Round 1: Mr. Steve -vs- General Disarray

[D-Man]

Which is the better match type for brutality, Monster's Ball or Last Man Standing?

This is a first round match in the Debater's League. Mr. Steve is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate he will be on and who debates first, but he has 24 hours to make his choice.

This thread is for DEBATERS ONLY and will end on Friday at 2pm EST.

Good luck.​

 

[Mr. Steve]

I shall defend the Last Man Standing Match, but I will let Disarray post first.

 

[gd]

Monster's Ball is clearly the better, more sadistic, psychotic, and bah gawd the more brutal match of these two. If that opening sentence isn't enough to convince you, perhaps more words are.

1. What is a Monster's Ball?

The #1 reason a MB is more brutal than a LMS can be seen simply by looking into what a Monster's Ball is. The participants are locked inside a small, dark room with no food or water before the match. Is that brutal enough for you? It's easily one of the strangest most horrifying match stipulations ever created by one Mr. Russo. It's not simply about making a guy lay down for 10 seconds, it's about guys being pissed off and possibly clinically insane, forcing them into a violent rage when it comes to match time. Crazy stuff.

2. Big Spots, Yo.

If you're going to watch a Monster's Ball match, there's going to be some insane spot at some point in the match, guaranteed. Whether it be Jeff Hardy jumping from 30 feet in the air, people being thrown off balconies, Abyss being slammed into thumbtacks and flaming tables, etc. Something freakin' nuts is going to happen at some point during the match. The same can't be said for Last Man Standing matches, which sometimes can go along for 20 minutes with seemingly nothing happening. Prime example, Triple H v. Orton on the commmercail free Raw last year. Snoozefest, son.

3. John Cena v. Batista - April 25, 2010

These two had a Last Man Standing Match at Extreme Rules that shows what a LMS is really about at this point. It doesn't end feuds, it's just another match on another mid level PPV that no one really cares about. Sure, it was a good match, but when you think of this match, does the word "brutal" really cross your mind? I don't think so. Just look at the ending. Duct Tape would never dare get involved in a MB. Instead of being used as a momentus type of match, a LMS is nothing more than any other gimmick match that's used in the middle of feuds nowadays.

That's all for now.

 

[Mr. Steve]

1. What is a Monster's Ball?

The #1 reason a MB is more brutal than a LMS can be seen simply by looking into what a Monster's Ball is. The participants are locked inside a small, dark room with no food or water before the match. Is that brutal enough for you? It's easily one of the strangest most horrifying match stipulations ever created by one Mr. Russo. It's not simply about making a guy lay down for 10 seconds, it's about guys being pissed off and possibly clinically insane, forcing them into a violent rage when it comes to match time. Crazy stuff.

Just to point this out, that part of the match was phased out a while ago. Just consider it a street fight…that ends in a 3 count. That Mr. Russo can sure cook up a doozy, can’t he?

Now to my introductory point: A Last Man Standing Match is a straightforward concept.
There are no people locked in a room, and somehow overcoming the concept of exhaustion as we know it by withstanding a day without food or water and still retaining enough strength to send people through tables, or swantoning off a ramp. LMS is simple: Two guys who are pretty sick and tired of each other just Beat the living shit out of one another enough for one of them to be down for a 10 count. That can happen anywhere (in a ring or on the arena). If you do compare each concept, the casual fan will tend to gravitate towards a LMS Match. They won’t go “right, so you got to pin your opponent after throwing him through a table…what? You got to pin them in the ring? Yeah that doesn’t do it for me.”

2. Big Spots, Yo.

If you're going to watch a Monster's Ball match, there's going to be some insane spot at some point in the match, guaranteed. Whether it be Jeff Hardy jumping from 30 feet in the air, people being thrown off balconies, Abyss being slammed into thumbtacks and flaming tables, etc. Something freakin' nuts is going to happen at some point during the match. The same can't be said for Last Man Standing matches, which sometimes can go along for 20 minutes with seemingly nothing happening. Prime example, Triple H v. Orton on the commmercail free Raw last year. Snoozefest, son.

