The Instigator
Xer
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,668 times Debate No: 8490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)

 

Xer

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I set the voting period to 3 days and the time to argue to 24 hours so that the voters will hopefully not be distracted by the actual results of the series too much.

To the voters: if voting does not end before the series starts (June 4) then please vote based on the best arguments, not on how the series has played out.

To my opponent: just accept the debate in the first round. Do not make any arguments until the second round.

Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate, it should be fun.
mongeese

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

I would like to remind you that you bear a tremendous burden of proof.

Again, thank you, and good luck, and I look forwards to your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Xer

Pro

"I would like to remind you that you bear a tremendous burden of proof."
-We each have the same burden of proof. I have to prove that the Lakers will win. And you will have to prove that the Magic will win. Once again, we share the same burden of proof.

I will start by comparing the starting lineup, in which the Lakers have better individual players at every position than the Magic:

Point Guard: Derek Fisher (LA) vs. Rafer Alston (ORL)
Alston may have slightly better statistics than Fisher, but Fisher has remarkebly better experience, leadership, and poise. He has been involved in 11 playoff series (154 games) and has won three NBA championships. Alston has been involved in less than one-third (48 games) of playoff games as Fisher, and has never even been invovled in an NBA championship series. Being one of the most respected respected players in the league, Fisher was voted President of the NBA Players Association. Fisher's experience, leadership, and poise clearly make up for the slight statistic differential, advantage LA.

Shooting Guard: Kobe Bryant (LA) vs. Courtney Lee (ORL)
This matchup is quite laughable to say the least. Kobe is arguably the best player in the history of the NBA and far away the best SG in the NBA. Kobe has three NBA championships, was the MVP for 2008, an 11 time all star, and many many more. Courtney Lee is a rookie who only averaged 8.4 PPG in the 08-09 regular season. Courtney Lee compares in no way to Kobe Bryant, the advantage is easily LA.

Small Forward: Trevor Ariza (LA) vs. Hedo Turkoglu (ORL)
Hedo has better stats than Ariza, but the matchup is better suited for Ariza. Ariza is a strong 220 lb 6'8" SF who is known for his speed, dunks, and defense. Hedo is a lanky 220 lb 6'10" SF who is known for his shooting. He is slow and a bad defender. Ariza will prove to be too athletic for Hedo in the series, advantage LA.

Power Forward: Pau Gasol (LA) vs. Rashard Lewis (ORL)
Gasol has been statistically better than Lewis in the playoffs and in the regular season. In the playoffs, Gasol has only 1 less PPG than Lewis, while averaging 5 more RPG and shooting 10% better from the field. In the regular season, Gasol has been better in 13 out of 15 statistical categories than Lewis. Gasol's awards include: 2009 All-NBA Third Team, 2009 Feb. Player of the Month, 2008 FIBA Europe Player of the Year, 2008 Euroscar Player of the Year, 2 time NBA All Star, and many more. Lewis's only awards are a 2 time NBA All Star. Advantage LA.

Center: Andrew Bynum (LA) vs. Dwight Howard (ORL)
Dwight Howard has been noticeably weak if does not get the ball right below the basket for an easy dunk. Howard has not been met with a defensive challenge throughout the playoffs. He has not been met with someone to counter his size. My opponent may point out Zydrunas Ilgauskas of the Cleveland Cavaliers. But Ilgauskas is too big at 7'6", therefore he is an unathletic oaf. Bynum is big 7'0" 285 lb and athletic. Bynum has been known as a great defensive player prior to his MCL tear in early 2009. Bynum will be able to counter Howard's size and athleticism with his own size, athleticism, and defensive prowess. Therefore, advantage LA.

Team Statistics:
Lakers- (65-17 record, best record in the West)- 106.9 PPG, 43.9 RPG, 23.3 APG
Magic- (59-23 record, 3rd best in the East)- 101.1 PPG, 43.3 RPG, 19.4 APG
-The Lakers have the better record and the better statistics in the major statistical categories. Lakers have the clear advantage.

Now I will compare the bench (with statistics (as of 3/9/09(~month before playoffs started))) (1):

***Scoring***
-The Lakers bench scores 28% of their total points.
-The Magic bench scores 22% of their total points.

***Rebounds***
-The Lakers bench grabs 33% of their total rebounds.
-The Magic bench 27% of their total rebounds.

***Steals***
-The Lakers bench snatches 52% of their total steals
-The Magic bench snatches 30% of their total steals

***Blocks***
-The Lakers bench rejects 34% of their total blocks.
-The Magic bench rejects 23% of their total blocks.

***Turnovers***
-The Lakers bench contributes 36% of their total turnovers.
-The Magic bench contributes 21% of their total turnovers.

