The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Ryan Howard deserved Major League Baseball's 2006 NL MVP award.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,233 times Debate No: 9003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I believe that Ryan Howard did not deserve the NL MVP award in 2006.

Ryan Howard:
NL (National League):
MVP (Most Valuable Player) award:

deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for. [1]

I will not open with an argument in R1. I hate all this "Burden of Proof" garbage, so even though it might actually be on my opponent to show that Howard deserved the award, I will be presenting my own arguments in R2. My opponent is free to build a case for Howard in R1, and I would enjoy it if he or she did so, but he or she is not obliged to.



I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge.

I don't know who Ryan Howard is.
But I think I know what NL MVP 2006 award is.
The award is given to the most valuable player in 2006.

First off, this award sounds very ridiculous. How can one find the most valuable player? You can't. (If you think you can, I would like to see proof)
The selection to the award is even determined by an election. I simply think that the definition of M.V.P. is too subjective to find the right person.

If Ryan Howard is not the M.V.P. then is he deserved in getting the award?
Yes. (No one or anyone) is M.V.P. because such a definition is to subjective.
So it must be up to chance to determine the (actions, qualities, or situation) that Ryan Howard deserved the award.
Well, the presentation of the award happened in the past, and so we see that a certain situation existed for Ryan Howard's selection.
Does that "situation" warrant Ryan Howard the award? Well, he got it right?
Since we are not questioning who the M.V.P. is because the definition of M.V.P. is subjective, if Ryan Howard got the award, he deserved it.

Your thoughts?
Debate Round No. 1


This is an argument I often see, and in my opinion, it is, ultimately, completely nonsensical.

You're right; the award is quite subjective. Some people value certain stats more than others. However, there are two reasons why I believe your argument is wrong. One if more direct than the other, so I'll save that one for later.

First of all, I think that using common sense and reason, any intelligent person can understand that some baseball stats are quite simply better than others at showing how well a certain player performs.

Some stats, like RBI, and R, are simply team-dependent. It is not difficult to understand that these stats do not accurately show how good a player was.

Other stats, like OBP and SLG (and, slightly, AVG), are not only immediately understandably important in showing how good a player is (they measure the ability to get on base and therefore not make outs, and the ability to hit for power), but they have been shown to directly correlate with a team's offense (meaning, a team with a higher OBP will score more runs.)

In this sense, deciding on an MVP is not some random, arbitrary event–logical people should be able to understand that some stats are better than others, and that if a player is better in these stats, he is better.

Now, look at Ryan Howard in 2006, and look at Albert Pujols in 2006.

Ryan Howard: .313/.425/.659 AVG/OBP/SLG, 167 OPS+, 29 Win Shares. [1]

Albert Pujols: .331/.431/.671, 178 OPS+, 37 Win Shares. [2]

These statistics are based on the individual. Pujols played in a more pitcher friendly park, and had more hits, got on base more, and hit for more power.

At this point, it isn't subjective. Pujols was simply a better player, because his statistics that, using reason, obviously demonstrate individual talent, were far better than Howard's.

Now, I'll go onto the second part of my opponent's argument.

Just because something is ultimately subjective, that doesn't mean someone can't deserve it more than someone else.

Using reason, we can argue that one person deserved something more. This is where a debate comes in. You cannot dismiss a debate just because it is subjective–that contradicts the whole notion of debate. If an answer could be objectively reached, then there would be no debate. Every issue that is seriously debated has two sides, and is therefore subjective.

I don't know if I'm making my point clear enough. Ryan Howard got the award, but I'm arguing that he didn't deserve it, because he wasn't the best player in my opinion, and the MVP is supposed to go to the best player.

"Since we are not questioning who the M.V.P. is because the definition of M.V.P. is subjective"

That is nonsensical.

My opponent's argument, then, has been refuted. It seems that he would be better served to argue for Howard's baseball superiority in the next round, but if he doesn't know who Howard even is, that might be difficult.

I have also shown why Albert Pujols deserved the award more than Ryan Howard.

The resolution is negated.



Arcita forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend all arguments. My opponent's account isn't active anymore.


Arcita forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
Is that abuse?

Regardless, I'll just change it back to NL. Easy win, anyway.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
And then there's the fact that he defined both leagues...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Agree with mongeese. Ryan Howard won the NL MVP award in 06.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
This is rather abusive. He's in the National League, and you're saying that he doesn't deserve the award for being the best in the American League. The fact that this is two rounds is further evidence of abuse. It's clear that he will state that the resolution uses the wrong league in Round 2, guarenteeing victory.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
dang i was gonna take it until i realized i would have to be pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70