The Instigator
BlueJeanBilly
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ColeTrain
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Dallas Cowboys are the greatest American football franchise since 1960.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
ColeTrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 74341
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

BlueJeanBilly

Pro

(NEW)

By greatest I mean remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: superior in quality.

1st Round will be acceptance of debate.

2nd Round will be Arguments and supporting evidence.

3rd Round will be Rebuttals.

Thanks in advance for accepting and good luck.
ColeTrain

Con

I accept. (Hopefully we will have the same cases following my acceptance? I would suggest it be so.)
Debate Round No. 1
BlueJeanBilly

Pro

I will be using Wikipedia as a reliable source.

I will begin my case with four premises.

i. The Cowboys are more valuable than any other franchise.
ii. The Cowboys have the highest overall winning percentage.
iii. The Cowboys retain the most fans.
iv. Therefore The Cowboys are the GREATEST franchise since 1960.

I will start with premise one. Easy enough, here is the link that provides a reliable resource to state the fact of premise one. http://www.forbes.com...... . As you can see, the Dallas Cowboys are by far the most valuable franchise in the NFL. The closest team to come close is the Pats. The difference is a whopping $6 BILLION. They are the 5th most valuable sports franchise in the world. http://www.forbes.com...... With the supporting evidence I have set forth premise one is not falsifiable.

In premise two I stated that the Cowboys have obtained the highest overall winning percentage since the 1960's. Here is my source of information. http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://michigan-football.com...... As you can see with a percentage of .574 the Cowboys lead in the overall rating. Now I know the resources being used go back before 1960, but since the Cowboys franchise wasn't started until 1960 it benefits me none. If you were to get the average of overall wins the Cowboys division have vs the 2nd best franchise's, no matter which division you choose, the strength of the Cowboys would be stronger. What does this have to do with you ask? The Cowboys also have the most division titles with 22 (2015 season not in resource below) and most playoff berths with 31. Nine of those 31 are consecutive, which is the most. They have won 34 total postseason games which is also the most. http://www.nfl.com......
(MISSING 2015 SEASON)
http://en.wikipedia.org...... They have the most consecutive winning seasons with 20 from 1966 to 1985. Tied with 8 Superbowl appearances, the Cowboys are with a record of 5 wins 3 losses. That's just 1 behind the current record holder to most Superbowl wins. http://en.wikipedia.org......(team)
All this done in what you could call the toughest Division in the NFL. (But that's for another debate) They are one of only a few teams to have back to back Superbowl wins. Now that I have shown you that the Cowboys are the most winning-est team lets move on.

Now to premise three. Short "proof" could be stated with one statement: "America's Team" Funny, huh? Let us get to the real evidence. The easiest way I felt to do this was to take the two most commonly used social medias and see which franchises were liked the most. I think we could all agree that anyone who is well, anyone, at least has a Facebook account.. http://fanpagelist.com...... As you can see the Cowboys beat out the highest total likes by 1,840,209. I mean as I sit here writing this (while watching the Ottawa vs Montreal NHL game) I overhear P.K. Subban talking about the greatest sports team in the world, the Cowboys. Now there may be more polls out there that may state otherwise, I will leave that up to the Con to prove this fallacy.

Greatness, at least in my opinion, comes from primarily three things: value, success in your goal "winning", and being acknowledged and accepted for achieving that goal. Not only have the Cowboys achieved these three things but history has shown they achieve it time and time again. You could also look at the Hall of Fame inductees the Cowboys have. They are tied at 16 inductees with Oakland for the top number since 1960. http://www.profootballhof.com...... They have historically great players, coaches, and dynasties. When you speak to anyone about the NFL whether they know much about it or not, chances are they will know who the Cowboys are. With all of my evidence the Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove that there is a greater franchise. If all of my premises are true than how could there be any greater franchise than the Dallas Cowboys?

Thanks!
ColeTrain

Con

Resolution: The Dallas Cowboys are the greatest American football franchise since 1960.

Position: Con
(I negate the resolution, and disagree with the notion that the Dallas Cowboys are the greatest team.)

Preface:

As my opponent has instigated the debate, I will assume the burden of proof lies primarily on my opponent, who must fulfill and back up his/her claim stated in the resolution. Therefore, my job will be to refute and negate my opponents arguments, and essentially provide a counter plan (or simply refute my opponent’s premises) to back up and prove my side. This counter plan will show that the resolution is flawed because there exists another franchise that is subjectively superior to the Dallas Cowboys both prior to and after the 1960s.

