The Instigator
Crazy4Steelers07
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

Division I College Football Should Implement a Play-off System

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,534 times Debate No: 8516
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

The BCS: The Bull Sh*t Championship. Look at any sport, where do computers and peoples opinions play any factor in who wins a championship? The best team is decided on the field, and through a play-off. Look at the MLB, MLL, MLS, NBA, and NHL they all have play-off systems. The NHL, MLB, and NBA all even have play-off systems for their minor leagues teams (NFL, MLL, and MLS don't have minor leagues). Each sports uses their own system, but they all work and at the end no one can doubt that the team that survived the test of the play-offs is not truly the Champion. The BCS has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, because for all the hype and prestige that college football gets: The championship is rigged. When the Magic where facing the Cav's in the Eastern Confrence Finals, everyone wanted to see Kobe/Lebron, Stan Van Gundy (The Magic Coach) angerly replied to reporters on the question of everyone wanting to see those 2 in the finals, "This isn't the BCS where people get to vote [on] who gets to play. This is real sports where it's decided on the court."

But WAIT, these are just kids where talking about…poor little college althetes who could in no way stand the tests or pressure of a play-off system. BS, look at NCAA College Football FBS-Subdivision, NCAA College Football D-II, NCAA College Football D-III, NCAAB (D-I, D-II, D-III), NCAABW (D-I, D-II, D-III), College Soccer (Men's and Women's), College Volleyball (Men and Women's), College Baseball, College Softball, College Hockey (Men and Women's), College Lacrosse, and even College Water Polo. Let's even look below college, in all division of High School football in every state of America, and Washington D. C., High School football teams span the rigiourous test of a play-off system to win a state championship (When my high school team won state last year we played in 6 play-off games), also High School Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, and Softball teams all compete in play-offs. When everyone at every level, everywhere is competing in a play-off what's stopping D-I college football?

The Plan: Have one 16-team play-off system seed 1 through 16. The winners of each 11 conferences getting an automatic bid (To be determined by the conferences themselves) and 5 at large bids to be determined by a committee similar to the basketball selection committee for the NCAA Basketball Tournaments. The System would see games staged the week after the conclusion of the regular season with the 1 vs. 16 seed, 2 vs. 15 seed and so on. The tournament would be standarded bracketed with the one seed hitting either the 8 or the 9th seed in the second round. The first two round would be played with the lower seed having the home field advantage, where the semi's and final's would be held at neutral sites (Most likely the Rose, Orange, and Fiesta bowl locations). [Please, keep in mind this is only the most ideal and competative format. Their are dozens of other possibilities for a play-off system, I am only suggesting one to fall back on in this debate. Simply because any voters or my challenger disagree with the system I am proposing doesn't mean you should vote against me. You have to see the logic of my analysis based on why we need a play-off system, not which one is perfec]

Contention #1- Stuck on an Outdated Bowl System
Dan Wetzel may have said it best, when he stated, "Ignore outdated bowls games. BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports." Basically the bowl system works like this: Copurrate sponsors set up and run bowls, make huge profits of advertising and sales while dish some money to the teams participating. I have nothing against using bowl games to celebrate a winning season for a college football team, if anything it's a good reward for having a successful season, But the problem resides in the fact that no one is willing to think outside of the Bowls for any practical solution. The Rose Bowl, and Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl hold so much history in college football to let them slip the way side would just be terrible. Not when the real solution is better. As far as bowl games are concerned: They can remain. As long as teams are eligible and willing to participate in then why not host them? But this must be done con-current with a 16 team play-off system where the best teams compete against each other to produce a champion.

Contention #2- The Season Would be TOOOOOO Long
Again, I really want to talk to the people that feed America this bull. What if I could tell you that with in a college football play-off the season would be shorter, fewer teams would have to play/practice as long, and thus midigate the risk of injury? Ok, so eight teams would play and extra game, four two, and two three. A relatively small price to pay: a total of seven extra games for over a hundred schools in D-I. And the play-off system could have some sense about it and start the week after the conclusion of the regular season, taking a way the month of practicing and extra workouts coach put their players through because they are play in a bowl game Jan. 7th when the season ended Dec. 3rd. Also conferences, like the Big Ten would not have to play with the severe handi-cap of taking almost 2 months off before playing in a BCS game just because they finished their seasons earlier due to more compact scheduling. People argue that to many kids would miss class with this longer season: 1) I just shortened it 2) Look at these football programs, all of them demand so much time from a student its unrealistic to think they're man focus is on school and not football. If I still haven't convincied you look at this: Due to the way college football runs its clock, there are about 10 percent more plays in a college game than a pro one (135 to 122), which means they're already playing an extra game, game and a half now. Change the clock timing, and boom you shave the number of games being played by almost 50, and then you add 7 extra. That saves 43 games players could get injured in, nice.

Contention #3- College Football Would Be Fair
How would you like to play in a league, where at the beginning of the season the coach sits your whole team down and says, "Look guys, I don't care if we blow everyone out by 50 points, Go Undefeated, and winner the MAC. The Truth is we can't win a championship this year, because we don't have a ‘history' of being good." Why even have teams in a league who can't win? You laugh, and say ‘everyone has a fair shot'. Go bring that up with the people from Utah, the only undefeated team in D-I this year, where is their Championship? Or what about Boise state in '07? Or Utah(again) in '02? What happened their? You know what happened, the system is rigged. It is fixed towards the big schools, who will draw the big crowds and get the big rating and consequently make the big bucks for the cooperate sponsor's of the BCS games (Tostitos, FedEx). A play-off system would allow un-bias and fair results by allowing champions of smaller conferences to play with the big boys, and if they lose so what? At least they had their chance, but when they win that would be something else. The magic of the NCAA Basketball tournament resides in the ‘Cinderella' run of a huge under-dog. Why not allow that in College Football?

