The Instigator
TheCommonMan
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Mangbawi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr.McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 577 times Debate No: 41684
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

TheCommonMan

Pro

Title: It Was A Wise Move to Have Mr. McMahon Win the Royal Rumble 1999

Purpose: To show that it was a wise decision by the WWF to have Mr. McMahon win the Royal Rumble in 1999.

Rules:
1. First round is acceptance.
2. Second round is only arguments.
3. Third round is a "free argument".
4. Con must think it was unwise to have Mr. McMahon win the Royal Rumble in 1999.
5. There is no burden of proof.

I am hoping to have an exciting debate with another open minded wrestling fan.
Mangbawi

Con

It was never a wise move.
Mr. McMahon The chairman of the board is just showing the immaturity of The WWE/WWF. Royal Rumble 1999, Wrestling fans like me waited so long for that Rumble only to be won by Mr. McMahon.
It was too base on the story line.In my opinion ProWrestling should not Based too much on the story line, It will be better if they were like MMA's but of course there should be feuds. But Matches should not be determine by the Story line. ProWrestling especially the WWE were too easy to predict, we can predict the result before the Match by watching the Previous episode. I wish something like that never happen again.
Debate Round No. 1
TheCommonMan

Pro

I"m not going to make a big deal about it, but you broke rule #1.

"1. First round is acceptance."

Anyway, since it is the second round, I will post my arguments only. At the bottom of this post, I will post all necessary definitions, considering many terms I use are wrestling terms some people may not know.

Argument Number One:

The planned match for WrestleMania 15 was the Rock (champion) vs Steve Austin (which ended up happening). That match was the most logical match that could have taken place. At the time, the Rock was a heel champion, which meant that he had to face someone who was a baby face at WrestleMania 15. Mankind and Steve Austin were the only two baby faces that were over enough to wrestle for the WWF Title at WrestleMania 15. Of course, the Rock just completed a feud with Mankind, so Steve Austin was a better choice (Rock vs Austin would"ve been a fresh feud). Therefore, Rock vs Austin for the WWF Title was the best main event for WrestleMania 15.

Argument Number Two:

Steve Austin already won the Royal Rumble match in 1997 and 1998, which means that he won two Royal Rumbles. The only two people who won two Royal Rumbles at the time were Shawn Michaels and Hulk Hogan. Having Austin win a 3rd Rumble would theoretically mean that Austin was better than Michaels and Hogan. Since Austin only won his first WWF Title a little under a year prior to the 1999 Rumble, it was unclear whether or not Austin should"ve been made better than two legends. Plus, a 3rd consecutive Rumble win for Austin would"ve been too repetitive. It was clear that someone other than Austin should"ve won the Rumble. For these two reasons, Austin shouldn"t have won the 1999 Royal Rumble.

Argument Number Three:

Obviously, Steve Austin was going to get the title shot at WrestleMania 15. If Steve Austin wasn"t going to win the Rumble, then that would mean that whoever did win would have their title shot taken away from them in storyline. If this were to happen to a legitimate wrestler, that wrestler"s career could"ve been hurt. That could cause the wrestler to not be taken as seriously by the fans, or the wrestler could"ve lost momentum. Therefore, any other wrestler on the roster shouldn"t have won the Rumble in 1999.

Argument Number Four:

Obviously, the Rock couldn"t have won the Rumble (the WWF Champion is exempt from competing in the Rumble). I have showed that Steve Austin couldn"t have won the Rumble. I have also established that any other wrestler shouldn"t have won the Rumble. That means that an on-air personnel would"ve had to win. Therefore, Vince McMahon was the perfect choice. At the time, Vince was an on-air personnel and he was very over as a heel. In fact, he was one of the biggest heels in the company at the time. Plus, getting his title shot taken away from him wouldn"t have hurt his career like it would a legitimate wrestler. Since he owned (and still owns) the WWF/WWE, taking his match away from him wouldn"t have hurt his business position like it would a wrestler"s popularity .So, for the above reasons, having Vince McMahon win the Rumble was a wise idea.

Conclusion:

Through a chain of arguments, I have established that Austin vs Rock was the best choice for the WrestleMania 15 main event, Steve Austin shouldn"t have won the Rumble, no other wrestler should"ve won the Rumble, and that an on-air personnel had to win the Rumble. Therefore, Vince McMahon was the best choice to win the Rumble in 1999.

Definitions:

WrestleMania: WWE"s most-promoted and anticipated pay-per-view of the calendar year.
WrestleMania 15: The 15th edition of WrestleMania, which took place in 1999.
The Rock: A wrestler.
Steve Austin: A wrestler.
Heel: A wrestling term which means "bad guy".
Baby Face: A wrestling term which means "good guy".
Mankind: A wrestler.
Royal Rumble: An annual match at the Royal Rumble PPV. The match is a 30-man battle royal style match. The winner gets a WWF Title match at the WrestleMania of that year. However, a storyline curve/change can change that.
Royal Rumble 1999: The 1999 edition of the Royal Rumble.
Over: A wrestling term that means "popular".
Shawn Michaels: A wrestler
Hulk Hogan: A wrestler.
On-air Personnel: One who appears on television, but does not wrestle routinely.

If there"s anything else that I forgot to define, or something that needs to be defined more, don"t hesitate to ask.
Mangbawi

Con

Mangbawi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheCommonMan

Pro

I'm going to do a quick rebuttal to my opponent's claims.

Rebuttal Number One:

"It was too base on the story line.In my opinion ProWrestling should not Based too much on the story line, It will be better if they were like MMA's but of course there should be feuds. But Matches should not be determine by the Story line."

This information that my opponent gave is irrelevant to the topic that we are debating.

Rebuttal Number Two:

"ProWrestling especially the WWE were too easy to predict, we can predict the result before the Match by watching the Previous episode. I wish something like that never happen again."

I wouldn't say that McMahon winning the Rumble was predictable. All of the previous wrestlers were legitimate wrestlers, no on-air non-wrestlers ever won the Rumble. It was a completely original outcome.

Rebuttal Number Three:

"Mr. McMahon The chairman of the board is just showing the immaturity of The WWE/WWF. Royal Rumble 1999, Wrestling fans like me waited so long for that Rumble only to be won by Mr. McMahon."

This just furthers my point. McMahon was one of the most hated people in the business at the time. So, the fact that you would show anger at the fact that he won the Rumble shows that the WWF did a good job in choosing a heel that's over to win the Rumble.

Rebuttal Number Four:

In my last round, I established many reasons why McMahon winning the Rumble was a wise move. In this round, I made a sound rebuttal to all of my opponent's claims. That's why the following statement that my opponent made is false.

"It was never a wise move."

I would like to thank my opponent and everyone who took the time to read this.
Mangbawi

Con

Mangbawi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheCommonMan 3 years ago
TheCommonMan
I think that my third round rule should be clarified.

"3. Third round is a "free argument"."

By this I mean that in the third round, you can do pretty much whatever you want (arguments, rebuttals, conclusions, etc.)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
TheCommonManMangbawiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, dropped arguments
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
TheCommonManMangbawiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
TheCommonManMangbawiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit