View Full Version : The 9th Annual Wilfred's Debates - Round 1 - Psycho666Soldier vs. The Law
Cewsh
May 1st, 2013, 11:23 AM
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu132/CewshReviews/aa4d597e-f66a-471b-8109-10458ab2d7a5_zps1cb7e720.jpg
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu132/CewshReviews/BetterBracketMakerThe9thWilfredsDebateCup_zpsd6ef9 3f9.png
YOUNG LION CONFERENCE
Now, two new combatants will enter the circle of debate from which only one can proceed. And here is the topic that they will do battle over:
The brand split has been a controversial topic ever since it was first instituted in WWE way back in 2002. The walls have come down a bit recently, allowing wrestlers from both shows to compete anywhere they want, and more and more people are calling for the unification of the WWE and World titles, while others want a return to the days of the draft and built up marquee matches.
SHOULD THE WWE DO AWAY WITH THE BRAND SPLIT ENTIRELY OR STRENGTHEN IT?
Psycho: End the brand split.
Law: Strengthen the brand split.
As a reminder, the rules are as follows. If you break a rule, there will be no excuses taken, so read them carefully.
Each debate will have a 72 hour time limit, a 350 word word limit. Videos and pictures are not only allowed, they're downright encouraged.
Also, to finally address the issue of the first one to go or the second having the advantage, a coin will be flipped by me in advance to determine who goes first or second. Completely fair odds for everyone.
If you have any questions about the question you are given, or about how to proceed, please direct them to me BEFORE you post about them, to avoid troubles.
You must wait your turn to post, meaning that you can't rattle off all three right from the get go, you have to post in turns with your opponent and, this is very fucking important, IF YOU GET THE COIN TOSS TO GO SECOND, YOUR INTRODUCTION POST CAN NOT BE A RESPONSE TO THE OTHER GUY'S INTRODUCTION POST.
You must wait until your second post to begin debating what the other person has said. This is the only way to make this fair, it is not up for debate, and I will penalize your asses. So be fucking told.
Your judges are former Wilfred's champions Badger and the_man_diva.
Now let's get down to business. The coin toss dictates that THE LAW will go first.
The Law
May 1st, 2013, 11:51 AM
Strengthening the brand split would allow for under-utilized talents to be given proper exposure. Name a midcard talent you like. They would be better off with a true split. In a true brand split, Antonio Cesaro would be an upper-midcarder and Cody Rhodes might well be a main eventer on Smackdown. Would Batista, or CM Punk, or Dolph Ziggler, or Daniel Bryan have risen to the levels they've reached without a brand split? And how many stars have been made since the split went away?
Bringing back the brand split can give us greater variety and allow more experimentation by the writers. Right now, both shows are carbon copies of each other. Separate rosters could give us two shows with totally different styles. In the past, this has typically taken the form of Smackdown being a show focused primarily on in-ring action and Raw being a show featuring more non-wrestling segments. It's not a coincidence that people lost interest in Smackdown when they ended the split. At that point, Smackdown became Raw lite.
Having split brands would also allow us to keep talents apart until a match of sufficient importance could be built. Cross-brand matches used to be a big deal. We would wait for years to finally see the big showdown between John Cena and Batista, or Goldberg and Brock Lesnar. Today, having all talents available together results in matches being given away with little or no build on free TV. It would have been nice for Dolph Ziggler vs. Daniel Bryan to have been built up for a major show rather than be a random TV match on a Raw no one remembers.
Competition between the brands could also foster creativity and motivate the wrestlers to work harder. Having seen interviews with different talents, rivalry between the shows is a real thing. Both sides want to put on the better show. Everyone always whines that WWE has no competition. Well, the brand split creates competition within the company. Maybe it's not the same as WCW trying to put them out of business, but it's definitely better than nothing.
Psycho666Soldier
May 3rd, 2013, 7:58 PM
The WWE brand split, while a grand idea at the time, has become entirely antiquated. In 2002, it was a fresh idea that helped the roster shine. 10 years later, the brand extension is still in place, but in the flimsiest state possible. The World Heavyweight Champion is a regular fixture of RAW, and the invisible rankings for each belt now seem open to any person willing to challenge the reigning champion. If WWE can not do the brand split right, then it should be abolished, along with the World Heavyweight Championship.
The WHC has become nothing more than a distraction, a placeholder that only placates someone who is on the verge of becoming a top star. While on one hand it allows them to test someone of which they are unsure, it also reminds everyone that while they may be great, they are not quite as good as whoever is THE champion, the one holding the WWE Title. Altogether, the World Heavyweight Championship is just taking up space, and further depreciating the value that any of the other belts could potentially have.
Without the other champion requiring a roster spot, we have room for the mid-card to earn more significance, solving a complaint that many fans have had for years. Men like Cody Rhodes, Kofi Kingston, Damien Sandow, and Antonio Cesaro, characters brimming with talent, would be a boon to the Pay-Per-View cards with matches and feuds that actually feel consequential.