Quite simply their is only one solution. College football must change over to a play-off system. If they want to keep their credibility, or even pretend they are a 'real' sport. With die hard competion. Then prove it, what are they scared of? In America we have a system, one system to determine the champion, the best, and that system is a play-off.
mongeese

Con

My opponent's argument rests on the fact that the BCS system is biased towards the teams that can receive the most votes.

I have an alternative solution to this problem that does not implement a play-off system: remove the polls.

I think that opinions should not be in the BCS system, and rather, the win records and scores should be the only factor that the BCS computer takes into account to decide the top two teams.

I will be arguing that rather than implementing a play-off system, Division I College Football should remove the voting influence from the BCS.

My opponent's first paragraph is about how the BCS is ruled by votes. This is negated with a change in the BCS.

My opponent's second paragraph refutes an argument against play-off systems. That's nice. However, that does not do anything against the BCS.

My opponent's third paragraph is a plan that he can lean back on. Ironically enough, this system includes bids for the bottom five seeds, when my opponent is openly against voting for teams in championships.

My opponent's fourth paragraph is about how he is okay with bowl systems. That's nice. It still doesn't attack BCS.

My opponent's fifth paragraph attacks the time issue against play-offs.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Also, although controversial, the BCS and non-BCS bowl games earn millions of dollars for college football. Thousands of college alumni enjoy the current bowl system; the bowl games take place around the New Year's Day holiday period, where fans can get time off work and school to travel to a warm-weather destination to watch their team play. If a playoff tournament were held after the New Year's Day bowls, the games could not take place on Saturday or Sunday without conflicting with NFL playoff games. College presidents are opposed to holding playoff games in January, as this would conflict with final exams at many colleges and universities."
So, we definitely don't want college football to compete for time with the NFL. Additionally, BCS is the only system that does not make football games interfere with final exams. This isn't just in concern for the football team; this is also about the students who watch the games. No college president wants all of the students at his college to spend the night watching football rather than studying, resulting in dropping grades that poorly reflect the college's academic ability.

My opponent's proposition of a compact season ignores the many other non-BCS bowl games.
http://www.nationalchamps.net...
They occur from Dec. 20 to Jan. 8. My opponent wants to start the playoffs the weekend after Dec. 3. We may be talking about different years, but the point is, you only get one or two weeks between the season and the other bowl games for a playoff tournament. That's nowhere near enough time for a decent playoff.

My opponent's sixth paragraph addresses the problems of voter bias in the BCS. This is fixed with the removal of the voting system, with the BCS only taking actual scores into account.

"Quite simply their is only one solution. College football must change over to a play-off system. If they want to keep their credibility, or even pretend they are a 'real' sport. With die hard competion. Then prove it, what are they scared of? In America we have a system, one system to determine the champion, the best, and that system is a play-off."
There is a better solution: remove voter bias from the BCS.

If there is a tie between the BCS and the play-off system, the vote would go to the BCS, because there is no reason to implement a system that would take more time and money to set up, without any improvements being made.

Finally, my own contention: seeded tournaments are not always reliable.
http://www.jhowell.net...
Using the top eight power rankings from the above source, I used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate who would win a seeded tournament each time. Well, Florida would win only 30.2% of the time, and Southern California would win only 15% of the time. Obviously, the best team should win the tournament. With an unbiased BCS, Florida would win 59% of the time, while Southern California would win 41% of the time. This shows that the BCS would have the final two teams always being the best teams, while a play-off system might result in two of the worst teams competing in the final round. We want to see the best, not the worst. And we definitely don't want to see the best team against the worst team in the final round. That gets boring.

Thank you for starting this debate. I look forwards to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

Ok, so the ‘voting' should be taken out of the BCS system so that it will be completely fair….hmmmm….ok. Well I can't possible think of any way to argue that. Well…except what are you going to do when more that two teams are qualified? Say there are three undefeated teams? Or no undefeated teams, and a dozen one-loss teams? How would a loss be evaluated by a computer? Since a loss on paper is just a loss…then what we'd draw ping-pong balls for national championship game? Plus, when win/loss and scores are the only items factored into who is the national champion then teams will have an even more incentive to stack their schedules with the easiest opponents (Probally more D-II) to sneak into the championship game and go for broke their. What does two Big name schools that spend half their season cruising by inferior (D-II) opponents prove? Nothing, strength of Schedule of schedule should be calculated (as it would be for at large teams). Ex: Who was a better one loss team this year: Texas or Ball State (At the conclusion of the regular season). Also your system would have pitted Boise State vs. Utah. Now, since Utah beat Alabama I don't think anybody could argue with that, but since Boise lost in a none BCS bowl game where they really desirving? Think of any play-off ever played. How often do the top two seeds ever make it? And when they do (Like last years Lakers/Celtics NBA final) haven't they proved they where the two best teams? I don't see how college football should weasel out of the highest level of compotion like all other sports.

Let's look at the Neg's only independent argument first: It's stupid. Now that I turned that…oh what you actually wanted me to say more about? Look at the numbers in the seeded tournament vs. BCS. Ok, so Florida and USC wouldn't win as much….because the system would no longer be rigged. What happens when you actually play the games? There is a chance for variety and thus more likely that a wild card team could rise up and take the title, and is that such a bad thing? Was it absolute diasterous for the NFL when the Giants shocked the undefeated Patriots to win the Super Bowl? No, it was absolutely fantastic for everyone (unless you're a patriots fan). The play-off, now having 16 teams instead of 2, and being played would cause the variation. And no, just because the Sun Belt Champion, or the ACC Champion (this year Virginia Tech with four loss) shocked the world and started winning in the post season and won a championship that would not make them a bad team winning a title, because if the other teams where better how did they loss to them in a play-off? You would get the two best teams, every year. Small market, big market, unheard of maybe, but you would get the 2 best teams.

