The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Giant29
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

All things considered, the Patriots were better than the Giants in the 2007-08 season.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,916 times Debate No: 3627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (12)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

You asked for it, you got it. Prepare to meet the awsome fist of my wrath.

First I'd like to ask that the voters based on the arguments presented, and put one's personal opinion aside. Thank you for judging this debate.

I define 'better' as- of superior excellence or quality.

I will prove this through a few reasons.

Contention I: Season Record.

The Pats went, what, 16-0 IN THE REGULAR SEASON?!?! The Giants were only 10-6 in the regular season and 14-6 overall, while the Pats were 18-1. Clearly, the Pats were the better team. They faced harder teams, won more games, and even beat the Giants in the last game of the regular season.

Contention II: Records.

The pats recieved multiple awards in this year. They had Moss break the recieving TD record, Brady get the most passing TDs, collectivley scored the most points and points/game, and were the first team to have a perfect regular season. This clearly shows the Pats' pwn'ge overall against the Giants.

Contention III: The championship game means nothing.

First off, the Pats obviously thought they were going to win eaisly, and how. Seeing as how they were perfect and had beaten the Giants before, the game would be a breeze. Granted, the Giants showed their A game, but they simply do not have the raw talent that the Patriots have with Brady, Moss, Stallworth, and Maroney. Furthermore, the Giants got EXTREMLEY lucky on a million-dollar catch made by Tyree. If Eli held it 1 second more or less, he would've A: thrown a bad pass, or B: got sacked. Moreover, Tyree's catch is unrepetable. It was all luck that made that play happen.
When the Pats realized they might lose, they actually started trying and almost won the game again.

I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Giant29

Con

The New York Giants were a better football team then the New England Patriots in the 2007-08 season.

Contention I : Schedule Comparison

The Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season but they were by no means the better team. The Patriots were in the AFC East division whos other teams combined for a season record of 12-36 with all of the teams being outscored by a total of 369 points. These teams accounted for 6 wins in the Patriots record. The Giants however played in the NFC East division whose other teams had a combined season record was 30-18 and outscored there opponents by 190 points and the giants can attribute 3 of their losses to those teams. The Giants beat all three of the remaining AFC East division teams and only lost to the Patriots.

NFL 2007-08 standings : http://www.nfl.com...
NFL 2007-08 New York Giants Schedule : http://www.nfl.com...
NFL 2007-08 New England Patriots Schedule : http://www.nfl.com...

Contention II : Tendencies

Randy Moss broke the longstanding receiving touchdowns season record with 23 narrowly beating Jerry Rice's 22 in the 2007-08 season. However Randy Moss only achieved this by getting on average over 6 receptions a game for all 16 regular season games. Jerry Rice however played in only 12 games during when he scored 22 touchdowns off of 65 receptions. You do the math. Tom Brady beat Peyton Mannings single season passing touchdown record by 1 touchdown. However once again the Patriots starter also threw 81 more times then Manning. This proves that they didn't earn the records from skill merely repetetiveness.

Tom Brady's Career Stats : http://www.nfl.com...
Peyton Manning's Career Stats : http://www.nfl.com...
Randy Moss's Career Stats : http://www.nfl.com...
Jerry Rice's Career Stats : http://www.nfl.com...

Contention III : The Super Bowl meant everything

The Giants and the Patriots met three times during the 2007-08 Season. Once in the pre season which is used primarily to test players for the regular season. It is rare to find all of the starters from any football team all on the field at once during a pre season game. The final score was 20-27 New England. The second game was the last game in the regular season. The Giants did play their starters but they saved some regardless for the game against the Tampa which mattered. Infact, if the Giants won the only thing that would happen is that they beat the Patriots. They wouldn't earn a higher spot in the playoffs or any awards. The Partiots however had there perfect season to protect and because they weren't a wild card team they would have a longer time to rest there players if they were injured in that game. Ultimately the Giants only lost by 3 points in a 38-35 game decided in the fourth quarter.

Therefore the only game that should be legitimately A-Game vs A-Game was the superbowl. No significant starters sat out minus the Giant's Jeremy Shockey. To say that a team doesn't try it's best at the superbowl is like saying they forfeited 18 games before the superbowl. Not one of the Patriots told the media the reason they lost is because they didn't try infact many said the opposite and that they tried there best. To say a team wins through luck is totally acceptable but to say there isn't luck in any athletic event is a lie.