Of course, you could have 20 minutes of them trying to put on a match that makes sense compared to the first monster’s ball match in which lasted 10 minutes and turned out to be pretty disjointed to me. I mean, 10 minutes? Where’s the foreplay, Russo? LMS matches usually draw out longer than that since the point is to wear your opponent down. Do big spots, and you wear him and yourself out, and you end up with something akin to a train wreck, and thus, you’re made fun of by Batista.

Oh wait…

3. John Cena v. Batista - April 25, 2010

These two had a Last Man Standing Match at Extreme Rules that shows what a LMS is really about at this point. It doesn't end feuds, it's just another match on another mid level PPV that no one really cares about. Sure, it was a good match, but when you think of this match, does the word "brutal" really cross your mind? I don't think so. Just look at the ending. Duct Tape would never dare get involved in a MB. Instead of being used as a momentus type of match, a LMS is nothing more than any other gimmick match that's used in the middle of feuds nowadays.

True, there wasn’t any brutality so to speak in that particular LMS match. But for every Cena vs. Batista, there’s this

Or this

As for the duct tape, I like to see it as “Cena had no choice.” Besides that was just a single turning point of their feud, which in reality was just based on Batista whining and Cena making him quit as their blow off. It did not devalue in any way the LMS as is.
Folks, what matters in this debate now is the fact that LMS is and has been more brutal than the Monster’s Ball match. Hell, Shane McMahon has his share of crazy shit under his belt in LMS matches. One of those is a fucking dive OFF THE TRON! Way higher than Jeff’s Swanton, by the way. There’s also Edge slamming Benoit with a brick hidden in his MITB match, Mankind vs. The Rock (they fought everywhere), etc. What makes it more brutal is that they HAVE to literally weaken their opponent enough for a 10 count, not a three count.

That, I think, will have made all the difference.

 

[gd]

Just to point this out, that part of the match was phased out a while ago. Just consider it a street fight…that ends in a 3 count. That Mr. Russo can sure cook up a doozy, can’t he?

True, over the last year or so the whole point of the Monster's Ball has been forgotten, but the modern day Monster's Ball should be considered a separate entity. Ever since Taylor Wilde/Daffney, TNA's been used the bastard cousin of the Monster's Ball, which really shouldn't be taken into account here.

Now to my introductory point: A Last Man Standing Match is a straightforward concept.

AKA just like any other match, with a little tweaking.

There are no people locked in a room, and somehow overcoming the concept of exhaustion as we know it by withstanding a day without food or water and still retaining enough strength to send people through tables, or swantoning off a ramp.

Would you rather them come out and immeadieatly pass out in the ring? That'd be no fun. Screw realism, this is wrestling, man.

LMS is simple: Two guys who are pretty sick and tired of each other just Beat the living shit out of one another enough for one of them to be down for a 10 count. That can happen anywhere (in a ring or on the arena). If you do compare each concept, the casual fan will tend to gravitate towards a LMS Match. They won’t go “right, so you got to pin your opponent after throwing him through a table…what? You got to pin them in the ring? Yeah that doesn’t do it for me.”

I'd think the casual fan would be much more inclined to watch as many big/ridiculous spots as possible from guys who are willing to do some crazy shit in the ring, without regard for their bodies (Sabu, Abyss, etc.) A LMS is more or less just a brawl, and psychology plays a really big role into it. The casual fan could give a fuck about psychology.

Of course, you could have 20 minutes of them trying to put on a match that makes sense compared to the first monster’s ball match in which lasted 10 minutes and turned out to be pretty disjointed to me. I mean, 10 minutes? Where’s the foreplay, Russo? LMS matches usually draw out longer than that since the point is to wear your opponent down. Do big spots, and you wear him and yourself out, and you end up with something akin to a train wreck, and thus, you’re made fun of by Batista.

Sure, Monster's Ball matches aren't overly long, but would you expect them to be? If a match is really that brutal, how can it last over 20 minutes? A Monster's Ball eliminates all that dead time/dragging things out nonsense and gets right to the good stuff - the action, baby.

True, there wasn’t any brutality so to speak in that particular LMS match. But for every Cena vs. Batista, there’s this

You see, while a good few LMS matches are just fine and dandy, there are more than a couple of exceptions, as you've admitted. There are no exceptions when it comes to Monster's Ball, discounting the bastard cousin of course.


