The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

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 13 votes the winner is...
patsox834
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,634 times Debate No: 9379
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (23)
Votes (13)

 

Charlie_Danger

Pro

Steve Young is the better quarterback because he has a 96.8 QB Rating (1), whereas Joe Montana only has a 92.3 (2). Steve Young also has fewer career interceptions, more rushing touchdowns, and a higher passing completion rate than Joe Montana. After seeing both players perform in person and on television, it is clear to me that Steve Young is superior in his athletic capabilities, and his quarterbacking skills.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
patsox834

Con

Montana has a 5.1 TD%, while Young's is 5.6 %; Montana has thrown 272 TD passes;Young has thrown 232. Montana threw for 40551 yards; Young threw for 33124. Montana threw for 211 yards a game; Young threw for 196.

INt's were close – they both had an int% of 2.6, but Montana had more because he played longer, which leads to my point: While Young and Montana are close in terms of effectiveness, Montana played many more games – Montana played in 192; Young played in 169. This is highly significant because the more one plays, the more chances they get to contribute, and Montana was just as effective as Young, Montana having played more means he contributed more; thus, making him better.
Debate Round No. 1
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReganFan 7 years ago
ReganFan
Liberaaaaal!
Posted by chw42 7 years ago
chw42
QB rating is a terrible stat.

There's several flaws in it. It doesn't include sacks and it counts both completion% and yards per completion, which are both extremely correlated. It basically counts completion% twice. The way the formula is calculated also does not put any specific importance on each set of stats. The multipliers in the formula are there to make the stat look better basically, not weight the importance of say, yards per completion in contrary to passing touchdowns.

All my votes go to the contender. The pro only brought up one single argument and it was quite flawed, as shown by my argument above.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I apreciate the votes.

I do have one comment to make, however, which is the difference between 1-round and all other debates. Though it CLEARLY is not a spoken or written rule, you can't smother the Instigator (regardless of side) simply because they don't have the ability to rebut. The difference in a one-round debate is that it isn't about attacking your opponent's case as the Contender, that would be unfair, and quite frankly, abusive to the Instigator's position. One must simply post a "negative constructive" so to speak, showing why you are PRO or CON, not why your opponent's case is wrong. This, again, is unfair to them. I intended and specified that this debate was such a case, even if people cannot figure out this format on their own, meaning that it is not fair to judge the Instigator with an excessive, yet seemingly just, burden.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Conduct: CON. Seeing as PRO's argument was copy - pasted I find that extremely annoying and childish. So I gave conduct to CON.
S&G : TIE. I didn't see any major flaws.
Arguments : CON. I agree with Kleptin on this. Though PRO had a decent argument he was unable to rebut what was brought up by CON which was an integral part of the debate. Seeing as he was instigator, and this was a one - round debate his argument would have had to have been flawless for me to give him total points in this category.
Sources: TIE. This very well may change to PRO depending on how much more thinking I do on the topic. Patsox specified about the character limit and thus posted his links in the comments section. I've had a debate where I lost the sources point because my opponent included many sources in the comment section. So, seeing as they had the same number of sources I will put this category at a tie, until I fully decide whether or not the comments part of the debate is part of the debate - in which the conduct points are subject to change to.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
CONDUCT- Tie. No distinguishable difference on either side.
S&G- Tie. No distinguishable difference on either side.
ARGUMENTS- CON. Any one-round debate in my opinion, is a mistake. Thinking along the lines of an audience member, I am inclined to vote for CON simply because he offered a rebuttal that was suitable and illustrated his point well. If PRO is to start a 1 round debate, his point should be bulletproof. I have noted that there were extra comments in the comment section, but regretfully, the comments section is not part of the debate and thus, cannot be taken into account. It would be unfair. It was PRO's choice to limit his ability to submit a rebuttal, and thus, he took a risk and has to pay the penalty.
SOURCES- PRO. While I am convinced of the validity of CON's sources, his citations were not made. This category goes to PRO.
Posted by LightningRod 7 years ago
LightningRod
Volkov–No offense, but I doubt you pay much attention to the statistical side of sports. One of the most valuable abilities of any player in any sport is the ability to stay healthy and contribute well over time.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
<"Which justifies your vote-bomb?">

Dude, not every vote against you is a vote bomb.

<"I didn't find CON's argument that because Montana has contributed more, he is the better player; that seems to be an argument against actually, considering that Young, a less experienced player, has a better QB rating than Montana.">

QB rating is rather horrid, and it's only *one* stat. As I showed, they're close in their statistics -- but Montana played more, which means he had more chances to contribute, and considering his efficiency relative to Young's, clearly Montana took advantage of these chances; thus, Montana was better.

Moreover, QB rating barely takes into account cumulative statistics -- a player can go 5/5 with 80 yards and a TD pass and have the same rating as someone who went 30/30 with 450 yards and five TDs. So it isn't a measure of overall value; it's a measure of effectiveness. And again, if two players are close in effectiveness, and one played significantly more, who contributed more value?

I had a feeling people wouldn't get the argument I used.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
B & A: Tied; because I don't have an opinion on the sport.
Conduct: Tied; I see no reason why not to tie.
S & G: Tied; no grammar mistakes on either side.
Argument: PRO; I didn't find CON's argument that because Montana has contributed more, he is the better player; that seems to be an argument against actually, considering that Young, a less experienced player, has a better QB rating than Montana.
Sources: Tied; tied only because, and I cannot stress this enough, Wiki is *not* a valid source - use the sources that wiki sources in order to prove your argument, but not wiki itself.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
"Pro plagiarized this from the "Example" part of the "Arguments" section by DDO"
Which justifies your vote-bomb?
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Me: <"I thought I gave a succinct yet sufficient, explanation">

That comma shouldn't be there.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by chw42 7 years ago
chw42
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 thepianist 7 years ago
thepianist
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 methodicalmadness00 7 years ago
methodicalmadness00
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote 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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote 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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Charlie_Dangerpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50