NFL Pre-Season Schedule 2007-08 :
http://www.nfl.com...
NFL 2007-08 New York Giants Schedule : http://www.nfl.com...
NFL 2007-08 New England Patriots Schedule : http://www.nfl.com...

Contention IV : Spygate Scandal

As much as I hate to bring this into the debate the Patriots have already admitted to using spygate to figure out their opponent's plays. Teams and Coaches were going so far as to claim that if the Patriots would have had a perfect season that they should have an asterick next to there name in the record books. I won't get to indepth about this but it questions the legitimacy in the Patriots "Raw Talent".

I patiently await a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

You have impressed me, young one. Unfortunately, you still have much to learn.

First off, I will be combining some arguments, since they are about the same subject matter such as: Schedule comparison and record, Tendencies and Records, and the significance of head-to-head and the Super Bowl.

With that said, let's look at my opponent's arguments in the last round:
1. My opponent asserts that the Patriots had a weak schedule in the 2007-08 season. But what he fails to recognize, is that they did not lose a single game. Until the Patriots lose a game against one of those poor teams, he can argue that. But they didn't.
Look at it this way: Say a proverbial 'better' team will always lose to a lower seeded team. If the Pats are #1, they would beat every other team, including those poor teams. My opponent trys to claim that the Patriots would be say around #15, and, since they are playing these bad, lower seeded teams, they would win all of their games. My opponent simply can not prove this. Regardless of their Strength of schedule, they still beat every team they faced.

Secondly, the Pats absolutely CRUSHED the teams they faced. Observe: NE 38 @ NYJ 14, SD 14 @ NE 38, BUF 7 @ NE 38, NE 34 @ CIN 13, WAS 7 @ NE 52, NE 56 @ BUF 10.

Third, the Pats beat great teams in their season. They beat San Diego, an 11-5 team, Indianapolis, a 13-3 team in 'Super Bowl 41 1/2,' and Dallas, a 13-3 team with the best record in the NFC.

Fourth, the Giants got killed by Dallas (Twice, while the Pats beat them) and Green Bay, two great teams. Furthermore, they lost to bad teams such as an 8-8 Minnesota and a 9-7 Washington lost to the Patriots by 45 points.

Fifth, if the Giants were a great team, they could win all of their games. If they were truly the best, they would not have lost 6 games.

2. He then asserts that the records set were done better than the Pats players who broke them.

First of all, this does not disprove the resolution. It in no way makes the Giants better. Jerry Rice played for San Fran, while Peyton played for Indy.

Second, I didn't see any Giants players break the record!

Third, they still set the record. Maybe that's the formula for success- more plays. They still should be highly regarded for making more TDs than anyone else.

Fourth and most importantly, he does not mention team records. The Pats broke the record for most points and PPG, something that everyone, including the Giants, had an equal amount of games to do. He also fails to mention that the Patriots were first in points (obviously), passing yards, and overall yards in the regular season.

3. The Super bowl means everything.

In fact, it does not. Take a look at this: http://youtube.com...

You can see numerous starters playing for the Giants, including Eli Manning, Plaxico Burress, Brandon Jacobs, Amani Toomer, and many other defensive players. Clearly, my opponent is wrong when he says the starters were not playing. This game WAS A-game vs. A-game.

As for the Super bowl, I'm sticking with my original story. The Giants were extremely lucky in getting the final catch, while the Pats were domination most of the way through. Yes, they did win the game. But think about it. Pats had already set a numerous amount of records, and were the only perfect regular season team. The fact that Tyree made a once-in-a-lifetime play that was necessary to win the game certainly does not make the Giants the better team.

Plus, just for clarification, if you haven't seen the video, here it is: (http://youtube.com...)
If he had not made that miraculous play, the Patriots would've won. A single play can not determine if a team is better than another.

4. Spygate.

First, Spygate was only one game. This does not question the other 17 games in a row that they won.