[YOUTUBE]BhQfTUu9yr4[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]7rQ7zXz9OKc[/YOUTUBE]

We could do this all day. Let's not.

As for the duct tape, I like to see it as “Cena had no choice.” Besides that was just a single turning point of their feud, which in reality was just based on Batista whining and Cena making him quit as their blow off. It did not devalue in any way the LMS as is.

I'd say it did. The LMS was just another match that people will forget in a few months. How brutal can it really be when the challenger is back the next day asking for more? The truth is, at this point, it really isn't the popular choice when it comes to ending feuds or being the premier match in wrestling. That belongs to the Hell in a Cell, and I Quit, Ironman, and Ladder matches all may be preferred choices at this point.

Folks, what matters in this debate now is the fact that LMS is and has been more brutal than the Monster’s Ball match.

If only you didn't choose the wrong side, this'd be much easier for you to argue.

Hell, Shane McMahon has his share of crazy shit under his belt in LMS matches.

The fact that Shane is involved surely can't be a positive for you, can it?

One of those is a fucking dive OFF THE TRON! Way higher than Jeff’s Swanton, by the way.

I don't have my tape measure handy, so I'll have to trust you.

There’s also Edge slamming Benoit with a brick hidden in his MITB match, Mankind vs. The Rock (they fought everywhere), etc. What makes it more brutal is that they HAVE to literally weaken their opponent enough for a 10 count, not a three count.

This isn't all about numbers. It's about the idea behind the matches. A LMS is basically any other match, with one rule slightly altered. A Monster's Ball changes everything. Being locked in a dark, room all alone for 24 hours isn't just a slight rule change.

It completely changes the mindset of all of the wrestlers involed. It causes them to go insane, to want to inflict as much damage as possible as they have no regard for human life anymore, they don't even know what human life is at this point. It's outta control! [/kayfabe, of course]

Bottom Line, a MB is all about being a huge multi man spotfest weapons match full of big spots, maybe a little blood, and holy shit moments. LMS matches have their bright spots as well, but definetly can't be relied on all the time to produce something special, something memorable, something brutal. A Monster's Ball can.

 

[Mr. Steve]

True, over the last year or so the whole point of the Monster's Ball has been forgotten, but the modern day Monster's Ball should be considered a separate entity. Ever since Taylor Wilde/Daffney, TNA's been used the bastard cousin of the Monster's Ball, which really shouldn't be taken into account here.

It really should, since to properly judge both contests, one must go look into all of the matches that have happened. Say, one of my examples was Shane/Big Show to counter argue the fact that you presented Cena/Batista (which of course, I concede, since that particular match was entirely vanilla for a Last Man Standing Match since we both know that Cena himself was capable of doing more than what he did in that match.)

I'd think the casual fan would be much more inclined to watch as many big/ridiculous spots as possible from guys who are willing to do some crazy shit in the ring, without regard for their bodies (Sabu, Abyss, etc.) A LMS is more or less just a brawl, and psychology plays a really big role into it. The casual fan could give a fuck about psychology.

My god, bro..I just posted a video of Shane diving straight down a pay per view set. You can't really say that there's some competition for that.

and FYI: Hardy did a higher Swanton on RAW to Orton.

Sure, Monster's Ball matches aren't overly long, but would you expect them to be? If a match is really that brutal, how can it last over 20 minutes? A Monster's Ball eliminates all that dead time/dragging things out nonsense and gets right to the good stuff - the action, baby.

And what's wrong with dragging it out? Whose to say, in kayfabe terms of course, that the guys are so hellbent on inflicting pain that they want it to last? To be able to inflict as much as you can on your opponent and be the victor at the end? MB matches are too abrupt for such a concept to be applied.

You see, while a good few LMS matches are just fine and dandy, there are more than a couple of exceptions, as you've admitted. There are no exceptions when it comes to Monster's Ball, discounting the bastard cousin of course.

So, if the bastard cousin doesn't count...then how come I have to count Cena/Batista?

Sense...it makes none.

I'd say it did. The LMS was just another match that people will forget in a few months. How brutal can it really be when the challenger is back the next day asking for more? The truth is, at this point, it really isn't the popular choice when it comes to ending feuds or being the premier match in wrestling. That belongs to the Hell in a Cell, and I Quit, Ironman, and Ladder matches all may be preferred choices at this point.

