Week 9: Little Jerry Lawler -versus- Lee

Mr. TM

Throwing a tantrum
The Undertaker: Better heel or face?

Lee 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
 
I will go for heel, and Keenan can go first :)
 
Thought you would have went for face but I still have a debate ready :)

On November 22, 1990, a mysterious figure known as The Undertaker was unleashed on the WWF. He was a character that was never heard of. A near seven-foot force of destruction that was impervious to pain and annihilated everybody that he came into contact with. Within a year, he challenged Hulk Hogan for the WWF Championship and beat the legend of Hulkamania which left all of the Hulkamaniacs in tears.

He turned face during his feud with Jake Roberts and then he was pitted against some of the scariest forces such as King Kong Bundy, Kamala, and Giant Gonzales. This is my main focal point of why I think the Undertaker is better as a face than heel.

When we were kids, we looked for characters who loomed larger than life. We wanted to see this characters come up against huge obstacles and overcome them and in turn, vanquish evil. When Giant Gonzales debuted, the crowd was in awe. When he went up against the Undertaker, people were asking how could the Undertaker walk out of this alive. He survived though and monster after monster was thrown his way and he defeated every single one of them. Look at his Hell in a Cell match in 1998 against Mankind. The things he did to Mankind you would expect a heel to do but Taker was a face and they cheered like crazy for him. The previous six or seven years as a face lead to me why his heel turn was unsuccessful.

I loved the Ministry Undertaker and thought it was a great heel change for him. The problem was he still got a majority of cheers and you can tell. It was just an offspring on the McMahon/Austin feud and it showed itself at the end when McMahon was revealed as the higher power. Enter Judgment Day 2000 when he reincarnated himself as the American Bad Ass. He was one of the voices for the WWF during the Invasion Angle and started to cement himself as a fan favorite with his new personna.

Then he turned heel by attacking Jim Ross after Survivor Series 2001. Suddenly he became this ass-kicking machine who demanded respect and beat the hell out of anybody who didn't give him that. That lasted for less than a year before he turned face again. We admire those who gain respect through their actions and the Undertaker did just that after giving respect to Jeff Hardy. Why do we want to see him as a heel after doing that?

Longevity is also a reason why Undertaker is a better face than a heel. We've gotten so accustomed to him being a successful face now that if he turns heel we will still cheer him. Look at HBK's heel turn when he was feuding against Hulk Hogan. Sure he did get booed, but most of the crowd cheered him because of the great matches and great attitude he had before then. Undertaker has been face for seven straight years now and he hasn't missed a step. He still gets some of the best reactions in the WWE and still puts on great matches.

The way Undertaker his conducted himself in the WWE shows reason why he can never be a better heel than a face. The fans need that person who can overcome the forces of evil and stand tall. They need that beacon of light who can shine when their world seems dark and the Undertaker is that person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
So the Undertaker better as a heel? You bet yourself...lets take a look at it!

The gimmick

So Undertakers gimmick is of an undead man, from Death Valley who sends people to hell, who killed his family in a fire and horrendously scarred his little brother.

How is that a face gimmick? Erm it's because of who he is that he's a face, a guy who has been there for a long time, the crowd hardly see him with his few months of a year run at wrestling...great!

The reigns

First title, defeated Hulk Hogan...heel
Second title, defeated Sid...heel
Third title, defeated Stone Cold Steve Austin...heel

There we have Undertakers three biggest reigns, all were won as a heel.

The ministry

The ministry was arguably the best thing Undertaker did, why? He was a heel. He was sadistic, sacrificing WWE superstars, whilst some of the crowd cheered him, you have to remember this was the attitude era, the crowd cheered the heel DX for goodness sake.

There's more to follow, but I thought I'd give LJL a lil taster
 
So the Undertaker better as a heel? You bet yourself...lets take a look at it!

The gimmick

So Undertakers gimmick is of an undead man, from Death Valley who sends people to hell, who killed his family in a fire and horrendously scarred his little brother.

How is that a face gimmick? Erm it's because of who he is that he's a face, a guy who has been there for a long time, the crowd hardly see him with his few months of a year run at wrestling...great!

The reigns

First title, defeated Hulk Hogan...heel
Second title, defeated Sid...heel
Third title, defeated Stone Cold Steve Austin...heel

There we have Undertakers three biggest reigns, all were won as a heel.

The ministry

The ministry was arguably the best thing Undertaker did, why? He was a heel. He was sadistic, sacrificing WWE superstars, whilst some of the crowd cheered him, you have to remember this was the attitude era, the crowd cheered the heel DX for goodness sake.

There's more to follow, but I thought I'd give LJL a lil taster

I thought you were going to bring a knife to a gunfight, but it looks like you going to be firing on all cylinders so let me slow you down a bit.

1. While it may be true that the Undertaker's past and him scarring his little brother would be fitting for a heel character, why was it that Kane was a heel when he debuted? Maybe if they had enough faith in Undertaker being a heel during that angle, then maybe things would have been different. I feel the storyline went just as fine with Undertaker being a face and their Wrestlemania match proves it. How would the match have gone if Undertaker was a heel and Kane was a face? Who knows and it doesn't seem like Kane would be the kind of person you want to cheer? He displayed some of the same supernatural powers Undertaker is claimed to have and wouldn't that be fitting of a heel as well?