Clearly, from these statistics you can see that the Lakers bench is better in virtually every category.

Coaches: Phil Jackson (LA) vs. Stan Van Gundy (ORL)
This comparison is about as lopsided as the Kobe/Courtney Lee comparison. I would love to see my opponent argue Stan Van Gundy's achievments with Phil Jackson's achievments which include: a record tying nine NBA championships, and the highest regular season winning percentages and the highest playoff winning percentages in NBA history. Clearly, advantage LA.

On-the-Court Leadership: Lakers vs. Magic
Another lopsided comparison... The Magic have no established leader while the Lakers have two 12-year veterans (Kobe and Derek Fisher) that have been involved in 10 NBA championships, won 6 of them. Kobe is a former MVP and Derek Fisher is the President of the NBA Players Association. The playoff experience of the Lakers trounce the experience of the Magic. Advantage LA.

As can clearly be seen, the Los Angeles Lakers are better in every single aspect of basketball than the Orlando Magic. The team with the better players, coaches, experience, and statistics is usually the team to win a game. In this situation, the Lakers are the team with the better players, coach, experience, and statistics compared to the Magic. Therefore, The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.

-----SOURCES-----
(1) http://www.lakers101.com...
***Note- obviously I have used much more sources than this but all players'/coaches'/team stats/awards have come from nba.com and the wikipedia pages of the said players/coaches. Unless my opponent uses an obscure statistic (such as I did with the bench statistics), he does not have to cite. If my opponent feels as though he would like the link to every single page for every single player and coach I would be happy to provide them for him. Good luck to my opponent, I look forward to your rebuttal/argument.
mongeese

Con

"We each have the same burden of proof. I have to prove that the Lakers will win. And you will have to prove that the Magic will win. Once again, we share the same burden of proof."
Not so. You have to prove that the Lakers will win. I have to prove that the Lakers might not win.

My opponent provides a very strong case that the Lakers will probably win the finals. I have two arguments against the resolution:

1. In head-to-head games this past season, the Lakers played Magic twice. Magic won both times, 106-103 on Dec 20 and 109-103 on Jan 16. This is strong evidence that Magic have a head-to-head advantage against the Lakers, and therefore have a high chance of winning. Obviously, the Lakers have been unable to restrain the Magic, and the Magic has defeated the Lakers. These two games show that the Lakers have less than a 50% chance of defeating Magic.

2. The resolution is not, "The Los Angeles Lakers will probably win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." It is, "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." If my opponent added the word "probably" or the phrase "most likely," or anything similar, this debate would be about who has the greatest chance of winning the finals. However, this debate is about whether they will win, and I have to show that Magic might win.

Because the Magic have defeated the Lakers before, they can easily do it again. Therefore, the Magic might lose, so saying that they will win is false. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Xer

Pro

-He stated "I would like to remind you that you bear a tremendous burden of proof."
--I replied "We each have the same burden of proof. I have to prove that the Lakers will win. And you will have to prove that the Magic will win. Once again, we share the same burden of proof."
---He replied "Not so. You have to prove that the Lakers will win. I have to prove that the Lakers might not win."

Also, point 2 of his 2 point argument is "The resolution is not, "The Los Angeles Lakers will probably win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." It is, "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." If my opponent added the word "probably" or the phrase "most likely," or anything similar, this debate would be about who has the greatest chance of winning the finals. However, this debate is about whether they will win, and I have to show that Magic might win."

My opponent is obviously trying to win this debate via semantics, which he is doing a terrible job at. The resolution is: "The Los Angeles Lakers will win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." It is pretty obvious that my opponent needs to prove that "The Los Angeles Lakers will not win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." or "The Los Angeles Lakers will lose the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic." to win the debate since not is negative and lose is the opposite of win.

My opponent also provided one more argument. It was: "In head-to-head games this past season, the Lakers played Magic twice. Magic won both times, 106-103 on Dec 20 and 109-103 on Jan 16. This is strong evidence that Magic have a head-to-head advantage against the Lakers..."
-This is true, but Jameer Nelson, the Magic point guard was on the team at this time. On Dec 20 Jameer scored 27 points and on Jan 16 he scored 28 points. Jameer Nelson is no longer with the team though, as he has a torn labrum and will be out for the rest of the season. Jameer Nelson's replacement is Rafer Alston. Rafer Alston only averages 11.7 PPG. So, if Rafer Alston played in the Dec 20 and Jan 16 games against the Lakers, then the Magic would have lost by double digits on each occasion. Thus, there is strong evidence that the Lakers have a head-to-head advantage against the Magic.

