Ryan Howard deserved Major League Baseball's 2006 NL MVP award.
Debate Rounds (3)
Ryan Howard: http://philadelphia.phillies.mlb.com...
NL (National League): http://en.wikipedia.org...
MVP (Most Valuable Player) award: http://en.wikipedia.org...
deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for. 
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 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.
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. 
Albert Pujols: .331/.431/.671, 178 OPS+, 37 Win Shares. 
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.
Arcita forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.