On you argument about conflicting with the NFL and Final exams, I loved it! You used Wiki, good stuff for source situation. Let's look at our good friend Dan Wetzel again, "Different schools have different academic schedules, in fact their wasn't a weekend someone wasn't having exams. However, college athletics has never allowed academics to stand in its way before. In this day of 12-team super leagues and midweek television games, this isn't an excuse." Also, Sub-Division, D-II, and D-III schools do it as I've previously stated, plus an on slate of almost everyother sport. Are these kids just more talented that they can balance school and athletics or what? And seriously the college is going to get distracted watching sports? No college president will let it happen? Again, what about Sub-Division, D-II, and D-III. What about soccer, men's water polo, and field hockey? They all have tourments around the same time. The argument is flawed. The national exsposure and plablicity plus profits from a system seeing the higher seed having the first two rounds at home far out way any mimimiual impacts. Besides, students would be watch either other divisions of college football's play-offs, bowl games when they start, or a number of other sports like the NBA, NFL, and NHL in season then anyway.

Apparently, one week to prepare for a game isn't enough time or even two. Not when it's a play-off game. In college football we need a month. So lets have the 1st round in Jan. The second in Feb. The third in March. And the Finals in April. WTF? Seriously, every other sport, and football at the high school, collegent, and professional levels, all pop up and play the play-off game with a usual break between the end of the regular season and the play-off. Not an entire month to do nothing. The purpose of a play-off is to establish who the best team, after completing the task of the regular season, is truly the best. As we have even seen in college football the best team (like Ohio State 3 years ago) after a huge lay-off doesn't necassarly respond well. They shouldn't have to. When you take exstend time off from a season, the grueling toil becomes pointless and basically you have no idea who the best team is anymore. Plus, my opponent also missed my main point with ignoring the bowl games. He argues that "one or two weeks between the season and the other bowl games for a playoff tournament. [Isn't nearly enough time.]" Duh, that's why the play-off teams wouldn't compete in the bowl games, I suppose I didn't make myself clear the first time. Anymore stupid questions? And just if I didn't make it clear, all of the other bowl games could still be played just not with the teams in the play-offs (We'll actually I suppose if you wanted to, a team getting out in the first or even second round could pick up a bowl game if they really wanted to).

Finally, I would like to reinforce this debate is about why College Football should implement a play-off, not if the BCS is good or not. The BSC, besides being rigged and thus illegal for obstruction of trade, doesn't really matter in the scope of this debate as the con has to prove why a play-off is so detrimently not merely present a simply counter-plan revoking voting for the BCS. College football compose to many teams to merely use records and tie breaker like they do in pro sports, though that would be the preffered option to create a play-off. Consiquently, college has to use some kind of selection committee. No one whines about college basketball, in fact everyone loves that. This would be the same, only better cause its football. Basically, the Pro team doesn't have to destroy the BCS, though I'll say I hate it, just show the voter why obviously a play-off system is superior. Look at the logical flow of ideas and see if they make sense to you:
1)Have Cinderella's in College Football
2)Have 4 weeks of intense college Football play-off games like the NFL
3)Bring money into schools that host games.
4)Allow all teams, not just the big ones to have their shot at a title.
5)Not take a month off between the regular season and the post season.
For all those reasons (and the dozen more I'll put in my next post) vote Pro.
mongeese

Con

"Well…except what are you going to do when more that two teams are qualified?..."
I'm not the computer. The computer is the computer. I can't tell you how it works. I can tell you that there exist methods that take into account everything about a team, including win record, points in each game, opponent, home field advantage, etc. Basically, it WILL determine the top two teams, and the teams that practice weak scheduling are doomed to fail.

"Also your system would have pitted Boise State vs. Utah..."
Well, if the computer computed that Boise State was the second-best team, even with a loss in a non-BCS bowl game, then Boise State was the second-best team, and deserves to play Utah.

"Think of any play-off ever played..."
Sure. But play-offs still aren't as accurate as a computer due to the luck factor in determining the champion.

"Let's look at the Neg's only independent argument first: It's stupid...."
Ouch?

"There is a chance for variety and thus more likely that a wild card team could rise up and take the title, and is that such a bad thing?..."
If you want to hand over the title to the absolute best, then yes.

"You would get the two best teams, every year. Small market, big market, unheard of maybe, but you would get the 2 best teams."
Wrong. You would get the two luckiest teams every year. Using a computer allows the luck of an entire season to sift through, which is more balanced than the luck of three weeks.

"Apparently, one week to prepare for a game isn't enough time or even two...."
They can still play a game every week. It's just that there aren't enough weeks for a full playoff. They could easily move BCS to the week between the end of the season and the beginning of the other bowl games. A playoff just doesn't fit, because it takes multiple weeks to finish.

"The purpose of a play-off is to establish who the best team, after completing the task of the regular season, is truly the best."
However, a play-off only establishes which team is truly the luckiest.

Anyways, my opponent then claims that teams that are in the playoffs could simply not play in the other games. Where's the fun in that? The bowl games are supposed to host the best teams. If the best teams are all in the playoffs, then the bowl games get the leftovers. Also, if you allow early eliminations to participate, then isn't that just rewarding failure? We don't want that.

"Finally, I would like to reinforce this debate is about why College Football should implement a play-off, not if the BCS is good or not. The BSC, besides being rigged and thus illegal for obstruction of trade, doesn't really matter in the scope of this debate as the con has to prove why a play-off is so detrimently not merely present a simply counter-plan revoking voting for the BCS."
Well, as long as I can show that the BCS works better than the playoffs when the voting is removed; there is no reason to remove a good system for a poorer one.
My argument: Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system because it already has a perfectly good system called BCS.

