Week 1: xfearbefore -versus- Thriller
- Thread starter Mr. TM
- Start date
Well I'm going to have to go ahead and choose the side of the argument that is the most logical: these storylines definitely hurt women's wrestling.
What possible benefits come from having a male wrestler impersonate a female one? It demeans women's wrestling and make's it look like a joke, and that the female wrestlers are practically a sideshow compared to the big bad male wrestlers. Having a guy like Harvey Wippleman in the "woman's" division is an insult to all of the women who work hard and bust their ass to lend respectability to a sub-sect of wrestling that has been disrespected for years and years.
Santina is the same exact thing, but atleast "her" role was mainly just used for comedy and to feud with Vickie Guerrero, and not attempted to be used as a legitimate women's division contender like Hervina was.
Both of these storylines were painful to watch, and rank among the worst in wrestling history for several reasons, and one of those reasons is that it demeans female wrestlers everywhere.
What possible benefits come from having a male wrestler impersonate a female one? It demeans women's wrestling and make's it look like a joke, and that the female wrestlers are practically a sideshow compared to the big bad male wrestlers. Having a guy like Harvey Wippleman in the "woman's" division is an insult to all of the women who work hard and bust their ass to lend respectability to a sub-sect of wrestling that has been disrespected for years and years.
Santina is the same exact thing, but atleast "her" role was mainly just used for comedy and to feud with Vickie Guerrero, and not attempted to be used as a legitimate women's division contender like Hervina was.
Both of these storylines were painful to watch, and rank among the worst in wrestling history for several reasons, and one of those reasons is that it demeans female wrestlers everywhere.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
No internet sucks, let's see what I can do here.
While I must agree that having men dress in drag is a sign that women's divisions in wrestling are lagging, these storylines can have positive effects, in that they give the division exposure.
When Santina was feuding with Vickie Guerrero, it gave us an escape from the typical divas' tag match. Rather than Mickie James and Gail Kim vs. 2 random heel divas like we had the past 2 weeks on Raw, we had a real "divas" feud that had more than just "She has the belt and sprayed me in the face with stuff, so now I'm going to beat her." It was personal, and as much as most of the IWC hated it, the story got over with the fans.
Let's compare that to the Mickie/Maryse feud. It did have two legit female wrestlers in a battle for the Butterfly Title, but the fans could not have cared less. So, while it is true that it is a bad sign for women's wrestling that they need men to create interest, the fact is that any publicity is good publicity. It is sad that the days of a feud like Mickie and Trish are gone, but if it takes a character like Santino to revive it, you have to do what you have to do.
While I must agree that having men dress in drag is a sign that women's divisions in wrestling are lagging, these storylines can have positive effects, in that they give the division exposure.
When Santina was feuding with Vickie Guerrero, it gave us an escape from the typical divas' tag match. Rather than Mickie James and Gail Kim vs. 2 random heel divas like we had the past 2 weeks on Raw, we had a real "divas" feud that had more than just "She has the belt and sprayed me in the face with stuff, so now I'm going to beat her." It was personal, and as much as most of the IWC hated it, the story got over with the fans.
Let's compare that to the Mickie/Maryse feud. It did have two legit female wrestlers in a battle for the Butterfly Title, but the fans could not have cared less. So, while it is true that it is a bad sign for women's wrestling that they need men to create interest, the fact is that any publicity is good publicity. It is sad that the days of a feud like Mickie and Trish are gone, but if it takes a character like Santino to revive it, you have to do what you have to do.
Not all exposure is good though. If a WWE diva went on a killing spree, that would give women's wrestling quite a bit of exposure, eh?
Exactly, it took away from time that real women's wrestling could have been showcased instead of comedy wrestling.
A) It's not a diva's feud if the two people involved in the feud aren't actually divas, is it? Vickie isn't exactly a "diva" and she certainly isn't a wrestler, and Santino isn't even a woman. That was comedy wrestling.