Introduction:

In its infancy, the National Football League was great. Now, infinitely times more popular, the NFL is equally great. This greatness has not come about by lackluster performance and inept teamwork. Conversely, stalwart motivation and professional expertise has contributed in large part towards the success of football in America.

The purpose of this debate is to identify which team has had the greatest magnitudinal effect and objectively label them as the greatest team since the 1960s. My opponent has chosen the Dallas Cowboys to represent his side, and I have chosen the dynastical Pittsburgh Steelers to embody my position as the greatest overall team since the 1960s.

C1) Hall of Fame.

One of the greatest individual achievements in virtually any professional sport, an induction to the Hall of Fame has become relatively repetitive and commonplace for the Pittsburgh Steelers franchise, beginning even before the 1960s. In terms of statistics, the storied franchise is ranked 3rd in regards to Hall of Famers. [1] In total, the Steelers organization has produced 21 Hall of Fame worthy players. [2]

These include:

1963 - Bert Bell

1989 - Mel Blount

1989 - Terry Bradshaw

2012 - Jack Butler

2012 - Dermontti Dawson

1966 - Bill Dudley

1987 - Joe Greene

1988 - Jack Ham

1990 - Franco Harris

1987 - John Henry Johnson

1966 - Walt Kiesling

1990 - Jack Lambert

1967 - Bobby Layne

1993 - Chuck Noll

1964 - Art Rooney

2000 - Dan Rooney

2002 - John Stallworth

1969 - Ernie Stautner

2001 - Lynn Swann

1997 - Mike Webster

2009 - Rod Woodson

Note that each of these players were inducted after 1960, refuting my opponent’s claim. Besides these players, categorized by their induction in their respective years, the organization has players with recognized potential to join the 21 in years following.

These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Ben Roethlisberger

Hines Ward

Troy Polamalu

Casey Hampton

On the other hand, in regards to this statistic, the Dallas Cowboys don’t even make the Top Ten cut. Historically, regarded as “America’s team only have 11 players that have successfully been inducted into the Hall of Fame. Furthermore, the future doesn’t look near as promising in regards to future inductees.

C2) Super Bowl.

The height of excitement and skill of the NFL season, the Super Bowl, is heralded as the most important factor in determining success and greatness. In regards to this statistic, we find undisputed superiority of the Pittsburgh Steelers. In fact, in comparison to any NFL team, the Steelers have had the most success in regards to the Steelers.

In regards to Super Bowl game attendance, the Steelers rank first, along with two other teams: the New England Patriots, and the Dallas Cowboys. However, determining the importance of this statistic is essential to understanding which team under dispute is better: the Cowboys or the Steelers

The Cowboys and Steelers have met three times in the Super Bowl: X, XIII, and XXX. In these meet-ups, the Steelers have won two out of the three (X [3] and XIII [4]). It is also important to note that each of these meetings were obviously past 1960, thus credible per the terms of the debate. Hence, it is established that competitive success in the Super Bowl between the two teams belongs to the Steelers. [5]

Furthermore, in regards to overall Super Bowl success (and not simply specific to the two teams under dispute), the Steelers are once again superior. In their 2009 Super Bowl win, the team has surpassed all other NFL teams in terms of total Super Bowl wins: six. [6] This statistic is essential in determining who has had the greatest overall success in post-1960s.

The argument for consecutive Super Bowl wins is once again awarded to the Steelers. Although both teams have won two consecutive Super Bowls, the Steelers are the only team to have done it on two separate occasions (IX-X and XIII-XIV). [7] Also note that both of these streaks began with a Super Bowl win over the Cowboys.

Furthermore, we see, that on the occasions that they have attended (five), the Cowboys have lost three times, giving them a worse percentage than the Steelers. Specifically, the Cowboys have a .625 percentage while the Steelers have a superior .750. [8] This gives the Steelers a solid and significant edge in regards to Super Bowls.

Conclusion:

Though both the Dallas Cowboys and the Pittsburgh Steelers could both be reasonably attached to the progress and ultimate success of the National Football League, I believe that there is considerable and sufficient evidence that supports the notion that the Cowboys are NOT the greatest team, and rather that the Pittsburgh Steelers fulfill that position.

Rebuttals:

Premise I) Value

The value of a team, while important, cannot directly correlate to “greatness.” Instead, value should be placed on the worth of the talent and skill possessed by the team, rather than simply money. Greatness, in the world of sports, is not based solely on money. In fact, in sports, it is more important that a team has success in sports rather than in the market. Ask the fans, as my opponent brings up. Would they rather their team be worth a million dollars that they will never have, or would they rather their team win the Super Bowl and Tony Romo win the MVP? This premise falls meritless as sports greatness is determined by something other than money worth.