Second, this is irrelevant. A scandal does not make the team better or worse at football. Sure, they probably shouldn't have done it, but still, the talent that the New England Patriots have can not be called into question by a scandal by the head coach.

Now to re-enforce my points.

1. The Patriots won 17 games in a row. They even beat the Giants in a game A-game vs. A-game. They also beat teams the Giants failed miserably to. This argument trumps all. The fact that they won more games than the Giants in 10 weeks than the Giants did all year simply proves that the Patriots were the better team.

2. The records set by the Pats are insurmountable. The Patriots had the most points in a season, most PPG, most pass TDs, most recieving TDs, most wins in a single season, and most QB-WR TDs. These records will be around for a while. I challenge my opponent to provide one major record that the Giants broke in the regular season.

3. The championship game means nothing, based on the fact that it was a hard fought fight, won on an unrepeatable throw. It was pure luck, while the regular season game featured the same type of skills that were shown by the Giants all year. At best, these to games can be considered a wash and should not be weighed for either side.

Thank you. I patiently await my opponent's response.
Giant29

Con

I will begin by addressing by addressing my opponent's statements

1. Schedule >>COMPARISON<<

I am sorry if you misunderstood my first argument but it wasn't that the Patriots had a weak schedule but that the Patriots had a weaker schedule then the New York Giants. This can be proved from the fact that the NFC East is much tougher then the AFC East. The worst team in the NFC East, the Philadelphia Eagles, had a record of 8-8 the second best team in the AFC East behind the Patriots were the Buffalo Bills who had a record of 7-9. Comparing the two divisions further you can easily tell that the NFC East division is much tougher then the AFC East division.

The Patriots "Crushed" many teams during their season but I find this irrelevant to the argument because the Giants are not on this list.

The Patriots played some good teams but they only played two teams twice. The Patriots teams had major flaws and it was unfortunate that none of the other teams would be able to capitalize on them in a second game like the Giants did. In fact, the only above .500 team the Patriots played this year was the San Diego Chargers. However in their second meeting the Chargers star running back, LaDainian Tomlinson, was injured and only had 2 rush attempts and 1 reception. Because of this the Chargers had to rely on their passing game, which was 26th in the league instead of their run game that was 7th in the league.

The Giants lost to teams the Patriots beat but what does this prove? If beating the Cowboys who beat the Giants makes New England a superior team then does this mean that the 8-8 Vikings are better then the Patriots who lost to the Giants. Ultimately if this does prove that the Giants are a less superior team then the Patriots because of indirectly playing the same team then this would lead to a flawed system in which you could claim the Miami Dolphins who had the worst record in the NFL going 1-15 would be the best team. Not to mention the hundreds of conflicting statements between the two teams.

2. Records

First I'd like to apologize. I do dislike the Patriots team and feel that I needed to set it straight that the Patriots records were less superior to their counterparts.

I will go on to say that you cannot prove that a team is better because of records they completed. This is because of all the variables that can alter outcomes of games. Obviously it's been proven a game played in mud like the Giants game against the Miami Dolphins during week 8 creates low scoring games. As from my above statements I also think I've sufficiently proved that the Giants have played superior teams then the Patriots. I believe to make records relevant they would have needed to play 16 games against each other or against the same teams with the same variables such as weather, stadium, injuries, time of the day, etc.

It should also be noted that if the Giants played 16 times during the season the average stats of the two teams from there two games that Eli Manning the Giants quarterback who would have averaged 3 touchdowns a game would have scored 48 touchdowns just one short of Peyton Manning's record of 49 and Tom Brady would have scored an average of 1.5 touchdowns a game which would have equaled 24 touchdowns on the season not even half of Peyton Manning's record.

3. The Super Bowl

If you misunderstood my comment about the last game of the regular season between these two teams then I'd like to rephrase it, "The Giants did play their starters but would have still held back to prevent injury that would have affected their playoff chances." I know the Giants starters played but they only played for glory and the title of "That one team that broke the Patriots perfect regular season". Now on the other hand the Patriots were going to become only the second team with a perfect regular season. It should be noted that the week after the Giants were scheduled to play against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and that the Patriots were going to have a first round bye and wouldn't have to play until two weeks later giving their players a long time to recover fatigue and strength.

