Round 2: nickb03 -vs- The Sign Guy

[D-Man]

True or False. A lot of damage has been done to Ric Flair’s legacy by coming out of retirement to compete in TNA.

This is a second round match in the Debater's League. nickb03 is the home debater and gets to choose which side of the debate they will be on and who debates first, but they have 24 hours to make their choice.

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

Good luck.​

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I will be arguing that the statement above is false. Ric Flair has not done a lot of damage to his legacy by coming out of retirement. My opponent can open.

 

[TSG]

Okay, so here we go. I am here today to argue to you great people one thing. And that one thing is: A lot of damage has been done to Ric Flair’s legacy by coming out of retirement to compete in TNA.

Now, before we tackle this topic of debate, let us define what legacy means. At this following link, legacy is clearly defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy

For those of you who are to lazy to follow that link, it defines legacy as this:

What someone or something is remembered for or what they have left behind that is remembered, revered or has influenced current events and the present day.

Now, on to the topic at hand. Ric Flair. A living legend. An icon of the business. One of the most famous men in professional wrestling. And he is sure to be remembered for all of those things. But when I think of him, those won't be the last things I remember about him. No, the last thing I'll remember about Ric Flair is a worn out, beat up old body putting on lackluster matches, taking part in mediocre storylines in a mediocre company because he just wants one last dollar and to be in the spotlight one last time.

Now seeing how "legacy" is clearly defined as what someone is remembered for, and what I'll always remember lastly about Ric Flair is what I mentioned in the paragraph above, this tarnishes his legacy, no? I'll leave it at this for now.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

True or False. A lot of damage has been done to Ric Flair’s legacy by coming out of retirement to compete in TNA.

I have decided to argue that the above statement is false.

Even though he sounds rather arrogant by saying so at least once per week, Ric Flair is exactly what he says he is; a wrestling God. There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of the two or three greatest American professional wrestlers of all time.

He has been a part of the wrestling world since late-1972. He's a 16-time World's champion. PWI ranked him (in 2003) as the #2 wrestler of the PWI years. He has also won their Match of the Year five times (1983,1984,1986,1989,2008), and the 2008 match with Shawn Michaels was given the "Match of the Decade" for the 2000's by the same publication.

He has put over more men than any pro wrestler on the planet. When you think of the "heel" in pro wrestling, you think of Ric Flair. The man has done everything you can do in pro wrestling. I don't think his credentials are up for debate.

But the question at hand pertains to his legacy, so I thought it was essential to remind some of the younger fans exactly how important the man is.

Anyone who has watched Ric Flair over the years, like me, would know he would have to work pretty hard to severely tarnish his legacy. Has coming out of retirement (to wrestle, not manage) since losing to Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 24 hurt his legacy at all? Maybe, somewhat. But the question asks if him coming back has hurt his legacy a lot, and I would say no.

Personally, I didn't like him coming back in a wrestling capacity. But for the most part, he has stayed out of actual wrestling, and kept to managing. Everyone has the right to work, and where else can Flair work? But in terms of his entire career, this really means nothing.

Since coming to TNA, Flair has only wrestled in a handful of matches. The original question asks if Flair has hurt his legacy by competing. And seeing he hasn't gone over anyone, and hasn't gone after any kind of title, I don't think so. It's not like he's been crushing people, and wrestling week in and week out.

As I said earlier, Flair shouldn't be in the ring. I don't want to see him wrestle anymore, at all. But looking over his entire body of work, can we really say it will have a big effect on his legacy?

So to sum it all up, no, I do not think this has a large-scale negative impact on Flair's legacy. Are some people disappointed? Sure, but it's pro wrestling. If fans weren't bitching about this, they would find something else. When it's all said and done, and Flair is out of the business (or dead, more than likely), his stint in TNA will be the last thing I think about. I've seen too many great things from Ric Flair to care about how he earned a paycheck in his 60's.

Now, onto my opponents comments...

Now, on to the topic at hand. Ric Flair. A living legend. An icon of the business. One of the most famous men in professional wrestling. And he is sure to be remembered for all of those things.

Correct, especially the bold part.

But when I think of him, those won't be the last things I remember about him. No, the last thing I'll remember about Ric Flair is a worn out, beat up old body putting on lackluster matches, taking part in mediocre storylines in a mediocre company because he just wants one last dollar and to be in the spotlight one last time.

If you choose to remember a man like Ric Flair for how he decided to make some money in his 60's, as opposed to the rest of his amazing career, that's your problem. It's been widely reported he has financial problems. I don't care about his money, but I understand needing to make a living. And you're correct, TNA is a lackluster company..that no one watches. Most casual fans who love Ric Flair probably don't even know TNA exists. So among us smarky IWC members, sure his legacy may taken a small (very small) hit. But among most of the world, I don't think so.