Premise II) Winning Percentage

I concede (with no option, as it is fact) that the Cowboys have a higher winning percentage than any other team. However, I argue instead that winning percentage is not as important as ultimate success. As I have outlined in my case, the Super Bowl is ultimate success, and that statistic does not belong to the Cowboys.

Premise III) Popularity

Though my opponent wants to convince you that popularity belongs to the Cowboys, this is untrue. My opponent has challenged me to refute this, and I have. In a poll taken by Sports Illustrated, the Broncos topped the Cowboys as America’s favorite team. [9] This refutes my opponent’s point and backs up the claim that the Cowboys are not the best team. As I have not been required to specify another team, simple refutation is adequate to prove the resolution false. However, in my case I have outlined reasons as to why another team is better as well.

Premise IV) Result

As I have successfully refuted each of my opponent’s points, and shown reasons to prove the resolution false, I have succeeded in falsifying the resolution. Therefore, the Cowboys are not the greatest franchise since the 1960s.

Sources:


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.profootballhof.com...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://steelcurtainrising.com...

[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[7] http://www.nfl.com...

[8] http://sportslistoftheday.com...

[9] http://www.si.com...

Debate Round No. 2
BlueJeanBilly

Pro

I would like to restate my resources from my case above in round 2 as they seem to have been miss linked.

Sources from round 2 argument in order of appearance:
http://www.forbes.com...
http://www.forbes.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://michigan-football.com...
http://www.nfl.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://fanpagelist.com...

REBUTTAL

I want to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this challenge. I also would like to say thank you for your patience as this is my first debate on this site and have had a couple of miscues. Now for my rebuttal.

First let us look at my opponent's case. He states that the Pittsburgh Steelers are a greater NFL franchise, since 1960, than the Dallas Cowboys. Although I would agree they are a close second, I believe my evidence is too great to make that assumption. My opponent uses only two pieces of evidence to come to his conclusion. I would like to start with his first piece.

Hall of Fame. Rebuttal

I do agree with my opponent that one of the greatest INDIVIDUAL achievements in virtually any professional sport is to be inducted into the Hall of Fame (HoF). Notice the word that stands out in that statement, individual. This is not to say that having more HoF players doesn't make an impression on being better, only that it is more of a personal achievement than a team/franchise one. With that stated I believe my opponent has misguided you with his evidence. His list of Steelers HoF players/coaches violates the rules of the topic being debated. There are numerous players/coaches on his list that never played post 1960. They may have been inducted into the HoF after 1960, but never contributed to the team any time during or after. The players/coaches that this refers to are as follows:
Years played/coached for Steelers are in parentheses. <1>
Bert Bell (1941-1946)
Jack Butler (1951-59)
Bill Dudley (1942, 1945-1946)
Walt Kiesling (1937-1939)(1940-1942, 1954-1956)
Subtract these four players/coaches from his original list and he has not twenty-one but seventeen HoF awards. Now let us compare that to the Cowboys list of hall of fame players/coaches. The Cowboys have fifteen total. <2> Since the Cowboys were established in 1960 everyone of these players/coaches contributed after then. Pay close attention to the fact that Steelers HoF players Bobby Layne (1958-1962) and Ernie Stautner (1950-1963) only had a select few years in the 60's. <1> During 1960-1963 the Steelers only had two winning seasons. Out of these four seasons there winning percentage is as follows. 1960 = .458 , 1961 = .429 , 1962 = .643 , 1963 = .607. <3> The only playoff berth during this time was in 1962 where the Lions beat them. With all of this stated, how much did these two players really contribute during the 60's? If we were to subtract these two players from the Steelers list the Cowboys would have the same amount of players/coaches in HoF. Then could we come to the conclusion that the Cowboys list of HoF is essentially equal to the Steelers list? One could even say that we have had more HoF players play for us. With this <4> list we have had a total of twenty-one players/coaches that at some time have played for the Cowboys. Since the 60's the Steelers have only had eighteen. <1> I understand that getting into the HoF is a great achievement, but how much does this contribute to the overall greatness of a franchise?

