Alabama is the best college football team at the moment and the past few years
Debate Rounds (3)
My opponent did not provide any definitions in his first round so I will do so as is my right.
a game played by two teams of eleven players with a round ball that may not be touched with the hands or arms during play except by the goalkeepers. The object of the game is to score goals by kicking or heading the ball into the opponents' goal.
Americans refer to this game as "soccer" but as original English dictates, football is the name of the game.
Now, that being established...
Alabama is NOT the best college football team at the moment, that spot belong to Indiana  In fact, Alabama doesn't even crack the top 48. Alabama doesn't even have a men's football team in this category so they clearly can't be the best in that either. Alabama's football team hasn't won a NCAA championship. So clearly, they haven't been the best in the past few years either. North Carolina has won 3 out of the last 5 championships  so I think they've been the best in the past few years.
They won the 2009.2011, and 2012 national championships with only two losses in all three of those seasons combined. Even the 2010 championship they lost was done so with hardly no losses.
Take in the fact they have the best recruiting program in the NCAA it is simple to see why they always win.
Last year Notre Dame will held to be the best team in the NCAA besides Alabama and they got face-rolled for lack of a better word. They were out of place.
Judging by win loss, total championships, and the quality of the players there is no team that can compete with them in the past few years.
Good sir, I am not a troll. Far from it. I provided a definition where none was provided. Since you said "football" I assumed, using my background in British English that you were talking about football or as Americans call it soccer.
Now, you did not provide a counter definition and as debate etiquette goes that means you accepted my definition which means we are debating the skill and superlative nature of Alabama's soccer team.
You did not present any sources for your arguments and as far as their soccer team goes your facts are dead wrong. I extend and reaffirm my facts and sources which show Alabama's football team to be mediocre. Especially since they don't have a functioning men's football program.
In fact my opponent's facts are pure gibberish when applied to the debate resolution. Unless my opponent can show that Alabama's football team, as defined in the first round and applied to the resolution, is the best (which I have shown beyond the shadow of the doubt that it is not) then he loses the debate.
Again, North Carolina's women's football team is the best in the country of late, not Alabama.
Thank you again.
You can argue it from any context that you wish, but I may as well.
Football - A team game played in North America with an oval ball on a field marked out as a gridiron.
So now lets take a look at why Alabama is better.
The first thing that pro argues, is his team has won 3 out of 5 championships. This would be a great argument except for the fact that Alabama has won 3 out of 4 in the past 4 years with an appearance in the title game in the year they did not win. This is not even an argument if you are comparing pure numbers.
He also does not address any of the prior points I made about the best recruiting program in the Nation( United Stated since he wants to play semantics). He also does not address the fact of them winning last years championship in a blowout. He avoids the win loss records I posted
In closing, due to con redefining what the word football means he changes the context of this debate. Mind you, I will concede that he is allowed to do that even if it is out of trolling. He has also provided nothing to show they are the best. I have shown why Alabama is better. They have more championships in a less amount of time. They have a better win loss, and also one of the best recruiting programs in the United States. Just by the figures Con put out, this is illogical and not comparable. It is like comparing a Big Mac, to a Mac Jr. While I admit every time I watch soccer I want to shove a led pencil through my skull, due to the fact of how borign it is. He is permitted to argue from hat context, but has shown no reason as to why they are they past. He also has not addressed any of my points and claims they are rubbish. I was citing common knowledge, but if he wants sources I will provide those as well.
I think we can clearly see there is no comparison. If he thinks there is one, it is out of empathy for the fact that soccer cannot compare to football no matter which nation it is played in.
Dear sir, you cannot place a definition in the final round of the debate and change the entire focus. That is simply unsportsmanlike.
We are having two completely separate debates here and unfortunately yours is invalid. You keep arguing from the standpoint of American Football when we are discussing the debate through the lens of British Football. I apologize that your First Round simply said "Bring it" [sic] rather than set parameters for the debate.
You have countered none of my points but instead have tried to spin the debate to focus on American Football which was not what we started debating from the beginning.
Even though this debate was derailed and muddled by my opponent I will still counter his point that he claims I dropped.
North Carolina had the #1 soccer recruiting class. Again, Alabama isn't even in the Top 5. 
My opponent did not put forth any definitions, foregoing his responsibility to do so in the first round he posted "Bring it" [sic]. I then responded by providing definitions and steered the debate towards the resolution put forth by making good, sourced, arguments. My opponent then decides to change the focus of the debate after it had already been set thus making incoherent arguments in relation to the debate being had.
His points and arguments make no sense in context. Mine do. I have negated the resolution successfully and should be awarded the win.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro accepted Con's definition, and then argued from a completely different definition therefore dropping all of Con's arguments. Conduct to con also because pro kept arguing from a different point and tried to change the definition after he already accepted it.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.