Voters, it should be quite apparent who won this debate. mongeese poorly argued the debate with semantics and offered only one more point, which was rebutted by me. All my points stand, while mongeese has no points. EPIC FAIL for mongeese. Vote Pro.
mongeese

Con

"My opponent is obviously trying to win this debate via semantics, which he is doing a terrible job at."
Terrible job?

"It is pretty obvious that my opponent needs to prove that 'The Los Angeles Lakers will not win the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.' or 'The Los Angeles Lakers will lose the 2009 NBA Finals against the Orlando Magic.' to win the debate since not is negative and lose is the opposite of win."
Not so. It is obvious that you are trying to prove that the Lakers will win. However, if there is a chance that the Orlando Magic *might* win the NBA Finals, then the resolution cannot be affirmed, and because burden of proof was never specified in Round 1 by the Instigator, it defaults to the Instigator, and if I can show that my opponent has failed to affirm the resolution, then the vote goes to the Contender, me. So, I really don't have to argue what my opponent wants me to argue. I can argue whatever I want to stop my opponent from properly affirming the resolution, and that is what I have done.

"Voters, it should be quite apparent who won this debate."
Yes, it should.

"mongeese poorly argued the debate with semantics and offered only one more point, which was rebutted by me."
The point was rebutted, yes, but the semantics were far from poor. In the future, I advise my opponent to use words such as "probably" in the resolution, or make a rule in which the Contender must argue in direct opposition of the resolution, rather than what I have done. However, since he had not done so, my argument was fair play, and it stands.

"All my points stand, while mongeese has no points."
All of my opponent's points stand, yes, but they don't help to affirm the resolution. There have always been disruptions in games. The clear winner sometimes loses. This may happen this year.

My opponent points out that one of Magic's star players, Jameer Nelson, was injured. What's to stop a Lakers player from being injured by the start of the Finals? If the hotel that they stay at burns to the ground, and they are incinerated alive, Magic will most definitely win.

For this entire debate, my opponent has only argued that the Lakers only have advantages over the Magic. However, luck can take care of these advantages. My opponent has not shown that the Magic cannot win, or that the Lakers cannot lose. Therefore, he has ultimately failed to uphold the resolution, as he goes from saying that the Lakers have advantages over the Magic to saying that the Lakers will win over the Magic. There is a fairly decent gap between those two statements that my opponent obviously was unable to cross.

"EPIC FAIL for mongeese."
Ouch.
*shrugs it off*

"Vote Pro."
PRO has failed to affirm the resolution. CON has pointed out why. Therefore, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Lakers won.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"The Lakers will win" is a definite YES that must be proven. He has BOP. He did not meet this burden. Arguments to CON.
Ehh... whatever. This was supposed to be a fun debate about the NBA Finals, but mongeese felt like being a tool and arguing semantics. Either way, I am winning right now.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
PRO doesn't seem to understand his own resolution.

"The Lakers will win" is a definite YES that must be proven. He has BOP. He did not meet this burden. Arguments to CON.
Semantics argument. Conduct to PRO.
No sources for CON. Sources to PRO.
"that have been involved in 10 NBA championships, won 6 of them." Grammar to CON.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Did you even vote?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Alright, thank you. That's good to know.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
no vote bombing was done on my part.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Does being a Lakers fan justify vote bombing for the Lakers?

"Pleading the 5th does not arouse suspicion. Refusing to answer questions is not grounds for reasonable suspicion."
Maybe not in court, but it arouses supsiscion in comment readers.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Huge laker fan

Go lakers

"¤ø„¸¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨
¨°º¤ø„¸ Go LAKERS!!!! 09 CHAMPS!!! ¸„ø¤º°¨copy & paste
¸„ø¤º°¨ `°º¤ø„¸LAKERS are going to be 09 CHAMPS!!!
¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º"
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
"Here's the funny thing about that. If you hadn't vote bombed yourself, you'd have said, "No." Pleading the 5th arouses suspicion, which an innocent man would want to avoid. Therefore, you most likely did vote bomb for yourself. This wouldn't hold up in court, but it holds up in discussion."
-Pleading the 5th does not arouse suspicion. Refusing to answer questions is not grounds for reasonable suspicion.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Nags, I'm not trying to affect this debate. I'm just mentioning this for our debate (if you make one). Yea, Mongeese and I know each other at school.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
XermongeeseTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
XermongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
XermongeeseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
XermongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
XermongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05