Outside of actually competing in the ring, why shouldn't Ric Flair want to be involved in the business? His role in TNA, for the most part, is that of a manager. And right now, there is no better mouthpiece in professional wrestling. He is still absolutely golden on the mic. If TNA is willing to cut him a paycheck for talking week in and week out, why wouldn't he take it? Just because WWE is finished with him, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Now seeing how "legacy" is clearly defined as what someone is remembered for, and what I'll always remember lastly about Ric Flair is what I mentioned in the paragraph above, this tarnishes his legacy, no? I'll leave it at this for now.

Once again, this reflects how you feel about Flair. I'm rather confident that the majority of wrestling fans, informed and uninformed, do not feel the same way.

 

[TSG]

Even though he sounds rather arrogant by saying so at least once per week, Ric Flair is exactly what he says he is; a wrestling God. There is no doubt in my mind that he is one of the two or three greatest American professional wrestlers of all time.

No doubt in my mind. You're right here.

He has been a part of the wrestling world since late-1972. He's a 16-time World's champion. PWI ranked him (in 2003) as the #2 wrestler of the PWI years. He has also won their Match of the Year five times (1983,1984,1986,1989,2008), and the 2008 match with Shawn Michaels was given the "Match of the Decade" for the 2000's by the same publication.

He is also a broken down 61 year-old man working lackluster matches for a minor league company (no offense TNA fans) in his 38th year of his career. You can argue all of the accolades you want, but that one fact I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph does more damage to his legacy than you want to believe.

He has put over more men than any pro wrestler on the planet. When you think of the "heel" in pro wrestling, you think of Ric Flair. The man has done everything you can do in pro wrestling. I don't think his credentials are up for debate.

Nope. Not at all. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that he is in TNA right now, doing more and more damage to his legacy in this business as we speak.

But the question at hand pertains to his legacy, so I thought it was essential to remind some of the younger fans exactly how important the man is.

I think everyone knows how important he is. But, as you said, this is about his legacy.

Anyone who has watched Ric Flair over the years, like me, would know he would have to work pretty hard to severely tarnish his legacy. Has coming out of retirement (to wrestle, not manage) since losing to Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 24 hurt his legacy at all? Maybe, somewhat. But the question asks if him coming back has hurt his legacy a lot, and I would say no.

I would say it has. When you come out of retirement in your 60's to put on lackluster matches in a minor league company, and that is going to be the last thing fans remember about you, that damages your legacy. Your legacy is what you are going to be remembered for, and instead of being remembered for Evolution, his match against HBK, and his retirement ceremony, he'll be remembered for his second rate work in a second rate company. That damages his legacy severely.

Personally, I didn't like him coming back in a wrestling capacity. But for the most part, he has stayed out of actual wrestling, and kept to managing. Everyone has the right to work, and where else can Flair work? But in terms of his entire career, this really means nothing.

It means nothing in terms to his entire career. But your legacy is what you are remembered for, and when he is finally gone, the final thing we'll remember him for is pathetic work in a second-rate company. There is no way around that.

Since coming to TNA, Flair has only wrestled in a handful of matches. The original question asks if Flair has hurt his legacy by competing. And seeing he hasn't gone over anyone, and hasn't gone after any kind of title, I don't think so. It's not like he's been crushing people, and wrestling week in and week out.

But he has competed in matches. Lackluster matches. Which he'll be remembered for. Case closed. It doesn't matter how many times, the outcome of the match, but he competed. Which he'll be remembered for, which damages his legacy.

As I said earlier, Flair shouldn't be in the ring. I don't want to see him wrestle anymore, at all. But looking over his entire body of work, can we really say it will have a big effect on his legacy?

Yes, I can say that. I think it is fair to say that what happened recently is what will be fresh on your mind. So, when people think of Flair, they'll think of his lackluster matches in a second rate promotion first. Seeing as how a legacy is what people remember you for, that damages his legacy, and there is no way around it.

So to sum it all up, no, I do not think this has a large-scale negative impact on Flair's legacy. Are some people disappointed? Sure, but it's pro wrestling. If fans weren't bitching about this, they would find something else. When it's all said and done, and Flair is out of the business (or dead, more than likely), his stint in TNA will be the last thing I think about. I've seen too many great things from Ric Flair to care about how he earned a paycheck in his 60's.

Yet, it'll be the first thing I think about, because it is what happened most recently, and what I'll think about when I first think of Flair.

If you choose to remember a man like Ric Flair for how he decided to make some money in his 60's, as opposed to the rest of his amazing career, that's your problem. It's been widely reported he has financial problems. I don't care about his money, but I understand needing to make a living. And you're correct, TNA is a lackluster company..that no one watches. Most casual fans who love Ric Flair probably don't even know TNA exists. So among us smarky IWC members, sure his legacy may taken a small (very small) hit. But among most of the world, I don't think so.