I say it still belongs up there. But we're not talking about where does the LMS match belong to, do we? And if we do bring it up, one can observe that if a proper LMS match is booked (one that is meant to show both guys taking one another to the limit), both men can be put over, the match itself is still one that isn't booked for all of the wrestlers, and you, as a fan you'd say "if the match happened and they still want more, what will happen next?" and you watch and see. It's just a simple mentality that one cannot place in an MB match.

If only you didn't choose the wrong side, this'd be much easier for you to argue.

If only you stopped convincing yourself that the latter MB matches don't count. Those delusions are strange indeed. That damn Daffney

This isn't all about numbers. It's about the idea behind the matches. A LMS is basically any other match, with one rule slightly altered. A Monster's Ball changes everything. Being locked in a dark, room all alone for 24 hours isn't just a slight rule change.

It completely changes the mindset of all of the wrestlers involed. It causes them to go insane, to want to inflict as much damage as possible as they have no regard for human life anymore, they don't even know what human life is at this point. It's outta control! [/kayfabe, of course]

Oh but of course, it isn't just a slight change of the rules. Well, the fact that both the MB and the LMS are hardcore matches, yet one of those doesn't ruin the flow of things by...winning via pin fall. That means you get 9-10 minutes of disjointed spots that in the end, do nothing for the crowd if they're in the "bloodthirst" mindset of old.

Yeah you're right that it's about the idea behind the matches. Let us continue this Gentleman's Disagreement.

Bottom Line, a MB is all about being a huge multi man spotfest weapons match full of big spots, maybe a little blood, and holy shit moments. LMS matches have their bright spots as well, but definetly can't be relied on all the time to produce something special, something memorable, something brutal. A Monster's Ball can.

Well, do a LMS properly, and it will last a lifetime. MB matches are forgettable, and you know this. You can't exactly go compare an explosive match that just goes for the spotfests to a match that is drawn out in order to make the fans realize just how much pain both of them are. You are conceding that LMS matches have their bright spots, and I do concede that MB matches got some fucked up shit in them. But I still stand by the fact that an Last Man Standing match has a better capacity for brutality in its concept: Beat the other guy down for a three count.

 

[gd]

It really should, since to properly judge both contests, one must go look into all of the matches that have happened. Say, one of my examples was Shane/Big Show to counter argue the fact that you presented Cena/Batista (which of course, I concede, since that particular match was entirely vanilla for a Last Man Standing Match since we both know that Cena himself was capable of doing more than what he did in that match.)

No, there's a difference. The rules of Monster's Ball have completely changed to the point where they don't even mention the one thing that made a MB a MB. It's like WWECW. It was called the same thing, but it clearly wasn't the same. The rules of LMS haven't drastically changed over the years, the rules of MB have.

My god, bro..I just posted a video of Shane diving straight down a pay per view set. You can't really say that there's some competition for that.

It didn't make up for the fact that is was an absolutely shit match. *1/2 according to Davey Meltzer.

and FYI: Hardy did a higher Swanton on RAW to Orton.

Your sure that happened in the WWE?

[YOUTUBE]EupD2-9vsOI[/YOUTUBE]

And what's wrong with dragging it out? Whose to say, in kayfabe terms of course, that the guys are so hellbent on inflicting pain that they want it to last? To be able to inflict as much as you can on your opponent and be the victor at the end? MB matches are too abrupt for such a concept to be applied.

Ten to twelve minute matches are plenty long enough if you pack enough into it. Take the one at Bound For Glory 05. It was only a little more than 11 minutes, but with four guys flying around everywhere there was constant action and entertainment, providing an absolutely fantastic match.

So, if the bastard cousin doesn't count...then how come I have to count Cena/Batista?

Because the rules haven't completely changed in LMS matches.

I say it still belongs up there. But we're not talking about where does the LMS match belong to, do we? And if we do bring it up, one can observe that if a proper LMS match is booked (one that is meant to show both guys taking one another to the limit), both men can be put over, the match itself is still one that isn't booked for all of the wrestlers, and you, as a fan you'd say "if the match happened and they still want more, what will happen next?" and you watch and see. It's just a simple mentality that one cannot place in an MB match.