B) "She has the belt and sprayed me in the face with stuff" is the basic premise of every feud on earth (without the spray stuff obviously). The Mickie-Maryse feud has been great thus far, and makes the female division look serious, and not as just a bunch of pretty women who can't wrestle going out to the ring in order to be oogled by preteen boys.
C) Anything stupid like that can get over with the fans. This is why people like Hornswoggle are so over.
I don't know about that, Mickie is quite over and Maryse has been excellent as a heel. The feud isn't exactly getting Rock-Austin reactions obviously, but it's been perfectly fine for a woman's feud.
But how has Santina revived the woman's division, in any way? He/she has actually done the exact opposite by taking away valuable exposure that could have been given to real female wrestlers and instead giving it to a comedy feud.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
The reason it needed exposure is because the real women's wrestling isn't showcased. You get random tag matches every week with some kind of bullshit story behind them like, "so and so is ducking so and so in the locker room, rumor has it that diva 1 is afraid of diva 2." With Santina, there actually was built-up hostility that led to a grudge match of sorts rather than a typical diva's title match that feels thrown together.
They are both females, and any woman that steps into the ring to wrestle is considered a "diva." It is a stretch, but it is how they classified it.
The problem is that the feud didn't have any other layers. In a typical, well-done feud, it may start off simple like that, but more layers are added. Look at Triple H/Orton. It started with Orton holding the belt and Trips wanting it, but they added the layers of Legacy, family attacks, and home invasion, and voila, a solid personal feud is born. That is where the diva's division is struggling. They won't give good storylines to the women, so might as well try with a man.
C) Anything stupid like that can get over with the fans. This is why people like Hornswoggle are so over.[/quote]
But it does get the fans. Sorry, but diva's matches are considered the piss breaks of a show. Even though Santina and Hornswoggle may be completely ridiculous, they don't lose, and can even gain viewers. In that respect, comedy characters can sometimes be more valuable to the WWE than the divas.
If Santina had actually been allowed to feud with a real female wrestler, it could have done wonders for the division. So, I guess I worded my response wrong. In the end, Santina got some exposure for the Ms. WrestleMania battle royal, and that was about it. There was, however, much potential in him/her being there to put over a diva as a powerful competitor who defeated a man and bring back legitimacy to the diva's division.
But Santina vs. Vickie isn't real women's wrestling. It's comedy wrestling with two people that aren't divas, one of which has a penis. Penis = Not Women's Wrestling.
...But that's the same basic formula of every feud, male or female. What do you want, Austin-McMahon level of epic feuds? Mickie-Maryse is perfectly fine and has been one of the better feuds in the WWE in a while.
Come now Thriller, who in their right mind wanted to watch Santina vs. Vickie? Maybe 3% of the WWE audience, those under the age of 10?
...Santino has a penis. Not sure how he's considered a female Dolph, what 'chu talkin bout?
Not really. Some of the best feuds of all time have been rather simple. Austin hated McMahon because he was his boss. That's about the entirety of one of the best feuds in wrestling history.
Come now, are we really comparing Mickie James and Maryse to main eventers like Triple H and Orton? The women's division should be booking main event-styled epic feuds? For that matter, how can you possibly criticize the Mickie-Maryse feud, but than cite Santina-Vickie as an example of a quality feud?
Not really. The Santina-Vickie segments were always among the lowest rated segments on each show.
That's fine and dandy, but comedy characters don't help the women's division. At all. It demeans their profession.
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Clarity of Argument: Thriller, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to argue here: were you trying to say that bringing a man into a women's storyline makes an angle more interesting? xfearbefore, you stated both your opinion and the reasons for that opinion clearly.
Point: xfearbefore
Punctuality: TM can override this point allotment if he wants (if Thriller had an excuse for not being punctual).
Point: xfearbefore
Informative: I'm going to split this point between you two. A man posing as a female wrestler is a pretty rare occurrence, but both of you touched upon the two cases mentioned in the question.
Point: xfearbefore and Thriller
Emotionality: No one can compete with xfearbefore's passion.
