Debate League FINAL Championship Match: jmt225 -vs- nickb03

Discussion in 'Debater's League 2010' started by D-Man, Dec 13, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. D-Man

    D-Man Gone but never forgotten.

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    First off, congratulations to both competitors for making it to the finals of this grueling contest. We know it was a long season and we sincerely apologize for all of the speedbumps and delays along the way. However, Phoenix and I are very happy to see debaters of this magnitude make it this far in the tournament.

    On behalf of Phoenix and myself, we wish you both the best of luck!!


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final topic for this year's Debate League is...

    Is the IWC a burden on the Wrestling Industry?

    This is the final, CHAMPIONSHIP match of the 2010 Debater's League. nickb03 is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate he will be on, who debates first, and he has 24 hours to make his choices.

    This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY. It will receive a special final-match extension and end on Monday, December 20th at 2pm EST.

    Anyone that posts in this thread besides the debaters, league admins, and judges will be infracted!

    Good luck to both of the finalists!!!
     
    #1
  2. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    As the Home debater, I have decided to argue that the IWC is not a burden on the Wrestling Industry. JMT225 can open this debate. Good luck, JMT.
     
    #2
  3. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    There are three solid points why the IWC is indeed detrimental to the business.

    The first is the most obvious… their exposure to the behind the scenes goings in professional wrestling.

    Now, I’m not going to sit here and say that it wasn’t until the internet came along where everyone all of the sudden figured out that professional wrestling was pre-determined. For the most part, people found that out for good when supposed bitter rivals Hacksaw Jim Duggan and The Iron Sheik were arrested together.

    However, it is because of the internet why we know as much as we do. Sure, newsletters and hotlines were around before the internet hit big, but who really subscribed and called those things? A very, very, VERY small percentage of the professional wrestling audience. The internet, on the other hand, is assessable to about 80% of households in America as of 2008, as confirmed by webpronews.

    Now, when did pro wrestling and WWE in specifically hit its peak? The years 1999/2000, is the correct answer. WWE averaged over a 6.0 rating for Raw, and their pay-per-view and merchandise sells were through the roof.

    According to the US Census, in 1997 only 7 percent of adults had internet access. By 2003, that figure went all the way up to 40 percent, which was double from the figure they had for the year 2001.

    Oddly enough, by 2003, Raw’s rating was all the way down to averaging lower 4.0’s to mid 3.0’s. Coincidence? I think not.

    By so many fans having the inside scoop on every little detail, it’s damn near impossible for us to ever buy into a storyline. Sure, we knew Austin vs. McMahon was fake, but we could nevertheless suspend our disbelief because we didn’t read reports every week during that storyline from inside sources about the behind the scenes relationship between Vince and Austin. If we had that kind of access, then it would have ruined the storyline for many, many fans.

    Deep down, we don’t want to know what’s going on behind the scenes and what surprises may be coming our way, yet we can’t resist looking at the details. It’s human nature… you want to know what you’re not supposed to know, and the internet grants us access to everything we’re not supposed to know, and yes… that is most definitely detrimental to the business. It’s impossible today for WWE to keep a secrete, and it’s all because of the IWC.

    The second point I’d like to bring up is streams and video sites like Youtube, Dailymotion, etc.

    Today, because of the internet, it’s MUCH easier to watch what is supposed to be a $40 pay-per-view for free. Today, because of the internet, you can avoid watching Raw and Smackdown live, because you can rely on a website like Youtube to have the episode(s) uploaded the very next day.

    Back in the late nineties, if the internet were as big as it is today, I guarantee there would have been no ratings war. Some people would watch Nitro and then watch Raw the next day on the computer, or vice versa. Either way, ratings would have dipped heavily.

    The fact is, the internet gives us countless means to get away with not tuning in and contributing a rating, and not giving WWE their deserved money of $40 for the pay-per-views they put on. I just don’t see how anyone could ever argue how that’s not detrimental to the business.

    The third and final point for my opening post: Negativity.

    The IWC is filled with absolutely nothing but negativity. You go to any pro wrestling dirt site or forum, you’re going to read nothing but bitching and moaning about why everything about the business today sucks. That’s how the IWC has always been. They contribute absolutely nothing; they only take things away. They bitch about a pay-per-view they didn’t even order. They bitch about a show they didn’t even watch live. They bitch, and bitch, and bitch some more. Every single site; not one has anything positive to say.

    Negativity spreads, my friends. The internet has made a LOT of fans cynical towards the business. With the internet they gain access to the so-called “glory days” and constantly relive those moments, while doing nothing else but bitch about today’s product. What does the IWC serve to professional wrestling? Absolutely nothing is what. What good has ever came out of the IWC? Anything at all? Nickb, if you have an answer to that, I would love to hear it.
     
    #3
    Miko likes this.
  4. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Is the IWC a burden on the Wrestling Industry?​


    What is the IWC?

    The IWC is short for Internet Wrestling Community. In other words, it's us. We come to websites like wrestlezone.com, we head to the forums, and discuss wrestling. We read articles written by so-called experts, who supposedly have the inside track on backstage news and events. These "journalists" cater to the IWC. They break so-called news stories that give us a behind-the-scenes look at professional wrestling, or at least that's what they tell us.

    Are We Really That Heavy of A Burden To Carry?

    Because of websites like Wrestlezone, the results of a taped show are leaked before it airs. But in all reality, that's the fault of the promotion taping the show. Also, if the WWE or TNA were that concerned with spoilers, wouldn't they go live instead?

    I think some people overestimate the effect "spoilers" have on a wrestling company. Only a small fraction of fans are IWC "smarks." Most casual fans just watch the show. Internet usage among Americans is definitely on the rise, and most now have some form of access. But that doesn't mean all wrestling fans, or even a majority, read spoilers or are apart of the IWC.

    And what is actually spoiled? We have the option of seeing spoilers each week for shows like Smackdown, Superstars and Impact. But outside of those fan reports, anything you read on a wrestling website is pure speculation. "Miz is going to cash in tonight!" "Chris Masters is due a HUGE push!" "Backstage, this guy isn't popular." It's mostly speculation, from anonymous sources.

    Despite what some may say, wrestling fans can still be surprised. How about The Miz cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase during Raw on 11/22/2010? How about Nexus invading Raw this past summer? And I doubt anyone predicted Nexus would attack the Undertaker at Bragging Rights 2010. These are just a few examples, but they are important. These websites that cater to the IWC are not the fountain of accurate information some make them out to be. In fact, with these sites making such bold predictions and in turn being wrong about certain events, it makes those particular events even more surprising when they don't turn out the way they were reported to.

    What Does the IWC Really Do?

    What do we do? Nothing, really. We talk about wrestling. We complain about wrestling. We talk about what should happen, and bitch about what doesn't happen. We are faceless, nameless user names. I really hate to downplay our importance (note the sarcasm), but we really mean nothing. I think we would have to make a much larger impact on the wrestling business to be considered a major burden.

