Round 4: Riaku -vs- Dave

Discussion in 'Debater's League 2010' started by D-Man, Aug 22, 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
    Should have the WWE have invoked their Wellness Policy at least ten years earlier after the events of the 1994 steroid controversy against Vince McMahon?

    This is a fourth round match in the Debater's League. Riaku 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.

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

    Good luck.​
     
  2. ABMorales787

    ABMorales787 Lord And Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    I choose to go second and to go with the claim that WWE should have invoked the wellness policy following the 1994 scandal. I wish good luck to Dave.
     
  3. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,601
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Best of luck, mate.

    --------------------------​

    In the history of the (now named) WWE, scandals have been fast and frequent. They have seen Vince McMahon taken to Washington to defend his company and the one thing that has always been a pain in the ass for the WWE is steroids. In the 1990’s, steroid use was rife within the WWE and as Vince McMahon set up screening policies to rid the company of their blight, scandals still came in thick and fast.

    However, in this debate, we will likely have touchy subject matter and I would urge anyone reading this debate to allow the argument to speak for themselves. Do not sentiment rule and allow your heart to rule your head. In this debate I will be attempting to show you why I believe that the WWE wellness program that exists in the WWE today was not welcomed back in the mid to late 1990’s.

    So without any further ado, let’s get on with this…

    1990 was a different age!

    Now, I am not ignorant enough to believe that people knew nothing about the effects of steroid use back in the 1990’s. However, what I will say is that substance abuse continues to be monitored. We do not know what may be good for us and what might not be any more, with contrasting views on everything, it seems.

    Asparagus can give you a higher rate of contracting cancer but may also make you 30 feet tall. The point being that what we don’t know about something will never hurt us. The same is true of steroid use in he 1990’s. It was very much a new craze and the facts that we know about steroids now, may have turned a lot of people off of them. However, working on hindsight makes things very easy. It makes decisions much easier but at the time that this scandal happened, the facts about steroids were not known for sure.

    Steroids still plague all manner of sports but the ruling bodies are continually pushing for it to be wiped out from sport completely. As we gain more information about how bad steroid abuse can be, the decision to wipe them out becomes easier. I urge to keep an open mind about the availability of facts about steroids 16 years ago and bare that in mind for the rest of the debate.

    Because the fact of the matter is this, steroid use was rife in the 1990’s… There is simply no denying that fact. However, how many times do you hear the older generations saying that “if they knew now what they do about smoking etc, they wouldn’t have started”? Availability of facts about steroids is still ongoing and was one of the reasons that a wellness program was not introduces 15 years ago.

    The Attitude Era – Does anyone remember it?

    Now, I know that may sound like an immediate digression but it actually has a lot to do with my debate.

    You see, we all know about the poor results that have come from the WWE wellness policy. No strikes to the head with weapons, no intentional chair-shots and no chops to the chest. Whether the disappearance of these factors of wrestling can be attributed to the Wellness Policies are everything in this debate.

    I could honestly go out onto the open forum and find multiple accounts of people attacking the Wellness Policy. People have come to know that the Wellness Policy has taken some of the most entertaining factors of wrestling in the WWE and tossed them away like garbage. We have heard it multiple times, the WWE are a watered down version of the Attitude Era and this is mostly due to the WWE Wellness Policy. Never before has the WWE taken so much to do with the health of their superstars and some people would argue that this has taken a lot of entertainment out of the product.

    Now, with that in mind, would it have been financially right of the WWE to introduce a Wellness Policy at the most crucial time in the history of the company. The Attitude Era is one of the most financially successful times in the history of the WWE and I would argue that with very stringent rules (like those that exist in the WWE today), the Attitude Era would simply not have existed. How could it!? The WWE have drained the life out of violence and that is what the Attitude Era thrived on.

    Health is not the responsibility f the WWE

    Again, this ties into my last statements. The WWE have never taken more to do with the current superstars health. Personally, I feel it comes down to the responsibility of the superstar themselves to ensure that they are physically and mentally healthy before competing in a WWE ring.