Fair point here, the relevance of a LMS isn't really relevant to this debate, persay.

If only you stopped convincing yourself that the latter MB matches don't count. Those delusions are strange indeed. That damn Daffney

You mean the Governor?

Oh but of course, it isn't just a slight change of the rules. Well, the fact that both the MB and the LMS are hardcore matches, yet one of those doesn't ruin the flow of things by...winning via pin fall. That means you get 9-10 minutes of disjointed spots that in the end, do nothing for the crowd if they're in the "bloodthirst" mindset of old.

The fact that a match can end via pinfall or submission doesn't make it any less brutal. Some of the greatest, most brutal matches of all time have ended by pin of submission. Foley/Taker HIAC, Hart/Austin,barbed wire matches in ECW, etc. Pinning someone doesn't take away the slightest amount of brutality.

Well, do a LMS properly, and it will last a lifetime. MB matches are forgettable, and you know this.

Not forgettable for me. They may be spotfests, but they're probably the best spotfests TNA does. Certainly the most brutal, which is the argument here.

You can't exactly go compare an explosive match that just goes for the spotfests to a match that is drawn out in order to make the fans realize just how much pain both of them are.

Exactly. One is chock-full of entertainment and simply about 4 or more guys beating the shit out of each other while the other has the potential to drag on and cause the fans to lose interest. A MB is much more efficient.

You are conceding that LMS matches have their bright spots, and I do concede that MB matches got some fucked up shit in them. But I still stand by the fact that an Last Man Standing match has a better capacity for brutality in its concept: Beat the other guy down for a three count.

If we're talking concept, being locked away in a hole for a whole day is basically the most brutal, fucked up, twisted thing in wrestling, aside from some of that crazy shit they do in Japan. Add in the fact that the in ring action of MB is faster paced and crazier than LMS for the most part, and it's very clear which is the more brutal match.

 

[Mr. Steve]

No, there's a difference. The rules of Monster's Ball have completely changed to the point where they don't even mention the one thing that made a MB a MB. It's like WWECW. It was called the same thing, but it clearly wasn't the same. The rules of LMS haven't drastically changed over the years, the rules of MB have.

So let's set this straight...you want to argue its brutality, and present only a few examples?



Right. Do know that I'm considering every MB match, including them house shows matches, rules or not. It's rather biased of you to just exclude some, and make me include them all (you know I'm right since you just brought up Cena/batista, which you could say it looked like a No-DQ match rather than an actual LMS)

It didn't make up for the fact that is was an absolutely shit match. *1/2 according to Davey Meltzer.

I'm sure the MB matches got their ** on lock Besides, since when do you care about Meltzer's ratings? Also, just because it got * 1/2 didn't make it anyless brutal when Shane took that jump off the Tron. You say it's shit, I might say it's shit, but it had its spots.

Ten to twelve minute matches are plenty long enough if you pack enough into it. Take the one at Bound For Glory 05. It was only a little more than 11 minutes, but with four guys flying around everywhere there was constant action and entertainment, providing an absolutely fantastic match.

We are right where we need to be. But was there something to warrant a match's brutality. Was there?

The fact that a match can end via pinfall or submission doesn't make it any less brutal. Some of the greatest, most brutal matches of all time have ended by pin of submission. Foley/Taker HIAC, Hart/Austin,barbed wire matches in ECW, etc. Pinning someone doesn't take away the slightest amount of brutality.

True. But it becomes more brutal when there are no rules. Just imagine a Monster's Ball match. Put all those crazy train-wreck match-having excuse for bumping guys they call wrestlers, and have them beat the shit out of each other there, and the only way to win is by 10-count...

Oh, wait....it that an LMS? Bah gawd, it is an LMS.

wait...people have done that?


(granted this one's rather arguable)

Yeah, we really should do this all day. See who runs out of videos to counter first. I bet you do

Not forgettable for me.They may be spotfests, but they're probably the best spotfests TNA does. Certainly the most brutal, which is the argument here.

Yeah, I can't agree there. That's for Ultimate X, which incidentally, is more brutal than an MB itself nowadays.

