Round 6: The Sign Guy -vs- Unsex

[D-Man]

Which moment truly killed off WCW, David Arquette winning the WCW Championship or Bash at the Beach 2000?

This is a sixth round match in the Debater's League. The Sign Guy 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.​

 

[TSG]

I'll take the side David Arquette winning the title truly killed off WCW. and I'll let Remix go first.

 

[Remix]

Thanks Sign Guy, and I hope we'll have a good clean debate.

Why WCW died at Bash at the Beach 2000

Introduction

Let me take you back to the year 2000. The Attitude Era is in full swing, the WWF is kicking WCW's ass in the ratings and the company is dying, the wrestlers drowning in a sea of politics. The question is when the ship finally sank. I believe that it happened on July 9, 2000 and I'll explain why.

What Happened?

Well the short answer is that Vince Russo took the sinking ship, shot it full of holes, set it on fire and got sued.

The long answer is that at Bash in the Beach 2000, Vince Russo decided to work an angle with Hulk Hogan and WCW Champion Jeff Jarrett. This angle consisted of Jarrett lying down for Hogan, and then Russo cutting a promo about how Hogan had played his "Creative Control card" to win the match because he refused to job to Jarrett. This promo culminated in Jarrett being reinstated as champion, given 'the original' belt, and Russo 'firing' Hogan.

Why was that so bad?

Because...

It made no sence

Did you follow my paragraph above? That's about as much sence as the actual event made. ANd what's worse is that the promo walked the lines between "Work", "Worked Shoot" and "Shoot" as it it was drunk resulting in a mess where to this day there's debate over what was a work and what was a shoot. Add to the confusion the fact that...

Nobody got it

Normal wrestling fans don't know or care about the backstage. The smarks would get it, but nobody else. The problem with booking an angle which will only be understood by smarks is that there aren't that many smarks compared to 'regular' fans. By confusing the hell out of the fans as well as...

They cancelled the main event

People wanted and expected to see Hogan vs Jarrett. That's what they paid to see. Russo took what the fans wanted and stole it from them. By screwing over the fans like this he gave WCW the lethal injection it had been been asking for since it started its slow painful death. After all, if you treat the fans like shit by screwing them over like Russo did at Bash in the Beach 2000, why should they continue to watch? However the fans fans wishes weren't the only things ignored by Russo...

The angle was forgotten

This incident was never mentioned again. In fact, to the larger Nitro audience it might never have happened. That's not to say that because it was ignored, it was unimportant. Infact, it being ignored maked it worse. This could have been a major angle, but instead what happened was swept under the rug and the viewers were left to scratch their heads. However, that's not to say that it was totally forgotten, because...

Hulk Hogan sued Vince Russo over this angle

To make a wrestler quit because of your booking is one thing. WCW did that quite a lot. Ask one of the surviving Radicalz. But to get sued for character defamation over it takes some doing. That's exactly what heppened though. Vince Russo crossed the line with this promo, and the biggest draw in the company took offence and fucked off because of it.

Why is it worse than WCW Champion David Arquette?

The reasons above prove why the angle was bad, but lets look at it in comparason to Arquette's title reign.

Arquette's title reign was done for what could almost be constructed as a good reason. It happened to promote Ready to Rumble, a movie featuring WCW stars. Now WCW went about it completely the wrong way, but they did it for the right reason. To make money promoting the movie. They did this well, as in the opening weekend the film made $5,257,778. There were no good intentions with Russo's insane idea that took place at Bash in the Beach.

Now as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the justification above is not the only reason that the title reign was more of a flesh wound than a lethal wound. David Arquette's title reign destroyed the credability of the WCW title. No denying that. However, a belt's credibility can easily be rebuilt. What happened at Bash in the beach couldn't. They could try to ignore what happened. But once you send Kayfabe to the abattoir, you can't get it back.

Conclusion

By Bash in the Beach 2000, WCW was in bad shape, but the lethal blow came there. Arquette's damage could have been repared. Bash in the Beach's couldn't.

 

[TSG]

Okay, so to start off, I am arguing that:

David Arqutte winning the World Heavyweight Championship is the moment that truly killed WCW.

Your World Heavyweight Champion. Holding the belt is an honor. Being the champion is a position of power. You're the top guy in the company. You represent the company. People that are among the greatest in the industry have held this title. Ric Flair, Sting, Lou Thez, Hulk Hogan, David Arquette, Bobo Brazil-yeah, rewind there? Something not fit in there?

David Arquette, a B-list movie actor most famous for marrying Courtney Cox, is the World Heavyweight Champion of WCW, the man who is supposed to represent the company. To me, this basically killed the company. For two main reasons, in particular.