Super Bowl. Rebuttal

I would have to again agree with my opponent. The Super Bowl is the apex of what all NFL franchises goals are set to attain. But, how much of this do we take into account when measuring total greatness? Should we say that it stands for 80%? Is it fair for it to merit that much? It's hard to put a number on this but I think everyone could agree that there are other factors that have to be taken into account aswell. There is no arguing that the Steelers have more Super Bowl wins than the Cowboys. However I will state this fact. The Cowboys are ahead in the all time series with the record being Cowboys 16 wins Steelers 15. <5>

Cross Examine

In my case I stated four premises.
i. The Cowboys are more valuable than any other franchise.
ii. The Cowboys have the highest overall winning percentage.
iii. The Cowboys retain the most fans.
iv. Therefore The Cowboys are the GREATEST franchise since 1960.

I will start with premise one. I agree that it is more important that a team has success in sports rather than in the market. Let me ask one question that will open up what I mean by how value contributes to greatness. What makes a teams value grow? Is it only the way you run your business side of things? Or, is it the combination of success, advertisement, performance of players, being a great business man, etc.? You stated that value is meritless when it comes to ranking greatness. I would strongly disagree with you on this. Without value there is no franchise to be great.

No need to bring up premise two being as it is fact so I will skip to premise three. The source you used <6> I believe actually benefits my case more than yours. Two key points this poll points out. One, you selected the Steelers as the greatest franchise, not the Broncos. Also as you can see by that poll the Cowboys still finished ahead of the Steelers. Two, the article states that "Despite their best start since 2007, the Cowboys dropped out of the top spot for the first time since 2006. They were ranked fourth. It is only the second time in 14 polls that Dallas has not finished either first or second." I believe this clearly proves premise three.

iv. Therefore The Cowboys are the GREATEST franchise since 1960.

Conclusion

You have failed to falsify all four of my premises. The two cards of evidence you presented fail to outweigh my evidence to prove that there is any other franchise that is greater than the Cowboys since 1960.
Thanks!
Sources

<1> http://www.profootballhof.com...
<2> http://www.profootballhof.com...
<3> http://en.wikipedia.org...
<4> http://en.wikipedia.org...
<5> http://en.wikipedia.org...
<6> http://www.si.com...#
ColeTrain

Con

Burden of Proof:

It seems that it was not clear as to what my burden of proof has been, so I will clarify in this round. The resolution is a claim, by the instigator (BlueJeanBilly) that team A is better than all other teams. (The Dallas Cowboys are the greatest American football franchise since 1960.) Worded as it is, Pro has the BoP to effectively prove that there is NO team better than the Cowboys. I, on the other hand, must simply refute this notion and prove otherwise, that they cannot be considered the greatest. This does not bind me to a specific team to use in order to oppose this notion. Because my opponent has made such a blatant claim, the burden falls on him. Again, my job is to refute his points. To show my side, I chose to use the Pittsburgh Steelers as as frame of reference for my case, but I am not tied to that selection for my opponents points. Furthermore, the instance where I brought up another team was simply to disprove a false claim.


Preface:

I would like to thank my opponent for his response, and the creation of the debate. This has been stimulating and interesting as well. My opponent disagrees with the notion that the Steelers are superior. He also says that his evidence is "too great" to make the assupmtion that the Steelers are subjectively the "greatest" franchise since 1960. However, in terms of numerical value for evidence, mine surpasses his. He brought up 8 pieces of evidence in his intial round, while I brought up 9. His claim that I brough up only two pieces of evidence to support my stance inaccurate and irrelevant. I simply ask the audience to read my first round and note 9 instances where I cite evidence to back my claims.


Claims:

C1) Hall of Fame.

My opponent concedes that the Hall of Fame is a great individual achievenment, but does not merit the team with any success for such an accomplishment. However, I am here to show how Hall of Fame is directly correlated and caused by the overall team's greatness. To attain a player of such potential and expertise, the franchise must have skill of its own to a) draft the player, or b) reach a trade agreement with another team to obtain the player. Next they must c) train the player to be successful in the league, then d) teach the individual how the team's system works, and finally e) ensure the player that they can be successful in the system and keep a system that works for their players.


This results in at least 4 definite and essential steps done by the team to reward the individual with such an award. With a certain franchise producing such a vast majority of players, it is due to the impact and effort of the team that led the individual to success. Because of this, it is not only a personal achievement, but a team achievement as well. This fulfills a cause and effect relationship, proving that the Hall of Fame is a relevant and important statistic when crowning a team as the greatest. As the Steelers have more Hall of Famers, they remain superior.