"College football compose to many teams to merely use records and tie breaker like they do in pro sports, though that would be the preffered option to create a play-off. Consiquently, college has to use some kind of selection committee. No one whines about college basketball, in fact everyone loves that. This would be the same, only better cause its football."
The above sentences don't even make any sense.
The BCS is the selection committee.

"Basically, the Pro team doesn't have to destroy the BCS, though I'll say I hate it, just show the voter why obviously a play-off system is superior."
However, if I show that the BCS is superior, then I win.

"1)Have Cinderella's in College Football"
Oh, look! Every team that plays them gets injured! Aren't they great? They sure are lucky.

"2)Have 4 weeks of intense college Football play-off games like the NFL"
And so, all of the college students decide to watch football instead of study for a brighter future when they have upcoming finals, resulting in a dumber generation to make even more mistakes in the course of history. Seriously, you do not want to mess with college students' finals.

"3)Bring money into schools that host games."
From Wikipedia:
"Also, although controversial, the BCS and non-BCS bowl games earn millions of dollars for college football. Thousands of college alumni enjoy the current bowl system; the bowl games take place around the New Year's Day holiday period, where fans can get time off work and school to travel to a warm-weather destination to watch their team play."
BCS provides revenue, as well.

"4)Allow all teams, not just the big ones to have their shot at a title."
Solved with the removal of fan bias.

"5)Not take a month off between the regular season and the post season."
Any argument that the playoffs could be placed at a better time could be solved by moving BCS to that same time, should that time actually be better.

"For all those reasons (and the dozen more I'll put in my next post) vote Pro."
Two of those arguments apply equally to BCS, one of them becomes irrelevant, and two of them are flawed.

Why we should keep the BCS:
1. "Thousands of college alumni enjoy the current bowl system; the bowl games take place around the New Year's Day holiday period, where fans can get time off work and school to travel to a warm-weather destination to watch their team play."
2. The BCS is more accurate in deciding who deserves the title of champion.
3. The BCS does not conflict with the NFL or college midterms.

For these reasons, in addition to the fact that BCS already exists, the voters shall vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

Ok, so…a computer is expected to know which team is better. Test: This year Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all had only one loss (to each other) and otherwise finished the season untarnished. Oklahoma, with the highest scoring offense in D-I seemed to obvious pick as the best, however Texas had beaten the Sooner in a neutral site game half-way through the season, and then after taking on a gauntlet of games including Oklahoma State, and a hot Texas Tech squad which squeaked out a win at home in the wanning seconds to had Texas their only loss of the season. Again, how does a computer determine which is better? Further more, this is only looking at one conference this year, where all three of these teams obviously looked like national championship contenders. How can you justify that every year, only two teams deserve a shot at a title? Furthermore, what formula would this computer use to magically find the two best teams? Also, What constitutes the best? Because I'm beginning to think that you agree with the current system where the best is the biggest, most profitable, and most followed. Not the team that plays the best football. Also, you have yet to respond to the undeniable logic that every, I stress every, other collegent (and as I've stated pro and high school) sports have play-offs. At the point you don't respond to this, all and any arguments you make are inherently flawed because you refuse to accept or even look at the norm in sports. By your stress of how perfect this computer is, I feel your just saying that computers no best. Why not just play the whole regular season on this computer and just send the schools their win/loss record for the season? Why even play a championship game if this computer is so smart….why not let it decide the champion?

Luck-
Ok, so I forgot. There is definitely more luck in winning an entire play-off then one game. I mean the Gaints winning the super bowl was a lot more of a Fluke then Flordia winning the national title. Wrong. Flordia went in with a raw 50-50 chance, where as the Gaints had only a 6.25% chance of emerging the champion. I guess it was just luck. Or skill. When a team is truly the best, they can come out on not just one night, but several, and beat their competion. No one said you have to excpect the best team to win. Look at the Arizona Cardnial (though they didn't win the super bowl) no one would have excpected they would be the 2nd best team in the NFL this year. But they proved they where. After a rough regular season they can into the Play-offs and did they're job. The Beat down team after team that was good before barely falling to the Steelers on a last second TD. Again, look at the NCAAB tournament, when a 2 seed gets beat by a 15 seed is the 15 seed suddenly that good of a team? Not when they usually get bounced in the next round. The truth in any one team can beat any other team on any given night. That's what a sport is. If one team ALWAYS win, or one team just CAN'T win that its no longer a sport: it a RIGGED game. Come on, even Fort Minor knows there's luck is sports:
This is Ten percent luck,
Twenty percent Skill,
Fifteen percent Concentrated power and will,
Five percent plesurem
Fifty percent pain,
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!

Seriously, if you are going to right of luck as a part of football then I think you should really just pick up math: that'll be the same every time. However, in football there are numerous variable factors: in the sporting world we call that luck.

Ignore Bowl Game (Again)-
Obviously, I'm not making myself clear here. If you want to host bowl games, fine host them. I don't care. However, these games would be SEPARATE from the play-off's. The teams in the play-offs would be playing in the play-offs not some useless bowl game. They would play in the play-off to determine who's the best, and the bowl games would just be like consolation. And if the ‘tradition' of the big bowls is so important. As I said, you could make the semi-finals like the Rose Bowl, or the Sugar Bowl or something just like Pro Sports have Confrence finals (Obviously, in college football the play-offs is after the conference championships).