2. I was under the impression that Undertaker was a face when he defeated Sid for his second championship. If he was a heel, then that doesn't hinder my argument for the following reasons. I don't even remember Undertaker beating Stone Cold for the title but that's neither here nor there. While he did win his last two world championships as a face, none of his title reigns so whether he won the titles as a heel or a face seems like a less important argument.

3. How many heels do you know that can take months off at a time and come back and still get booed. Not many I can tell you that much. HHH was one of the best heels in 2001 and got cheered when he came back. It is much easier to become face after leaving as a heel or a face then to come back a heel after being a heel. The crowd pines for the Undertaker after a while without wrestling and when he comes back, they all cheer. Only the fans who feel like he should be doing more will boo him.
 
1. While it may be true that the Undertaker's past and him scarring his little brother would be fitting for a heel character, why was it that Kane was a heel when he debuted? Maybe if they had enough faith in Undertaker being a heel during that angle, then maybe things would have been different. I feel the storyline went just as fine with Undertaker being a face and their Wrestlemania match proves it. How would the match have gone if Undertaker was a heel and Kane was a face? Who knows and it doesn't seem like Kane would be the kind of person you want to cheer? He displayed some of the same supernatural powers Undertaker is claimed to have and wouldn't that be fitting of a heel as well?

I don't know what Kane being heel has to do with it, but Kane wasn't the one who was burned by his older brother. The reason Undertaker was face here was because he was feuding with Shawn Michaels.

I don't even remember Undertaker beating Stone Cold for the title but that's neither here nor there.

Triple threat match, double pin by him and Kane, title was vactaed Undertaker v Kane happened for the championship which was when Undertaker turned heel again


3. How many heels do you know that can take months off at a time and come back and still get booed. Not many I can tell you that much. HHH was one of the best heels in 2001 and got cheered when he came back. It is much easier to become face after leaving as a heel or a face then to come back a heel after being a heel. The crowd pines for the Undertaker after a while without wrestling and when he comes back, they all cheer. Only the fans who feel like he should be doing more will boo him.

Coming back as a face has nothing to do with you being better. Look at when the Undertaker has been most dominating in his career....we look at his debut, we look at the ministry. We look at times when he was a heel.

Then the face runs, losing to CM Punk, Edge, Batista, a dire feud with the Big Show.

Then we pull the saying a picture paints a thousand words;

153829413_cab8ee230a.jpg


Face taker being pinned by the great khali.
 
1. The Undertaker was hardly dominant throughout his heel run in the Ministry. It was mainly about The Rock, Steve Austin, and Vince McMahon. It seemed like the Undertaker was just there as he has been many times in his career. The Ministry didn't really accomplish anything so it was just another period of time when Undertaker was a heel when he basically didn't do anything.

2. Undertaker has plenty of feuds where he has come out on top as a face. He helped Randy Orton when Orton was at his lowest point. He did win championships off of Batista and Edge as a face and had pretty good feuds with them. His only real good feud as a heel was when he was feuding with Hogan and that didn't last long either when he first debuted or when he was the American Bad Ass.
 
Clarity of Debate: Pretty close here, but I think Lee was clearer in his layout.

Punctuality: LJL, Lee missed the end of the debate.

Emotion: Lack thereof of claws made for a civil debate, which is never bad. LJL had his mots, but I think Lee had the best single moment of emotionality which pushed him over.

Information: Well, this one was a small one. I think that LJL had the best information in here that pertained to the debate. The longevity of Undertaker's career was a big point that really...

Persuasion: Persuaded me that LJL had the best points. Lee tried to hit up the general character, which I really thought would lead to the knockout, but he needed that last jab to tie it up and knock LJL out.

TM rates this 3 points LJL, 2 points Lee
 
Clarity: LJL had a good outline, but Lee's was better when he started out with set points.

Point: Lee

Punctuality: What TM said.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Informative: LJL gets this point here. Lee had good set points, but LJL backed his up better.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality: I didn't feel much heat or anyone feeling as adament about each argument.

Point: Split

Persuasion: LJL gets this. He looked at Taker's whole career, acknowledged Taker being a heel in his career, and compared it to him being a face. That good comparison is what got LJL the win.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

CH David scores this Little Jerry Lawler 3.5, Lee 1.5.
 
Clarity Of Debate: Lee gave the more concise opening argument. I'll give him the point here.

Point: Lee

Punctuality: Read TM's post.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Informative: I was under the impression too that The Undertaker was a face when he fought Psycho Sid at WM XIII. I will change this point to a tie if I am mistaken.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality: Little Jerry Lawler was a bit more aggressive in his rebuttals than usual, and I dug that.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Persuasion: Lee, I liked your opening argument, but Little Jerry Lawler's rebuttals were magnificent. It looks like you returned to form with this argument, Little Jerry Lawler.

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

tdigle's Score

Little Jerry Lawler - 4
Lee - 1
 
Clarity Of Debate: LJL had the better posts here I thought

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Punctuality: Little Jerry Lawler

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Informative: Little Jerry Lawler bought in a lot more information

Point: Little Jerry Lawler

Emotionality: I thought Lee had the emotional edge in this one

Point: Lee

Persuasion: Even with the loss on information Lee still won me over for this last point, so he gets this one

Point: Lee

I score this one

Lee - 2
Little Jerry Lawler - 3
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,825
Messages
3,300,727
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top