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

The New York Yankees are currently better than the New York Mets. (based on last season)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,114 times Debate No: 10298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




I affirm resolved the New York Yankees are currently better than the New York Mets. (based on last season)

My value for the round is team record, because to be better than another team in the MLB, your team needs to have a better record than them.

My value criterion for the round is statistics, because to reach a better team record you need to have good statistics backing up your players.

Justification 1: Statistics directly affect how well the players on the team play. For example, how well the team is hitting effects the amount of runs score, which leads to games won, which leads to a high record, which leads to the team making to the playoffs, etc...

Justification 2: The statistics of players help the coaches choose who is playing well, so that they can be put in the lineup. As a result, the players on a hot streak can win the games for the team, rather than the slumping players, and statistics help the right players be put into the positions needed to win the games and get the better record.

BURDEN: The negative has to show empirical evidence using the team records and players to prove that the Mets are better than the Yankees.

The affirmative needs to show empirical evidence using the team records and players to prove that the Yankees are better than the Mets.

Contention 1: The Yankees have a better record than the Mets. The New York Yankees this season ended up with a record of 103 wins and 59 losses, which incidentally ended up as the best record in the MLB. The Mets ended up with a record of 70 wins and 92 losses. As a reulst, this proves that the Yankees are cmore accomplished and as a result, a better team than the Mets.

Contention 2: The Yankees won the World Series, while the Mets didn't even make it into the playoffs. This arguement is self explanitory, because the Yankees made it farther and won the World Series compared to the Mets who came fourth out of 5 teams in their division and as a result didn't make it into the playoffs.

Contention 3: The Yankees have more depth on their roster than the Mets do. Since the Yankees have more money, they can afford better players than the Mets and they can have a better depth chart. I can give examples if asked by my opponent.

Contention 4: The Yankees have a better starting rotation and bullpen than the Mets. If my opponent even feels like this is possible for him to argue against, then i will argue him back, btu the Yankees with C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettite, Joba Chamberlain, and in the bullpen with Mariano Rivera and Phill Hughes and co.


I would first off like to thank my opponent for this debate, and rounds in the future. I will start off refuting my opponent case.
1) This premise is abusive, because I can not argue it. There is no room for debate since the Yankees did in fact have a better record than the Yankees. 2) Record does not indicate how well you are doing. For example, the Tampa Bay Rays. They had a horrible record, and yet they made it to the world series the next year, therefore the record of the previous season does not indicate, how you are currently doing.
1) You can not look to this because the Yankees and Mets played different teams throughout the year, so we can not assume if they swaped scheudles they would do identicle. 2) They played in differnt ballparks. Since this is true the hitting and pitching stats we inflated or deflated, therefore we can not weigh statistics on either side. 3) This is not a debate that should have values, therefore I will not provide any.
I have already shown how the record does not directly corralate with how the team is currently doing, and I have also proved statistics can not be weighed. And secondly, this burden is abusive because the fact that the yankees had a better record is not debatable.
All these arguments can be cross aplied to his contention 1.
1) There are many people that believe making it to the world series just takes a hot streak. For example, the Colorado Rockies in 2007. They won 20 out of 21 games to just make the playoffs, and they continued that hotstreak onto the playoffs. They were not the most qualified team, however they just got hot and made it to the world series. Therefore making the world series does not always involve skill as the only factor. 2) This does not link with his premise. Just because my team does not have the best record does not mean I can't make the world series. Therefore it is not needed for a team to have the best record, and skill is not the only factor in winning a world series.
This is just false. Currently the yankees are in need of an outfielder, and have yet to sign one, therefore the Yankees currently do not have better depth, since they do not have their starting line-up even planed out. While the mets have; 15 Carlos Beltran S/R 6-1 200 04/24/77
-- Chris Carter L/L 6-0 230 09/16/82
6 Nick Evans R/R 6-2 220 01/30/86
12 Jeff Francoeur R/R 6-4 220 01/08/84
26 Fernando Martinez L/R 6-1 200 10/10/88
16 Angel Pagan S/R 6-2 195 07/02/81
18 Jeremy Reed L/L 6-0 210 06/15/81
19 Cory Sullivan L/L 6-0 200 08/20/79 They have a plethora of outfielders, making them more depthful than the Yankees. Also take a look at the Mets depth chart: and here is the Yankees:
Note that the Mets have many more outfielders, and infielders, while they have more starters. Also the skill does not matter in depth, so it can be seen that the Mets have more depth in their lineup.
"If my opponent even feels like this is possible for him to argue against:, this is abusive therefore I do not have to argue against this.
Contention 1: The Mets have a better team.
i have already proven how record does not matter, and currently it looks like the mets will have a healthy starting roster for 2010, therefore they will be a better team. Lets compare the players. CENTER FIELD: This clearly goes to the Mets, since Carlos Beltran is a bonified superstar, while Melky Cabraera still hasn't soldified himslef in the major leagues, and yet to put up big numbers. SHORTSTOP: This goes to the Mets. Jose Reyes is a more explosive player then Derek Jeter, and he is faster. He has a better arm, gets more triples, and has more power. So the Mets have a better team because they are solid at all positions, and my opponents points do not stand.