Really, I don't care about the casual fans. What they remember. This debate comes down to what we know, and it isn't hard to realize that when remembering Ric Flair, what we'll remember as happening most recently is a pathetic match on iMPACT!, or a mediocre at best match at Victory Road against Jay Lethal, or a worn-down man competing in his 60's in a second-rate company. This really changes what people will remember him for, and therefore damages his legacy.

Outside of actually competing in the ring, why shouldn't Ric Flair want to be involved in the business? His role in TNA, for the most part, is that of a manager. And right now, there is no better mouthpiece in professional wrestling. He is still absolutely golden on the mic. If TNA is willing to cut him a paycheck for talking week in and week out, why wouldn't he take it? Just because WWE is finished with him, doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

He can manage all he wants. But he shouldn't be competing, yet he did. And the work he has done in the ring has damaged his legacy. Simple as that. He can be a manager until he dies, for all I care. I have no problem with it, nor am I debating against it, as that isn't what this debate is about.

Once again, this reflects how you feel about Flair. I'm rather confident that the majority of wrestling fans, informed and uninformed, do not feel the same way.

Once again, I do not care about the majority of fans. In the small world of this debate, they mean nothing. Outside of this debate, they may mean everything. But right here and right now, they don't mean oh so much. All that matters is what we know, and I have already stated what we both know.

Legacy is what you leave behind for people to remember you, and Flair will be remembered for his lackluster work in TNA at the end of his career, and that damages his legacy.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

He is also a broken down 61 year-old man working lackluster matches for a minor league company (no offense TNA fans) in his 38th year of his career. You can argue all of the accolades you want, but that one fact I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph does more damage to his legacy than you want to believe.

You are acting as though wrestling inside of the ring is Flair's main gig in TNA, and it isn't. He's a manager. He's leading a faction, with the best wrestler in the company as his lead guy (AJ Styles).

I'm not sure I would go as far as to say he is broken down, he still moves pretty well for his age. But I'm not even saying I disagree that he shouldn't be wrestling. I just don't believe it's done nearly as much damage to his legacy as you are attempting to say.

Nope. Not at all. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that he is in TNA right now, doing more and more damage to his legacy in this business as we speak.

He's doing fine in TNA. Sure, he's a bit off his rocker, but he's probably the best mic worker they have over there. I can't think of a better former- wrestler to have move into a managerial role. The guy has the perfect heel persona to do so. I think he has been rather entertaining since joining TNA. He has much more freedom to do what he wants to do than he did in WWE.

He's only had a few matches, and he sure as hell isn't becoming an in-ring regular on Impact.

I think everyone knows how important he is. But, as you said, this is about his legacy.

I don't believe some of the younger fans understand exactly what he means to pro wrestling. Some do, but I guarantee a lot of them do not.

I would say it has. When you come out of retirement in your 60's to put on lackluster matches in a minor league company, and that is going to be the last thing fans remember about you, that damages your legacy. Your legacy is what you are going to be remembered for, and instead of being remembered for Evolution, his match against HBK, and his retirement ceremony, he'll be remembered for his second rate work in a second rate company. That damages his legacy severely.

You are acting as though he has done a terrible job in TNA, when he hasn't. He has taken AJ Styles, one of the absolute worst mic workers out there, and made him somewhat funny (notice I say somewhat). AJ has improved in every aspect of his game since joining up with Flair. Ric Flair has done some damn good things for TNA. Fourtune is the only good thing going on over there. They have a good, talented group, and hopefully TNA doesn't book them in shitty ways.

TNA is a minor league company, I totally agree with you on this. But Flair needs a paycheck. What's wrong with working in the industry he knows best? He needs the money. He has given his entire life to the wrestling business, and if this is how he wants to earn some much needed cash, why should that bother you? Flair isn't main-eventing PPV's in TNA, he's managing the guys who do so. He's being paid to help get guys over. I just can't understand how someone can have a problem with that.

It means nothing in terms to his entire career.

Yes! You finally get it!...

But your legacy is what you are remembered for, and when he is finally gone, the final thing we'll remember him for is pathetic work in a second-rate company.

...or not.

Your legacy is not just the final thing you are remembered for, that's not even close to being accurate. His legacy is made up of everything he has ever done (in the wrestling business). This is just a small, and I mean very small, piece of what Flair has done.

And his work hasn't been pathetic, not sure where you're getting that from. He has been a bright spot over there (on the mic especially), no matter how you try and spin it.

But he has competed in matches. Lackluster matches. Which he'll be remembered for. Case closed. It doesn't matter how many times, the outcome of the match, but he competed. Which he'll be remembered for, which damages his legacy.

Yeah, this case is not closed, not one bit.

He has competed in a few matches, which (among all wrestling fans, past and present), no one has cared about.