    I agree that something like a spoiler report can have a negative effect on a particular show. But, this is wrestling. It's part male soap opera, and part action. What is the good of reading a report, and not watching the actual show? Most of the entertainment value resides in the actual matches. Reading an internet report cannot possibly stop me from watching the actual matches. After all, it's wrestling. Like with any sporting event, watching the actual match/competition makes it worth viewing.

    The Wrestling Industry Isn't What It Once Was

    The wrestling industry, as a whole, isn't nearly as popular as it once was. As my opponent points out, viewership has been in decline for quite some time.

    Monday Night Raw

    March 29, 1999- 6.5
    April 5, 1999- 5.8

    March 27, 2000- 6.6
    April 3, 2000- 6.4

    March 26, 2001- 4.7
    April 2, 2001- 5.7

    March 25, 2002- 5.4
    April 1, 2002- 4.8

    March 31, 2003- 3.7
    April 7, 2003- 3.5

    March 29, 2004- 4.3
    April 5, 2004- 3.8

    March 28, 2005- 4.0
    April 4, 2005- 4.3

    March 27, 2006- 4.2
    April 3, 2006- 4.1

    March 26, 2007- 3.9
    April 2, 2007- 4.3

    March 31, 2008 3.9
    April 7, 2008 3.3
    (source: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm)

    I think this shows he's correct in saying ratings have been slipping. But, saying it began in 2003 is incorrect. Also, I see no reason to believe the increase in internet access had a big impact on television ratings.

    If you look at that chart, Raw's ratings began to dip, year-to-year, in 2001. On March 26th, 2001, the WWF and WCW merged on live television (In terms of kayfabe. In reality, the actual purchase did not take place that night, and Shane didn't really buy the company, Vince did).

    I think the ratings show something, and it doesn't have anything to do with the IWC. Things started going downhill after WCW was bought out by the WWF. Today's wrestling lacks competition among promotions. TNA is around, but due to poor programming quality, they are no real threat to the WWE (yet). During wrestling's biggest era (1997-2001), WWE had stiff competition, in the form of WCW (and ECW was a decent third option). Right now, that kind of competitor doesn't exist.

    People can blame the internet, the PG-era, John Cena, etc. But in all reality, I believe it's due to a lack of competition among large promotions. When you only have one mainstream promotion, you don't have many choices. You watch what you're given, and that's the end of it. And I think this lack of choice, combined with what some perceive as poor quality, has really hurt the entire wrestling industry.

    Conclusion

    I just can't bring myself to believe the IWC is important enough to be considered a burden on the wrestling industry. The wrestling business has taken a beating over the last ten years, and I think that mainly has to do with WWE having no legitimate competitor in the pro-wrestling market. I agree "spoilers" cannot be good for ratings, but I don't think a company like WWE would continue to tape shows before airing them if they believed wrestling websites were hurting the company. Ratings are low because a lot of fans have just stopped watching. Maybe they don't like what they're seeing, maybe they have just moved on. Either way, I don't see any reason to believe the IWC has anything to do with this particular problem.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm not going to ride this point too much, but I think it's important to remember that outside of actual fans reporting spoilers, which can be proven once the show actually airs, most of what we read is hearsay.

    Accessible, yes. But as hard as I've looked, I haven't been able to find a poll that shows how many wrestling fans actually read spoilers, and do not watch the actual show because of it. Until I see that kind of poll, I really can't buy into this idea.

    I understand what you're getting at, but I don't agree with it. Once again, I haven't seen one piece of concrete evidence, anywhere, stating that wrestling internet sites have hurt professional wrestling when it comes to PPV buys and television ratings. Many, many things hurt PPV buys/ratings (UFC, lack of overall fans at the moment, lack of quality programming, etc.), but I doubt the IWC is really that heavy of a burden.

    Actually, the ratings dip started in 2001.

    March 27, 2000- 6.6
    April 3, 2000- 6.4

    March 26, 2001- 4.7
    April 2, 2001- 5.7

    What happened in 2001? WCW went under. The WWF purchased WCW, taking out it's last remaining competitor. I think that was a huge problem for not only the pro wrestling industry, but (unknowingly) for the WWF/E as well.

    I really disagree with this. I think Austin/McMahon was successful because it was something new. It broke down the kayfabe wall...yet it went down in a total kayfabe-manner. It was far more realistic than anything we had ever seen before. And most importantly, the storyline contained two of the most talented performers WWF/E has ever had. I can't say this with any evidence, but I think that storyline would have had an impact, on a large scale, internet or not. It was that that damn compelling.

    Contrary to what some people say, the reporters on websites like Wrestlezone do not always see what's coming before we do. How about Nexus invading Raw? They didn't see that coming.

    I also have to disagree with the premise of wrestling storylines not working because a few websites report the angle before it happens. Internet smarks seemingly knew for months that Kane was behind the "coma" of The Undertaker this past summer. And even with that being rather obvious, people have said this is the best work Kane has done in years.

    Internet smarks, above all else, want to see a good show. If the programming a company puts out there is of high quality, reports of upcoming storylines really do not matter as much as you say they do.

    Once again, I disagree with WWE not being able to keep a secret. The Nexus was a secret. HBK's retirement was a secret right up until he lost to The Undertaker at Wrestlemania 26. Months before that, reports indicated HBK was going to wrestle for another year or two.

    Unless you're reading an actual spoiler of a show that has not yet aired, it's just hearsay. Before every PPV, we see some article stating who might win the title, or who might lose the title. Like I said earlier, outside of shows which were previously taped, nothing can be confirmed as truth or rumor, until it actually happens. If anything, that creates suspense, which in turn creates viewership.

    Much easier to avoid buying the PPV, after the event has taken place. Outside of watching the PPV, the only way to know what's happening live is to read a live, play-by-play spoiler sheet. How much fun is that? I agree that with live fan reports being accessible, it's much more affordable for some fans to just read the reports. But, I think those live reports are no more detrimental to PPV buys than having a competitors PPV (WWE, TNA and/or UFC) around the same time. Live reports may be a problem, but I don't think it's anywhere near the biggest reason PPV buys are down across the board.

    Once again, I think it boils down to quality and competition among rival companies.

    Wrestlemania Buyrates

    1987 10.2
    1988 6.5
    1989 5.9
    1990 3.8
    1991 2.8
    1992 2.3
    1993 2.0
    1994 1.68
    1995 1.3
    1996 1.2
    1997 0.77
    1998 2.3
    1999 2.32
    2000 2.35
    2001 2.18
    2002 1.60
    2003 1.40
    2004 1.63
    2005 2.46
    2006 2.33
    2007 2.97
    2008 2.645

    Look at 1997. The lowest PPV buyrate WWF/E has ever had for Wrestlemania. I don't think that had anything to do with live, play-by-play internet reports. It had to do with, A. Competition from WCW, and B. Some people not enjoying WWF at the time. The internet had nothing to do with that.

