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

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) ValueMy 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 PercentageMy 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) PopularityMy 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) ResultI 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...