The Undertaker is Superior to any wwe superstar from any time.

Hello everyone. The pro has made the assertion that the undertaker is superior to any wwe superstar from any time period, therefore the pro has the burden of proof to show 100% beyond without doubt that his assertion is true. However, I do not think the pro is capable of doing so because this is truly a matter of opinion. The pro does not list stipulations to this debate, so I am going to argue some facts that is evidence the undertaker is NOT superior to a lot of wwe/wwf superstars. Fact number 1: The Undertaker has not held the world championship/WWE championship belt the most. Superstars like Rick Flair, John Cena, Triple H, and a ton of others have held this title regarded to be the most important and biggest title in the wwe. Not only have a lot of superstars held this title more, but they have also held other titles more than the undertaker as well. This cannot be refuted. Fact number 2; The undertaker works less than most of the other superstars in wwe, even when he was at his peak and healthy enough to compete. Again, superstars like John Cena, Triple H, Ric Flair, Shawn Michael's, Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock and many others have worked more than the Undertaker. Again another fact. John Cena personally busts his butt off week in and week out more than almost any other superstar in wwe history. If the Undertaker was so superior, he would be on Monday Night Raw weekly, and have more pay per views. Fact number 3: The undertaker isn't even the strongest superstar. There are many in the backstage locker room that can out lift the Undertaker when it comes to weight lifting. I am talking about some of these dudes being able to throw over 600 pounds above their shoulder. John Cena for example gave an F-U/Attitude Adjustment to the Big Show with a other superstar on the Big Show's back and that takes an enormous amount of strength, and I have never seen the Undertaker do that in my eyes of watching WWE. Fact number 4: Contribution. It's a fact that many other WWE superstars have contributed in ring more and OUTSIDE the ring. John Cena again for example has made the most Make-A-Wish Foundation donation's more than ANY superstar in history, and when was the last time you heard the Undertaker do something of the sort without honest to god having to look it up? Brett Hart would give his shades to a fan every night he came out, and yadda yadda. The undertaker was more so an outsider in that regard. Fact number 5: The undertakers move set is limited. There are many high flyers and more acrobatic superstars than the Undertaker. Daniel Byran, Jeff Hardy, Shelton Benjamin, and a ton of others are more flashy and can pull of a ton of different moves than the undertaker can. If the undertaker was superior, he could do everything better. Fact number 6: The undertaker isn't hardcore like Mick Foley. Fact number 7: The undertaker never won a gold Olympic medal with a broken neck like Kurt Angle who in my opinion has to be the REAL best wrestler out of them all since WWF/WWE is scripted. It seems to me, the pro is only providing an opinion and making the assertion and there is little to no way he can refute any of my facts I listed and provide 100% evidence the Undertaker is better. It's a fact that everyone likes different wrestlers, not everyone will like the same guy. It's a fact the wwe is scripted on terms of who wins and who doesn't win, and so these accomplishments the undertaker might have is just scripted. He isn't the most versatile, his mic skills are sub par when you go to CM Punk, John Cena, The Rock, Shawn Michael's, and many others. How can he be so superior if he is weak in a lot of categories and not the best at what he does? He hasn't held the title much than the others, he never shows up for work. I think the pro can only give his opinion and there is little facts he can honestly list off when I listed off a good number of facts, and some of most important facts as title championships, strength capability, contributions in and out of the ring and so forth. If the pro wants to win this debate, he must set down a framework which will convince everyone reading the Undertaker is superior because as of now, I'd argue Kane even seems better at this point. Not saying I hate the Undertaker, he's cool no doubt, but he is flawed, and of course it's a character with a script to follow just like all the others.