How many people watch TNA? How many people care about TNA? You have done a very good job of convincing us that TNA stinks and no one cares about the promotion. Congratulations. So if no one watches (or cares about) TNA, who is going to remember anything Flair did over there? Saying Flair will be remembered for how "terrible" he was in TNA, and at the same time, saying how unimportant TNA is really makes for one hell of a contradiction.

Yes, I can say that. I think it is fair to say that what happened recently is what will be fresh on your mind. So, when people think of Flair, they'll think of his lackluster matches in a second rate promotion first. Seeing as how a legacy is what people remember you for, that damages his legacy, and there is no way around it.

Wrong. This is horribly wrong. I cannot believe you actually think Ric Flair hasn't done enough in his career to be remembered for everything else before TNA. For Christ sakes, he's a 16-time World Champion. I think you are really in the small, small minority of people who will actually choose to remember Flair for his run in TNA, instead of everything else he has done in the large world of professional wrestling.

The only people who will remember Flair for his run in TNA above everything else are either, A. Those who just started watching wrestling, or B. Those who are attempting to argue against Ric Flair in a Debater's League....

Yet, it'll be the first thing I think about, because it is what happened most recently, and what I'll think about when I first think of Flair.

Again, that's your problem. I tend to believe you are in the minority here.

Really, I don't care about the casual fans..

I'm sorry to be the one who has to break the news to you, but the IWC is a very small portion of wrestling fans. The "casual" fan makes up the majority of the audience. And since we are talking about how a man will be remembered, by the entire community of wrestling fans, they really do matter and I am baffled that you do not understand that very simple fact.

This debate comes down to what we know, and it isn't hard to realize that when remembering Ric Flair, what we'll remember as happening most recently is a pathetic match on iMPACT!, or a mediocre at best match at Victory Road against Jay Lethal, or a worn-down man competing in his 60's in a second-rate company. This really changes what people will remember him for, and therefore damages his legacy.

You know what, I'll give you something here; it may slightly damage his legacy, among some fans, a little bit. It may. But the question is will it do a lot of damage to his legacy, and the answer is still no.

He can manage all he wants. But he shouldn't be competing, yet he did. And the work he has done in the ring has damaged his legacy. Simple as that. He can be a manager until he dies, for all I care. I have no problem with it, nor am I debating against it, as that isn't what this debate is about.

You're right, the debate is about him competing inside of the ring, which he has done very few times since joining TNA.

Are you really trying to convince me (and others) that these few matches will do a serious amount of damage to his legacy? I don't mean to be rude, but that is completely ridiculous. We're not talking about some Ham 'n' Egger here. We're talking about Ric Flair. I have said several times that this may do a small, and I mean small, amount of damage to his legacy, among some fans. But these few matches, in a crap promotion which no one watches, cannot possibly tarnish his legacy to the extent you are saying it will. Not even possible.

Once again, I do not care about the majority of fans. In the small world of this debate, they mean nothing. Outside of this debate, they may mean everything. But right here and right now, they don't mean oh so much. All that matters is what we know, and I have already stated what we both know.

The small world of this debate??? How does this take place in a small world? The question doesn't ask how a bunch of smarks from the IWC are going to remember Flair. It's asking if a lot of damage has been done to his legacy, as a whole. That's asking how everyone, who has ever watche Ric Flair compete, will remember him when it's all said and done. You are basically dismissing the entire fan base of professional wrestling, and I'm not sure that's a good path to winning this debate.

Legacy is what you leave behind for people to remember you, and Flair will be remembered for his lackluster work in TNA at the end of his career, and that damages his legacy.

You have repeated this time and time again, and unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are wrong, again and again. I agree that you and maybe 4 or 5 other people will remember Flair for TNA. But that's about it. The man has a huge, I mean HUGE, international following. Do you know how many people more than likely don't even have a clue he's involved with TNA? I'll tell you how many; every wrestling fan who doesn't watch TNA, and that's a hell of a lot of wrestling fans. That's basically every old-school fan that has stopped watching wrestling, and may not even know TNA exists.

His legacy is one of the biggest ever in pro wrestling. He isn't just some former World Heavyweight Champion. His legacy is much, much bigger than you are giving credit for.

I understand the actual question never asks how big of a star Flair is, but I think when a question is asked regarding his legacy, you need to take into consideration just how big of a star he actually is/was. A man with a legacy, a following as large as Flair's has plenty to be remembered for. No matter how hard you try to say that isn't relevant, it is. This guy is (as I said earlier) one of the two or three biggest stars in pro wrestling history, and there is no way in hell people are going to only remember him for his unimportant, final run in TNA. Not a chance in hell.

 

[TSG]

You are acting as though wrestling inside of the ring is Flair's main gig in TNA, and it isn't. He's a manager. He's leading a faction, with the best wrestler in the company as his lead guy (AJ Styles).

