The Instigator
ati
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points

On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 29892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

ati

Pro

If the 3 points person missed shot, the person will get no point.
The 2 points person doesn't miss, so 2 points person always get points.
Beginner

Con

This is untrue. Your statement is based on the assumption that the person who makes 50% 3 point shots only shoots 3-point shots while the person who makes 2-point shots only shoots 2-point shots.
It is possible to have the 50% 3-point shotter also e able to make 100% 2 point shots.
It is also possible to have the 100% 2 point shotter miss 100% 3 point shots.
Here's a scenario: Person A (we'll call him 3 pointer) and person B (2 pointer, obviously), are both called to the basketball court. Now to make the shooting fair (instead of have 3 pointer only shoot 3 point shots and 2 pointer only shoot 2 point shots), both players are to shoot 100 2 point shots and 100 3 point shots.. a total of 200 shots per player. This comes down to simple math: 3 pointer makes 50 3 point shots, scoring 150, 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots, 0 points.
3 pointer than makes 100 2 point shots, 2 pointer also makes 100 2 point shots.
Total score:
3 pointer = 350 points
2 pointer = 200 points
3 pointer is better.
The person who makes 2-point shots, while at 100%, may not be able to match it with 3-point shots.
This is only a possible scenario, but it is enough to win me this match,

Here's how you might have had a better chance of winning:
The topic should have instead been: "In basketball, the person who makes 100% 2 point shots is most probably better than one who makes 50% 3 points shots"

You put: "is better". Sealing your loss in the absolution of your statement.
Debate Round No. 1
ati

Pro

" 3 pointer makes 50 3 point shots, scoring 150, 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots, 0 points.
3 pointer than makes 100 2 point shots, 2 pointer also makes 100 2 point shots.
Total score:
3 pointer = 350 points
2 pointer = 200 points
3 pointer is better.
The person who makes 2-point shots, while at 100%, may not be able to match it with 3-point shots. "

You are right in this scenario and it could happen, but why 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots?
It is possible to have the 2 pointer makes 3-point shots.
We only know 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3-point shots.

In the game: 2 pointer and 3 pointer are same team, their team should make basket either 2 points or 3 points, both players are free and they are standing on their shooting position.
In this case, if someone in their team has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, the person will pass 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots.
If I saw long span, 3 pointer may be better than 2 pointer, but 2 pointer has more opportunity to take shots and 2 pointer always make shots.
So, 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer.
Beginner

Con

I can't believe you're even trying.. >_>
Possibility is based on probability, meaning even if there is a 0.0000000000000000000001% chance that mister 2pointer misses all his 3 point shots in the equal shot scenario, it is still possible. Telling me that this is impossible is extremely fallacious and cannot be logically proven.

Although my above argument is technically enough, I will discuss further discrepancies in your statements.
Furthermore, isn't it more difficult to get closer to the basketball basket to shoot a 2 pointer instead of staying outside the large semi circle (removing the hassle of having to get past a lot more defenders and ptoential ball stealers)?

For my 3rd rebuttal: If I could draw a diagram this explanation would be easy. Let me try to visualize it for you.
Let's say we are starting at the halfway point on the basketball court. To have your shots become 2 pointers, you must move around, let's say, 20-50 feet. Shots made from 10-19 feet from the halfway point qualify as 3 point shots.
To actually get to the 2-point shot area, a player must pass the 3 point shot area. NO EXCEPTIONS. Basically, let's say we have 100 players. 60% of players go for 2 point shots and 40% go for 3 point shots. 100% of the 2 point shotters have an opportunity at making a 3point shot before making the 2 point shot. This means that 40 players who have the opportunity to make 3-pointers actually do so while 60 players who have the opportunity to make 2 point shots ALL had, simultaneously, the opportunity to make 3 point shots.
100 out of 100 players had the opportunity to make 3 point shots while
60 out of 100 players had the opportunity to make 2 point shots.

Vote Con. :)
Debate Round No. 2
ati

Pro

First, I didn't say that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, is impossible.
It is possible that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, but it is also possible that 2 pointer makes all his 3 point shots.

"Furthermore, isn't it more difficult to get closer to the basketball basket to shoot a 2 pointer instead of staying outside the large semi circle (removing the hassle of having to get past a lot more defenders and ptoential ball stealers)? "

If there was defenders, 2 pointer will be difficult to make shots, but 3 points shot is physically difficult because shooter needs more power to throw the ball to the rim and needs more control to through hoop, in addition 3 pointer has defenders too. The 3 pointer doesn't have many defenders but it is still difficult to take shots.

Your 3rd rebuttal is right.