Point: xfearbefore
Persuasion: Thriller, if you are going to use crowd appeal as evidence in favor of your argument, make sure that you provide a source for it. I haven't been to a WWE event in years, so I can't tell you if the Guerrero/Santina storyline "got over with fans" or if Diva's Matches are "piss breaks." But, I do know that such sayings/statements are used frequently on the forums as cheap rhetorical devices, which, in my opinion, are big no-nos in a formal debate.
Point: xfearbefore
tdigle's Score
xfearbefore: 4.5
Thriller: 0.5
Point: xfearbefore
Punctuality: TM can override this point allotment if he wants (if Thriller had an excuse for not being punctual).
Point: xfearbefore
Informative: I'm going to split this point between you two. A man posing as a female wrestler is a pretty rare occurrence, but both of you touched upon the two cases mentioned in the question.
Point: xfearbefore and Thriller
Emotionality: No one can compete with xfearbefore's passion.
Point: xfearbefore
Persuasion: Thriller, if you are going to use crowd appeal as evidence in favor of your argument, make sure that you provide a source for it. I haven't been to a WWE event in years, so I can't tell you if the Guerrero/Santina storyline "got over with fans" or if Diva's Matches are "piss breaks." But, I do know that such sayings/statements are used frequently on the forums as cheap rhetorical devices, which, in my opinion, are big no-nos in a formal debate.
Point: xfearbefore
tdigle's Score
xfearbefore: 4.5
Thriller: 0.5
Well this is the last of my judging for the round. Unfortunately Thriller ran into a bit of a problem, but lets hope he can recover for the next round.
Clarity of debate- 1 point
Clarity is an objective/subjective point. If all your "t"s are crossed and your "i"s dotted, this point is easy to get. But I am fortunate to be judging two great writers here and have to take the little more subjective side of things. Who delivered the better posts. I have to say that X did that with his. I suspect if Thriller had more time, that this point would be extremely hard to give, because TM does not give half points.
Punctuality- 1 point
Unfortunately, Thriller did not give me the warning or X the warning needed for his delay, but next time I have it. But X has to get this point now.
Informative- 1 point
I am giving this point to Thriller. In a debate like this, which is extremely narrow, especially in the WWE, where like I listed, I can really only think of the two bigger occurrences. But Thriller brought other information in here to support him, he deserves this point.
Emotionality- 1 point
I really think that this point was X's to lose or to win. I believe that if he had not received this side of the debate, he would not be able to put his emotions into it, but luckily for him, he did, and gets this point.
Persuasion- 1 point
Who persuaded me? X brought the passion, Thriller brought the ammo. X is a trained killer, but sometimes running across the field into machine gun fire does not always work. Bad analogy? Perhaps, but I am giving this point to Thriller for his ability to make me think about different arguments and his ability to make me think outside the box.
TM rates this 3 points X to 2 points Thriller.
Clarity of debate- 1 point
Clarity is an objective/subjective point. If all your "t"s are crossed and your "i"s dotted, this point is easy to get. But I am fortunate to be judging two great writers here and have to take the little more subjective side of things. Who delivered the better posts. I have to say that X did that with his. I suspect if Thriller had more time, that this point would be extremely hard to give, because TM does not give half points.
Punctuality- 1 point
Unfortunately, Thriller did not give me the warning or X the warning needed for his delay, but next time I have it. But X has to get this point now.
Informative- 1 point
I am giving this point to Thriller. In a debate like this, which is extremely narrow, especially in the WWE, where like I listed, I can really only think of the two bigger occurrences. But Thriller brought other information in here to support him, he deserves this point.
Emotionality- 1 point
I really think that this point was X's to lose or to win. I believe that if he had not received this side of the debate, he would not be able to put his emotions into it, but luckily for him, he did, and gets this point.
Persuasion- 1 point
Who persuaded me? X brought the passion, Thriller brought the ammo. X is a trained killer, but sometimes running across the field into machine gun fire does not always work. Bad analogy? Perhaps, but I am giving this point to Thriller for his ability to make me think about different arguments and his ability to make me think outside the box.
