Week 9: Gelgarin -versus- SavageTaker

[Mr. TM]

WWE or WWF: Which name is more fitting?

SavageTaker is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 1:00 pm Pacific

 

[SavageTaker]

I'll argue that the WWF name is more fitting. Gelgarin can go first.

Good luck my friend, I hope we have an awesome debate!

 

[Gelgarin]

WWE or WWF: Which name is more fitting?​

Salutations one and all. I see that this week we have one of the more obtuse questions in debate history.
The broad nature of today's question requires a certain amount of qualifying before we run headlong into the unknown, and I was going to open up this debate by providing a (properly sourced) dictionary definition of the word "fitting". Alas, I pitched this idea to a group of friends of mine, and received feedback that this opening approach would be considered to be "gay", and as such we shall steer clear of Merriam Webster today.

Put simply, we are being asked which title is the more "appropriate" to today's product, and over the next [pending] words I shall be endeavouring to prove that World Wrestling Entertainment gives a better representation of today's product, and provides a number of practical benefits to the company.

Reason the first: It's not a federation.

You know what? I've suddenly decided that I'm confident enough in my sexuality to let Merriam out of her cage for a moment, to tell us what a federation actually is.

an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities: as a : a federal government b : a union of organizations.

This sounds very appropriate when referring to the World Wildlife Federation (we'll come back to the panda later methinks) or the American Federation of Teachers, or the UFP in Star Trek, but it doesn't really represent the WWE very well does it?

The WWE is not a coalition of local entities like the NWA was. The WWE is a single global entity. A publicly traded, privately controlled company marketing Sports Entertainment. The term "federation" is not, when seriously considered, a very accurate description.

Reason the second: It's not a sport.

We've dealt with what the word federation actually means, now let us turn our attention to what the phrase implies. I'm sure you're aware of FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football. Well as well as FIFA there is also; FINA, FITA, IAAF, ICF, FEI, FIG, IHF, FIH, IJF, ISAF, ISSF, ITTS, WTF(I kid you not), ITF, FIVB, IWF and FILA. Those, incase you didn't get where I was going with this, are sports federations. If you'd like to check the following wikipedia page you will find that I only listed a tiny fraction of the bodies in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_sport_federations

The point I am trying to make is that, by calling themselves a federation, the WWE were promoting the impression that they were a legitimate sporting body, and if there is anything that the WWE does not want to be looked upon as right now, it is a sport.

In today's climate the WWE is facing a great deal of misplaced inquiry regarding the use of anabolic steroids. They've been sucked into baseball's congressional hearing because people looked on them as a sporting body.
This is a time when parents are becoming more and more involved in their children's television habits, and it is vitally important that the WWE emphasise the 'cartoon like' entertainment value of their product, and trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate sport totally undermines this goal.

The WWE is not a sport. It doesn't want to be a sport, and it shouldn't call its self a sport.

Reason the third: Unwelcome associations.

I don't know about anybody else, but I get three major images in my head whenever somebody uses the acronym WWF.

The first is of the World Wildlife Fund who share the acronym. Like it or not the Wildlife Fund is an internationally recognised body with over 5,000,000 supporters who operate in 90 different countries. Call it a petulant grievance if you will, but when choosing which acronym is more appropriate for your company, there is something to be said for selecting an original one.

The second image that the WWF brings forth is Bruno Sammartino and the WWWF. That is of course were the WWF came from; and given the dramatic shift in product I don't think it's a legacy that the WWE really want. World Wide Wrestling Federation was an organisation that, once again, took great pains to pass its self off as a legitimate sport, and as I have explained earlier, that is not what the WWE want.

Finally when I think of the WWF I think of some of the cruder facets of the attitude era, which I don't think even my opponent would consider arguing is something that PG era WWE wants to be connected to it right now. To parrot myself from earlier, the WWE is straggling with everything it has to dupe parents into believing that it is producing family friendly TV, and the connotations that come with the WWF name are not particularly welcome.

Reason the forth: Say what you see.

So thus far I've chiefly been dealing with exactly why SavageTaker (Who's name I am at least spelling correctly) spent one and a half hours making the wrong decision at the beginning of this debate, without spending much time conveying why my option is that much better.

Well my argument is very simple. WWE is, essentially, the most concise description of the product. The two most prominent things on any episode of RAW are wrestling [check] and entertainment [check]. WWF brings up unwelcome images of sports, whilst WWE brings forward the much more welcome idea of sports entertainment, which is what Vince has been building the company around for decades.

I'll concede that there aren't particularly many "pro" arguments to be made, mostly because nobody in the world finds themselves thinking "my word what a good acronym", but I think I can say with some confidence that the name WWE fits the product better, is more appropriate to the company's business model, and doesn't come with the range of disadvantages that accompany WWF.

I think that's about all you need.

