however you want, and if you want to vote against Benoit because of what he did, that's fine. But trying to make an actual argument against Benoit because of the murders in a tournament determining who the best wrestler of all-time, against a guy that most probably hasn't reached his prime yet is distancing from the original objective of the tournament. It becomes less about wrestling and more about subjectivity.

 

[Rayne]

I'm not sure you understand what a strawman argument is. At what point did I accuse X of holding a belief which he has not expressed?

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Of course it's a strawman. You effectively modified X's argument to make it easier to discredit; his argument is that you have the liberty to vote however you want but actually making written arguments against Benoit because of the murders goes against everything the tournament is based upon. You seem to think that X has an issue with people voting against Benoit in general, which is not at all what he suggested.

 

[Rayne]

Of course it's a strawman. You effectively modified X's argument to make it easier to discredit; his argument is that you have the liberty to vote however you want but actually making written arguments against Benoit because of the murders goes against everything the tournament is based upon.

That's exactly what I said his argument is, except add "he believes" between the words 'everything' and 'the tournament'. X can give out his personal seals of approval as he sees fit.

You seem to think that X has an issue with people voting against Benoit in general, which is not at all what he suggested.

Now this is a strawman argument. Please quote me where I said or even implied that X was taking this position.

I think you might believe that 'strawman' means something that it doesn't mean. What do you think a strawman argument is?

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

So what you're saying is that people are free to vote however they wish, but they won't get your personal seal of approval for it?

X never said he took issue with how people voted, X said he took issue with the arguments that aren't pertinent to wrestling. You misrepresented that (whether it was intentional or not, I don't know) to say that X would be annoyed by anyone who voted based on that logic, which he never insinuated.

This is a strawman by textbook definition, because you took X's original argument, misrepresented it to create a false argument to suit your agenda, and argued against your newly created point.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Someone sharing an ill-formed opinion doesn't make it right. This is why 'appeal to popularity' is a logical fallacy.

Am I safe in assuming at this point that you cannot quote a rule for this tournament supporting your opinions concerning voting criteria?

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=35415

In case the link does not work this is from the third year in the archives.

The Chris Benoit Rule: Yes, it's the ugly little thing that wrestling fans are on one side of the fence or the other, Chris Benoit. This tournament is about wrestling, and the person in questions professional life, not their private life. Bringing up the Benoit Murders, the Hogan Family Circus, Steve Austin beating his wife, or anything really not relating to wrestling will get you an infraction, and eventually a banning from participation in the tournament. Try to keep the real life affairs out. If you find you can't vote for someone based on their real life issues, simply don't vote and stay away from matches those people are involved in.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The thing about that is its up for argument.


Part of this tournament is legacy, or impact on the business.


Benoit's personal life issues had the most damaging impact on the business of any single wrestler ever.



At the same time, it could also be argued that his situation led to the real study and search for answers behind CTE, and was the key to open the door to THE single most pre-eminent issue in athlete health today. <----- But no one used that, so...yea.

 

[Rayne]

X never said he took issue with how people voted, X said he took issue with the arguments that aren't pertinent to wrestling. You misrepresented that (whether it was intentional or not, I don't know) to say that X would be annoyed by anyone who voted based on that logic, which he never insinuated.

This is a strawman by textbook definition, because you took X's original argument, misrepresented it to create a false argument to suit your agenda, and argued against your newly created point.

1) I took X's original argument and agreed with his reasoning (relating to people's freedom in casting their votes.)
2) You entirely made up the idea that I said "X would be annoyed by anyone who voted based on that logic", which suited your agenda,
3) And then used that false argument against your newly created point.

Are you sure you can recognize a strawman when you see one? Or did you just see NSL casually throwing around logical fallacies and wanted in on the action? Maybe it's way simpler than that, and I couldn't give a wet fart if someone doesn't approve of the reasoning I use to cast my vote, in the face of a couple people who really, really think I should.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=35415

In case the link does not work this is from the third year in the archives.

You must have missed the sidebar thread in the Bar Room. We can't figure out how long it's been since that rule was active, but it's at least 2009.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

1) I took X's original argument and agreed with his reasoning (relating to people's freedom in casting their votes.)
2) You entirely made up the idea that I said "X would be annoyed by anyone who voted based on that logic", which suited your agenda,
3) And then used that false argument against your newly created point.

Are you sure you can recognize a strawman when you see one?

The thing all three of us are in agreement in here is the freedom of voting whoever you want. I don't know where you got the idea that X is suggesting that just voting against Benoit is wrong and thus goes against his personal seal of approval. His issue is using factors outside of wrestling to make a written argument in a wrestling tournament.

 

[Rayne]

I don't know where you got the idea that I said anything like that, as it certainly wasn't from the words that I typed. I can only be held responsible for the things I say, not the things people tell me I say.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

I voted for Ambrose simply because I don't feel like seeing this same argument every single round that Benoit is in. He wasn't going to be winning the tournament anyway.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I voted for Ambrose simply because I don't feel like seeing this same argument every single round that Benoit is in. He wasn't going to be winning the tournament anyway.

This could be the most logical post in this entire thread. I don't agree with voting for Ambrose, but you can't deny the logic of this post.

Anyways what I've learned from this thread is things Ive I've always known and things that I don't want to know. For example, I've always known that people will make whatever bullshit arguments they can against a certain performer to get them out of the tournament look objective when in reality it's anything but. Happens at least once every year in the first round. What I didn't know was that people actually needed written rules to vote in a WRESTLING TOURNAMENT BASED ON WRESTLING CRITERIA.

At least Coco's hyperbolic argument pertained to wrestling. I mean, I don't believe for a second that he believed anything he said about Benoit killing the business, but it was a wrestling argument nonetheless.

 

[Rayne]

What I didn't know was that people actually needed written rules to vote in a WRESTLING TOURNAMENT BASED ON WRESTLING CRITERIA.

I didn't need written rules to cast my vote, the website accepted the click for Ambrose just fine. However, written rules would have influenced which radio button I selected. Since discretion was left to the poster as to how they chose to cast their vote, and the operators of this event have had more than ample opportunity to correct any current misconception of the rules........ it might be safe to say at this point that people are referring to what they wish the rules were. Which is also one of the things in this tournament you can count on every year.

The thing about unwritten rules is, if you can't enforce them, they aren't really rules.