My opponent would also have you think that the Tyree catch was pure luck. The only luck was that both Eli and Tyree would be put into that position. I insist that you watch that play again and notice very saddle things that the average person would not be able to do. Obviously Eli Manning was able to break free of two Patriots D Linemen and then make a perfect pass to Tyree. It should be noted that after breaking the tackle that Eli remained calm and completed this perfect pass. As for the catch by Tyree I believe that this is no miracle. First, he had space and that is what you always look to achieve in football. Second he manages to out jump then outmuscle the well known Patriots secondary man Rodney Harrison while being sure the ball doesn't touch the ground. Obviously, the skill involves greatly outmatches the "luck".

4. Spygate

First of all knowing what the defense is going to do and how they are going to do it impacts the game on an awesome level. It's like playing rock paper scissors and telling your opponent what you're going to throw. Obliviously, if your opponent capitalizes then you will have a great disadvantage.

Second is this does not appear to be the first time they have done this. An article on espn.com recounts several other questionable time the Patriots may have cheated. Which even recounts a time when Bill Belichick was caught cheating in Green Bay and told to stop.

http://sports.espn.go.com...

This article also a quote from Bill Belichick

"I accept full responsibility for the actions that led to tonight's ruling," the statement said. "Once again, I apologize to the Kraft family and every person directly or indirectly associated with the New England Patriots for the embarrassment, distraction and penalty my mistake caused. I also apologize to Patriots fans and would like to thank them for their support during the past few days and throughout my career."

This proves Bill Belichick knowingly used spygate and after already being caught in a less publicized incident in Green Bay also proves that he knowing broke the NFL rules. It should be noted that the NFL destroyed vital evidence that may have shown both the extent to which they cheated and the teams they've cheated against.

I end my second rebuttal and await my opponent's last words.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

Let's get it on:

1. Schedule comparison.

<>

Yes, but my opponent did not respond to my main argument. The argument I presented is that you can not discredit the Patriots until they lose. Furthermore, this only accounted for 8 of the 18 games that the Patriots won. Also, as was dropped by my opponent, I presented the argument that the Patriots beat several teams the Giants lost to. Hence, while the head to head is even, it is advantage Patriots because they have beaten teams that the Giants could not beat.

<>

Ah yes, but my opponent's arguments was that they had an easier schedule. Although they did not 'crush' the Giants, they did destroy the teams the CON mentions as being weaker teams. Also, as I have said multiple times during this debate, the Patriots have beaten several teams that the Giants could not.

<>

Actually, they played 3 teams twice, the teams in their division, and beat every team both times.
Yet, no team was able to capitalize on the 'weaknesses.' My opponent can not claim these weaknesses as disadvantages until they lost because of them.
Finally, the last statement is blatantly false. The Patriots beat a 10-6 Brown team, a 13-3 Cowboy team, a 13-3 Colt team, a 9-7 Redskin team, a 10-6 Steelers, a 10-6 Giants, as well as an 8-8 Eagles. My opponent is clearly false in saying this. This is also very abusive to the PRO side. He is making blatantly wrong statements and facts. Upon reading my opponent's argument, a proverbial judge may not know that this is a wrong fact, and vote for CON because of it. Thus it is abusive. Please regard this abusiveness when making your decision.

<>

Perhaps if this had been one game, this argument could sustain itself. The fact is, Dallas beat the Giants TWICE while NE beat them AND NY lost to Washington while NE beat them. There is no instance where NE lost to a team and NY beat them.
Read that second sentence: that does not make any sense. The fact that the Giants lost to Minnesota provides no link suggesting that Minnesota is better than the Patriots. It could be like this, from worst to best: Giants, Vikings, Patriots. My opponent's arguments are false.

A GIANT KILLER (no pun intended): fact: the Giants had a combined opponent's record of 116-124, neglecting the Patriots game. They played FOUR GAMES (neglecting Patriots win) with a team with a winning percentage of above 500, and WON ONE! The Patriots played 6 games with teams above 500, and won EVERY LAST ONE OF EM.

Game. Set. Match. I win.

2. "I will go on to say that you cannot prove that a team is better because of records they completed. This is because of all the variables that can alter outcomes of games."