    Yes, people are leaving wrestling much healthier but at what cost to the WWE and their fans? We have all seen people attack a “boring” WWE product in recent months and the Wellness Policy has had a lot to do with that. Now, the Wellness Policies are verging on the ridiculous and rumours of the WWE banning gloves, whilst being unfounded, were absolutely believable.

    At the end of the day, the responsibility of being healthy comes down to the superstars themselves and not the WWE. How many wrestlers have gone into the company not expecting to get hurt? Jesus! The whole point of the company is to make the audience believe that they are getting hurt. Taking a chair shot to the head is all a part of that and I would argue that every single WWE superstar knows what they are letting themselves in for when they sign on the WWE dotted line.

    Look is everything in the WWE

    Yes, we don’t like to admit it but we like to see wrestlers who look good! Call it “gay” or whatever you like but the fact of the matter is that we do like to see wrestlers as being buff machines that can lift 300 pounds weights.

    When you analyse a superstar from top to bottom, one of the main things I have heard from a wrestling fan is the “look” of the superstar in question. The WWE is all about how you look and in the 1990’s, we have all heard the rumours of how it was very much like a boy’s club. In light of sex scandals involving Pat Patterson and others, Barry-O came out as stating that bookers would only give you work if you looked good.

    Now, with that in mind, you can see why wrestlers were pushed to taking steroids. The look of a wrestler may make or break his career and that was especially true during the 90’s. If a Wellness Policy was introduced, then wrestling may have been deprived of some of its biggest talents. I mean, even Rey Mysterio has been guilty of taking steroids to enhance his look and without those steroids, many fans would have been robbed of his talent.

    We might not like this fact but it is one that stands to this day. The look of a wrestler is vitally important. How many wrestler have we suspected of being on steroids when they have not? In the 1990’s, one would need to be excused for taking steroids if it was going to help your career and we now that it did.
     
  4. ABMorales787

    ABMorales787 Lord And Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    So our topic this week is if the WWE should have invoked their Wellness Policy at least ten years earlier after the events of the 1994 steroid controversy against Vince McMahon? Good question. This one has me scratching my head with one of those "what if" scenario's now. Well then, first thing I think we should do is see just what exactly is this wellness policy. It's officially named the WWE Talent Wellness Program. Established in February 2006, it was designed to keep the Superstars in the WWE in top physical shape and keep them out of possible health problems. Accordign to WWE.com, it goes like this:
    OK. This article features a link to the list of drug's WWE prohibits and all substance abuse details. It also features a list of medical staff and information on their ImPACT™ Concussion Management Program, that deals with... Concussions. And totally unrelated to TNA iMPACT!.

    Now onto the debate. If this were instated a decade earlier... That would be around 1999, 2000 or even 2001. The Monday Night Wars would be ending and an era of utter turmoil was about to start. This would be by the point in which WCW was basically just killing itself with Vince Russo. I really doubt it would've had any negative effect on WWE. It would have, however HUGE changes to our present time. For one and probably most important, Chris Benoit. Maybe, just maybe, WWE would've been able to prevent the tragic events that took place on the Night Of Champions weekend in 2007. Think about it. Zero trauma to the head as his Headbutt would most likely be banned or toned down. If it weren't banned, he would be receiving treatment to his head. That would be a 7 year difference in time. The incident took place a year and a half after the policy was established. 7 years would easily have made the difference. Eliminating an event that to this day has people believing pro wrestlers are:

    1) Mistreated. As believed by those M.O.M. (Mothers Against McMahon) broads.

    2) Mismedicated. Sports Illustrated.

    3) Shortened of their lifespans. Many young deaths happening these days. But why not back then and why now?

    Not only would the Chris Benoit incident would be wiped off the history books and we'd still have one of the best technical wrestlers ever alive and well, but WWE would probably have reached the media acceptance it has been after since 2002. Men like The Undertaker, Edge and Shawn Michaels' physical condition would be in better conditions.

    Now on to my opponents reply.
    The WWE was first sued for steroids in 1994. At the same time WCW raided it's talent and slowly began to beat them and nearly put them out of business. Why WWE did not try to eliminate something that nearly killed them is beyond me. I know it's happened on other fields of sports, but WWE nearly died from it as opposed to the MLB of NFL.