    I agree this may hurt WWE's television ratings, but what does this have to do with the IWC? WWE has actually partnered with Youtube, officially allowing fans to watch these programs on the internet ( http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/wwe_wwe-signs-partnership-with-youtube-1005495.html ). You really can't blame the IWC for youtube and venues of the same nature.

    Maybe, but that's just speculation. We have no way of knowing whether this is true or not.

    These things absolutely hurt pro wrestling, no doubt. But again, I'm not seeing how this is the fault of the IWC. I don't think Youtube is considered a part of the Internet Wrestling Community, is it? It's an outlet for several forms of entertainment, not just wrestling.

    I agree that the IWC, forums especially, are filled with complaining. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a place for debate. When someone looks at a Wrestlezone thread, they are allowed to choose their own side. Some people hate John Cena, and some love him. This is a heated debate on WZ, day in and day out. So while I agree some are complaining, some are praising as well.

    And as for the articles on the main page here on Wrestlezone, they always turn into a debate on the forums. Every single Mark Madden article makes it's way to the forums, where people either agree with Madden, or disagree. It's a place for debate, not propaganda.

    I don't need to answer it, you did for me. "Nothing" is absolutely correct. The IWC isn't that important. I'm not going to deny we have at least a minimal effect on how wrestling is viewed, but only on those who come to the forums. Millions and millions of wrestling fans, new and old, have no clue we even exist. You think the 5-10 year old fans, whose parents buy millions and millions of dollars worth of merchandise, are jumping on these sites, and being brainwashed into hating the current product? I don't think so.

    At the end of the day, the IWC just isn't important enough to have the negative impact you are accusing it of. There are so many other factors. The UFC has taken a huge chunk of the audience. Not as many people are watching wrestling today as opposed to 10 years ago. Why? No major competition for the WWE. You can blame the IWC all you want, but after WCW went out of business, viewership dropped as a whole. When you only have one option, you either enjoy or you don't. You don't have another show to tune into. And in the end, that hurts the entire industry.

    The pro wrestling industry has a lot of things working against it, and I just cannot believe the IWC is that big of a burden.
     
    #4
    Miko likes this.
  5. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Yes, us. And what are we filled with? Nothing but whiney motherfuckers. That's a fact, man. There is not one IWC member who doesn't have nothing negative to say. One way or another, they're trashing TNA or WWE, and doing it way more often than their praise of the other company. That's pretty much every "journalist" and forum poster.

    Dude, we contribute nothing but negativity to the business, as I pointed out in our first post. We don't convert new fans; we turn certain fans off, in fact.

    What about it? Dude, everyone could see that coming from a mile away. All you have to do is read the LD from that night to see people calling it left and right. That was as predictable as it comes.

    Okay, one surprise. Name some more from the past few years? You'd be hard-pressed, and it's because of the internet why you can't.

    No, we mean nothing in a positive sense. We don't do anything good for the business. We contribute nothing. All we do is take away from the business, while giving nothing back. How in the World is that not detrimental?

    It began in mid-to-late 2002, I just rounded it off to 2003. Either way, it's a six month difference... my point still stands.

    I most certainly do, but I'll drive that point home in a minute.

    Year to year, as the internet got bigger and bigger. Coincidence? I think not. More on this in a minute...

    Don't you think though that it's odd the bigger the IWC got, the lesser the overall wrestling audience got? I mean, dude, you cannot deny this. It's not coincidence.

    No, blaming competition is a cop-out. I rarely ever agree with anything that comes out on Vince McMahon's mouth, but one time he said that WWE today is competition to the entire entertainment industry. ANY show that runs against his is quality competition. WWE competes against that these days, whereas in the nineties all they worried about was Nitro. Today, however, they have to compete against Monday Night Football, and successful primetime sitcoms and dramas.

    Television today has as many popular shows on at once more than ever... that's WWE's competition. Just because they aren't wrestling shows, doesn't mean they're not competition. At the end of the day, pro wrestling is an entertainment industry in the United States.

    You go to pretty much any wrestling forum, you'll see people asking for streams during a live pay-per-view. You'll see the next day people asking for downloads. That's big money out of WWE's pockets... because most of these people, I guarantee, would have ordered the show had they not have access to streams and downloads. However, the IWC provides them with that, and it is a burden.

    High fours and low fives are still great numbers, though. That's why I started at around 2002/2003, because when I see 3 somethings on a regular basis, to me that's a failure for Raw.

    WWE fucked up the Invasion angle, and it hurt them, no doubt about it; however, competition is not the reason why they haven't been able to rebound since. The NFL has no competition... but does that keep it from being hugely successful? No. Would it help a show like Glee to have "competition" like another Choir based show on NBC? Absolutely not. So, why oh why is competition so important when it comes to professional wrestling? The WWF didn't have any real competition in the mid-to-late eighties, yet they still did great business... why was that, if competition is so important?

    Dude, competition means jack shit, and is just a cop-out by, oddly enough, the IWC why pro wrestling hasn't hit another boom period yet.

    No, we've seen "Boss vs. Wrestler" before Austin vs. McMahon... that's yet another myth that people buy into. Multiple territories did storylines like that (including big ones like WCCW), and even ECW did it for a while during their early stages with Paul Heyman.

    Nah, I think the internet would have ruined too many things.

    For example, there's no way they could have kept the "Higher Power" storyline under wraps if the internet was as big back then as it is today. Just look at the Vince's son angle... everyone knew it was going to be Kennedy, and when he got hurt, we got fucking dumped with Hornswoggle. That kind of dumb shit would have never happened in a non-IWC World.

    One example... not impressed.

    First of all, HBK's retirement was not a secrete. Everyone saw it coming.

    But, let me make another point on this.

    On the rare occasion WWE does surprise us, it seems like a THAT day decision. Dude, in today's wrestling world... there is no build. The show gets written the very single day the program is shot.

    Now, nickb, I politely ask you... why is it like that today? Why are there no long term plans?

    I'll go ahead and provide the answer, which is because WWE knows that they can't keep a secrete for too long. And that's all thanks to the IWC. If there was no IWC, then WWE could carefully plan out the future and have long, compelling, drawn-out storylines, such as McMahon vs. Austin, instead of this one/two month bullshit we so often get today.

    Or to watch a stream, which most of the IWC provides.

    But you just proved one of my points... competition means NOTHING. WWE got their biggest buyrates when there was NO competition... so how is it the lack of competition why WWE's ratings and pay-per-view buys are so shit today?

    The IWC are the ones who upload the shit to Youtube; that's why they take the blame.