TM rates this 3 points X to 2 points Thriller.
Luther_Hull
Cunt.
Clarity of Argument: Very tough call, but I'm going to go with xfearbefore here.
Punctuality: Well, Thriller was late, so I guess this again had to go to xfearbefore
Informative: I don't really see how I can give this to either, so I'll pull a tdigs and say half and half.
Emotionality: xfearbefore is probably the most emotional poster on this site (in a good way) and I believe this was shown here.
Persuasion: After reading this debate I found myself leaning in the way of Thriller's argument.
The Luthster's points: xfearbefore 3.5, Thriller 1.5
Punctuality: Well, Thriller was late, so I guess this again had to go to xfearbefore
Informative: I don't really see how I can give this to either, so I'll pull a tdigs and say half and half.
Emotionality: xfearbefore is probably the most emotional poster on this site (in a good way) and I believe this was shown here.
Persuasion: After reading this debate I found myself leaning in the way of Thriller's argument.
The Luthster's points: xfearbefore 3.5, Thriller 1.5
Clarity of Argument-
I had no trouble understanding neither argument.
Punctuality- Xfear
Thriller was late, so yeah point goes to Xfear
Informative- Thriller
I feel thriller went a little more back and gave more info to support his argument.
Emotionality- Xfear
Like the other 3 judges, I agree that X showed more passion. I think it's gonna be hard to beat X in the category of emotionality.
Persuasion- Xfear
Although there wasn't much of a back and forth about in this argument, in the end I found myself siding with Xfear more.
Thriller- 1 point
Xfear- 3 points
I had no trouble understanding neither argument.
Punctuality- Xfear
Thriller was late, so yeah point goes to Xfear
Informative- Thriller
I feel thriller went a little more back and gave more info to support his argument.
Emotionality- Xfear
Like the other 3 judges, I agree that X showed more passion. I think it's gonna be hard to beat X in the category of emotionality.
Persuasion- Xfear
Although there wasn't much of a back and forth about in this argument, in the end I found myself siding with Xfear more.
Thriller- 1 point
Xfear- 3 points
Bernkastel
Reaper of Miracles
Clarity of Argument: I found both arguments to be well prepared, with Triller’s main argument being that male comedy orientated storylines involving divas help the division due to the amount of exposure they can generate while X’s main argument was that these storylines hurt the division by taking away from the women that actually showcased.
Point is split between Xfear and Thriller
Punctuality: Xfear’s argument was straight forward and followed nicely while Thrillers argument was jumbled at times. It helps to proofread your work before you post it.
Point Xfear
Informative: I’m not sure how formal this debate is but both arguments contained baseless assumptions without sources. Examples being WWE Divas are the piss break of the show… Santina/ Vickie segments were among the lowest rated of the shows. Even if these statements are true, having proof of such claims makes the argument that much stronger.
Point is void
Emotionality: I’d have to go with Xfear on this one, his points were simple and straightforward and his posts were neat and uncluttered. There were a few times that I had to hunt for Thriller’s points.
Point Xfear
Persuasion: I felt that both debates got their general main point across
Point is split between Xfear and Thriller
Echelon’s rating
Xfearbefore: 3 points
Thriller: 1 point
Point is split between Xfear and Thriller
Punctuality: Xfear’s argument was straight forward and followed nicely while Thrillers argument was jumbled at times. It helps to proofread your work before you post it.
Point Xfear
Informative: I’m not sure how formal this debate is but both arguments contained baseless assumptions without sources. Examples being WWE Divas are the piss break of the show… Santina/ Vickie segments were among the lowest rated of the shows. Even if these statements are true, having proof of such claims makes the argument that much stronger.
Point is void
Emotionality: I’d have to go with Xfear on this one, his points were simple and straightforward and his posts were neat and uncluttered. There were a few times that I had to hunt for Thriller’s points.
Point Xfear
Persuasion: I felt that both debates got their general main point across
Point is split between Xfear and Thriller
Echelon’s rating
Xfearbefore: 3 points
Thriller: 1 point