    Well first things first, the question at hand asks if it had been placed around 10 years ago. That would be 2000. One year before the Attitude Era ended as well as the end of WCW and ECW. This would be by a point in which WCW was going down hill due to the downward spiral that was it's booking and finance. ECW would fall from its lack of finance. It would really have a small impact on the Attitude Era because it was ending anyway. Furthermore, the wellness policy was established in 2006 to protect Superstars. Any kind of trauma to the head or the showing of blood were established by the TV networks in agreement with WWE.
    Jeff Hardy jumping off a 20 foot ladder is a hell of a lot more dangerous than getting hit in the head with a chair. The first happened post-PG several times. Not only that, but many times in the 2 years or so this change has happened, many dangerous things have happened to Superstars. Batista had 2 sidelining injuries in 2009. Edge tore his Aquiles Tendon. Undetaker had his orbital bone injury. I don't really want to bring TNA in here, but in the last year and a half, WWE Superstars have sustained more injuries than TNA's violence oriented guys have. WWE takes preserving precautions. That doesn't eliminate any level of danger to their physical health. The Wellness Policy conserves a wrestler. Not protect them.

    A "look" also refers to their attitude and how they present themselves to the audience. I've never heard of "Stone Cold" Steve Austin or The Rock, WWE's two biggest Superstars ever being accused of steroids as opposed to Triple H, Kurt Angle (pre-TNA) and Rey Mysterio. Steve was caught with DUI and wife beating, but never steroids. You'd think they would be the media's first targets for this kind of thing. As they were for Hulk Hogan in 1994. Maybe those two never had the kind of incriminating evidence that Triple H and the other guys had. Steve Austin was never a physically fit guy. At all. You could even argue that he had/has a mini-beer belly. Austin even had spinal surgery.
     
  5. Phoenix

    Phoenix WZCW's First Triple Crown Champion

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    703
    Just to clarify, when I meant by the question is whether the Wellness Policy should have been introduced after the McMahon Steroid Controversy of 1994. I realise it must be a bit confusing given it says 'at least 10 years ago', I forgot about when the policy was introduced. So basically, should have the Wellness Policy been introduced in 1994 after the McMahon Steroid Trial was passed?
     
  6. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,601
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    I actually sought out this answer from Phoenix and D-Man after your reply.

    So, now that we are in agreement that we are talking about the mid 1990’s, I would very much like a renewed rebuttal for this question. As you can see, my argument is pretty much based on this point and I would very much like for it to be attacked.


    I would, honestly, contest that getting his on the back of the head with a chair is more dangerous than jumping off of a ladder. At the end of the day, when you are flipping off of a ladder, you have some element of control and although it might go wrong once in a while, it is as nothing compared to a strike o the back of the head with a metal object.

    As for the rest of this point, could I seek some clarification from you as to what you are actually getting at?

    You see, for me, what you are saying is that the WWE superstars have been less healthy since the installation of the Wellness Policy. Surely, this is actually a bad thing for your side of the argument.


    I honestly have no idea what you are trying to get at here.

    As for the look of the superstars, I would contest that is a huge part of the formula for taking on new superstars. Back in the 90’s, a lot of people were on steroids because of the dangers that they were putting themselves through. The schedules were tough and they had very little time to work out. Hence, steroids were very popular and allowed wrestlers to remain looking sharp and working through the pain barriers. I know for a fact that Austin had numerous injuries during his career and I would be very surprised if he actually managed to stay clean throughout his career.

    At the end of the day, even the best athletes need something to keep them going. Kurt Angle is probably the best overall wrestler in the recent history of the WWE and even he had a problem with steroids. He stated himself that once he came off them, he lost a lot of muscle mass and that is the common problem. A look is essential for a wrestler and by eliminating steroids back in the 1990’s may have done a lot more damage than it was worth. Hell, it allowed people like Rey Mysterio and Kurt Angle to come through the ranks.