1. This destroys all credibility the belt had.
This title belt is supposed to be what represents your company. What seperates the best from the rest. And look-e who is holding it. David Arquette. Yeah. That's right. The belt that represents the best of your company has lost all credibility, because it is being held be a B-List actor who wet himself when he was told he had to defend it. Think about that for a second, the champion wet himself in fear of defending his belt. How am I supposed to take this company seriously now. I'm not? That's what I thought too.

2. The face of the company is David Arquette.
Yeah, the face of a wrestling company was David Arquette. I mean, that is what the champion of a company is supposed to be, right? The face of it. Well, Arquette was the face of the company. That just screams to me that WCW was dead in the water and didn't care.

Well, that's my argument. So, um, there we are. Your turn Remix.

 

[Remix]

Okay, so to start off, I am arguing that:

David Arqutte winning the World Heavyweight Championship is the moment that truly killed WCW.

Your World Heavyweight Champion. Holding the belt is an honor. Being the champion is a position of power. You're the top guy in the company. You represent the company. People that are among the greatest in the industry have held this title. Ric Flair, Sting, Lou Thez, Hulk Hogan, David Arquette, Bobo Brazil-yeah, rewind there? Something not fit in there?

Yeah, only Bobo was black and only David Arquette made successful movies.

David Arquette, a B-list movie actor most famous for marrying Courtney Cox, is the World Heavyweight Champion of WCW, the man who is supposed to represent the company. To me, this basically killed the company. For two main reasons, in particular.

It hurt the company, but it was not a mortal wound. WCW could have sutured the wound. The fatal blow would come at Bash in the Beach.

1. This destroys all credibility the belt had.
This title belt is supposed to be what represents your company. What seperates the best from the rest. And look-e who is holding it. David Arquette. Yeah. That's right. The belt that represents the best of your company has lost all credibility, because it is being held be a B-List actor who wet himself when he was told he had to defend it. Think about that for a second, the champion wet himself in fear of defending his belt. How am I supposed to take this company seriously now. I'm not? That's what I thought too.

Well being shit scared of holding the belt worked great for Norman Smiley as Hardcore Champion. And like i Said in my OP, credability can be restored. Look what happened with the IC title last year. Look at what happened when Trish Stratus and Lita were fighting over the belt Mae Young didn't defend in 30 years. WCW could easily have fixed the problem. They just didn't have the chance because it was killed at Bash in the Beach.

2. The face of the company is David Arquette.
Yeah, the face of a wrestling company was David Arquette. I mean, that is what the champion of a company is supposed to be, right? The face of it. Well, Arquette was the face of the company. That just screams to me that WCW was dead in the water and didn't care.

He wasn't the face of the company. He was a walking billboard for Ready to Rumble. A movie which, in my opinion owes part of its success to David Arquette's WCW run.

Arquette was not a wrestler, and he was not treated as such. He was treated as a person who coundn't wrestle, and was unable to win matches clean. He's also not the only non wrestler to win the title. Russo is also a former WCW champion. Yet nobody cited him as WCW's killer (well they do, but for his booking, not his wrestling)

Arquette's title run is one whice cannot be compare to most other title reigns. He was an outsider who by rights didn't deserve the WCW championship but was given it as an advertising ploy. Were WCW effective at doing this? Well he certainly got buried on commentary, his offence no sold by Tank Abbot, never finished a singles match without interferance and his movie made $5,257,778 in a weekend. His reign was a success, and WCW could easily have repared the damage he did whilst being a successful champion. Something that they couldn't do because Bash in the Beach killed the company.

 

[TSG]

Yeah, only Bobo was black and only David Arquette made successful movies.

I was going for the second one.

It hurt the company, but it was not a mortal wound. WCW could have sutured the wound. The fatal blow would come at Bash in the Beach.

I wouldn't be taking the the company seriously enough to watch until BatB. I'd be done with that garbage win Arquette won the title.

Well being shit scared of holding the belt worked great for Norman Smiley as Hardcore Champion. And like i Said in my OP, credability can be restored. Look what happened with the IC title last year. Look at what happened when Trish Stratus and Lita were fighting over the belt Mae Young didn't defend in 30 years. WCW could easily have fixed the problem. They just didn't have the chance because it was killed at Bash in the Beach.

Like I said, I wouldn't be watching until BatB, because I'd stop after Arquette won the title.

He wasn't the face of the company. He was a walking billboard for Ready to Rumble. A movie which, in my opinion owes part of its success to David Arquette's WCW run.