Yet this doesn't take away from the fact that he has wrestled matches.

I'm not sure I would go as far as to say he is broken down, he still moves pretty well for his age. But I'm not even saying I disagree that he shouldn't be wrestling. I just don't believe it's done nearly as much damage to his legacy as you are attempting to say.

I believe it has. I firmly believe that when I look back at Ric Flair, I'll think of those lackluster performances in the ring in TNA before anything else, because it happened more recently. I'll think "Yeah, Flair was a wrestling God, but after what he did in TNA, he really doesn't seem that great." You see how that damages his legacy?

He's doing fine in TNA. Sure, he's a bit off his rocker, but he's probably the best mic worker they have over there. I can't think of a better former- wrestler to have move into a managerial role. The guy has the perfect heel persona to do so. I think he has been rather entertaining since joining TNA. He has much more freedom to do what he wants to do than he did in WWE.

For someone who puts so much emphasis in staying on-topic, you sure aren't. You're trying to shift the emphasis on how well Flair is doing as a manager, which I'll agree with, but it isn't about him managing, the topic is about him competing.

He's had a few matches, and he sure as hell isn't becoming an in-ring regular on Impact.

The bold part. He's had matches. That tarnish his legacy. My point in case.

I don't believe some of the younger fans understand exactly what he means to pro wrestling. Some do, but I guarantee a lot of them do not.

That even further tarnishes his legacy with said fans, does it not? If they don't know of him, he even means less to them, so they don't have the older knowledge to even try to rebuild him.

You are acting as though he has done a terrible job in TNA, when he hasn't. He has taken AJ Styles, one of the absolute worst mic workers out there, and made him somewhat funny (notice I say somewhat). AJ has improved in every aspect of his game since joining up with Flair. Ric Flair has done some damn good things for TNA. Fourtune is the only good thing going on over there. They have a good, talented group, and hopefully TNA doesn't book them in shitty ways.

Off-topic again.

TNA is a minor league company, I totally agree with you on this. But Flair needs a paycheck. What's wrong with working in the industry he knows best? He needs the money. He has given his entire life to the wrestling business, and if this is how he wants to earn some much needed cash, why should that bother you? Flair isn't main-eventing PPV's in TNA, he's managing the guys who do so. He's being paid to help get guys over. I just can't understand how someone can have a problem with that.

Never said I had a problem with it. I don't recall saying that. I'm just saying those matches he did work tarnish his legacy.

Your legacy is not just the final thing you are remembered for, that's not even close to being accurate. His legacy is made up of everything he has ever done (in the wrestling business). This is just a small, and I mean very small, piece of what Flair has done.

I get that. But what I'm saying is the first thing I'll remember is what happened most recently, and what happened most recently in TNA will make me think, yet again "What should make me think he was so special, these matches aren't anything amazing."

And his work hasn't been pathetic, not sure where you're getting that from. He has been a bright spot over there (on the mic especially), no matter how you try and spin it.

Off topic. I didn't bring up his mic work. It's not about his mic work. This is about his in-ring work, which has been a lot less than stellar.

He has competed in a few matches, which (among all wrestling fans, past and present), no one has cared about.

You don't need to care about them, all you have to do is remember them.

How many people watch TNA? How many people care about TNA? You have done a very good job of convincing us that TNA stinks and no one cares about the promotion. Congratulations. So if no one watches (or cares about) TNA, who is going to remember anything Flair did over there? Saying Flair will be remembered for how "terrible" he was in TNA, and at the same time, saying how unimportant TNA is really makes for one hell of a contradiction.

Unimportant or not, it still happened. Which is all that matters for me in this debate.

Wrong. This is horribly wrong. I cannot believe you actually think Ric Flair hasn't done enough in his career to be remembered for everything else before TNA. For Christ sakes, he's a 16-time World Champion. I think you are really in the small, small minority of people who will actually choose to remember Flair for his run in TNA, instead of everything else he has done in the large world of professional wrestling.

Originally posted by Me
I get that. But what I'm saying is the first thing I'll remember is what happened most recently, and what happened most recently in TNA will make me think, yet again "What should make me think he was so special, these matches aren't anything amazing."

The only people who will remember Flair for his run in TNA above everything else are either, A. Those who just started watching wrestling, or B. Those who are attempting to argue against Ric Flair in a Debater's League....

I've addresed this enough in my opinion.

Again, that's your problem. I tend to believe you are in the minority here.

Minority, sminority. I've already explained why the minority and majority don't really matter in the end of this whole thing.

I'm sorry to be the one who has to break the news to you, but the IWC is a very small portion of wrestling fans. The "casual" fan makes up the majority of the audience. And since we are talking about how a man will be remembered, by the entire community of wrestling fans, they really do matter and I am baffled that you do not understand that very simple fact.