On the Attacks on my voters:
1)I <3 how a team that wins a play-off is so lucky ‘cause they killed their compation. Though, that could theoretically happen, its very unlikely and furthermore would prove the winning team was at least the toughest.
2)So some how, D-II, D-III, and Sub-Division schools (Including Ivy League school like Yale, and Havard) but not D-I???? I fail to see how all the other schools do but not D-I. And as I said, everyone somewhere is having finals at some point even during your precious bowl games and BCS games. Your argument holds no wait.
3)A) Simply economics: Cut the middle man, and get more profits. Also, the more games you have the more money for the school. If a team hosted 2 games they would obviously get more then playing in just one when they aren't even hosting it. The play-off system would all schools access to more money, plus it would allow smaller schools access to the big money unlike the current system which is tilted the the Big schools.
B)If having the games over the New Years Holiday is that important then schedule the games then. Again I'm just bring about one solution for a play-off. And the scheduling, like all scheduling for any play-off ever, would have to be flexible and probably change over time.
C) I <3 how you used Wiki as a source again, very credible
4) I still can't see how you computer is going to help these small teams, especially when teams like Hawaii two years ago, can't get any good schools to play them in the out of conference schedule but still go undefeated but don't get a chance.
5) Still the currently taking a month off is stupid

On his voters:
1)This sounds familiar (Check Wiki). Obviously not an orginal voter, please see attacks on my 3rd voter.
2)The BCS is more accurate…..in what way? Accurate how? Your being kind of vague. If by accurate you mean, going after two big names schools to play against each other and throwing out small name schools.
3)Ok, so even a Play-off would have to compete with the NFL, and there is no way you can schedule all the games around mid-terms even now. Anyway, why can sub-division, D-II, and D-III do it?

Ok, if anything this debate comes down to Luck vs. a Computer. OK.
What I want to know is what makes this Computer so smart? How does it know? (Hint: Because is not an awnser)
Also, How can you avoid the variable of Luck (which you say is bad) in any game played ever? (Hint: You can't)
Furthermore, What is soooooo incredible bad about moving to a 16 team play-off over a 2 team national championship?
And, (I really want to know this one) Why does College Football D-I get out of having a play-off when EVERY (As I've stressed in my earlier posts) other Division, Level, and Sport has play-offs?
Again, I have three undefeated teams: Team A, Team B, and Team C. Which two teams get to play in your BCS title game, and which one sits at how?

And to anyone out their still undecided on this topic: Just think about the NFL play-offs and how awsume those are, and then think about College Football and how awsume that is. What I'm saying is we should mesh the two. Resulting in the Ultiment Event in Sports.

But who knows, maybe my oppent will get really LUCKY and win this debeat....oh the Irony in that.
mongeese

Con

"Ok, so…a computer is expected to know which team is better."
Yes. As to your example, I don't know exactly how the computer does it, but it would probably be done by first removing home-field advantage scores from each game ever played, and then using the scores to find out how each team plays against each other team, and finally assigning power rankings to each team that shows how well it seems that each team did.
In your example, I'd guess that the computer would decide which team did the best against the teams it played, and which team played the toughest opponents, and combine the two criteria in some way, so that the teams that effectively did the best are chosen. So, individual scores would be needed to determine the winner.

"Also, What constitutes the best?..."
No. I think the best team would be the team that plays the best football. That's why I'm for the removing of the polls.

"Also, you have yet to respond to the undeniable logic..."
In 1781, the United States was just about the first country to attempt a highly democratic, equal society, without a large government. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Other countries laughed at the United States for trying a new idea.
It didn't work, so they improved it, and it worked, and now the U.S. is a world superpower. Other countries around the world follow its ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org...
So, something that is the norm isn't always the best. Using computers in sports is new. D-I is the first group to apply it directly. They are laughed at for it, but it may be the norm in a few decades.

"Why even play a championship game if this computer is so smart…?"
Because one final game between the top two is cool, and one final game by itself proportionately provides huge revenue.

"The truth in any one team can beat any other team on any given night."
Therefore, if we want to know what team is truly the best, we need to look and a multitude of nights. This tells us who the best is more accurately than a playoff system. If the best two teams play each other in the final round, you know you're going to get a good game. However, why do we want to see #1 crush #7? That becomes boring.

"If one team ALWAYS win..."
The game isn't rigged. The best team wins. The other team should try to get better.

"Seriously, if you are going to right of luck..."
How does one right of luck? The above sentences don't make sense. Plus, once you eliminate some of the most luck-driven factors, then you end up with better football.

About the bowl games, I don't think that they should be turned into consolation matches. This would make it seem better than to never make the playoffs than to be #16, or #15, or #8, even. Consolations reward failure. We don't want to reward failure.

I never attacked your voters. You don't have any voters yet. If I play my cards right, you never will.

"1)I <3 how a team that wins a play-off is so lucky ‘cause they killed their compation..."
I'm not talking about injuries in-game. I'm talking tripping over the sidewalk, or falling down the stairs, or cramping in the hand upon picking up a phone. And why would a team kill its own compassion?

"2)So some how, D-II, D-III, and Sub-Division schools (Including Ivy League school like Yale, and Havard) but not D-I????..."
See the America argument. The norm isn't always the best. BCS is new. It will take a while to be adopted in more places. Can an argument ever hold "wait"?

"3)A) Simply economics..."
However, this also requires setting up more games. College football is actually unprofitable.
From "Economic Facts and Fallacies":
"On the contrary, [football and basketball] and other sports cost more money than they bring in..."
One game brings proportionately more than two games, due to supply and demand.

"B)If having the games over the New Years Holiday is that important then schedule the games then..."
However, there isn't enough time for a full play-off in the New Year's holiday. A BCS final can fit, though.

"C) I <3 how you used Wiki as a source again, very credible"
I know. It's great. My opponent concedes that Wikipedia is a credible source.

"4) I still can't see how you computer is going to help these small teams..."
I think that season matches should be reformed. But I'm still Pro-BCS.

"5) Still the currently taking a month off is stupid"
Well, time can never be in your favor, as a play-off always takes longer than the BCS.

"1)This sounds familiar (Check Wiki)..."
However, this can only work for BCS, not for a play-off.