Yes, but that is irrelevant. The resolution states the Patriots are BETTER than the Giants, not that they have won more games. Hence, this argument still stands, they are still better, they still set more records.

"It should also be noted that if the Giants played 16 times during the season..."

All I have to say is: one game can not be contributed to a player's abilities. Take 'Roller Coaster Rex' for example. In one game, he got 5 TDs and over 300 yards. So, he'd be on pace to win the record. But wait! Did I just hear Rex Grossman got replaced because he had a QB rating of 10 the next game? It is CONSISTENCY that makes the ball-player. Something that Brady, Moss, and the Patriots have.

Please extend all of my arguments into this round, regarding the Patriots awards and records received. My opponent makes lackluster arguments about how they don't really matter, but they do. It proves how great of players the Patriots have, and how good they are as a team. This is the sign of a great team. Notice that the Giants did not break in records in '07.

3. SUPAAA BOWL

"The Giants did play their starters but would have still held back to prevent injury that would have affected their playoff chances."

I'd assume they wanted to WIN if they were already out there and about to break the Patriots single season record...

There has been a lot of debating over the head to head games. It seems as though me and my opponent are at a stalemate. Neither one of us has gained an advantage, because the games played were under almost the exact same conditions. Thus, I will concede that this argument is a wash, and the Patriots and Giants were even playing together. Although, that does not mean the Patriots are not the better team. Please see 'why I win' down below.

4. Spygate

First, although it may impact the game, the Patriots only used this once. My opponent trys to say he could've used it before, but the article he presents does not deal with the 2007-08 season that the resolution calls for. Furthermore, there is no definitive proof that Bellichek has indeed cheated before. Therefore, you can not weigh the argument on pure speculation.

Second, the Pats whomped the Jets in that game and also killed them in a later match up 20-10 without using the tapes. We can conclude that spygate really had no effect on the Pat's abilities, as they had beat the team twice that they used tapes for.

Third and most importantly, my first argument goes uncontested by my opponent. I argue that a scandal in one game by a coach does not hinder their abilities. The Patriots still had the raw talent, neglecting the one game using the tapes, to win 17 games in a row. This argument hence does not apply to disproving the resolution.

WHY I WIN THIS DEBATE: As I have aforementioned, I concede the head-to-head games. This gives neither the Patriots nor the Giants the upper hand. The reason why the Patriots are better, though, is their record. The Pats won 18 games in a row, beat 6 +500 teams, beat two teams the Giants have lost to whilst the Giants have not beaten any teams the Pats lost to, set the single-season wins record, set the recieving TD record, set the passing TD record, has set the record for most points per game and points in a single season, set the QB-WR TD record, and the list goes on.

The Giants, however, have won only 10 games in the regular season, went 1-4 against +500 clubs in the regular season, have broken no records, and on top of it all, faced a sub-500 combined opponent winning percentage.

Please also review the abusiveness argument brought into this round by myself.

Because of this, I see nothing but a vote for PRO at this junction in the debate.

I thank you for your time and I thank my opponent for debating with me.
Giant29

Con

Once again I'd like to begin by responding to the Pro's arguments

1. Schedule Comparison.

"The argument I presented is that you can not discredit the Patriots until they lose."

I don't discredit them but I believe it's obvious that you could win 16 straight games against worst teams then playing 16 straight games against better teams. I believe it's obvious and if you don't understand why I discredit some of the Patriots wins as being because they played a team that lost nearly all of there games multiple times in the year. The Patriots played 7 games against teams that ended the season below .500 while the Giants only played against 6 teams that went below even in their win loss. Both teams didn't lose to these inferior teams. Also the longest streak, not including the playoffs, in which the Patriots had to play teams that went .500 or higher was 2 games. These were against the Cleveland and Dallas in weeks 5 and 6 and again in weeks 8 and 9 against Washington and Indiannapolis. The Giants on the other hand had to play tougher teams more often starting the season with 4 straight teams that ended over .500 and also 2 more straight teams in weeks 14 and 15.

"Also, as was dropped by my opponent, I presented the argument that the Patriots beat several teams the Giants lost to."