This debate, in the very end, comes down to what we know, not what the casual or even majority of fans know.

You know what, I'll give you something here; it may slightly damage his legacy, among some fans, a little bit. It may. But the question is will it do a lot of damage to his legacy, and the answer is still no.

I think it does. Looking back and reflecting on one thing can change your opinions on other things.

You're right, the debate is about him competing inside of the ring, which he has done very few times since joining TNA.

He has still done it, has he not.

Are you really trying to convince me (and others) that these few matches will do a serious amount of damage to his legacy? I don't mean to be rude, but that is completely ridiculous. We're not talking about some Ham 'n' Egger here. We're talking about Ric Flair. I have said several times that this may do a small, and I mean small, amount of damage to his legacy, among some fans. But these few matches, in a crap promotion which no one watches, cannot possibly tarnish his legacy to the extent you are saying it will. Not even possible.

As I said above, looking back on one thing can completely change your opinion on other things. It's happened to me, it's happended to other people, and I'm sure it has happened to you. I've already explained how it does it to Flair's legacy.

The small world of this debate??? How does this take place in a small world? The question doesn't ask how a bunch of smarks from the IWC are going to remember Flair. It's asking if a lot of damage has been done to his legacy, as a whole. That's asking how everyone, who has ever watche Ric Flair compete, will remember him when it's all said and done. You are basically dismissing the entire fan base of professional wrestling, and I'm not sure that's a good path to winning this debate.

In the end, this debate is between us, and comes down to what you and I know, Nick. You. and. I.

You have repeated this time and time again, and unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are wrong, again and again. I agree that you and maybe 4 or 5 other people will remember Flair for TNA. But that's about it. The man has a huge, I mean HUGE, international following. Do you know how many people more than likely don't even have a clue he's involved with TNA? I'll tell you how many; every wrestling fan who doesn't watch TNA, and that's a hell of a lot of wrestling fans. That's basically every old-school fan that has stopped watching wrestling, and may not even know TNA exists.

Read above.

His legacy is one of the biggest ever in pro wrestling. He isn't just some former World Heavyweight Champion. His legacy is much, much bigger than you are giving credit for.

Never said it wasn't. But perception of one time can make your perception of different times very sketchy, if you get what I'm saying.

I understand the actual question never asks how big of a star Flair is, but I think when a question is asked regarding his legacy, you need to take into consideration just how big of a star he actually is/was. A man with a legacy, a following as large as Flair's has plenty to be remembered for. No matter how hard you try to say that isn't relevant, it is. This guy is (as I said earlier) one of the two or three biggest stars in pro wrestling history, and there is no way in hell people are going to only remember him for his unimportant, final run in TNA. Not a chance in hell.

No Chance in Hell? Maybe you should change your name to vincem03. But either way, I'm not debating against what he has done. I know plenty about what he has done. I'll admit it's important. But I'll look back and think of that final run he had most recently and then think, "What was so great about him? He isn't that good here." And that, my friend, goes a long way in tarnishing his legacy.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Yet this doesn't take away from the fact that he has wrestled matches.

No one said he hadn't wrestled any matches, I'm merely pointing out the fact they have been very few and far between.

I believe it has. I firmly believe that when I look back at Ric Flair, I'll think of those lackluster performances in the ring in TNA before anything else, because it happened more recently. I'll think "Yeah, Flair was a wrestling God, but after what he did in TNA, he really doesn't seem that great." You see how that damages his legacy?

No, I don't see how this damages his legacy. I will say, once again, I think you are in the minority (with your opinion) when it comes to wrestling fans in general.

Ric Flair has been in the business for nearly 38 years. He has headlined every major event in American professional wrestling (Wrestlemania, Starrcade, etc.). I cannot believe most people will remember him for the things he has done in his 60's as opposed to all of the amazing things he did for 30+ years prior to TNA.

For someone who puts so much emphasis in staying on-topic, you sure aren't. You're trying to shift the emphasis on how well Flair is doing as a manager, which I'll agree with, but it isn't about him managing, the topic is about him competing.

This is absolutely on-topic. I am making the point that you are incorrect in your assessment of what Flair is doing in TNA. You are making it sound as if he is wrestling all of the time, when he isn't.

The bold part. He's had matches. That tarnish his legacy. My point in case.

In your eyes. It tarnishes his legacy in your eyes. Just out of curiosity, how long have you been watching wrestling? How familiar are you with Ric Flair pre-2000's? If you're not familiar with what he has done prior to that point in time, it's easy to understand why you feel this way. If you are familiar, and have seen the things he has done earlier in his career, then I am completely dumbfounded as to how you can choose to remember him in the way you say you do.

That even further tarnishes his legacy with said fans, does it not? If they don't know of him, he even means less to them, so they don't have the older knowledge to even try to rebuild him.