"2)The BCS is more accurate..."
It computes. Upon the removal of polls, it isn't biased towards the big schools. Without polls, the computer is completely unbiased. It determines which teams had the best performance throughout the season.

"3)Ok, so even a Play-off would have to compete with the NFL..."
Well, that's to a play-off's disadvantage. I don't know how the other guys do it. You tell me.

"What I want to know is what makes this Computer so smart?"
If given access to every single score throughout the entire season, it can compute the performance comparatively of each team, and it can then pick the best two teams.

"How can you avoid the variable of Luck (which you say is bad) in any game played ever?"
In the play-offs, having bad luck just once throws you out of the running.
The BCS uses the luck that is spread out through the entire season. When flipping more coins, you get closer to a 50-50 ratio. Therefore, an entire season of computing helps to reduce luck.

"And, (I really want to know this one) Why does College Football D-I get out of having a play-off when EVERY (As I've stressed in my earlier posts) other Division, Level, and Sport has play-offs?"
How did America get out of having a monarchy?

"Again, I have three undefeated teams: Team A, Team B, and Team C. Which two teams get to play in your BCS title game, and which one sits at how?"
For one thing, I'm amazed that these three teams never played each other.
Now, if Team A beat Team D 47-12, and Team B beat Team D 54-48 and Team C beat Team D 37-36, then the finals would probably be A vs. B. The computer needs more information than what you give.

"And to anyone out their still undecided on this topic..."
So, you say that the people who run D-I have the opportunity to have the "Ultiment Event in Sports"?
Then why haven't they done this yet?
They must obviously have a reason.
Perhaps they can't.
They might be locked into a contract.
They might not have enough time.
They might be unable to afford it.
I don't know.
But they do.
They might be unable to do a lot of things.
Perhaps they don't want to.
They might like the current system better.
They might have more profits under the BCS.
They might appreciate the fan excitement.
They might want their students to study for finals rather than watch football.
I don't know.
But they do.
They might want a lot of things.
However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one.
If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already.
But they haven't.
They either can't do it, or they don't want to do it, or something else.
Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do.
But they shouldn't do something that they can't do.
But they shouldn't do something that they don't want to do.
Therefore, Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system.
There. Resolution negated. Through logic.

"But who knows, maybe my oppent will get really LUCKY and win this debeat....oh the Irony in that."
That wasn't luck. I don't need luck against you. I used skill and creativity. Plus, I don't do "debeats." I do "debates."
Debate Round No. 3
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

So apparently the BCS is a new experimental entity: Take a Mr. Wetzel's analogy on this one:
http://rivals.yahoo.com...

The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer – that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. That's not a compliment to near beer. It's like saying the BCS has a nice personality.
A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You don't even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one.

They made beer, then we invented near-beer and the non-alcohol crap. Doesn't mean the stuff is good we just made. We made the BCS, its new and experimental. That DOES NOT make it good, far from it. The Basis of all sports resided within a play-off for almost every reason I've given in this debate. My opponent clings to the virtue that the BCS always has the "Two best teams" because the "Computer knows best". Honestly, if you could prove to me, that in every instance a computer some how knew exactly which team to pick then be my guest, but you can't. Something that can't be calculated: Desire, Want, the Will to Win, and referring to the last post Luck. There are no numbers for this. That is why they play the game. That's why they have a regular season. That's why they have a play-off.
Look at the last five BCS Title Games:
2004USC55Oklahoma19
2005Texas41USC38
2006Florida41Ohio State14
2007LSU38Ohio State24
2008Florida24Oklahoma14

With the exception of Texas/USC which was undoubtably on of the best games ever played, and one of the only years the BCS didn't come under much scrutiny, All these other games have been blow outs. This years game decided by ten points was still boring and very lop sided. The BCS has obviously been unable to even provide an exciting game like my opponent so said. A play-off allows more chance for good games by virtue of more of them and different match ups. Look at the NFL play-offs this year, ok everyone wasn't a great game, But Bal/Ten, Bal/Pitt, and Pitt/Cards where great. Even the last two years in the NFL the Super Bowl has been Amazing (which though not always the case) at least proves that even through a play-off the championship game can still be good. Look at D-II college football, at least they've been able to produce good final games consitently in the past years:

http://www.d2championship.com...
2002: 31-24
2003: 10-3
2004: 36-31
2005: 21-17
2006: 17-14
2008: 21-14

End verdict: Experiment Failed. Back to what works. And about the Championship game making money, If you play more games you make more money. Duh, so having a play-off would bring in more money to the school because you could keep the Championship stacks the same and and stuff for each preceding round. Advatage Play-off on profitability.

The Art of the Counter Plan:
I know a thing or two about counter plans just ask Waldo. And what your doing is running a counter-plan. The problem with this is you are substaciating changing the current system in every single way to make it better with out adding the play-off. What happens when you have made all of your changes and your system fails to produce as you say it will? The other problem is that since this is an ‘experiment', there is no evidence to base off it will work except the BCS, and consequently since you are reaching out into a hypothetically altered, and in your mind better, version of the BCS you have no evidence that it will work. Meaning its your theory against sports practicality. Emperical examples win out, sorry.

Main Voter: "Therefore, if we want to know what team is truly the best, we need to look and a multitude of nights." Exactly my point, you do. And thus a play-off solves this. Thank-you for finally coming Around to my side. Also, on the 1 crushing a 7. In the NFL, they don't have 7's but they do have 6's and 5's which have made for interesting super bowl in recent years. Plus, if a 7 gets to the final that means a one somewhere went down (Assuming in a 16 team play off you had two brackets 1-8; again the norm) and the seven beat the 2 in the opening round on the round. Sounds exciting to me. With a play-off the championship, sadly, is not ALWAYS the best game. Other games can make their mark and be classics. It doesn't however mean the play-off where a waste. Look at the NBA Finals. Noone, by June, cares about Basketball anymore, but the first three round are usually enough to satisfiy any fan. And this year was no exception.