On top of this, you have so much more potential for using Smackdown to the fullest. Hardly anyone cares about the blue brand because it’s either treated like the unimportant roster or it’s full of stars that you are already seeing on RAW. Combining both shows gives WWE incentive to make Smackdown an important show, or at least use it to boost the midcard.
In closing, these, and many more reasons, are exactly why the brand split should be eliminated, bringing the roster together as a whole, officially.
The Law
May 3rd, 2013, 9:49 PM
If you want the World Heavyweight Championship to be more important, bring back the brand split. The WHC is worthless as a midcard title playing second fiddle to the WWE Title. It was much stronger when it was the top title on Smackdown in the past. Dumping the WHC and having the rosters combined is just going to mean there are a mess of guys without anything to feud over. It won't open up roster spots because the contenders for that title (Del Rio, Swagger, Ziggler) will still be on the roster.
If you want a better midcard, bring back the brand split. With a brand split we can get dramatically more exposure for guys like Rhodes, Barrett, Sandow, and Cesaro. Right now they have to fight for scraps of TV time taken up by Orton, Sheamus, Big Show, Henry, and Ziggler. With the talent split between the rosters they would instantly be elevated and have access to far more TV time. Antonio Cesaro would go from barely getting on TV to being one of Smackdown's top midcarders. Cody Rhodes would go from feuding with Tons of Funk to feuding with guys like Sheamus and Randy Orton.
Smackdown would be a far better show without a brand split. Right now it's the B show where top guys (Cena and Punk) never appear. During the split it was often a better show than Raw. A Smackdown show that featured (for example) CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, and Dolph Ziggler would be much better than the glorified recap show we're getting now.
I feel like your arguments do not take into account the fact that there is not currently a brand split. Wrestlers appear on both shows. This has coincided with the devaluation of the titles and the weakening of the midcard. The titles are less valuable because there are more of them (two major championships per show before, now four major championships). The midcard got worse because the same wrestlers are featured on both shows and top guys take up almost all the TV time, leaving nothing for the midcarders.
Psycho666Soldier
May 4th, 2013, 3:34 PM
Bringing importance to the World Heavyweight Championship is not the issue. Increasing the value of the belts as a whole is what we should be concerned with, and with so many titles floating around, taking away one will do the trick. The Intercontinental Title is a historic belt that holds the mid-card role, so it’s a necessity. The U.S. Title is insignificant, but that could be taken advantage by making it the belt for low-card wrestlers to actually have something to fight for, getting not only TV Time but angles that the crowd can actually sink their teeth into.
And, of course, the WWE Title is THE Championship. How much more prestigious would it be if it were the ONLY top title? Two World Titles just waters the main event division down.
The reason Smackdown has become even more of the B-Show is because they pretend like it is its own brand whilst not actually sticking to its own roster. Once they stop pretending, stars like John Cena and CM Punk would be seen more frequently. That doesn’t mean the under-utilized talents would be left in the dust.
You say guys like Cesaro and Barrett wouldn’t be battling for TV Time, but in actuality, they get plenty of TV exposure as it goes. Yet, with the WHC taking up space, we often get Pay-Per-View Cards where one of the mid-card titles do not even get a match. The biggest fallacy with Cody Rhodes’ big IC reign was that he hardly ever defended the belt. This was during the last year the brand split even meant SOMETHING.
This was often due to a lack in card space, making Cody’s ultimate reign just a meandering existence. Barrett runs the risk of doing the same if he’s continually shafted Pay-Per-View spots because they must make room for the other belts and varied-storylines. Combining brands would condense these issues, allowing people like Barrett to go down as a memorable champion, not just a glorified belt rack.
The Law
May 4th, 2013, 3:51 PM
The other benefit of the brand split is that it reduces wear-and-tear on the wrestlers. Asking Cena and Punk to work another 52 TV dates every year when they are already burning out/battling injuries is not a good idea. Instead, we can allow some new starts to blossom. How many stars has WWE made since the brand-split went away in 2011?
The other thing that we have been missing out on the last few years is the draft. The draft was mine and many other fans favorite Raw of the year, as it brought a sense of excitement to the show. The draft always injected new life into the product as we got new match-ups, new feuds, turns, and new pushes. I'm in favor of anything that would freshen up the product right now, and this would do it.
One again, dumping the World Heavyweight Championship isn't going to get more PPV time for the lesser titles. The guys fighting for that title (Ziggler, Swagger, and Del Rio currently) would still be having a match and taking up time, it just wouldn't be the for the WHC.
The titles are not prestigious right now because there are four of them being fought for by all members of the roster. If the brands were split, there would be two championships per show and the titles would be on equal footing. Right now, the U.S. Title is a joke, fought for by guys with almost no heat. It if were the exclusive midcard title of Raw or Smackdown, it would be substantially more valuable and fought for by the top midcarders on that show.
Bringing back the brand-split would restore competition to WWE. It would allow new stars to develop. It would result in two shows catering to different demographics and taste in style of wrestling. The current homogenized product benefits no one and results in repetitive match-ups. Restoring the brand split would re-inject life into the product, elevate the championships, give the writers the opportunity to build new stars, and bring competition back to WWE. Bring back the brand split.