    Also, WWE might be partnered with a site like Youtube, but it's for strictly advertisement, not posting whole shows.

    You know deep down that you agree that that statement is true. ;)

    Yeah, but it's the Internet Wrestling Community who is uploading all the illegal content when it comes to pro wrestling videos, is it not?

    The ones who are praising though, later on look for something to complain about, right? 95% of John Cena fans here hate TNA, and they have no problem expressing their disgust for that company every chance they get. And 95% TNA fans here hate Cena, and they have no problem expressing their disgust for him. It's nothing but mindless, bias bitching. And the majority of the time, they don't even know why they hate something... they only hate it because they like the other side. I wouldn't call that debate; it's ******ation.

    Mark Madden gets his little followers to buy into whatever bullshit he's spewing. You're talking about a man whose objective isn't to cause debate, but to bad mouth the business. That's it. Those who agree with him, simply repeat the nonsense he said, and those who don't, bitch about his article. Either way, it's not good for anyone. It just causes more bitching and even sometimes controversy, since that fat fuck was actually apart of the business at one point.

    My numbers on the households who have internet access beg to differ.

    I know people who actually decide to join a wrestling forum and post are a very small portion of the audience, but best believe that wrestling sites get an unbelievable amount of hits every single day from MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of fans. That's a fact.

    Let me ask you something, man, and I want you to be completely honest, if you'd please:

    Do you think we'll ever see another boom period?

    I don't want to hear anything about competition... I just want to know if you think we'll ever see another boom period in pro wrestling?

    In my opinion, I am certain we will not.

    The first boom period happened in 1985 and lasted to about 1991. That's seven years. Then, the 2nd started in late 1997, about 6/7 years after the first ended, and lasted until about Invasion, so that's 5 years.

    Dude, do you realize how we're about to reach ten fucking years since the last time WWE came anywhere near to having numbers that they had during the boom periods? TEN YEARS.

    And now, I'm not saying that the IWC is the sole reason why that is; however, it is a part of the reason. Whether you think it's a big reason or a small reason, there's absolutely no denying that the IWC plays a part in why WWE and pro wrestling as a whole hasn't been able reach another boom period, which overall does indeed make IWC detrimental to the business.
     
    #5
  6. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    I agree that people on forums like this one are rather negative. They piss and moan about every little thing, myself included. But, I don't see how that really hurts either TNA or WWE. For every fan that complains about the PG-era, another fan comes in and defends it.

    When it comes to trashing a wrestling promotion, fans are often divided. You're acting as if people are being led around this place like blind sheep. This place acts as a venue for constant debate. People argue over everything. How often do you really see someone around here change their mind because another poster told them they should? People have their beliefs, and usually stick to them. "Guests" who stop by and read different kinds of threads see debates, not just one persons opinion blindly followed by everyone else. They don't see 20 or 30 people agreeing on one thing. So while all of us may piss and moan, we're always being jabbed right back by those who do not agree with us.

    First off, I would like to point out that it isn't our job to create new fans. We are paying audience members, just like everyone else. Do we not buy PPV's? Do we not watch Raw, Smackdown and/or Impact? Do we not buy t-shirts, DVD's, all of the other shit they sell? We are the most loyal fans professional wrestling has, even if we post negative reactions to what we're seeing.

    And I'm really not buying into your theory of the IWC turning fans away from watching wrestling. As I said earlier, we act as a place where you can discuss and/or debate the current wrestling product. Look at the Live Discussions during Raw and/or Impact. What are people doing while discussing said event? They're watching it on television!

    Yes, people were "calling it" that night. That night and every other night since The Miz won the Money In The Bank briefcase :rolleyes:


    -Jack Swagger winning Money in the Bank at Wrestlemania 26. The guy had been down-on-his-luck for months, and I don't think anyone gave him a chance to pull off the win.

    -Daniel Bryan returning at Summerslam 2010 to join Team Raw. Here's a link to the live discussion right here on Wrestlezone:
    http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=127315&highlight=summerslam&page=106

    A few people may have suspected he would be there, but I think the reaction shows it wouldn't have matter if everyone knew for certain. However, it wasn't confirmed (prior to the show) that it would in fact be Danielson, so it was most definitely a surprise.

    -Kane winning the Money In The Bank match at the PPV of the same name (07/18/2010), and then cashing in his prize that same night to become World Heavyweight Champion.

    -Matt Hardy turning on Jeff Hardy at Royal Rumble 2009. I was at that show, and just about everyone in that place who had some sort of inside knowledge of WWE, probably via the internet, thought Christian was going to show up and screw Jeff out of the title. But, he didn't. Matt was the traitor, and it was a shocker.

    -John Cena entering, and winning the 2008 Royal Rumble match. In this live discussion thread (http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=16429&highlight=Cena&page=38), you can clearly see no one saw this coming. It was a total shocker, and everyone said as much.

    I think these live discussion threads show something more than just people being able to be surprised. These threads show that "insider" fans, the "smarks" we are talking about, can also be surprised.


    I guess I could buy what you are selling here, if we didn't give these promotions our television ratings, PPV buys, merchandise sales, and ticket sales to live shows. We mean nothing in the sense that all of our bitching means zero to the people in charge. We can bitch and bitch all day long, but these promotions are going to book the way they want to book. From a business angle is where we mean something, and we definitely play a positive role.

    Monday Night Raw Ratings
    March 27, 2000- 6.6
    April 3, 2000- 6.4

    March 26, 2001- 4.7
    April 2, 2001- 5.7

    Not a huge drop, but the ball started rolling before 2002.


    You're refusing to acknowledge the drop-off in competition after the WWF purchased WCW. If I were in your shoes, I might do the same ;)

    What's not a coincidence is how ratings actually began dropping after WCW was sold to the WWF. A steady decline in viewership followed, and I believe most of that had to do with a lack of viewing options. Also around this time, Austin turned heel, and I think a lot of people didn't like that (hence him finding it difficult to draw heat).

    This was followed by the WCW/ECW invasion debacle. The storyline was piss-poor, mainly because WCW didn't have their main stars invading Raw. The Alliance didn't have Sting, Goldberg, Lex Luger, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, etc. Who did it have? Booker T, DDP, and a bunch of no-name guys. This angle is the kind of shitty booking that turns fans away. Success in the wrestling industry is all about quality programming, and many people obviously didn't like what they were seeing.


    Please tell me you're kidding...please.

    WWF didn't have to worry about Monday Night Football in the 90's? When Monday Night Football was on ABC? I find that hard to believe. Actually, it's impossible to believe, but whatever.

    Of course Vince is going to say his company is competing with everyone.

    1. If he were to say he is only competing with rival wrestling promotions, he couldn't be taken seriously. Why? Because there is no major wrestling promotion putting on a Monday or even Friday night show.