Oh, excuse me I had a typo. Restating: How do you eliminate luck from football?
And if sports is better without luck then go watch Westle Mania, there is no luck their wanna know why? ‘Cause its rigged.

I don't believe selling 100,000 tickets to one game at price X, and selling 100,000 tickets to one games and then selling 100,000 tickets at the same, or higher, price to another game can possible be less profitable to a team. And if it is that's the teams fault. And to the scheduling just put like the semi-finals and finals then and schedule the other games before. It'll work if you make it. Its not like people don't watch college football in Sep.-Nov. when they have school and work and kinds of other stuff.

Wanna know why Sub-Division, D-II, and D-III schools have a play-off? Because it decides the best champion. Wanna know why everyone, as I've stated previously, has play-offs because it decides the best champion. Fact. Your computer might get lucky, but even you said if it does that is a bad think.

Ok, so I'll give you the whole ‘that's what make college football the greatest sport ever ‘cause our play-off is the regular season' even though you didn't openly state it. But seriously, better? No, look now. What is more interesting, a regular season game or a Conference Championship game? Or a bowl game? Or a BCS game? The Post Season is better because it's the post season. A play-off would be the best because it would be one fair, to deside the best team, and three produce the most intense and awsume competion. Again, you propose semi-alcohlic beer when I want to give you the real thing. Like Coke Zero instead of Real Coke. Take the Real stuff Man!

The whole ‘experimental' think only flies if the ‘experiment' works. What about the 1,000 ways Einstein made the light bulb that didn't work? Exactly no one knows anything about them. The BCS is a failed experiment, what your proposing will just be an attempt to limp the experiment on until a real solution replaces it: A play-off.

Seriously, it is that improbably that 3 teams finish undeafeted? Or a handful finish with one loss? Your looking at over a Hundred teams, in Eleven conferences. Your looking at about eleven teams (theoretically) that could finish undefeated in a given year. And no matter how you worked the schedule three or four could easily turn out unbeaten come end of the regular season. This year we had two (Utah and Bosie) and Ball State and ‘Bama both lost in the Conference Championship games which would have made any easy four. I think you want the stars to just aline aline for your system every year, they won't. Thus, you need a play-off. A hundred teams didn't all play each other in a twelve game season…hmmm…..

http://www.bankrollsports.com...
FYI: In 2004,after all bowl games where played (Play-off selection would be w/o any bowl games) three teams where undefeated in College Football: USC (The National Champion, Auburn, and Utah) Yes, it can and will happen.

Ok, so even if you buy all the reason they physically could do a play-off (*B*ll Sh*t*), sorry I had to cough. You have to look at the resolution ‘should'. As long as we ‘should' implement the play-off. Boom, pro. Vote Pr
mongeese

Con

My opponent has conceded the following logical argument:

"So, you say that the people who run D-I have the opportunity to have the 'Ultiment Event in Sports'?
Then why haven't they done this yet?
They must obviously have a reason.
Perhaps they can't.
They might be locked into a contract.
They might not have enough time.
They might be unable to afford it.
I don't know.
But they do.
They might be unable to do a lot of things.
Perhaps they don't want to.
They might like the current system better.
They might have more profits under the BCS.
They might appreciate the fan excitement.
They might want their students to study for finals rather than watch football.
I don't know.
But they do.
They might want a lot of things.
However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one.
If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already.
But they haven't.
They either can't do it, or they don't want to do it, or something else.
Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do.
But they shouldn't do something that they can't do.
But they shouldn't do something that they don't want to do.
Therefore, Division I College Football should not implement a play-off system."

All I needed was for this to lack opposition to win. It lacks opposition. I win.

Therefore, there is absolutely no need to entertain all of my opponent's arguments.

Also, I am not the computer. I don't know exactly how the computer does it. I can, however, vouch for the reliability of a computer in sports.

Anyways, because my opponent did not make a single direct argument against the string of syllogisms that I made, my opponent has conceded a negation of the resolution.

My opponent has conceded.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
Crazy4Steelers07

Pro

Ok, basically since my oppenent didn't bring up any new arguments I'm just gonna list a bunch of voters, and then explain why you still can't vote con:
1)Every 'Real' Sport has a play-off (This went conceded)
2) Subdivision, D-II, and D-III college football all have play-offs. Any argument that college's can't do it is flawed.
3)High School Football in all 50 States have play-offs.
4)The Current BCS is rigged.
5)The BCS system allows teams to finish the season unbeaten and not a national champion.
6)My opponent's counter-plan invovles relying soley on the computer to decide on national championship game between two people, again failing to leave any way to decide between three undefeated teams. (Emiperical Example in '04 dropped)
7)Having more games would be more profitable....simple economics.
8)Cinderalla's would exsist in college football
9)My opponent completly concede my turn on his luck argument (the basis of his entire second post). Meaning I win every argument he defended in that post.
10)Wouldn't take a month of between the regular season and post-season
11)My attack on my oppenents argument that the BCS produces a better championship game went dropped, and the numbers back up my side that it doesn't.
12)My opponent conceded that you have to look at the best team over a multitude of nights: Thus, a play-off.
13)A play-off is more fun to watch: Why have near-bear when you can have real thing?

