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

Once again I'd like to begin by responding to the Pro's arguments 1. Schedule Comparison. "The argument I presented is that you can not discredit the Patriots until they lose. " I don't discredit them but I believe it's obvious that you could win 16 straight games against worst teams then playing 16 straight games against better teams. I believe it's obvious and if you don't understand why I discredit some of the Patriots wins as being because they played a team that lost nearly all of there games multiple times in the year. The Patriots played 7 games against teams that ended the season below .500 while the Giants only played against 6 teams that went below even in their win loss. Both teams didn't lose to these inferior teams. Also the longest streak, not including the playoffs, in which the Patriots had to play teams that went .500 or higher was 2 games. These were against the Cleveland and Dallas in weeks 5 and 6 and again in weeks 8 and 9 against Washington and Indiannapolis. The Giants on the other hand had to play tougher teams more often starting the season with 4 straight teams that ended over .500 and also 2 more straight teams in weeks 14 and 15. "Also, as was dropped by my opponent, I presented the argument that the Patriots beat several teams the Giants lost to. " I had not dropped this in fact I had said that this is irrelevant because that just means you beat them indirectly. As I had said earlier "If beating the Cowboys who beat the Giants makes New England a superior team then does this mean that the 8-8 Vikings are better then the Patriots who lost to the Giants. " You went on to support my statement that indirect games doesn't make a team better by saying "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. " The Giants had also not lost to a team that they hadn't beaten once in the post and regular season minus the Minnesota Vikings who the New England Patriots had never played. I apologize for my mistake and have reworded my statement from my second round to make it relevant "The Patriots played some good teams but they only played two teams ABOVE .500 twice. The Patriots teams had major flaws and it was unfortunate that none of the other good teams would be able to capitalize on them in a second game like the Giants did. In fact, the only above .500 team the Patriots played this year twice was the San Diego Chargers. " I'd like to also counter one major flaw in my opponents argument "They (the Giants) played FOUR GAMES (neglecting Patriots win) with a team with a winning percentage of above 500, and WON ONE! " Instead of jumping to conclusions that I'm trying to fool the world into believing my opponent is lying to justify his cause I will casually reply to my opponents statements listing the teams above .500 they had played during the regular season: the 13-3 Cowboys twice, the 13-3 Packers, and the 9-7 Washington Redskins twice. Although this only equals up to 5 games the Giants played 2 more games against teams that were .500 then the Patriots. The Giants had beaten all of the teams that were over .500 atleast once earlier or later on in the season. My opponent also says "The resolution states the Patriots are BETTER than the Giants, not that they have won more games" Therefore just because they won more games 16 then the Giants 10 it doesn't mean the Giants are any worse. 2. Records I do not believe you have proven that getting records makes a better team. How is it irrelevant from playing on turf in a superdome to playing in mud outside with rain can alter a games score? I'd like to finish my opponents quote he had used in this section. It should also be noted that if the Giants played 16 times during the season the average stats of the two teams from there two games that Eli Manning the Giants quarterback who would have averaged 3 touchdowns a game would have scored 48 touchdowns just one short of Peyton Manning's record of 49 and Tom Brady would have scored an average of 1.5 touchdowns a game which would have equaled 24 touchdowns on the season not even half of Peyton Manning's record. This is not one game this is two and Roller Coaster Rex is not on either of the two teams so I find this irrelevant. Consistency is key and I believe that both teams are consistent in their playing with times when offence picks up for defence or vice versa. Yes the Giants didn't break records but they weren't running up the score to try to break them either. 3. Super Bowl "I'd assume they wanted to WIN if they were already out there and about to break the Patriots single season record. .. " Every team wants to win every game regardless of how big or small but in any sporting event it's obvious that right before and during the playoffs injuries can break your team. Therefore the Giants didn't come out playing we win this or go home like in the Super Bowl they came in agreed that they should try to win but that losing to the Patriots in the regular season and going to the playoffs regardless wouldn't be as bad a losing to the Tampa Bay Bucs in the first round and end or season. "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. " Same conditions? The first game was played outdoors in cold conditions while the super bowl was played indoors with regulated temperatures. Also I'd like to point out that my opponent has made no more argument that David Tyree's catch was a fluke or luck. 4. Spygate I agree that there has been no more proven times the Patriots have abused spy gate because the NFL had destroyed the tapes. To your third statement that a scandal doesn't hinder ability I disagree. I've proven it can make an impact on the game and since raw talent is shown through stats and you've agreed that spy gate can impact the game and stats so therefore spy gate can help "prove" raw talent. You claim it made no difference to the game. However, since you agree that the tapes weren't used in the Jets vs Pats second game I'd like to share one important stat. Tom Brady's Passer rating between the two games. The first game with the tapes passer rating of 146.6 the second game without the tapes 51.5. I'll begin my conclusion for thanking my opponent and wishing him the best in the future as well as thinking the people who vote for being a part of this debate. I should win this debate because the Giants lost by 3 when they had held back and the Giants won by 3 when they went all out in the two head to head games. My opponents main reason why he should win is the season record but at the same time he says that the season record doesn't make a better team. My opponent has claimed the Giants have played less quality teams but I have proven the Giants have to play a harder schedule because of the fact that the Giants played long streaks of opponents while the Patriots rarely played good teams in back to back weeks. The Patriots may have had the better season as far as making history but the Giants are still a better team because of their performances against the Patriots. The Spy gate scandal should be considered because as the Pro agrees with me it can impact a game. Although it cannot be proven they had used tapes later it in the season it cannot be proved they didn't use tapes later on in the season. I believe that their performances against the Patriots proves that the Giants are as superior team then the Patriots. Conclusion: Therefore I believe the New York Giants are better then the New England Patriots. My opponent even said record doesn't make a better team.