    2. Vince, for many years now, has wanted to be a bigger part of "mainstream" entertainment, hence the current PG-rating. Saying he is only competing with rival wrestling promotions wouldn't really work, now would it?

    I understand this, and you're right. Other shows, outside of wrestling, are competition. But if people who really love wrestling are seeing something they want to see, they're going to watch regardless of what else is on in that timeslot. It's boils down to quality. If people aren't happy with the current state of professional wrestling, they are not going to watch. And with no real alternative to the WWE right now, those same disgruntled fans are turning away more and more each year.

    If I'm not mistaken, Wrestlezone doesn't allow people to post streams, right? So that cuts down on stream feeds right there.

    Also, you're completely ignoring the PPV buys from those who are in the live discussions. A lot of those people paid for the PPV, money that goes right into the pockets of WWE and/or TNA. Live discussions are able to exist because a lot of the people taking part have purchased said PPV.

    Yes, they are. They are really, really good numbers. But you cannot deny that it was a drop from 5's and 6's.

    But is it really a failure? Or are these numbers the norm, and the Attitude Era was a peak?

    Let's look at Monday Night Raw ratings from October, starting in 1995, all the way through 2007 (By the way, I picked a totally random month. The link to this information will follow, if you feel like looking at the the whole thing):

    October 2, 1995 2.5
    October 9, 1995 2.6
    October 16, 1995 2.6
    October 23, 1995 2.2
    October 30, 1995 2.1

    October 7, 1996 2.1
    October 14, 1996 1.8
    October 21, 1996 2.6
    October 28, 1996 2.0

    October 6, 1997 3.0
    October 13, 1997 2.3
    October 20, 1997 2.9
    October 27, 1997 2.3

    October 5, 1998 4.55
    October 12, 1998 4.8
    October 19, 1998 5.0
    October 26, 1998 4.5

    October 4, 1999 5.9
    October 11, 1999 6.1
    October 18, 1999 5.4
    October 25, 1999 5.6

    October 2, 2000 5.4
    October 9, 2000 5.4
    October 16, 2000 4.8
    October 23, 2000 5.5
    October 30, 2000 4.9

    October 1, 2001 4.4
    October 8, 2001 4.5
    October 15, 2001 4.1
    October 22, 2001 3.9
    October 29, 2001 4.1

    October 7, 2002 3.8
    October 14, 2002 3.8
    October 21, 2002 3.7
    October 28, 2002 3.4

    October 6, 2003 3.4
    October 13, 2003 3.6
    October 20, 2003 3.7
    October 27, 2003 3.4

    October 4, 2004 3.4
    October 11, 2004 3.4
    October 18, 2004 3.0
    October 25, 2004 3.7

    October 3, 2005 4.4
    October 10, 2005 4.0
    October 17, 2005 3.6
    October 24, 2005 3.9
    October 31, 2005 3.4

    October 2, 2006 3.6
    October 9, 2006 3.8
    October 16, 2006 3.7
    October 23, 2006 3.6
    October 30, 2006 3.5

    October 1, 2007 3.2
    October 8, 2007 2.8
    October 15, 2007 3.3
    October 22, 2007 3.3
    October 29, 2007 3.5

    (source: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm)

    You're not seriously comparing the NFL and Pro Wrestling, are you? Professional football is about as mainstream as it gets. Pro wrestling is not. Why is this? Who knows. Football is an actual competition, with no script behind it? Possibly, but I really can't say. I just know that pro football has been much more successful, over the last 50-75 years, at carving out a place in mainstream entertainment. The comparison just doesn't work.

    I think it had a lot to do with what wrestling turned into. It became a spectacle. It was big, colorful, excessive, over-the-top, and flat-out entertaining. It was no longer just two sweaty guys rolling around on a mat, pretending to beat the shit out of one another. It became Sports Entertainment.

    We were given things like Wrestlemania, which included celebrities like Muhammad Ali and Mr. T. We saw the rise of a man named Hulk Hogan. I could go on and on, but this really has nothing to do with how the IWC has hurt pro wrestling.


    The Austin/McMahon storyline may not have been completely original, but it was new to almost all wrestling fans. Those smaller promotions didn't have the capability of showing millions and millions of people, on a weekly basis, this kind of storyline.

    This is pure speculation.

    We have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not this storyline would have been spoiled or not.

    Actually, we didn't know anything. Internet speculation drove that story, so at the time we had no way of actually knowing who it was supposed to be. I agree it was most likely Kennedy, but once again, internet speculation doesn't always turn out to be true.

    Well, I guess it's a good thing I'm not overly concerned with impressing you ;)

    I disagree. I clearly remember most people being shocked to find out Taker and Shawn were going to have another Wrestlemania match.

    I'm not saying that after the match was announced I believed Shawn had a chance. He didn't. I doubt anyone will ever beat Taker at Mania. But, I remember a lot people talking about Shawn wanting HHH to retire him, maybe even the next year at Wrestlemania 27. The internet is full of speculation and opposing reports. Wrestling websites are not trustworthy enough for people to just stop watching the show.

    Plus, where is the entertainment value in only reading online reports? We read these reports because, as you said earlier, it's human nature to speculate about what's going to happen. But, it doesn't mean people aren't going to watch the actual show because we think we may know what's going to happen next.

    First of all, not to get too far off track here, but we have absolutely no clue when the show is written. Unless you can show me something proving otherwise, I'm not buying it.

    However, I do agree internet reports may be something for Vince and company to think about. But then again, for all we know, Vince has these storylines planned out months and months ahead of time. It's quite possible he just doesn't share these ideas with those outside of his inner-circle until he feels it's time to do so.

    Storylines have been leaked before, no doubt. But if Vince were so worried about it, he would probably change the angle right then and there, no? That leads me to believe the IWC isn't nearly as heavy of a burden to these companies as you seem to believe.

    I think many factors weigh in on how storylines are dealt with today. Lazy booking (both WWE and TNA), piss-poor and even unoriginal ideas (both TNA and WWE), the PG-era (WWE) and nostalgia (Hogan/Bischoff/TNA).


    The first three Wrestlemania's, as I said earlier, were something new. They were a spectacle, something for the whole family. The WWF was attempting to enter the mainstream, and had to spend big money to do so. Also, Hulk Hogan was a mega-star, not just in the wrestling world, but everywhere.

    But let's look at those buyrate numbers. Wrestlemania buyrates were in constant decline from 1987 through 1997. Buyrates began to rise up again, starting in 1998 (drawing a 2.3, up from the last years 0.77), and did so through Wrestlemania 2000. When did buyrates begin to decline once again? In the year 2001, not long after WCW was sold to the WWF.

    I would also say more people enjoyed what they were watching in 1998 as opposed to 1997. And all of this took place before the internet took a really strong hold on people.

    Also, look at the years of 2002 through 2008.