I had not dropped this in fact I had said that this is irrelevant because that just means you beat them indirectly. As I had said earlier

"If beating the Cowboys who beat the Giants makes New England a superior team then does this mean that the 8-8 Vikings are better then the Patriots who lost to the Giants."

You went on to support my statement that indirect games doesn't make a team better by saying

"The fact that the Giants lost to Minnesota provides no link suggesting that Minnesota is better than the Patriots. It could be like this, from worst to best: Giants, Vikings, Patriots."

The Giants had also not lost to a team that they hadn't beaten once in the post and regular season minus the Minnesota Vikings who the New England Patriots had never played.

I apologize for my mistake and have reworded my statement from my second round to make it relevant

"The Patriots played some good teams but they only played two teams ABOVE .500 twice. The Patriots teams had major flaws and it was unfortunate that none of the other good teams would be able to capitalize on them in a second game like the Giants did. In fact, the only above .500 team the Patriots played this year twice was the San Diego Chargers."

I'd like to also counter one major flaw in my opponents argument

"They (the Giants) played FOUR GAMES (neglecting Patriots win) with a team with a winning percentage of above 500, and WON ONE!"

Instead of jumping to conclusions that I'm trying to fool the world into believing my opponent is lying to justify his cause I will casually reply to my opponents statements listing the teams above .500 they had played during the regular season: the 13-3 Cowboys twice, the 13-3 Packers, and the 9-7 Washington Redskins twice. Although this only equals up to 5 games the Giants played 2 more games against teams that were .500 then the Patriots. The Giants had beaten all of the teams that were over .500 atleast once earlier or later on in the season.

My opponent also says

"The resolution states the Patriots are BETTER than the Giants, not that they have won more games"

Therefore just because they won more games 16 then the Giants 10 it doesn't mean the Giants are any worse.

2. Records

I do not believe you have proven that getting records makes a better team. How is it irrelevant from playing on turf in a superdome to playing in mud outside with rain can alter a games score?

I'd like to finish my opponents quote he had used in this section.

It should also be noted that if the Giants played 16 times during the season the average stats of the two teams from there two games that Eli Manning the Giants quarterback who would have averaged 3 touchdowns a game would have scored 48 touchdowns just one short of Peyton Manning's record of 49 and Tom Brady would have scored an average of 1.5 touchdowns a game which would have equaled 24 touchdowns on the season not even half of Peyton Manning's record.

This is not one game this is two and Roller Coaster Rex is not on either of the two teams so I find this irrelevant. Consistency is key and I believe that both teams are consistent in their playing with times when offence picks up for defence or vice versa. Yes the Giants didn't break records but they weren't running up the score to try to break them either.

3. Super Bowl

"I'd assume they wanted to WIN if they were already out there and about to break the Patriots single season record..."

Every team wants to win every game regardless of how big or small but in any sporting event it's obvious that right before and during the playoffs injuries can break your team. Therefore the Giants didn't come out playing we win this or go home like in the Super Bowl they came in agreed that they should try to win but that losing to the Patriots in the regular season and going to the playoffs regardless wouldn't be as bad a losing to the Tampa Bay Bucs in the first round and end or season.

"There has been a lot of debating over the head to head games. It seems as though me and my opponent are at a stalemate. Neither one of us has gained an advantage, because the games played were under almost the exact same conditions."

Same conditions? The first game was played outdoors in cold conditions while the super bowl was played indoors with regulated temperatures.

Also I'd like to point out that my opponent has made no more argument that David Tyree's catch was a fluke or luck.

4. Spygate

I agree that there has been no more proven times the Patriots have abused spy gate because the NFL had destroyed the tapes. To your third statement that a scandal doesn't hinder ability I disagree. I've proven it can make an impact on the game and since raw talent is shown through stats and you've agreed that spy gate can impact the game and stats so therefore spy gate can help "prove" raw talent. You claim it made no difference to the game. However, since you agree that the tapes weren't used in the Jets vs Pats second game I'd like to share one important stat. Tom Brady's Passer rating between the two games. The first game with the tapes passer rating of 146.6 the second game without the tapes 51.5.

I'll begin my conclusion for thanking my opponent and wishing him the best in the future as well as thinking the people who vote for being a part of this debate.