    I would contest that using steroids is a personal choice for a lot of people and allowed them to keep up with the fast and furious schedule of the WWE. You have heard it from many people that working with the WWE is very difficult at times. You are travelling all the time and sometimes you just need a little help with that. Personally, if the superstar is happy to take them to get through, I see no problem with it. The WWE are now protecting their business by implementing the Wellness Policy but I am willing to bet that without the scandals that have rocked the company, steroid use would still be around today.
     
    ABMorales787 likes this.
  7. ABMorales787

    ABMorales787 Lord And Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    OK. Then I have a lot of ground to cover.

    That being the case, it would mean the Wellness Policy would be a part of WWF's Attitude Era. Sounds challenging.

    Trauma related or steroid related, it's still caused by something wrestling oriented. Should the Wellness Policy have been around earlier, the ImPACT Concussion Program would've treated the situation as opposed to Benoit performing every day with maybe 2 or 3 routine checkups a year. Same case with the steroids. He would be suspended. Maybe he did take all of this since his earliest days, but the fact that it could've been handled so many years before this major even, it gives to the possibility of preventing it.

    Weither the damage was already there by the time he arrived in WWE or not, it could still have been treated so many years ago.

    I seriously doubt he would have this planned out seven years in advance.

    The fact that they had the resources to prevent the incident stands out. Even if those resources were put to use too late. Take a tumor and cancer for instance. You find the tumor, you can stop it before it becomes cancer and begins to consume your body. In Benoit's case, if any brain damage or 'roid side effects/use were showing at any point since his 2000 debut, it could've been delt with immediately.

    I'm not saying it's WWE's fault, it's not really. But they could've done something that could've prevented it.
    Shawn Michaels said that about his back in 1998 when he had the accident with the casket. So he kept on going. Skip ahead to his match with Steve Austin, and ramming his lower back into the turnbuckles finished the job. Putting him out for 4 years. It was expected to be a career killing injury, but he luckily had a big break. If a doctor had intervened and told him to step out after the initial injury, he wouldn't have been out of pro wrestling for 4 years.

    There has also been many occasions were wrestlers go on performing for weeks, even months with injuries. Already warned that they require surgery. Men such as Rey Mysterio. Who was out for over a year because of it and may end up being out long term again as it's been reported for months that he's in need of knee surgery.

    This is a good point, but many men during that time proved to be loyal to the company no matter what. As a matter of fact some of WWE's biggest prospects back then had jumped from WCW in discontent. Triple H, Steve Austin, Chris Jericho, Big Show, among smaller talent as well. Meanwhile other guys heard the stories. I seriously doubt the major players in WWE back then would've jumped ship just because they would be unable to use steroids. It was for their own good. Unless they really were reliant and borderline addicted to them. In which case it would have been best to distance themselves from them. But if they weren't using steroids, what should they have been afraid of?

    Look at the whole Jeff Hardy incident. As soon as he decided to leave, he was caught red handed. What if he didn't decide to leave and was caught while still working? He was one of their top guys at the time. That's quite a high risk thing.

    If they didn't use them, then there was nothing to fear. It's a mere formality to keep the wrestlers and WWE's image safe. Looking at the list of men in the SI scandal, I saw Lex Luger, Buff Bagwell, Chris Benoit, Johnny Grunge of Public Enemy, Mark Jindrak, Kurt Angle and Nancy Benoit. Out of all of these names, only Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle can be considered some of WWE's major players back then. While Kurt supposedly got his following his 2004 injury, not the case with Benoit.Like I said earlier. A disaster could've been prevented in Benoit's case.

    Well, with the Wellness Policy, risks of injury would quickly be treated.
    The Wellness Policy does not reduce a wrestler's risk of being in danger as you said. It stays equal. However, the Wellness Policy helps react to injuries and risk of injuries faster.



    As for the look of the superstars, I would contest that is a huge part of the formula for taking on new superstars. Back in the 90’s, a lot of people were on steroids because of the dangers that they were putting themselves through. The schedules were tough and they had very little time to work out. Hence, steroids were very popular and allowed wrestlers to remain looking sharp and working through the pain barriers. I know for a fact that Austin had numerous injuries during his career and I would be very surprised if he actually managed to stay clean throughout his career.

    Losing muscle mass never hindered his wrestling ability. You could even argue that it improved it. Some of his best matches would take place following the alleged use of said drugs.