    2002 1.60
    2003 1.40
    2004 1.63
    2005 2.46
    2006 2.33
    2007 2.97
    2008 2.645

    PPV buyrates actually increased starting in 2005, and stayed in the 2's up until at least Wrestlemania 24 (the list didn't have 2009 or 2010). If your theory is true, how do PPV buyrates increase during a time where even more people have the internet? If the internet wrestling community is as damaging to the pro wrestling industry as you say it is, I just don't see how PPV buyrates increase during the time period you're talking about.


    Sorry, but you are completely wrong about this.

    http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2010/WWECorporate-6.23.2010.jsp

    This article states... "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and YouTube announced today a multi-year partnership that will make full episodes of WWE “Friday Night SmackDown®,” “WWE NXT™,” “WWE Superstars” and “ECW®,” available at WWE’s official YouTubeÔ channel (www.YouTube.com/WWE)."

    Please, feel free to read the article if my word isn't enough.

    Is it? I have no clue who uploads those videos, and quite frankly neither do you. To just pin all of that on the IWC isn't right.

    I share your opinion, for the most part, on this particular matter. But, this really does nothing to prove the IWC is a burden on the wrestling industry. If the worst we (IWC) can do is flock to an internet site, and argue with others about everything concerning pro wrestling, I don't think we're that heavy of a burden to carry.

    You just said it yourself. An article written by a guy like Mark Madden creates debate, which increases interest in the product you're arguing about. If you're taking the time to come to a wrestling site and post a response to something written by someone you don't even know, you're obviously watching what's going on. I don't care what Mark Madden tries to do. I only care about the result, even if that result is unintended.

    I hate to break it to you, but having internet access doesn't mean you automatically come to a wrestling website and talk about what you do and do not like in regards to the current product.

    Fine. Great. Millions of hits, I agree. But does that really make each one of those people a member of the IWC? Are each of those people not buying PPV's, and only readig online discussions instead of tuning into Raw/Impact? And how many of those hits are from the same person, checking the site over and over again? I fail to see how this is an indictment of the IWC.

    Sorry to disappoint, but competition is a valid argument, whether you're going to admit it or not.

    If TNA can get their shit together, I don't see why wrestling couldn't have another massive increase in popularity. You can downplay competition all you like, but competition among companies was at an all-time high during wrestlings' most successful period. That fact cannot be ignored.

    It's been quite some time, I agree with you.

    The wrestling business is facing many obstacles right now.

    WWE is still staggering from the Benoit double-murder, and suicide. Also, it can't help that former wrestlers seem to die every other month at very young ages from drug abuse, concussions, etc.

    Also, WWE has really started aiming it's programming at families. It's mostly a show aimed at children and their parents (who control the money), and I know a lot of Attitude Era-fans are upset by this.

    TNA is just shit. Terrible writing, lazy booking, and piss-poor management. It also doesn't help that they are stuck in the Impact Zone each week, with only two hours of television time.

    The wrestling business has had it's highs and lows. The industry is experiencing another downturn right now, no doubt about it. But I really don't think the IWC is to blame.

    In my own personal opinion, another major promotion is needed right now. The last time WWE faced a major competitor, it took it's game to another level. It wrote some of the most compelling, interesting stories we've ever seen from a wrestling promotion. WCW did the same (for awhile, at least).

    The IWC whines and complains, no doubt. But we whine and complain about everything because we're still interested in wrestling, and we still watch the shows. However big of a burden the IWC is on pro wrestling, it's just as much of a supporter. As I said earlier, we watch their programming, buy PPV's, buy tickets to the show, buy t-shirts, buy DVD's, etc. We help the business for more than we hurt it, I guarantee that much.
     
    #6
  7. jmt225

    jmt225 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Due to certain circumstances, this weekend I was unable to reply in as quickly of a manner as I wish I could have. If Nick isn't able to reply before the deadline is over, I plead to the judges to give him some leeway since I'm really putting him against a wall by replying so late. Thank you.

    All that said, this will be my last post. My final statement will be at the very end of it.

    I honestly believe it influences other fans new to the IWC World, and turns them cynical and less of a fan because of everyone else's perspective on the business and sometimes down the line even turn them completely off from it. You'll come across a lot of members here who claim that they don't even watch pro wrestling anymore, yet I'd be willing to bet had they never posted on a wrestling forum, they would have never become as cynical as they became and would have remained a wrestling fan.

    A lot of us do, but as I correctly pointed out in my first post, a lot of us steal their pay-per-views and DVDs as well. But yes... I get your point.

    However, my point still stands... we contribute nothing. We only take away. I know it's not our jobs to create new fans, but we still steal, and turn people away. That's a fact. If we actually contributed something than you'd have a counter argument, but since we don't, you don't.

    Not really. One or two hopeful Miz fans, sure, but that night, when Orton and Barrett's match began, pretty much everyone could see it coming. Now, I'm not blaming the IWC for that, but Miz winning that night wasn't a huge surprise like you put it over as. If he had lost, then THAT would have been a shocker, but he won, and everyone saw it coming. Not a surprise.

    That could have been a that day decision as I said in my last post, and while it was an underdog pick, no one necessarily cared that he won, and his win led to one of the worst title reigns in recent memory, so surprise? Maybe. A good one? Absolutely not.

    And as you'll see in the LD, the INTERNET SPOILED his return. Poor choice, man.

    Dude, give me good surprises, lol. Nobody cared, man, and it didn't lead to anything worth seeing. People knew it was Kane who put his brother in a coma, did they not? Of course.

    Huge overstatement. A lot of people were thinking it was Matt the whole time (and it was reported on dirt sites that it would be him), and when he came out, you could see that chair shot on Jeff coming from a mile away.

    This is a good one.

    So, to review, since Cena's return at The Royal Rumble 2008, we've only had one real shocker, and that was Nexus. Bottom line.

    But more fans NOT a part of the IWC gives those promotions their television ratings, pay-per-view buys, merchandise sales, and ticket sales to live shows. And there's no need to repeat myself about what fans apart of the IWC does in regards of stealing....

    Still great ratings though, regardless. If WWE maintained those kinds of ratings, it'd be highly respectable and no one would be bringing up the numbers today in a negative manner.

    No, I acknowledged it, and I proved why competition doesn't mean jackshit in the grand scheme of things later my post.

    And it's also not a coincidence how ratings seemed to drop as the IWC grew and grew. Terrible writing and the mishandling of the Invasion angle had something to do with the decline of WWE, I'm not arguing that, but so did the internet.

    Also, I firmly believe WWE could have rebounded from the Invasion debacle. 2002/2003 had some GREAT stuff, preferably on Smackdown, that I would put up against any Attitude era stuff. However, SD wasn't doing nearly as well as it was in 2000, was it? Nope. Can you still blame the lack competition for that? No, you can not. How does competition make people tune it to something? It doesn't. Good television is what is supposed to make people tune it, and SD was putting on TERRIFIC television for about a year, yet the show was averaging mid-to-low 3's.