Debate Round No. 1


I would liek to start with the Affirmative case (my case):

Looking towards the Value of Team Record and the Value of Statistics, I don't need to argue this point because since my opponent doesn't have a value or value criterion even though he intended this to happen, the round will be judged using mine because every debate round needs something to be judged by. his point 1) against my V says that the Yankees had a better record that the Yankees, which isn't possible because they are the same team. 2) he uses the Rays example, but most of the time the data stays close to the same. Also, my opponent doesn't give an alternative to using records and statistics. My opponent also doesn't respond to my justifications for the Value and Value criterion, which means he agrees with them. For all these reasons my Value and Value Criterion are to be used when judging this round.

BURDEN: The Yankees had a better record, but you can use player statistics to try to disprove me, therefore the burden is not abusive and not impossible to argue. Also, I just proved that my Value and Value Criterion are to be used when judging this debate, as my opponent failed to produce his own or respond to my justifications.

Contention 1: The Yankees beat the Mets by over 30 wins, so my opponent's arguement can be made for slight differences but not for such a large margin. Also, the Yankees have a harder division than the Met, so if anything, the Yankees have a harder schedule, therefore my contention 1 stands.

Contention 2: To make it to the World Series a team needs to have a very high record, beating out its division rivals/ winning the wildcard. Without the necessary record, the team's chances to a World Series title ends. The Mets had a 0% chance of winning the World Series while the Yankees had a 12.5% chance, if the winners of games are chosen at random, which they aren't. By the Yankees winning, the Yankees prove that they are better than the other teams in the playoffs, but definatly better than those team who didn't make the playoffs by a long shot. This arguement does link with the Value of team record, as I have just shown. Therefore my contention 2 stands.

Contention 3: The Yankees have recently picked up Curtis Granderson, eliminating my opponent's claim of the Yankees needing an outfielder. For clarification I would like to say, random players as depth doesn't help the team, so that part of the arguement is invalid. HOWEVER, how good the players are makes a huge difference, which is the part of this arguement that is resolutional and will stand. Also, my opponent states that the Mets have more starters. This cannot be true unless the Mets are cheating and sending out more players than allowed.

Contention 4: When I said that my opponent wouldn't argue this, it was not because it was impossible to argue, it was because the Yankees have a rotation and bullpen that is very hard to live upto. I was merely letting my opponent take a crack at that argument before i could defend it.


Neg. Contention 1: My opponent provides the example with the center field position battle. This arguement is invalid because melky is not the starting Center fielder, Curtis Granderson is. Granderson is also a superstar like Beltran.

He also says that at shortstop Reyes is better than Jeter. I would like to turn this argument because my opponent failed to show statistics because without statistics it is hard to show that a player is better than another and statistics show facts, while my opponent is showing opinions versus

also, my opponent didn't state the other position matchups, so his matchups are incomplete, but i don't need ot go into that because as I have just proved, my opponent's contention has been turned. Since my opponent now doesn't have a case, I shoudl win this round.

I would like to extend my 4 contentions, Burden, Value, Value Criterion, and Justifications for the Value Criterion onto the next round.

Thank you


logicalmaster17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Since my opponent has forfeited the round, he has conceded all of the arguments i made in the 2nd round
I would like to extend my value of team record, value criterion of statistics, my arguments against his points against my justifications, my own justifications for the Value criterion, my burden which my opponent has failed to respond to because she has forfeited, all four of my contentions, and my responses to her contention.

Voting points: My turn against her contention, my burden against my opponent, my contentions. my value and criterion is to be used for judging this round.


logicalmaster17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mm95 7 years ago
i turned it though bc actually i looked them up, and jeter was playing a lot better like in average 4 example
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Believe it or not... It's actually possible to debate without a v/vc.
And I fail to see how "only one contention" is a bad thing. "Quality over quantity," I always say.
Posted by mm95 7 years ago
ik i was makign it to go against my firend who insists he can beat this case btu somebody else took it first... also, this opponent didn't have a value or criterion, and only one contention...
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
This is so not legit...
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
This is the easiest debate ever, i just wish people actually knew the difference between empircal and analytical evidence... EPIC FAIL!
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Haha, yea I wish statistics were a criterion.

My criterion is statistics.

Contention: I have statistics.

Therefore, I win.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
o0o0o0o NEVERMIND I just read his first round lol haha my bad
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Nails ~ If statistics aren't a criterion, what is?
Posted by realmadridfan 7 years ago
Yeah, this isn't a lopsided debate at all :P
Posted by raindrpdew 7 years ago
Red Sox?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mm95 7 years ago
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