 

[SavageTaker]

I decided to choose the side that would make me debate that the WWF name is a more fitting name than the WWE name. My opponents has already made his argument for why he feels the WWE name is more fitting, so now it’s my turn:

1. WWF is a more recognizable name:

The WWE was known as the WWF ever since the very early 1980’s up until 2002. They were known as the WWF for about two decades so it’s more fitting because it’s the name they used when they were trying to became a national company and when they did become a national company and became very popular with. Also, when a lot of wrestling fans think about wrestling companies, a lot will immediately think about the WWF not the WWE because they were known as the WWF for so long that it became the name that they recognized.


2. They had bigger stars when they were known as the WWF:

Like I stated in my first reason, they went about two decades with the WWF name and during those two decades (1980’s-2002) they had much bigger stars than the ones they had when they changed to the WWE name. Some of those big stars include names like Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, The Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, and there are many more big superstars they had during their time as the WWF which was during the 80’s and 90’s. So the WWF name is more fitting because they had bigger stars when they went by that name.

3. Two of the biggest booms in wrestling happened when they were known as the WWF:

I think everyone knows what those booms are and in case you don’t know, they were the Golden Age and the Attitude Era. The WWF became so popular and made a ton of money because of those two boom periods that happened in the 80’s and 90’s. When people think of the Golden Age (sometimes referred to as the Hogan Era) and the Attitude Era they think of the WWF and how entertaining the WWF was. The name WWF is more fitting because two of the biggest booms in wrestling happened when they were known as the WWF.

 

[Gelgarin]

Is that it? Seriously? You've been hyping this debate for quite some time; I thought you might try pushing the envelope a little further.

You've presented three arguments, but to be frank they're all exactly the same point, just rephrased and with a different number used as a prefix.
That the WWE were bigger as the WWF.
Right now this is true. We're at the point where it's become of extremely questionable relevancy, but for today I'll concede the point. Unfortunately for you, I'll instantly hit back with the fact that for quite some time the WWF was more successful when it had been the WWWF. Additionally the WWWF was once better recognised and was booking bigger stars when it was the CWC.

The name has evolved with the product, and just because they happened to be using a particular acronym during the golden age nobody remembers and the advent of crash TV, that does not provide adequate reason to stick with it.

I've already shown that the current name gives a better indication of the product, insulates the promotion from unwelcome associations and has the rare benefit of using works in the correct context.

Are you conceding all of those points already?

 

[SavageTaker]

Is that it? Seriously?

Of course that’s not it. There’s more, you just have to wait until I decide to post my other reasons.

Unfortunately for you, I'll instantly hit back with the fact that for quite some time the WWF was more successful when it had been the WWWF.

I won’t deny that during the time they went by the name of WWWF they were successful. However, overall, they were more successful when they were known as the WWF. They had way bigger attendances, made a lot more money, had higher ratings, and I could go on and on given reasons why they were more successful under the WWF name but I’m sure you know them.

Additionally the WWWF was once better recognised and was booking bigger stars when it was the CWC.

Where is your prove? You can say that they were better recognized and were booking bigger stars all you want but can you back it up?

During the time they were known as the WWF, they had some of the bigger superstars they could get. I already listed some of the bigger ones so I don’t think you need me to list them again.

Furthermore, let’s look at some of the buys and ratings the shows received when they were known as the WWF:

Raw’s average rating from 1998-2001:

1998: 4.44
1999: 6.12
2000: 5.87
2001: 4.64

That’s only four years (about the time the Attitude Era lasted) and it shows that while ratings did fluctuate they were still very successful. Also, they have been more successful when it comes to pay per view revenue.

In order to check out all of the ratings and revenues and more wrestling information you have to download the file in this thread: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=44871

The name has evolved with the product, and just because they happened to be using a particular acronym during the golden age nobody remembers and the advent of crash TV, that does not provide adequate reason to stick with it.

Why does it not provide adequate reason? The name WWF is more fitting because they were more recognized more by that name than they were by any other name they’ve ever hard, which includes the WWE. Also, they have had much more success when they were known as the WWF. So it’s only more fitting because of those two reasons and because of the reasons I previously gave.

 

[Gelgarin]

Of course that’s not it. There’s more, you just have to wait until I decide to post my other reasons.

What is this fixation people have with maintaining secret arguments?
Or was that just a euphemism for 'invent something original to say'?

I won’t deny that during the time they went by the name of WWWF they were successful. However, overall, they were more successful when they were known as the WWF. They had way bigger attendances, made a lot more money, had higher ratings, and I could go on and on given reasons why they were more successful under the WWF name but I’m sure you know them.

You miss the point. the WWE has been the WWE for a grand total of eight years, compared to almost thirty years as the WWF (almost all of which the product was drawing worse than the WWE today. Read your own sources). It took more than half a decade for the WWF to start matching the numbers drawn by Sammartino and Rogers when the promotion went under it's older names. Does that mean that until 1985 the WWF was the wrong name for the promotion?

Where is your prove? You can say that they were better recognized and were booking bigger stars all you want but can you back it up?

Had to go and ask didn't you. Of course I can back it up, I just didn't think something so trivial would be necessary.