    The steroid scandal is the entire reason why it should implemented. The company nearly died because of it. Why if it had happened again and these guys were high on said drugs? WWE would be screwed to death by lawsuits and such. We've seen it seemingly destroy the careers of many once great sportsmen. In baseball alone you have names like Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. Just to name a few. All screwed by steroid scandals, almost all ending in court and ultimately the sullying of their once good names. It's an everlasting war between the MLB and steroid scandals. Imagine something like this befalling WWE. It would spell the end seeing how the lawsuits would go directly to WWE and not the talent.

    Thank God no one was ever caught the same way MLB was. What would the state of pro wrestling be like if it had been targeted for steroid use in the same manner? Dead would be your answer. We say what a considerably small one did to WWE. Imagine consistant ones to WCW, WWE and ECW. For one, ECW would nevere even survive one. Time Warner, may bail out WCW, but sully their image in the process or very well just scrap the company as it was enough trouble with it's backstage goings. WWE was borderlining the first time. A second one would easily have ended it. WWE should've taken precautions following such an ordeal, but they didn't. They went 12 years risking the possibility of lawsuits. A gamble that may have paid off back then, but the sting is certainly felt today. Was letting your guys get a little bulk really worth the possibility of major lawsuits? I say no.
     
    Dave likes this.
  8. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    4,601
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    First of all, I really would like to thank Riaku for his part in this debate. At the beginning, I thought I would be crushed because of the question but it has played out as being really challenging and one of the biggest challenges thus far.

    So, thank you.

    -----------------------------------------​

    Now, I am working for the rest of the day and although I would have asked to extend the end of the debate a couple of hours, I just feel as though doing my closing statement now will make it less of a fuss and I will just be doing that.

    So, in this debate, I was tasked with trying to convince you that The Wellness Policy (set up in 2006) had no place in the WWE in the mid 1990’s. At the beginning of the debate, I set out some criteria and points that I felt were essential to my side of the debate. Let us go over them now.

    The 1990's were a different time:


    Now, I know that it was only 15 years ago but that is 3 quarters of my full lifespan. I am not trying to say that the Wellness Policy is not a good thing because it damn sure is. However, what I am trying to say is that by implementing these policies during the mid 1990’s, the WWE would never have found out anything. 15 years ago, people were getting away with drug use all the time. Who is to say that other were not using steroids and cheated the system? The fact of the matter is that in 2010, there is no cheating the system. If you are tested for drug use, you are going to get the correct answer all the time.

    15 years ago, sports science was what is today. Certain drugs were missed by drug tests and who is to say that the WWE wrestlers were not privy to this information? Nowadays, people do not have the same luxury. If they are using drugs, they will be caught. Implementing these procedures now is smart business by the WWE but back then, it would have been a costly mess that people could easily take advantage of.

    Implementing these policies would have been the death of WWE. If they had the same accuracy as the testing does now, then the WWE may have driven out a lot of the talent that people came to see. Doing this at such a crucial time in the development of the business would have been absolute business suicide for Vince McMahon and the WWE.

    The Attitude Era:


    I have contested through this whole debate that the Attitude Era could simply not have existed under the rigorous and strict rules and regulations of the WWE Wellness Policy. No chair shots to the head have been implemented. Backhand cops to the chest have also been taken away from a wrestler’s repertoire. Now I ask you, do you honestly believe, that with all of the petty things that have been taken away, that Steve Blackman would be tumbling 20 feet off of the Summerslam set? Or do you believe that we would have had the epic encounters that the likes of Triple H and Mick Foley had in the year 2000? Do you even think that the Rattlesnake (Stone Cold Steve Austin) would have existed in the way he did?

    I personally don’t think that he would have and this is the problem with the Wellness Policy. I argue that with the Wellness Policy in place, the WWE would not have been able to give us the Attitude Era. Without that, the WWE would have literally ceased to exist. My opponent, whilst noticing this debate, has still given me no answer to this point. For me, that is the telling sign. Like it or not, the Wellness Policy would have killed the WWE in the 1990’s.