I should win this debate because the Giants lost by 3 when they had held back and the Giants won by 3 when they went all out in the two head to head games. My opponents main reason why he should win is the season record but at the same time he says that the season record doesn't make a better team. My opponent has claimed the Giants have played less quality teams but I have proven the Giants have to play a harder schedule because of the fact that the Giants played long streaks of opponents while the Patriots rarely played good teams in back to back weeks. The Patriots may have had the better season as far as making history but the Giants are still a better team because of their performances against the Patriots.

The Spy gate scandal should be considered because as the Pro agrees with me it can impact a game. Although it cannot be proven they had used tapes later it in the season it cannot be proved they didn't use tapes later on in the season. I believe that their performances against the Patriots proves that the Giants are as superior team then the Patriots.

Conclusion: Therefore I believe the New York Giants are better then the New England Patriots. My opponent even said record doesn't make a better team. I thank my opponent and the voters for being part of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IronMan 8 years ago
IronMan
MANNING!MANNING!MANNING!

>_>

Not a bad debate, or IMO at least not a lopsided one
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
ok, I guess your right, that would be hard to debate. My position on the issue is that now, with more than half of all marriages ending in divorce, it is ridicolous to think that having two men or two women together would destroy that. Thus, I am strongly against the statement, 'it would destroy the sactinty of marriage.'

Anyway, this is a debate about football. So yeah. Go football.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Pluto, when I say I believe in the sanctity of marriage, it has no connection with my position on homosexuality. Due to my religious beliefs, I believe that marriage is sacred. But that is purely religious, it has no connection as to how I think America should govern people out of my religion, If this caused confusion I do apologize.

My position on homosexuality is that both the anti gay marriage and pro gay marriage sides are wrong. Popular Sovereignty is the correct policy. Unfortunatly, Debate.org does not offer this resolution in the for/against things. So it's hard to convay my position without causing confusiom, again I'm sorry for that. Debate.org only offers the two extreme sides, such as forcing the states to subsidize gay marriage, and forcing states not to subsidize gay marriage. I believe both of them are wrong.

Again, I apologize for the confusion caused, but if you still want me to debate your challenge after my 8day vacation I can try if you want.

Of if you want to debate me on using popular soverignty on gay marriage after my vacation we can do that too.

Cheers :)
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
alright, well I accept your opinion, and if you want to vote for him, go ahead. I just have one thing: although the head to head record is the same, they still won 18 games in a row, and 5 more than the Giants. The reason I said all things considered is that the 18 games they won in a row should be weighed more heavily than one head to head game.

@bitz: Sounds cool. Feel free to challenge me back a debate with a better resolution. Please include 'sanctity of marriage,' though, as that is what it says in your profile.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Oh and Pluto, the wording of that topic is terrible. If you truely read my debates, you would know that I stand by using POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY to determine which marriages should be SUBSIDIZED
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Pluto, I am going on vacation in a hotel for about a week. I may not be able to take up your challenge until vacation is over. :/
Posted by mattshuster 8 years ago
mattshuster
btw i probably wont comment any more on this :P its not my debate, go debate your opponent
Posted by mattshuster 8 years ago
mattshuster
yes.. consider the regular season and the post-season, the 2 parts of the nfl season that matter(please dont tell me your trying to win this debate off pre-season performances)

well the giants/patriots went 1-1 in reg/post season, idc whether the giants had their best/worst players in the first game, they still won the 2nd game giving the 2 teams a split record.

so while i honestly believe the giants are better, i find it very easy to prove that the 2 are even.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
buddy, notice the 'all things considered' part of the resolution.
Posted by mattshuster 8 years ago
mattshuster
yes the same "said talent" that failed to tackle eli manning and stop david tyree from pulling in that catch

if the games should be weighted equal then u have conceeded.. remember your not proving that they are equal, your burden is to prove the patriots were better.. if the regular season and playoffs are weighted equally then its a tie between the two
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by CaptPicard 8 years ago
CaptPicard
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by IronMan 8 years ago
IronMan
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by dbaldwin1215 8 years ago
dbaldwin1215
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Charbok 8 years ago
Charbok
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Hreha827 8 years ago
Hreha827
Pluto2493Giant29Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30