Exactly. One is chock-full of entertainment and simply about 4 or more guys beating the shit out of each other while the other has the potential to drag on and cause the fans to lose interest. A MB is much more efficient.

But is it effective? Does it really bring the point home? You got a match on a promotion that's based already on beating the shit out of one another. they got an ECW reunion in the works already, for christ's sake. Problem is, it doesn't stand out a s brutal. TNA just dulled it. It's got brutality, yeah, but it won't stand out if Abyss and company keep getting slammed into tables, hit with chairs, beating the shit out of each other in the arena, etc.

If we're talking concept, being locked away in a hole for a whole day is basically the most brutal, fucked up, twisted thing in wrestling, aside from some of that crazy shit they do in Japan. Add in the fact that the in ring action of MB is faster paced and crazier than LMS for the most part, and it's very clear which is the more brutal match.

The Last Man Standing Match, of course. It's in a place where you hardly see them doing big spots, so it obviously makes the match stand out more, and thus, the fan can get a better reaction.

 

[gd]

So let's set this straight...you want to argue its brutality, and present only a few examples?

Aye, sir. There are only 7 Monster's Ball matches (Victory Road 04, BFG 05-07, and a couple of House Shows plus one in the Millenium Wrestling Federation, involving Abyss among others) before the match was completely changed to eliminate it's key element, thereby rendering subsequent matches irrelevant

Right. Do know that I'm considering every MB match, including them house shows matches, rules or not. It's rather biased of you to just exclude some, and make me include them all (you know I'm right since you just brought up Cena/batista, which you could say it looked like a No-DQ match rather than an actual LMS)

1. I don't recall saying that. Don't put words in my mouth, boy.

2. Have the rules of a LMS ever changed? Don't think so. Therefore, all are included.

I'm sure the MB matches got their ** on lock

Not that I'm aware of.

Besides, since when do you care about Meltzer's ratings? Also, just because it got * 1/2 didn't make it anyless brutal when Shane took that jump off the Tron. You say it's shit, I might say it's shit, but it had its spots.

A match isn't brutal simply because Shane McMahon runs around for awhile and does one big spot. A brutal spot? Perhaps. But certainly not a brutal match.

We are right where we need to be. But was there something to warrant a match's brutality. Was there?

Huh? I don't follow.

True. But it becomes more brutal when there are no rules. Just imagine a Monster's Ball match. Put all those crazy train-wreck match-having excuse for bumping guys they call wrestlers, and have them beat the shit out of each other there, and the only way to win is by 10-count...

A 10 count isn't really possible in MB, considering it's a multiman match. That, along with the fact that a 10 count finish may be the most anticlimactic thing in wrestling, and there is absolutely no reason why the way MB match ends makes it any less brutal.

(granted this one's rather arguable)

A draw? What a barnburner.

Yeah, we really should do this all day. See who runs out of videos to counter first. I bet you do

[YOUTUBE]_l8JHI55IVg[/YOUTUBE]

This is pretty brutal, on a few different levels.

[YOUTUBE]kKvVziP57zE[/YOUTUBE]

Not bad, either, my boy.

Yeah, I can't agree there. That's for Ultimate X, which incidentally, is more brutal than an MB itself nowadays.

Exactly how would Ultimate X be more brutal? Surely not just because that moron Kendrick fell and hit his head.

But is it effective? Does it really bring the point home? You got a match on a promotion that's based already on beating the shit out of one another. they got an ECW reunion in the works already, for christ's sake. Problem is, it doesn't stand out a s brutal. TNA just dulled it. It's got brutality, yeah, but it won't stand out if Abyss and company keep getting slammed into tables, hit with chairs, beating the shit out of each other in the arena, etc.

Firstly, taking a show at Hardcore Justice really has no place here. It'll be shit, we know. It's not really relevant here though.

And arguing that Monster's Ball has been overused, which I think is what you're saying, doesn't really make any sense. There have been less than a dozen MB matches in history. There have been at least 2 or 3 dozen LMS. If anyone should be arguing that a match is become overused or dull, it should be me.

The Last Man Standing Match, of course. It's in a place where you hardly see them doing big spots, so it obviously makes the match stand out more, and thus, the fan can get a better reaction.