Psycho666Soldier
May 4th, 2013, 4:41 PM
While working Smackdown dates would add more to the top stars load, a condensed roster would probably reduce the number of house shows by enough to compensate for the extra work on Tuesdays. Instead we just get some mic time while all the under-carders can do the heavy-lifting. How many stars were created since 2011? CM Punk, for starters. Sheamus, Daniel Bryan, recently Dolph Ziggler, Ryback, The Shield. Those are all people who have not been hampered by the lack of Brand Split Stringency and have made quite the name for their selves. In fact, The Shield gain more prominence from attacking everyone on BOTH shows, and without a brand split, they have all the more room to run rough-shod.
The draft was fun, but it’s an excuse to avoid clever story-telling and patient booking. Seeing stars wrestling repetitively is not the fault of the non-existent brand split, it’s WWE’s inability to intelligently book matches with variety and creativity. They have a big enough of a roster to do it if they used more of their “Superstars” wrestlers. In fact, combining the brands would open that option even more.
The thing is, if WWE booked things right, people feuding for the WHC in a unified, non-brand split world would have already been freshly coming out of fierce feuds for the Intercontinental Title. Del Rio needed a breather from the main event. Swagger is getting pushed too hard. Ziggler would still be doing his thing, but he would have already ruled the mid-card and had a MITB briefcase waiting to go for the WWE Title. Then, BAM! -
http://www.scribbleoneverything.com/images/uploads/WallDecals/cartoon/bam.gif
- Dolph Ziggler is a REAL star. Taking down John Cena, especially with their history, would be huge, and he would get all the main event shine instead of playing 2nd banana trying to share the top spotlight, which still exists with the brand split and two separate World Titles.
And, of course, with both shows having the best stars, the ratings increase. Something WWE loves. Sounds like a lot of positive to outweigh the negatives.
Cewsh
May 4th, 2013, 5:02 PM
THIS DEBATE IS CLOSED.
And now it's your turn, readers. All you have to do is reply with your vote and a short explanation as to why you voted the way you did, and your voice will be heard. Remember that your votes count for 50% of the total judging for every tie, so your one vote could be the difference between your choice moving on to the next round or being left out in the cold. So don't wait to do it later, don't put it off to see if you need another vote, and if lots of people vote one way, don't be afraid to vote your way anyway. These guys appreciate the support even in a losing effort. Regardless, your voice matters. Let's give these guys their due.
For new voters, just follow this template:
I'm voting for INSERT NAME HERE.
This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph. This is a sample paragraph.
Badger and The-Man_Diva will send their votes to me via Private Message as usual, to keep them secret until the end. Voting will end on Tuesday, May 7th. Now have at it!
Mr_Nobody
May 4th, 2013, 8:30 PM
I'm voting for The Law.
He nailed his argument from the start, and Psycho666Soldier really never recovered. He did make a good closing argument, but The Law did a great job with his argument here.
My vote goes to The Law.
I sometimes struggle with the way The Law structures his posts, they come across as very clinical as opposed to Psycho's more flowing style, so I'm surprised at how well The Law was able to make his case. A nice back and forth throughout, but it was The Law who was able to best counter his opponents points and turn them into a positive for himself.
:yes:
DaSaintFan
May 5th, 2013, 4:34 AM
I'm voting for TheLaw
I'll admit, I was behind theLaw's topic to start wtih, so Psycho was behind the 8-ball in trying to get my vote. And unfortunately, he made one argument that I just didn't agree with ... "Bringing importance to the World Heavyweight Championship is not the issue" just hit me with a sour note, and while he NEARLY salvaged his argument with Post #3, it was just too little too late in my opinion.
chatty
May 5th, 2013, 6:25 AM
My vote goes to The Law
I was always behind the brands re-emerging as one but seeing the way WWE has handled it has completely changed my mind and The Law basically said all the reasons why the brand split was better.
Cewsh
May 7th, 2013, 12:30 PM
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED.
Popular Vote: The Law (4-0)
Judge Badger: The Law
The toughest one for me to judge yet. I actually agree with Psycho's side here as I want rid of the brand split the way things are now, but I felt the Law was a bit more consistent with his argument throughout whereas Psycho was kinda caught between the WHC and the booking being the problems although his last post was pretty good.
So in a very close one, The Law gets it.
Judge Diva: The Law
My vote goes to The Law. I will admit freely that I've been staunchly behind strengthening the brand extension. Why? There are too many people on the roster, if you're going to keep people on the roster, then they need time to perform and blossom. Since the brand extension is essentially done it seems, I have grown bored with the product ... SmackDown! no longer feels necessary to watch, mainly because, as The Law pointed out, everyone just appears on RAW whenever they like. The Law had me at, "Hello." Thank you, Renee Zellwegger.
BUT, Psycho TOTALLY started to sway me in his first post ... then I read The Law's second post ... and THIS hooked me.
"I feel like your arguments do not take into account the fact that there is not currently a brand split."
I feel the argument then shifted into putting too much emphasis on consolidating the titles in the current state instead of disproving WHY a brand extension would be good on Psycho's end of the argument.
THE LAW DEFEATS PSYCHO! (3-0)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.