    No, I wasn't, and I prove how competition is a cop-out later in my post.

    Beating Nitro was all that mattered to WWE at that time, not Monday Night Football. Today, it's a completely different story.

    Because it's correct.

    The fact is, man, Vince is right with that statement, and it should drive WWE to better television rather than worse, since competing against primetime television today is a much more difficult task than competing against another wrestling program.

    And what does WWE needing to have competition have anything to do with this?

    One forum, out of hundreds. Big whoop. And besides, we don't know what occurs through PMs, do we now?

    A lot of people are also stealing the show by watching a stream. Stealing is stealing... just because one person is paying and one person is stealing, that doesn't cancel out the stealing of the show. With that mind-set, it'd be okay to steal a slim Playstation 3 since I bought the old one a couple of years ago.

    After nearly ten years of these kinds of numbers, it's becoming more and more of a failure every single day.

    No, I'm just using the NFL as an example that not everything needs competition to strive, just as I did Glee in the following sentence.

    Seriously, man, why is competition SO important when it comes to pro wrestling, yet it doesn't matter with any other sport or entertainment industry? That just does not make any sense whatsoever.

    Odds are though, it would have.

    Okay, you may have been surprised, but that doesn't mean countless dirt sites didn't report well beforehand that the plan for Wrestlemania 26 was to have a rematch between 'Taker and HBK.

    Not saying that they are, BUT the many times wrestling websites are right, it takes the fun out of the show a bit, doesn't it? Which in turn makes fans cynical and less caring towards the business.

    First of all, it's not off track since it goes along with my point how the IWC affects WWE since they feel the need to rush things these days, since they're insecure about long term storylines having more of a chance to get spoiled.

    Secondly, countless wrestlers on countless shoot interviews have said that the program is written the day of the show these days. Why would they lie about that? I've seen Kendrick, London, RVD, Corino, Hemme, Al Snow, Chris Masters, and plenty of others explain a walk through of what it's like during a day in WWE, and they all say their plans for the show change throughout the day.

    And he's done that before. RVD vs. Cena was not decided until the very day of One Night Stand. Both RVD and Paul Heyman have said this.

    Wrestlemania is just one pay-per-view throughout the year at the end of the day though, man. I'm sure the 'smaller' pay-per-views numbers still beat today's pay-per-view shows in numbers.

    Dude, Wrestlemania is just ONE pay-per-view. WWE puts all their stock into that ONE pay-per-view... of course it does well. Don't try and put it over like it counts for every single pay-per-view of the year, because it certainly does not. For example, OVERALL WWE's pay-per-view buyrate last year dropped 16%, accoridng to the Bleach Report. Sure, Wrestlemania did well by all accounts, but in the overall scheme of things, WWE's pay-per-view rates were still dropping regardless.

    There's just no point in leaning on Wrestlemania to make your argument here. It's only one show.

    You lucked out with this happening so recent. ;)

    Still though, I don't see WWE putting their entire shows up yet, so maybe it won't happen after all.

    My original point still stands regardless. For, what, 5 years now the IWC has taken advantage of websites like Youtube by posting illegal content to the site, such as giving fans the chance to watch the main event of a pay-per-view merely a couple of hours after it occurred. When fans can rely on such things, why should they pay for $40 for the show?

    So you're saying wrestling fans aren't the ones uploading wrestling videos? Ooookaaayyyy....

    I never said it was the worst, nor it is the worst. It's just a part of the burden the IWC gives to the wrestling world.

    Did I say that? No. My point is that there are MANY more who visit sites like Wrestlezone, who don't visit the forums.

    Did I say it made them a member to the IWC? No, I didn't, nor do I think it does. My point though is that the regular Joe Blow fan out there does visit a site like Wrestlezone. You go to Google right now and search WWE, there are dirt sites on the first page. People will visit those sites. It doesn't make them apart of the IWC, but they do have all the access to the dirt sites and they will visit from time to time.

    Those are a lot of excuses, and I do think each and every one of them are valid and do play a part in why the business isn't as successful as it has the potential to be.

    There are a lot of reasons why, like I just said, the business isn't as successful as it should be with the talent it has today. Lots and lots of reasons, and I feel I have proven throughout my replies why the IWC is definitely A reason why pro wrestling doesn't measure up to the talent it holds. Is it the whole reason? I never claimed that, nor do I believe so. However, no matter how small of a part you believe it plays in the lack of success in pro wrestling today, if I can get you to believe that it plays just a tiny part in why the business isn't as successful as it perhaps should be, then I win this discussion.

    The question to this debate was, "Is the IWC a burden on the Wrestling Industry?" How is it not a burden if it plays a part, no matter how small, in hurting the business' success? My opponent has agreed with me that the IWC contributes nothing, so there are no counter arguments for the things they take away from companies like WWE and TNA, and also the fans. Sure, overall, it might not seem like a lot, but it is SOMETHING, which makes them a burden at the end of the day.
     
    #7
    D-Man likes this.
  8. Big Nick Dudley

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Topic: Is the IWC a burden on the Wrestling Industry?​


    Closing Argument

    I think it's been made clear that both myself and my opponent believe the IWC (Internet Wrestling Community) has some sort of effect on the professional wrestling industry. Where we disagree is whether the IWC should be considered a burden or not.

    Reasons The IWC Is NOT A Burden On the Pro Wrestling Industry

    We Drive Discussion
    As "internet" fans, we drive discussion. We come onto forums such as this one, and discuss everything that is wrestling. We talk about who deserves a push, who can/cannot work a promo, which feuds we would like to see, etc. A lot of these opinions can be rather negative, but is that really a bad thing?

    When you drive discussion on a specific topic, you also raise interest. I really do not believe that someone can take a look at a debate on this wrestling forum, and walk away any less interested in pro wrestling. Reading a debate like this one may not increase a certain fans interest, but I highly doubt it's going to take away from his/her interest level either. To be a burden on the wrestling business, we would have to decrease interest in the product, and I do not believe we do.

    We Are Paying Fans
    -We are paying fans, just like everyone else. We buy PPV's. We buy t-shirts. We tune in each Monday (RAW), Thursday (Impact!) and Friday (Smackdown), and maybe even twice per month on Sunday (WWE and TNA PPV's). We buy DVD's. We purchase tickets to live shows.

    I agree some members of the so-called "IWC" do things like watch illegal streams and download content they are not supposed to. But if you look at our own live discussion threads here on WrestleZone, you will see most people chatting have purchased the PPV being discussed. I really cannot buy into the theory of the IWC hurting PPV buys, television ratings, etc. when you compare how much we actually help the business.


