All things considered, the Patriots were better than the Giants in the 2007-08 season.

Let's get it on: 1. Schedule comparison. < > Yes, but my opponent did not respond to my main argument. The argument I presented is that you can not discredit the Patriots until they lose. Furthermore, this only accounted for 8 of the 18 games that the Patriots won. Also, as was dropped by my opponent, I presented the argument that the Patriots beat several teams the Giants lost to. Hence, while the head to head is even, it is advantage Patriots because they have beaten teams that the Giants could not beat. < > Ah yes, but my opponent's arguments was that they had an easier schedule. Although they did not 'crush' the Giants, they did destroy the teams the CON mentions as being weaker teams. Also, as I have said multiple times during this debate, the Patriots have beaten several teams that the Giants could not. < > Actually, they played 3 teams twice, the teams in their division, and beat every team both times. Yet, no team was able to capitalize on the 'weaknesses. ' My opponent can not claim these weaknesses as disadvantages until they lost because of them. Finally, the last statement is blatantly false. The Patriots beat a 10-6 Brown team, a 13-3 Cowboy team, a 13-3 Colt team, a 9-7 Redskin team, a 10-6 Steelers, a 10-6 Giants, as well as an 8-8 Eagles. My opponent is clearly false in saying this. This is also very abusive to the PRO side. He is making blatantly wrong statements and facts. Upon reading my opponent's argument, a proverbial judge may not know that this is a wrong fact, and vote for CON because of it. Thus it is abusive. Please regard this abusiveness when making your decision. < > Perhaps if this had been one game, this argument could sustain itself. The fact is, Dallas beat the Giants TWICE while NE beat them AND NY lost to Washington while NE beat them. There is no instance where NE lost to a team and NY beat them. Read that second sentence: that does not make any sense. The fact that the Giants lost to Minnesota provides no link suggesting that Minnesota is better than the Patriots. It could be like this, from worst to best: Giants, Vikings, Patriots. My opponent's arguments are false. A GIANT KILLER (no pun intended): fact: the Giants had a combined opponent's record of 116-124, neglecting the Patriots game. They played FOUR GAMES (neglecting Patriots win) with a team with a winning percentage of above 500, and WON ONE! The Patriots played 6 games with teams above 500, and won EVERY LAST ONE OF EM. Game. Set. Match. I win. 2. "I will go on to say that you cannot prove that a team is better because of records they completed. This is because of all the variables that can alter outcomes of games. " Yes, but that is irrelevant. The resolution states the Patriots are BETTER than the Giants, not that they have won more games. Hence, this argument still stands, they are still better, they still set more records. "It should also be noted that if the Giants played 16 times during the season. .. " All I have to say is: one game can not be contributed to a player's abilities. Take 'Roller Coaster Rex' for example. In one game, he got 5 TDs and over 300 yards. So, he'd be on pace to win the record. But wait! Did I just hear Rex Grossman got replaced because he had a QB rating of 10 the next game? It is CONSISTENCY that makes the ball-player. Something that Brady, Moss, and the Patriots have. Please extend all of my arguments into this round, regarding the Patriots awards and records received. My opponent makes lackluster arguments about how they don't really matter, but they do. It proves how great of players the Patriots have, and how good they are as a team. This is the sign of a great team. Notice that the Giants did not break in records in '07. 3. SUPAAA BOWL "The Giants did play their starters but would have still held back to prevent injury that would have affected their playoff chances. " I'd assume they wanted to WIN if they were already out there and about to break the Patriots single season record. .. There has been a lot of debating over the head to head games. It seems as though me and my opponent are at a stalemate. Neither one of us has gained an advantage, because the games played were under almost the exact same conditions. Thus, I will concede that this argument is a wash, and the Patriots and Giants were even playing together. Although, that does not mean the Patriots are not the better team. Please see 'why I win' down below. 4. Spygate First, although it may impact the game, the Patriots only used this once. My opponent trys to say he could've used it before, but the article he presents does not deal with the 2007-08 season that the resolution calls for. Furthermore, there is no definitive proof that Bellichek has indeed cheated before. Therefore, you can not weigh the argument on pure speculation. Second, the Pats whomped the Jets in that game and also killed them in a later match up 20-10 without using the tapes. We can conclude that spygate really had no effect on the Pat's abilities, as they had beat the team twice that they used tapes for. Third and most importantly, my first argument goes uncontested by my opponent. I argue that a scandal in one game by a coach does not hinder their abilities. The Patriots still had the raw talent, neglecting the one game using the tapes, to win 17 games in a row. This argument hence does not apply to disproving the resolution. WHY I WIN THIS DEBATE: As I have aforementioned, I concede the head-to-head games. This gives neither the Patriots nor the Giants the upper hand. The reason why the Patriots are better, though, is their record. The Pats won 18 games in a row, beat 6 +500 teams, beat two teams the Giants have lost to whilst the Giants have not beaten any teams the Pats lost to, set the single-season wins record, set the recieving TD record, set the passing TD record, has set the record for most points per game and points in a single season, set the QB-WR TD record, and the list goes on. The Giants, however, have won only 10 games in the regular season, went 1-4 against +500 clubs in the regular season, have broken no records, and on top of it all, faced a sub-500 combined opponent winning percentage. Please also review the abusiveness argument brought into this round by myself.