In my game scenario which is on round 2, the person who has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, passed 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 points shots.
This means the person trusted 2 pointer because 2 pointer will make points.
The trust means the 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3 point shots in this case.
Beginner

Con

"First, I didn't say that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, is impossible.
It is possible that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, but it is also possible that 2 pointer makes all his 3 point shots."
Concession! :)

"If there was defenders, 2 pointer will be difficult to make shots, but 3 points shot is physically difficult because shooter needs more power to throw the ball to the rim and needs more control to through hoop, in addition 3 pointer has defenders too. The 3 pointer doesn't have many defenders but it is still difficult to take shots."
Who are you to judge the proportionality defenders vs. distance from hoop to the effect on the average scoring abilities of a player? This is a plainly unsupported statement.

"Your 3rd rebuttal is right."
Concession! :)

"In my game scenario which is on round 2, the person who has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, passed 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 points shots.
This means the person trusted 2 pointer because 2 pointer will make points.
The trust means the 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3 point shots in this case."
My opponent doesn't deny the reverse game scenario in which 3pointer is better than 2 pointer. This means my contention stands untarnished above my opponents resolution. Good game! (bro-fist)
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TD_Cole 4 years ago
TD_Cole
@The_Master_Riddler - he said, 3 pointer makes 50 '3 point' shots, then makes 100 '2 point' shots which altogether equals 350. [(3x50)=150 + 200=(100x2)] = 350
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
con's math is wrong. he said it equals 350 but that is not true, it equals 150.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "You can't objectively claim: "You're argumentation sucks balls." if you don't even know what it says."

It's worth considering your audience and whether you could've stated your primary case in fewer and/or simpler words. Consider if Obama had filled his presidential debates with complex legal terms he learned at Harvard. He may have been right, but also lost the debates.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I have considered your vote bomb complaint. A vote bomb is a vote w/o a stated reason for the vote.

For arguments, I can't agree. He gave a clear rationale--'Some of Beginner's arguments were unclear and not really clear... That's why I gave the "convincing arguments" category to ati.'

For conduct, I agree. He said this--"Also, Ati had better conduct throughout the whole debate." This does not explain how ati's conduct was better than Beginner's conduct.

If DebaterAgent updates his RFD or vote, please post a comment, and I will revise my vote.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
So you're saying vote bombs are justified. True, voting is their choice, but I have a right to a counter vote if the vote is obviously bad, unfair and biased (such as vote bombs, which are usually countered when cast). The person didn't even lift a finger to try understanding my premises. You can't objectively claim: "You're argumentation sucks balls." if you don't even know what it says.
That's basically what this DebaterAgent is doing.
I'm not asking for DebaterAgent should be punished, I'm simply asking for a counter vote.
There are simply not enough people who use DDO. The few debaters who are able to vote are largely apathetic.
I only ask for more voters to read the round and give a relatively objective verdict. :(
Posted by ati 4 years ago
ati
To Beginner: You can say anything about me, but you shouldn't say anything bad about a voter. Vote is their choice.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
I urge for a counter-vote to this relatively obvious bad vote to this relatively obvious win. I admit, my conduct isn't exactly good, but I feel my spelling/grammar and argumentation far exceeds that of my opponent.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
WHat in the world.. I'm going to take my first loss to some horrible unreasoning voter. :'( Nooo! Someone do something!! It's an obvious win by yours truly who is panicking!! AAAAGHH!!! HELP!!!
I admit, it takes some time to sift through the long and thought-out examples, but that is no reason to renounce the debater's (in this case me) reasoning based on simple inability or refusal to attempt an understanding of the respective debater's mathematical/logical premises.
BRO! Mr. DebaterAgent! I put a lot of time and effort in to constructing this argument and I expect you, as voter to spend only a fraction of that time to understand it.
You can't condemn my reasoning to be deficient if you don't even know what it is.
I suspect a a vote-bomb in disguise, balanced to hide its nevertheless obvious voting based on factors outside of the debate rounds.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Patrick, it's not obvious at all to me, that a person's worth is determined by his skill at basketball. I would make Hitler the 2-point shooter and Gandhi the 3-point shooter, and leave it up to Pro to meet the burden of proof that Hitler is better than Gandhi. Con has even made a comeplling argument that the 3-point shooter may be the better asset to a basketball team. ;)
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
To Patrick: I've proven you wrong with simple mathematics. :D

To bladerunner: noob-sniping is too fun :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
atiBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con first shows that a person who makes 100% of his 2-point shots is not necessarily better than a person who makes 50% of his 3-point shots (since nothing is said of their respective abilities to make the other type of shot). He then shows that, because 2-point shots are only possible if one gets past many defenders, the person who can make 50% of full-court-length shots will also probably score more points overall. UPDATE: I have awarded Beginner a conduct point as a COUNTER-VOTE-BOMB. DebaterAgent did not explain the reason for his conduct vote and Beginner challenged it. Please comment if DebaterAgent updates his vote and/or RFD and I'll change this.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
atiBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Some of Beginner's arguments were unclear and not really clear... That's why I gave the "convincing arguments" category to ati. Also, Ati had better conduct throughout the whole debate.