• As the CWC (and a part of the NWA) Vince and Toots had near exclusive access to Buddy Rogers, the most prolifically drawing man man in the world and who left them as soon as they split form the NWA.
• As the CWC they were booking Antonio Rocca, who if you'll look over my debate with Irish you will see was a top draw between 1950-60. He faded into obscurity when they changed the name.
• As the CWC they were able to book all of the top stars of the NWA (such as Lou Thesz), a privilege that was severally reduced when they left the organisation.

During the time they were known as the WWF, they had some of the bigger superstars they could get. I already listed some of the bigger ones so I don’t think you need me to list them again.

Given that you've essentially made the same argument three times allready, I'm in full agreement that you don't need to do it again. If you're really hurting for something to write (which it looks like you are) then you could try going back to my original post and dealing with the arguments I presented there, most of which you have completely ignored thus far.

Furthermore, let’s look at some of the buys and ratings the shows received when they were known as the WWF:

Raw’s average rating from 1998-2001:

1998: 4.44
1999: 6.12
2000: 5.87
2001: 4.64

That’s only four years (about the time the Attitude Era lasted) and it shows that while ratings did fluctuate they were still very successful. Also, they have been more successful when it comes to pay per view revenue.

OK, let me clear something up. Are you throwing the exact same argument at me again, and saying that because success happened when they were the WWF that the name WWF is [somehow] more appropriate for the company? Or are you trying to say that the WWF was successful because of the name.
Both arguments are a bit lacking, but I'd like to know where to aim my defence.

Why does it not provide adequate reason? The name WWF is more fitting because they were more recognized more by that name than they were by any other name they’ve ever hard, which includes the WWE. Also, they have had much more success when they were known as the WWF. So it’s only more fitting because of those two reasons and because of the reasons I previously gave.

Well we're clearly in disagreement about how many arguments you've presented [1], but we'll leave that for now. If that wasn't a rhetorical question then I'd advice reading my opening post, which it is very possible you haven't done yet.
Success they had as the WWF is irrelevant. Nobody stopped watching the product because they changed the name, and nobody is going to start if they change it back (actually changing the name might fuck with people's DVR's so the effect is more likely to be negative). What is relevant to the debate is which name is more appropriate to the company, and I've presented ample reasons why WWE is the better choice.

Might I recommend you try addressing them?

 

[Mr. TM]

Clarity of Argument - Gelgarin was beautiful as ever.

Punctuality: Gelgarin was always on time

Informative: Gelgarin was called out, and I feel he was able to back it up. Gelgarin knows his stuff, doubt he ever has to research.


Emotionality: So Gelgarin. We have been together for a few weeks now, and I was wondering where this relationship was going?

"Oi, ya know, we will do stuff, watch some Thesz and the such"

Is that all we ever do here now? Sit at home, and was Thesz not be as good as Rocca? Pitiful

"But mate what about Par..."

No man, its over, I have found a new love, and hes twice the man, and half the age you are. His name is SavageTaker.


Persuasion: Yes, I may have fallen in love with a new man, but I cannot doubt the persuasive power and good looks that Gelgarin possess. The debate was broad, but you both focuses in on it, but Gelgarin was impressive. He does have any more years as ST, and a writing degree, but ST did put up a fight.


TM rates this 4 points Gelgarin, 1 points ST.

 

[CH David]

Clarity: Another stellar opening post by Gelgarin. He kept that momentum going in the entire time.

Point: Gelgarin

Punctuality: See TM's post.

Point: Gelgarin

Informative: Gelgarin was just on top of his game like always. Made great points and brought information to back it up.

Point: Gelgarin

Emotionality: Gelgarin had a great attitude, kind of cocky, but knew he could back up what he was saying.

Point: Gelgarin

Persuasion: I hate to do this to ST, but Gelgarin has the clean sweep. He was able to back up his information well.

Point: Gelgarin

CH David scores this Gelgarin 5, SavageTaker 0.

 

[Miko]

Clarity: Gelgarin had the cleaner debate overall

Point: Gelgarin

Punctuality: Gelgarin

Point: Gelgarin

Informative: Gelgarin could back up his points with useful info

Point: Gelgarin

Emotionality: Gelgarins got a good debate attitude, as long as he's right, which he is

Point: Gelgarin

Persuasion: Hmm, I always preffered the WWF, strange that I have to give Gelgarin the point here

Point: Gelgarin

Sorry ST

Gelgarin - 5
SavageTaker - 0

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Clarity Of Debate - Nice layout, Gelgarin. You get the point here.

Point: Gelgarin

Punctuality - Read what TM wrote.

Point: Gelgarin

Informative - Both debaters brought in a sufficient amount of information. But, there really wasn't much that could be brought in here, given how it's a topic that doesn't afford much information.

Point: Split

Emotionality - You guys split the point here.

Point: Split

Persuasion: You guys again split the point here. I will admit though that it would have taken quite a bit to convince me that WWE shouldn't revert to its original name. Gelgarin did a good job explaining to me why I shouldn't feel this way, but Savage Taker did a good job of making me feel that I should maintain my belief.

Point: Split

tdigle's Score

Gelgarin - 3.5
SavageTaker - 1.5