    In closing, I want to say that I'm a proud member of the IWC. Sure, we complain a lot. We piss and moan about every little thing. But that's not all we do. For every negative thing said, there is always another "member" ready to step in and defend whatever is being bashed.

    You can place blame on a lot of things when it comes to the wrestling business not being as hot as it was ten years ago. I believe a serious lack of competition among large promotions is a huge problem. I think some fans just aren't into what they are seeing today, and choose not to watch at all. I think the PG-rating has turned away some Attitude Era fans. But this sort of thing happens to the wrestling industry. It has it's highs, and lows. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that pro wrestling's most loyal fanbase, the IWC, is in any way responsible for the industry's current downturn. I just cannot, and will not buy into that. If anything, we've kept it above water.
     
    #8
    D-Man and jmt225 like this.
  9. Miko

    Miko WATCHA GONNA DO, BROTHER!?

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Clarity: Nothing to seperate you two for me, both were clear enough in my book.

    Point - Split

    Punctuality: Looking at the dates posted, and his own comments it looks like jmt was very late, while Nick still made it for the deadline. I am sure the other fine judges will correct me if I am wrong as this is the point I am pretty useless on.

    Point - nickb03

    Informative: Nick bought the proof with his information too, cant knock that.

    Point - nickb03

    Persuasion: Had a hard time choosing, jmt had the slightly stronger argument when he went directly for the point of "Is the IWC a burden on the industry?" but I dont think he won the debate totally, nick held him well I thought. For this reason I'll award jmt the bulk of this point.

    Points - jmt225: 1.5 nickb03: 0.5

    My Scores;

    jmt225 - 2
    nickb03 - 3
     
    #9
    jmt225 likes this.
  10. D-Man

    D-Man Gone but never forgotten.

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    First off, I'd like to congratulate both of you on a very exciting final debate. I feel this subject was very even and has always been subject to even debate points on both sides and jmt/nick really proved this. You guys uncovered many points that I already had in my head and gave me new information that I never considered. These facts are indisputable and reinforce the reality of how great this debate really became.

    Clarity:
    Both debaters had strong opening posts but I always felt that this category was about which debate was easier on my eyes. For that reason, I give the point to nickb03. His opening and closing posts' clarity made it very easy for me to follow and read. Not to mention that his methodology and structure reminded me of yours truly from last year's debate. ;)
    Point: nickb03



    Punctuality:
    As we all know, these debates are very time-consuming and take major dedication and responsibility. However, there are times when our real lives get in the way. Unfortunately for jmt225, that happened here.
    Point: nickb03



    Informative:
    At first, nickb03 came out swinging with tremendous information citing ratings, buyrates, and the like. However, there's more than those facts that provide information that sways a debate. These facts were provided by jmt225 once he got rolling. Therefore, both men gave me what I was looking for.
    Point: Split



    Persuasion:
    Like I've said in many other debates, this is the category that always matters most. A debate's purpose is to argue a point and convince (or persuade) someone to take your side. I've got to be honest about this one... I was really seeing this debate swinging in neither direction until the closing posts came out. And one statement made by jmt225 stuck out in my mind when he said:
    I think he's absolutely right. If you really read through the context of the debate question, all he had to do was prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the IWC was A burden on the wrestling industry. Since nickb03 conceded a few of jmt225's points during this debate, jmt225 gets the nod from me.
    Point: jmt225



    Final Score
    jmt225: 2.5
    nickb03: 2.5


    Honestly, I really hate the fact that my scores ended up in a tie. I always wanted there to be a definitive winner in this championship match and I hope I didn't contribute to this not happening. However, I trust that the other judges will do their part in giving this a good split.

    I tip my cap to nickb03 and jmt225 on a tremendous debate. Coming from a person that damn near refuses to ever score a debate in a tie, you guys really didn't give me a reason to have it swing either way.
     
    #10
  11. Phoenix

    Phoenix WZCW's First Triple Crown Champion

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    704
    Firstly, I apologise for not getting my judgings in sooner, the day I went home was rather stacked and I only got full use of the internet yesterday so I finally could catch up.

    Secondly, an excellent debate by the two of you here, you both have shown how great a set of debaters you all are!

    Right onto the scoring

    Clarity: nickb03
    Both men had a great understanding of this debate and showed it, however Nick's was the better presented of the two, as D-Man pointed out, it was neat and easy to follow. He broke down his points which made a greater overall set.

    Punctuality: nickb03
    As it's been pointed out, jmt was delayed so I have to give the point to Mr. Nick here.

    Informative: nickb03
    Nick really upped his already superb game on bringing in the information, this really gave him a good edge over jmt here.

    Persuasion: jmt225
    Despite nickb03 ticking all the boxes here, jmt takes this one. Where nick was great at making his points, providing his information so it easy to read, jmt made it easy for him to disect it and turn the tide against his foe. There's using information and using information, jmt took the latter and made it pay off because he used one of the strength's of nick's debating and took control of the debate through it. While these two kept it tight, if you're still able to keep a strong debate when your opponent has all the grounds covered, you're an excellent person to control the debate and this is where jmt's strength showed best.

    Final Score
    nickb03:3
    jmt225: 2

    Once again, superb debating here and congratulations on making this such a brilliant final!
     
    #11
  12. Cena's Little Helper

    Cena's Little Helper Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    Clarity: I'll split the point here. Both arguments were very clear, but there was one that I didn't buy whatsoever (although I clearly understood what was being said).

    Punctuality: What everyone else said. nickb03 gets the point.

    Informative: Both brought in a good amount of quality information. The points gets split here.

    Persuasion: jmt, I had a hard time buying your argument for two reasons. One, you argued that the link between declining ratings and limited Internet access wasn't a coincidence, but you did nothing to back this up. You showed us there was a correlation, but you did little to persuade us that this correlation went a step above to causation. Second, you failed to define the parameters of the IWC; does it include all people that have the Internet and decide to stream/go to free content sites or does it just include those who decide to come on forums like this one and bitch to high heaven? Your second point would have gone a lot further in supporting your argument had you shown us that streamers/free-content moochers and the IWC are, for the most part, one and the same. Without showing us this, we could just as freely assume that the streamers/free-content moochers and the IWC are mutually exclusive.

    nickb03, while jmt225 did a good job in his rebuttals, you definitely had the better opening post. Since you also did a good job defending yourself against jmt's opposition, I'm giving you 1.5 points and jmt 0.5 points.

    Final Score
    nickb03 - 3.5
    jmt225 - 1.5
     
    #12
  13. D-Man

    D-Man Gone but never forgotten.

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    The final score for this debate has nickb03 with 12 points to jmt225's 8 which means....​


    [​IMG]

    Congratulations to nickb03 for defeating jmt225 and becoming the 2010 Debater's League Champion!!!
     
    #13
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"