There are not many big spots in a LMS, so it makes it more brutal? Que? Big, crazy, ridiculous, uneccessary spots and weapons is the name of the game when it comes to brutality here, and TNA has more than provided it with the MB. Don't be fooled by the recent editions of "Monster's Ball" that are like it's cousin in name only.

Once again, the main thing a MB has over a LMS, or any other match for that matter, is what goes on before the match. You're unleashing guys who for the past 24 hours have had nothing on their minds except for wanting to beat the shit out of their opponents as much as possible, leading to pure mayhem. Kayfabe wise, there's nothing better.

 

[Mr. Steve]

Shit, I forgot to close this debate.

I admit, there have been a couple of spots in MB where you'd go, "well shit, these guys are ******ed." There are also spots in an LMS that make you go "Well shit, Big Show really wants a feud with Cena after that." We can't exactly argue which matches have had more brutality, or which will have more brutality. It's about which match of the two can really give space for said brutality. That said, I have to confess that Dissarray convinced me that yes, a Monster's Ball match can have it's moments of brutality.

But I'm still sticking with the fact that a Last Man Standing Match is the better match type for brutality. Simply put, it's a type of match that just pinning your opponent or making him tap is not enough. You literally have to beat the shit out of him until he stays down. It's a match meant to highlight how much these two wrestlers really can't stand each other and they want to end it once and for all. Not simply a match where you lock the men inside a room for a day. They have literally wanted to break the other person for longer than that.

And that's my closing statement on this matter. Have a nice day, and thanks for the debate, Disarray.

 

[CH David]

Some interesting facts in this one.

Clarity: Both had clear and for the most part on topic arguments. I see the point that Steven was trying to make by bringing up the Hardcore Justice, but it was unnecessary and didn't help his debate.

Point: General Disarray

Punctuation: GD was late once, Steven was on time throughout.

Point: Mr. Steve

Informative: Neither was particularly informative. Just saying what most already know and repeating it.

Point: Split

Persuasion: Neither really expressed the brutality of each match. Sure points were made, but for the most part they weren't driven home based upon brutality.

Point: One for General Disarray, One for Mr. Steve

CH David scores this General Disarray 2.5, Mr. Steve 2.5.

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- Both were clear. But they didn't really stay on the topic of brutality. And wasn't that the point of the debate? I don't know if we're doing zero points or splitting. I'm splitting. Both get a half of a point

Point- .5 each

Punctuation- I'm not really one to judge ones tardiness because shit happens. But Steve was on top of the game so he gets the point.

Point- Steve

Informative- Both debaters had a lot to work with and neither took advantage. Both provided enough information. But I still think GD gave a little more.

Point- GD

Persuasion- I'm a big fan of the LMS match and I believe Steve and GD could have taken this debate to the next level especially with brutality being the point of this debate. But it didn't happen. I think GD was a little more persuasive. I agreed with his point of the LMS match not being good enough to end a feud. Which was just enough. GD gets the deuce.

Points- GD

So I tallied this bad boy up at...

GD- 3.5
Steve- 1.5

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Disarray
I felt Disarray tried to keep on course regarding the debate, Steve did stray away at times to discuss elements like Hardcore Justice which didn't prove an effective means of support here.

Punctuality: Mr. Steve
As my other judges have stated, GD was late at one point.

Informative: Draw
I felt that the information part was given in the first two posts and then it ended up being re-used as neither tried to add more to back up their cause and worked with what they discussed initially.

Persuasion: Draw
I felt this debate was very tame, it started off well and then it kind of has a slight repetitive feel as it went on. Both provided a decent amount of info and counter to the other, but I didn't feel swayed that one match was better than the other, draw for this one.

Final Score
Disarray: 2.5
Mr. Steve 2.5

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I would be remiss if I penalized Blue Cardinal for not giving an opening argument but didn't do the same for Steve. Steve, your rebuttals were excellent, but always provide an opening statement! Because of your excellent rebuttals, I'm giving you half a point for persuasion.

Final Score

GD 3.5 (Clarity, Informative, Persuasion (1.5))

Steve 1.5 (Punctuality, Persuasion (0.5))

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, General Disarray is the victor on 12 points to Mr. Steve's 8.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!