Absolutely it does, with said fans. Younger fans make up only a small portion of wrestling fans, past and present. Remember, we aren't only talking about current wrestling fans. We are also talking about those who watched Flair, at any point in his career, and how they will remember him.

Off-topic again.

It's most definitely not off-topic. Your whole basis for him tarnishing his legacy is that he must be doing poorly in TNA. If you didn't believe he was doing a poor job in TNA, you wouldn't look upon his time there as doing damage to his overall legacy. I am pointing out that to tarnish his legacy, he would have to be doing a shit job in TNA, and he isn't.

I get that. But what I'm saying is the first thing I'll remember is what happened most recently, and what happened most recently in TNA will make me think, yet again "What should make me think he was so special, these matches aren't anything amazing."

Of course they are nothing amazing, he's in his 60's! I have said time and time again, I agree that he should no longer wrestle, not even on rare occasions. All I'm saying is that him doing isn't doing nearly as much damage (in the eyes of most fans, past and present, in my opinion) to his legacy as you would like us to believe.

You don't need to care about them, all you have to do is remember them.

Most people do not remember the matches they do not care about, in a promotion they do not care about, correct?

Unimportant or not, it still happened. Which is all that matters for me in this debate.

Yeah, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. That doesn't mean most people agree with you. In fact, I would argue (from what I've read on this forum and others) that most disagree with you.

Minority, sminority. I've already explained why the minority and majority don't really matter in the end of this whole thing.

Yes, you have explained it, and you are still totally wrong.

This debate, in the very end, comes down to what we know, not what the casual or even majority of fans know.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is about his legacy, not what just you and I think of him. This whole debate is centered around how he will be remember by everyone, not just you and I.

As I said above, looking back on one thing can completely change your opinion on other things. It's happened to me, it's happended to other people, and I'm sure it has happened to you. I've already explained how it does it to Flair's legacy.

Not when it comes to Ric Flair. To basically ignore his absolutely amazing career and only focus on his very few matches in TNA is ridiculous.

In the end, this debate is between us, and comes down to what you and I know, Nick. You. and. I.

Wrong again. We are debating how Flair will be remembered. When asked that question, you take into account how you believe the entire body of wrestling fans, past and present, will feel about him when it's all said and done. The question is not asking how only you and I, personally, will remember him. I think you're having trouble grasping this concept.

Never said it wasn't. But perception of one time can make your perception of different times very sketchy, if you get what I'm saying.

What? That makes no sense. So seeing him wrestle a few matches in his 60's actually takes away from 30+ years of great competition? It takes away from one of the greatest careers in pro wrestling history? I really can't agree with that.

No Chance in Hell? Maybe you should change your name to vincem03. But either way, I'm not debating against what he has done. I know plenty about what he has done. I'll admit it's important. But I'll look back and think of that final run he had most recently and then think, "What was so great about him? He isn't that good here." And that, my friend, goes a long way in tarnishing his legacy.

Again, this isn't just about you and I. It's about everyone else as well. Establishing what Ric Flair has done in the wrestling business is very important to this debate, because he isn't just some Average Joe. He's Ric Flair. The guy, along with Hulk Hogan, who has probably done more worth remembering than any other pro wrestler who has ever lived. You are choosing to remember him for something totally insignificant, and that's your prerogative. But do not expect everyone else to follow along, because I highly doubt it's going to happen.

 

[TSG]

nickb03 and I have agreed to post our closing arguments, as we are getting close to the time of the debate closing.

So, to begin, I would like to re-enforce the topic of this debate.

Originally posted by D-Man
True or False. A lot of damage has been done to Ric Flair’s legacy by coming out of retirement to compete in TNA.

Now, I argued in this debate that the topic was true. And now I will argue one last time in this debate that this is true. Now, what is my basis for this argument? It's simple.

1. Ric Flair has competed in lackluster matches in TNA.

The topic asks about Ric Flair competing in TNA. Nick emphasized this in the beginning, but strayed off-topic later in the debate, emphasizing the managing Flair has done in TNA. I am not arguing that he hasn't done a fine job as a manager in TNA, as he has. But the fact remains that this debate is about wether he has damaged his legacy by competing. And, Ric Flair has competed in lackluster, less-than-entertaining matches, which I feel people will look back on and think, what was so great about this guy? And to me, that damages his legacy more than Nick will argue.

That is really my main point of this debate. There were secondary points you can pick up from reading the debate, sure, but that is really the main thing. Ric Flair has damaged his legacy alot by competing in TNA, and if you need any other proof than what you read in this debate combined with my closing argument, then there is nothing else I can do. That will be all.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Closing Argument

True or False. A lot of damage has been done to Ric Flair’s legacy by coming out of retirement to compete in TNA.

