The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

USC football is better than UCLA football

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,899 times Debate No: 14895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Contention 1: USC has more championships than UCLA
USC has 11 championships has compared to UCLA's 1 championship

Contention 2: Heisman winners
USC has 6 has compared to UCLA's 1.

Contention 3: All Americans
USC has 78 which is double the amount of what UCLA has.

Contention 4: Bowls
USC has won the most bowls


Observation 1: The use of "is" in the resolution implies the present tense. This means that the past success does not matter because we have to look to the present.

Observation 2: The con reserves the right to say that the football teams are not comparable.

Contention 1: USC has a bowl ban

According to an article from ESPN[1], USC has faced a bowl ban which will last for the upcoming season, meaning that it is occurring in the present tense; hence, it is relevant to the resolution. The impacts of the bowl ban are threefold. First, it negatively impacts recruiting, as the source provided explains. Second, players were allowed to transfer from USC to other schools because of the ban. Third, bowls are an important source of revenue and USC will go without this. UCLA still can participate in bowls. This contention is the highest impact in the round because a bowl game victory is the ultimate goal of a collegiate football team, therefore it has the highest magnitude. Further, its probability is certain. Because it is impossible for USC to achieve this goal and UCLA can win a bowl game I urge you to negate.

On my opponent's case
All of my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the present tense. And, even if they are, they have no impact and no warrant.

Debate Round No. 1


Well right now USC is appealing the bowl ban and the NCAA is in the process of deciding if they allow USC to play in a bowl and during an appeal a probation is irrelevant during an appeal process.

Usc got the fourth best recruiting class in the nation this year which is better than ucla

well last year ucla didn't even make a bowl game and USC destroyed ucla 28-7 to knock ucla out of bowl contention. Since ucla didn't make a bowl USC was 8-5 last year compared to ucla at 5-7.USC beat ucla 4 straight times. So USC is coming off of a better season than ucla and USC looks better this year than ucla


Observation 1 goes conceded. This means that we are only talking about things in the present tense.

When you extend this observation, it takes out his new arguments because they are talking about the bast again. Even if you don't buy that, he has conceded that the impact of the bowl game ban is the highest in the round. At this point I don't even need to respond to his arguments and all I have to do is uphold my own.

His response to my argument is that USC is appealing the bowl ban. However, right now, in the present tense, the bowl ban is still in effect. Thus, it does not matter because we are not concerned with the future in this debate. Even if you don't buy that, the bowl ban appeal is unlikely to be appealed, according to an ESPN article[1]. Thus, I outweigh because it is more likely that the bowl ban stays than is reversed.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent hasn't even responded to my two arguements. He says that he doesn't even need to respond to my arguments because that i don't use the "present tense" in my contentions but that i focus on past things USC has won but really he is just saying this because he doesn't know how to rebuttal it. You have to bring events up from the past to determine who currently is a better team, which I am doing. My opponent has yet to refute my points, therefore they still stand. My opponent is relying on pure symantics instead of argumentation. He knows he can't overcome my argument so therefore he is cowardly hiding behind grammatical usage.

He has not yet offered his case of UCLA being better. My case still stands and he does not even have a case to stand on. That is why you vote PRO.


First, on his 3rd round and then voting issues.

In response to my refutation, he says that we must look to events in the past in order to see the present. However, he provides no reason why and this is just an assertion, which holds no weight. Further, my response is that I can look at what a team is made up at this very moment without knowing how many championships they have won in the past or how many Heisman trophy winners they have had. He says that I have yet to refute his points, however, the reason I did not refute them is that they do not hold any weight, and he conceded this by not responding to my refutation. There is a character limit of 4,000 in this round, he had plenty of room to challenge this in the 2nd round. He then accuses me of hiding behind grammatical uses. This argument does not stand because he worded the resolution and had ample room in his other rounds to challenge my interpretation, but he chose not to. It is ridiculous for him to accuse me of semantics when he waited until the last round to challenge my "semantics" and he himself worded the resolution. It was clear to me that it was in the present tense, and I assumed that the instigator would want to debate his own resolution. Next, he says that I have not offered any case of UCLA being better. This is not true. In my opening argument, I showed that UCLA was inherently better because they currently have the ability to go to a bowl game. This argument goes conceded because I showed how the bowl ban is still in effect in the present tense so the future doesn't matter and the likelihood of it being removed is extremely low, which he failed to refute. He also conceded that this is the highest impact in the round.

Voting issues:
Conduct: CON- In his third round, he accused me of being cowardly and that I could not overcome his argument, which is very smug.
Spelling/Grammar: TIE/CON- This goes whichever way, although he did have several capitalization errors and spelling errors such as spelling "semantics" as "symantics" in his person attack against me
Convincing Arguments: CON- He provided weak refutation to my contention and I made two responses to it. I also conceded that its impact was the highest in the round. So, at the point in which he has conceded that this is the highest impact in the round and he has conceded the contention itself, he looses
Sources: CON- He used zero sources, while I used ESPN, which is very legitimate regarding sports.

Thank you and I urge a con ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Thats actually a very good argument by con. Rather than feeling semantic it seems clever.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
lol, there was a semantics argument I was going to go for, but even that doesn't work because of how loop sided it is.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
This is a perfectly fair debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.