Daniel Day-Lewis's Performance in There Will Be Blood is the Best performance in years

My opponent has decided to stick with his view that my rebuttals are not related to this debate, although, unlike my responses, he does not show any new topics concerning the debate. Not in this round or the last. Maybe my response this time will stop him from being a broken record and present new evidence to support his claim. Now onto the debate. --- >>You are proving that No Country For Old Men is a better movie then There Will be Blood and that is not what this debate is about.<< Merriam-Webster defines counterexample as: Function: A noun "An example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory" Do you understand the idea of counterexample? If you do, then you would have realized that presenting counterexample is just what I have been doing this whole time. By presenting to you a movie with actors that perform better than the original one given, I am using the method of counterexample to prove that your proposition that Daniel's performance in "There Will Be Blood" is NOT the greatest performance in the last several years. >>You are not saying that Bardem's or Tommy Lee Jones' performances were better then Day-Lewis', you are just saying the movie is.<< On the contrary, that is exactly what I am doing. I think that both Bardem's and Tommy's performance in "No Country For Old Men" were better than Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. What makes a movie, when there is lack or no interest in special effects or the like, is the quality of the acting. Therefore, I am saying that Anton Chigurh and Ed Tom Bell (Bardem and Tommy's characters) were better preformed as than Daniel Plainview (Daniel's character) was. What's even funnier is that you challenged the performance of Tommy and Javier the last round, which I then described the acting of the two star performers in that film. It seems that you are even forgetting what you yourself says. That shows a lack of concern for this debate and that could hurt you in the end, in my opinion. >>And just to let you know, Day-Lewis has been up for and won more awards then any of the cast of No Country For Old Men.<< Ah, another easy contradiction. It is true that Daniel has won more awards that the cast of "No Country For Old Men", but that is not what we are debating, is it? We are debating the performance in "There Will Be Blood." Whether or not he preformed in any other films prior to this one is irrelevant to this statement. Perhaps it I that should be telling you to stay on topic in this debate. >>And in speaking about Gangs of New York, although I too love that movie and his perfomance, Daniel Day- Lewis was very much more cartoonish in it then Daniel Plainview.<< To cartoon-oriented? You say it like it is a bad thing. You have to keep in mind that "Gangs Of New York" is a "cartoonish" movie, in some views. Having his performance reflect the theme of the movie isn't wrong, is it? >>Therefore actually discuss something that goes with the debate topic next time.<< That, at this point, is obviously false. I have proven to you that I have not only been following the debate, but I have given you several valid points that you have forgotten or chosen to look over, because you do not want to accept the truth in them. In conclusion, my opponent has sown together a thin and flimsy argument in this debate, and at every corner, I have cut it apart. However, he chooses to forget this and make more accusations against me rather than the debate itself. I will give you, the viewer, three valid points that will hammer the nails into Dylan's coffin. A. "No Country For Old Men" received more awards because of the performance of the actors, not the movie itself. No movie receives an award for being a movie. B. Daniel's performance in "Gangs of New York" and "My Left Foot" both were better examples of acting on his part than "There Will Be Blood." C. Using counterexample is not going off topic of the debate but instead furthers the debate, giving strong points and evidence for it. The assumption that I have been giving unrelated facts to the debate is a desperate attempt by my opponent to gain a foothold, which did, does, and will not work with in this debate. Thank you.