The way I see it, my world champion is either the face of the company, or a man who I'm pushing very heavily. If I'm supposed to take WCW seriously when Arquette is either the face of the company or even being pushed as champion, then they were out of their minds.

Arquette was not a wrestler, and he was not treated as such. He was treated as a person who coundn't wrestle, and was unable to win matches clean. He's also not the only non wrestler to win the title. Russo is also a former WCW champion. Yet nobody cited him as WCW's killer (well they do, but for his booking, not his wrestling)

Yeah, Russo didn't kill the company with his title run. Arquette killed it when he won it before Russo did.

Arquette's title run is one whice cannot be compare to most other title reigns. He was an outsider who by rights didn't deserve the WCW championship but was given it as an advertising ploy. Were WCW effective at doing this? Well he certainly got buried on commentary, his offence no sold by Tank Abbot, never finished a singles match without interferance and his movie made $5,257,778 in a weekend. His reign was a success, and WCW could easily have repared the damage he did whilst being a successful champion. Something that they couldn't do because Bash in the Beach killed the company.

Yeah, his reign was a success. A success at killing a company.

 

[Remix]

I was going for the second one.

I know. Mine was still true though.

I wouldn't be taking the the company seriously enough to watch until BatB. I'd be done with that garbage win Arquette won the title.

Like I said, I wouldn't be watching until BatB, because I'd stop after Arquette won the title.

Same point made here, so I'll tackle them together. Was making Arquette champion a terrible move? Yes it was. Would some people have stopped watching? Yes. With sensible booking and good matches, could people be drawn back in to the product? Yes.

The fact that the damage could be healed is evidence enough to me that Arquette was not the deathblow you believe it was. Titles have gone through dark periods and recovered. the WCW championship is no different in that respect.

The way I see it, my world champion is either the face of the company, or a man who I'm pushing very heavily. If I'm supposed to take WCW seriously when Arquette is either the face of the company or even being pushed as champion, then they were out of their minds.

That's the point, you weren't supposed to take him seriously. He was an average joe who lucked out in winning the title in a tag match and was only able to defend it with the help of other wrestlers. The fact that he didn't belong, and was treated as such was enough to limit the damage of the angle. If they'd had Arquette going clean over actual wrestlers then, yes it would have been a death blow. But he wasn't.

Yeah, Russo didn't kill the company with his title run. Arquette killed it when he won it before Russo did.

David Arquette didn't kill WCW with his title reign. Russo killed it with his promo.

Yeah, his reign was a success. A success at killing a company.

His title reign did what it was supposed to. It advertised his movie. The damage to WCW was significant, but it was not a life threatening one if treated. WCW's lethal injection happened at Bash in the Beach.

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Both pretty clear, cant fault you on that I guess

Point: Split

Punctuality: You both suffer because I came onto this one late

Point: Split

Informative: Honestly thought Remix came into this one weilding more knowledge or something. Sign Guy didnt seem to put the effort in in some areas, merely stating that "he wasnt watching"

Point: Remix

Persuasion: Gotta go with Remix again, the more persuasive argument

Points: Remix

I score this one

The Sign Guy - 1
Remix - 4

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity of debate: Draw
Both did a good job presenting their opening arguments.

Punctuality: Draw
Neither took more than 24 hours for a response.

Informative: Remix
Sign Guy hardly ever presents information, so it should come as no surprise that he doesn't get any points here.

Persuasion: Remix
Read what I wrote above. Information/research is necessary to having any shot at winning these points.

Final Score
Remix: 4
The Sign Guy: 1

 

[Phoenix]

Clarity of debate: Unsex
A superb opening with great understanding gives him the point here.

Punctuality: The Sign Guy
Unsex took more than 24 hours to get his opening post up.

Informative: Unsex
Not much for information, but enough to earn the point here.

Persuasion: Unsex
The stance taken here was just great that WCW could justify why Arquette won the belt and that it could be redeemed. While no doubt I always think low thoughts about that situation, in the bigger picture Unsex has convinced me that Bash at the Beach was the killer moment here.

Final Score
The Sign Guy: 1
Unsex: 4

 

[BooCocky]

Clarity- Both did a great job at presenting their opening argument.

Point-Draw

Punctuality- Neither took more than 24 hrs for a response.

Point- draw

Informative- Remix used more information. Sign guy lacked effort and many valid points.

Point-remix

Persuasion- remix had more points used more information and I believe he was more persuasive.

Point- Remix

Final
Remix-4
Sign Guy-1

 

[Phoenix]

After a complete judge's tally, Unsex is the victor with 16 points to The Sign Guy's 4.

Congratulations and great debating from the both of you!