    Chris Benoit:


    Now, I am not stupid. I know that what happened with Chris Benoit and his family was an absolute tragedy. I am also not stating, like my opponent would have you believe, that he planned the attacks out 7 years in advance. What I AM contesting though, is that Chris Benoit was mentally insane. Yes! More could have been done for him if the WWE had implemented the Wellness Policy before he went on his murderous rampage. However, is it really the responsibility of the WWE to ensure that everything was right at home for Chris Benoit?

    At this time, wrestlers knew what they were getting into and Chris Benoit must have known that he could not function in the WWE. However, he ploughed on and it ultimately cost him his life and the lives of his family. Now, if Chris Benoit had no intention of not carrying out the attacks, he would have said so to someone. It all comes back to what I said about the WWE only being able to do so much for a superstar. If they call out for help, then by all means the WWE will help. But Chris Benoit had no intention of asking for help. He was going to kill his family either way and the Wellness Policies would not have stopped that.

    Please, do not allow your sentiments for Chris Benoit to sway your decision here. Look at the facts and make an informed choice. Do you think that the Wellness Policies would have stopped a madman from committing these crimes? I certainly don’t.
     
  9. ABMorales787

    ABMorales787 Lord And Master
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Ah, shucks. Thanks man.


    I don't think that finding out the use of these drugs would be a total detriment to your company image and wrestlers health is something worth learning through experience. Regardless of a few drugs hiding, some can be found and those are risks that can and have been averted.

    If the guys didn't use them, why fear taking a test and run off to another company? One that could've been in as much danger? WCW also needed it's own policy. A mean some of the guys in question from the 1994 incident went there. If the law decided to follow up, WCW would also be targeted. It wouldn't be much of a safe place.
    First off, the Ric Flair chops are banned for the sole reason that they remind the crowd of Ric Flair. That's the only reason. Second, Steve Blackman falling 20 feet from the SS set really is no different to Jeff Hardy Swanton Bombing of the Raw set on Orton. Or any different from the countless times he jumped off a ladder in 2009 alone. Thirdly, one sick chair shot did not make the Royal Rumble match between Mick Foley and Triple H. Finally, the Wellness Policy is not what prevents these occurances in today's TV. It is an agreement between WWE and it's sponsors and affiliates. The Wellness Policy treats these conditions. Then again, I see nothing in the policy that stopped Stone Cold from Stunning everybody, yelling foul word's, flipping the bird, or filling a Corvette with cement.

    Wrong. Think about this. The Wellness Policy was placed in February of 2006. In Abril of 2006, Wrestlemania saw a match that involved thumbtacks, street signs, garbage cans, barbedwire and flaming tables.Later into the year we had John Cena vs Edge in TLC and an Inferno match.
    I seriously doubt the policy would have such a terrible effect in WWE's Attitude Era. I mean in its present time, it took 4 years before sponsors intervened and decided to turn WWE PG. So maybe chair shots to the head would be banned. That doesn't stop The Rock from telling you to stick stuff up your ass (even if it sounds unhealthy). It wouldn't stop Triple H from nailing people with his sledgehammer as he does it to this day. It wouldn't stop The Undertaker from crucifying Steve Austin or abducting Stephanie McMahon. I could go on, but I made the point come across. So maybe a few less chair shots to the head. Who's to say we really need them. They could still blade themselves. The Attitude Era wouldn't have been changed much.
    7 years of treatment makes me think otherwise, Dave. Sorry, but for me its not sentiment, its an honest fact. Like I said in the previous post. Its like cancer and a tumor. Find a tumor, remove it, case closed and no damage. Find cancer and the later its treated the more your body is consumed and permanently damaged by it. Best to treat early than late.


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

    Closing Argument



    Safety Ensured

    Many injuries would be treated immediately as opposed to when the wrestler wanted with the Wellness Policy. The prime example of a something that could've been averted with the policy is Shawn's back injury. 4 years took a lot. We never saw HBK/Rock, HBK/Austin II, HBK/Mankind, etc. All could've been treated with the Wellness Policy in place, sending Shawn to surgery ASAP. Wrestlers would also be checked on after every match. Treating any concussion or injury received immediately. Thus preserving the wrestlers. Who knows, maybe if Steve Austin's spinal surgery had taken place sooner, he might still be wrestling today.