Furthermore, my opponent questions the validity of the Steelers Hall of Fame players. However, each induction serves a purpose, and is not given easily. His first question arises about Bobby Layne, and says that his impact was not sufficient for his awards in the '60s. This is not true. His impact was still good, where he had some of his best individual statistics during the last few years of his career. [1] Moreso, in the 50's, he was one of the greatest quarterbacks of the entire decade, as evidenced by critics from ESPN. [2] This shows that his impact for the team extended, as he wouldn't be awarded a place in the Hall of Fame if his success vastly diminished.

Ernie Stautner, around whom my opponent centralizes his second concern, had his best seasons in the 1960s, in terms of recorded statistics. [3] These include interceptions (1) and fumble recoveries (4), both of which are impactful to team success. Conclusively, the benefits of Hall of Fame extend to the team, and the Steelers remain the leaders in this category.

C2) Super Bowl.

My opponent concedes this point and agrees one two things. The first of which being a) "The Super Bowl is the apex of what all NFL franchises goals are set to attain" (quoted) and b) the Steelers are the rulers in this important category. This means I am winning the Super Bowl argument, and once again note that it is the most important one as my opponent has agreed.


He does, however, ask how important it should be. We should consider this with utmost importance and award merit to it as necessary. It is up to the judges to discern its importance, but all fans will understand how vastly important this is. To crystallize its effect, simply read into why people think that Joe Montana and Tom Brady are great quarterbacks. The primary reason is because of Super Bowls. Because of such importance, without refuting this point effetively, the Con side must win.

Rebuttals:

Premise I) Value

My opponent concedes that success is more important than simple market worth, but also explains that value contributes to greatness. He says that value comes about by a) the running of business, b) success, c) advertisement, and d) performing of players. This requires two things that have nothing to do with team success, and they are two of the most important. Advertisements sway peoples' decisions, and business management can ramp up value for any product. Thus, the merit of value is vastly less than that of other points. (For example, the Super Bowl card should be of much more importance than that of value).


Premise II) Winning Percentage

My opponent says this must be disregarded because it is fact. However, I still made arguments to the premise to which my opponent has not responded. Therefore, those arguments stand, being specifically in regards to the Super Bowl. As ultimate success is the apex of what franchises will strive, winning percentage is of less overall importance than total success (winning the Super Bowl).


Premise III) Popularity

My opponent incorrectly states that this point falls in his favor because I deviated from the Steelers. However, my opponent has the BoP to prove his points in the fullest, whereas my primary job is simply to rebut and falsify these points. As this statistic is fallible, and inherently false, it leaves the audience with no option but to award it to the Con side. I have provided evidence backing up the notion that this premise is false, thus it is counted. However, I will provide more sources, as it seems necessary to do so. [4] , [5]


Premise IV) Result

I will use this time to conclude. In conclusion, we find each of my opponent's 3 argumentative premises have been effectively countered and refuted, one of which being found inherently false (Premise III). In regards to this statistics, it can be found relevant for two reasons: a) it is inherently false, and b) because it is false, it doesn't matter if it supports my chosen team, the Pittsburgh Steelers. Because it is false, this point cannot be awarded to the side affirming the notion of the Cowboys being the greatest.


Furthermore, my opponent cannot escape these two facts regarding my C2: a) the Super Bowl is the apex of what every team attempts to achieve, and b) the Steelers have more Super Bowls and more Super Bowl wins than the Cowboys. In regards to my C1, we also find that the Steelers are superior in number. All of this said, there is no available option but to vote Con. Thank you. This has been a fun debate.


Sources:

[1] http://www.nfl.com...
[2] http://sports.espn.go.com...
[3] http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
[4] http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...
[5]
http://www.harrisinteractive.com...

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Okay. :)
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Voting now.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Yes, I oppose it.
Posted by BlueJeanBilly 1 year ago
BlueJeanBilly
That would be fun. Although we should probably see where each other stand. Are you against capital punishment?
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Maybe we can do a debate on the death penalty. :)
Posted by BlueJeanBilly 1 year ago
BlueJeanBilly
Thank you. I agree, has definitely been fun.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Thanks for a great debate! It's been fun. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
BlueJeanBillyColeTrainTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con, for the same reasons as the last debate. Con used a varriety of sports sources while Pro mainly used wikipeadia. In reguards to arguments I'm still going to have to give that point to Con on the basis that Con effectively refuted and even turned around a few of Pro's own contentions while maintaining his own arguments. Conduct and spelling was decent on each side, so I'll leave those as a tie.