The answer to this question is false, and it really wasn't that difficult coming up with the reasons why.

The question asks if Flair competing in TNA has done a lot of damage to his legacy. I think to say that his wrestling in a couple of matches during his time with TNA has severely damaged his legacy is absolutely ludicrous.

Ric Flair began his wrestling career in late 1972 and continued on until Wrestlemania 24 in 2008 (which also won PWI's Match of the Year). I don't need to give a 25-page history lesson here, everyone knows who he is. He's probably the most complete wrestler we've ever seen, not to mention one of the top two or three biggest names in pro wrestling history. But is important to establish just how big of star he really is.

All of this is important when discussing someone's legacy. Ric Flair is not your average wrestler. It is going to take a lot more than a few unimportant matches in a promotion no one cares about to seriously tarnish Flairs legacy. I mean come on people, we are talking about The Nature Boy Ric Flair here. Does anyone honestly believe that this small run in this small-time company is going to be seriously damaging to Flairs legacy? Among wrestling fans, past and present?

Is it possible this stint with TNA has damaged his legacy in the eyes of a few? Sure. But the question asks if this has done a lot of damage, and the answer is no. There will always be a few people (like my opponent) who will choose to look back at Flairs career and only think of the last thing they saw. I firmly believe the majority of wrestling fans, past and present, will look back on Ric Flairs career as a whole, a career with so much history, and so much success, and think of him as the legend he most certainly is.

They will think of his matches with Harley Race in the early 80's, or his battles with Steamboat in the late 80's. They will think of his winning the WWF Championship in what some would consider the greatest Royal Rumble match of all-time (1992). His WWF Championship match with Randy Savage at Wrestlemania 8. All of his stellar matches with Sting, Vader, Terry Funk, Dusty Rhodes, Roddy Piper, Ronnie Garvin, Magnum T.A., and many, many more. He was the leader of the Four Horsemen, the greatest stable the wrestling business has ever seen. When you think of the "heel" role in professional wrestling, Ric Flair is prototype. His career set the bar.

The man has done far too much to be remembered for something as trivial as having wrestled in a couple of matches in TNA, and to be perfectly honest I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: nickb03
While at times both debater's strayed, nick provided a great opening and great ending but also tried to keep a flow with the debate here.

Punctuality: The Sign Guy
nickb03 had a slight delay at one point.

Informative: nickb03
nick used his information effectively to begin with. While nothing new was added by either men, nick provided enough to get this point.

Persuasion: Draw
I felt this debate lacked the killing point to seal it for either men. While there was good info and clarity from nick and some great points raised by Sign Guy, neither seemed to give me the full reason to go to one way. The ending did seem odd as they both were wanting to correct each other over the question rather than go out to capitalise on the moment.

Final Score
nickb03: 3
The Sign Guy: 2

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- I have to give this to Nick. His opening post was well written and very clear. I knew his attacking points from the get-go. Which made it easy to follow. Sign Guy had a short one. I know a short post can be insightful. But I think he lacked it.

Point: Nick

Punctuality: Like Phoenix said. Nick had a small delay.

Point: Sign Guy

Informative: I agree with Phoenix again. i believe both debaters lacked in information but just from nicks opening post he deserves the point. He also provided more useful information. Which deserves a point.

Point: Nick

Persuasion. This was tough here because both lacked the aww post. Neither poster was able to get me to second guess. I believe the info was solid and the debate was decent. I believe it lacked the big post. They didn't blow me away so I award both posters with a point for their effort.

Points: Both

Tally:
Nick-3
Sign Guy-2

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Nick had a great open and close. Those were his best shots. Sign Guy tried, but his open and close were a little lacking.

Point: Nickb03

Punctuality: What Phoenix said.

Point: The Sign Guy

Informative: Again, a lacks from Sign Guy regarding information and while Nick didn't add information throughout, his open did it for him.

Point: Nickb03

Persuasion: There was no dagger in the heart that you expect at the end of a ballgame. No one point stood out to me that made me lean towards one side. Gotta call this one down the middle.

Points: Split

CH David scores this Nickb03 3, The Sign Guy 2.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of debate: nickb03
nickb03 knows how to make an opening argument! In case you haven't figured it out yet, I reserve this point for whomever makes the best opening argument.

Punctuality: The Sign Guy
For reasons already listed.

Informative: Split
I would like to have seen more information from both of you.

Persuasion: 1.5 to nickb03, 0.5 to Sign Guy
Sign Guy's going to make a great bullshitter when he goes to college (I might have already told you this at one point). But, bullshitting really only works when you can make a mountain out of a molehill, Sign Guy; next time, provide us with a molehill rather than nothing more than barren ground.

Final Score
nickb03: 3
The Sign Guy: 2

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, nickb03 is the victor on 12 points to The Sign Guy's 8.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!