    Disaster Averted

    In 1994, WWE went to many legal troubles that nearly took it out of business over steroids. It was never really followed up, but the possibility of more charges was always there. Not just for them, but WCW as well. With the Wellness Policy, WWE would have eliminated those risks. They may have not plagued WWE back then but they are feeling the sting of it now.

    Not only that, but there is always going to be the presence of the Benoit tragedy being avoided if WWE had these tools at hand back then. In the SI scandal, Chris Benoits name was among those receiving them. That would mean immediately assessing the situation and dealing with any possible drug abuse. Not to mention discover any kind of head trauma through its ImPACT program.

    Conclusion

    The Attitude Era would only suffer a small change. The crude attitude, shameless women, and every single memorable moment could and would have happened anyway. Many things that affect WWE today would be avoided from way back then. It may have helped with WWE's current image from back then by eliminating the SI steroid scandal and Benoit tragedy. The question gives a lot to thing about, but the good outweighs the bad here.
     
  10. Phoenix

    Phoenix WZCW's First Triple Crown Champion

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    703
    Clarity of debate: Dave
    Dave understood the question while I had to give a prompt reminder to Riaku regarding the debate. Nonetheless, both guys did a great played out debate.

    Punctuality: Dave
    Riaku was late at one point.

    Informative: Riaku
    Using quotes from wwe.com, adding to his argument but also correcting Dave on some facts like the Ric Flair chops gets him the point here.

    Persuasion: Riaku
    Strangely, before the conclusions, Dave was slightly ahead but I felt this was what gave me a final sway, from Riaku's corrections to pointing out that the Attitude Era may have not as suffered as Dave made me originally think. While Dave did also ask me not to be swayed because of the Benoit part of the conclusion, I just felt that a real negative and less open minded perspective was given regarding that incident. In the end, Riaku managed to make a good counter to Dave's conclusion and wrap it up nicely.

    Final Score
    Riaku: 3
    Dave: 2
     
  11. Miko

    Miko WATCHA GONNA DO, BROTHER!?

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Clarity: Dave's points were clearer overall, had to struggle with Riaku's at some points

    Point: Dave

    Punctuality: Apparently Riaku was late, soo

    Point: Dave

    Informative: Using information well, definately learned more from Killjoy or whatever he's called now

    Point: Raiku

    Persuasion: Killjoy wins it on this one as well, more persuasive argument, effectively shut down all of Dave's points.

    Points: Killku

    My scores;

    Dave - 2
    Raiku - 3
     
  12. Cena's Little Helper

    Cena's Little Helper Mid-Card Championship Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Clarity of debate: Dave
    Dave presented everything in neat and orderly fashion.

    Punctuality: Dave
    Riaku took a little longer than 24 hours for one of his posts.

    Informative: Riaku
    Riaku killed it here.

    Persuasion: Riaku
    Again, Riaku killed this debate. Excellent job, man. Also, I give you the worthless and meaningless tdigle Award for best 2010 DL performance. You brought in a ton of information, you came back strong after you misinterpreted the question, and, in my eyes, you leave with one in the "W" column.

    Final Score
    Dave: 2
    Riaku: 3
     
    ABMorales787 likes this.
  13. CH David

    CH David A Jock That Loves Pepsi

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    896
    Likes Received:
    768
    Clarity: Dave's presentation was top notch. Great open and close.

    Point: Dave

    Punctuality: Dave wasn't late. Killjoy was.

    Point: Dave

    Informative: Killjoy did a damn good job. Great use of information was key for him. Plus he corrected Dave. Good show.

    Point: Riaku

    Persuasion: Some good shit from Killjoy. I do feel he had the advantage at the start of the debate, but his misinterpretation hurt him and he came back from it. Dave was doing a good job but Killjoy, well his debate was damn impressive.

    Points: Riaku

    CH David scores this Riaku 3, Dave 2.
     
  14. D-Man

    D-Man Gone but never forgotten.

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,607
    After a complete judge's tally, Riaku is the victor with 12 points to Dave's 8.

    Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"