My opponent has awnsered constant questions I've asked by saying, "I Don't Know, but they do". I'm sorry this is debate. If you don't know find out. That is how debate works. Simple saying you don't know means that argument is dropped because you don't have a real awnser to give to me. I don't have to refute or exstend anything you drop. And since almost all of you argument start with, "I don't know" well then I guess you don't, but its not my job to figure it out that's yours. Carry over all the questions I've asked that my oppenent has dropped or said, "I don't Know" to as a voter for pro.
Reviewing my opponents most recent, and very short post, he dropped all of my arguments on What to do with a three deserving teams, or the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about when theirs a hundred teams in college football.
Also, the fact that the experiment of the BCS which he compared to the American democratic experiment, my turn that the experiment has to work went dropped, conceding that the BCS experiment has failed. He has no concrete examples to support his hypothetical ideas, where as I have the whole sports world. My fair play-off would solve for any issues I've sent on the BCS and more. The only possible exception would be if a confrence sent bad team that kept a good one out, but that's why their are at large bids and the confence auto-bids would be up to the confrences themselves not College Football.

The only argument that went uncontested by me in my opponents last post was him ranting on why the BCS doesn't change to a play-off. Filled with "Maybe's, I Don't Know's, and Might's and If's" No where did he credidate his argument with sources. Merely assumtions. And regardless of what of the BCS thinks on if they should change the system (which of course whould be biasist to keep the current system). Even if the BCS won't implement the system, the resolution states 'should'. Which means as long as we should implement the play-off (even if its not fiseble or the BCS won't go for it.) you have to vote pro.

Also, if my opponent decides to finally awnser all of the questions I've asked him in all my previos post (which he won't), but if he does try to respond to them. Please note its abusive for him to bring up new arguments in his last post. He can only respond to arguments....accept he's dropped all of them so I don't really know what he's going to say.

But seriously; go read Wetzel's Play-Off plan. The man makes sense.
mongeese

Con

My syllogisms still stand.

They're all I need.

"The only argument that went uncontested by me in my opponents last post was him ranting on why the BCS doesn't change to a play-off. Filled with 'Maybe's, I Don't Know's, and Might's and If's' No where did he credidate his argument with sources. Merely assumtions. And regardless of what of the BCS thinks on if they should change the system (which of course whould be biasist to keep the current system). Even if the BCS won't implement the system, the resolution states 'should'."

My syllogisms listed a lot of "might's" and "I don't knows," but they weren't needed. They were the only things opposed. So, as long as I can remove them, the remainder of my argument is completely un-refuted.

I'll show how you can ignore anything questionable in my syllogism and result with a perfect negation.

Then why haven't they done this yet?
They must obviously have a reason.
Either:
A) They can't.
B) They don't want to.
However, there must be a reason why they have the current system they have, as opposed to a new one.
If play-offs were so beneficial and viable, as you claim, then they would have implemented it already.
But they haven't.
They either:
A) Can't.
B) Don't want to.
Obviously, they know more about this stuff than you do.
But they A) shouldn't do something that they can't do.
But they B) shouldn't do something that they don't want to do.

There are two different paths that can be taken with "maybe's, with thousands of little paths within those paths that ultimately reach the same conclusion.

Therefore, the logical argument is not flawed.

One of the two paths (A and B) must be correct. That's not too much of an assumption. Plus, all of my assumptions are both logical and un-refuted through an entire round, so my opponent actually conceded the assumptions to be true.

I don't have any physical sources, but I do have logical syllogisms, and they're really the most powerful, credible sources out there.

Furthermore, my syllogisms DID address the "should" in the resolution. My opponent has not contested that they shouldn't do something that they either can't do or don't want to do. They either can't do it or they don't want to do it.

CONCEDED: Division I College Football either can't implement a play-off system or doesn't want to implement a play-off system.
CONCEDED: They shouldn't do something that they either can't do or don't want to do.
SYLLOGISM: Division I College Football shouldn't implement a play-off system.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Which means as long as we should implement the play-off (even if its not fiseble or the BCS won't go for it.) you have to vote pro."

However, it's not "we" that should implement this. It is "Division I College Football." They shouldn't do something that they can't do. They shouldn't do something they don't want to do. Therefore, you have to vote CON.

"Also, if my opponent decides to finally awnser all of the questions I've asked him in all my previos post (which he won't), but if he does try to respond to them. Please note its abusive for him to bring up new arguments in his last post. He can only respond to arguments....accept he's dropped all of them so I don't really know what he's going to say."

Here's what I'm going to say: My opponent is just a bickering third party who thinks that he knows what is best for a group that actually knows more than he does about the subject.

I have successfully negated the resolution. A resolution that is as completely negated as this one with pure, pure logic cannot even be partially affirmed.

The resolution is negated. Vote CON. All thirteen of my opponent's "voters" don't matter when the resolution they attempt to affirm has already been incinerated, demolished, and vaporized by one of the world's most powerful forces: logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Vote CON, unless you dare to defy logic. And logic cannot be defied.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Napoleon is always right."
lol

I think that CON should have won because of the logic from the concessions.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mythbuster: "Napoleon is always right."
Posted by mythbuster 7 years ago
mythbuster
Obama is not corrupt, and he says there should be a playoff system, therefore, there should be a playoff system cause Obama said there should be...
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Can somebody show me a non-corrupt politician?

Didn't think so.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Can somebody show me a justification for a PRO seven-point vote?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A: CON/CON
Conduct: TIED
S&G: CON
This was obvious. If you look at PRO's arguments under Microsoft Word, red and green underlinings will cover the page.
Convincing Arguments: CON
CON's syllogism went unrefuted.
Sources: CON
6 to 3, with the addition of logic for CON.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Oh, I have been mass vote-bombed before. My win percentage should be much higher.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Many more...
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Geez, I hope I'm not in for another series of vote-bombing over my head."
-Ehh.. you have a 55.56 win %. If you lose, it's not because of votebombing. I assure you, I do not votebomb.

So far I have it:
Before - Pro
After - Pro
Conduct - Con
S&G - Tied
Arguments - Pro
Sources - Con
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Geez, I hope I'm not in for another series of vote-bombing over my head.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Same.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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 Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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 mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
Crazy4Steelers07mongeeseTied
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