The Instigator
Destruction
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
200machao
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 15204
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Destruction

Pro

Contention 1: Majors
Tiger woods won 14 which is second all time.

Contention 2: PGA tour wins
Tiger Woods won 71 events which is third all time

Contention 3: Grandslams
He has had three years when he has every major
200machao

Con

Burden of the pro: To prove the resolution true
Burden of con: To prove it false
First: The term "was" implies tw was always the best golfer during that timeframe, which i will disprove, so as long as i prove he wasnt always the best player during that time, i win the round. Tiger woods suffered an injury in 2008 taking him out for the season, and rendering him unable to play golf. Thus, if he was so injured he couldnt even play then obviously he wasnt always the best player duin that timeframe.
In order for pro to prove the resolution true, he first has to prove the term "best" can be evaluated. If the term "best" cannot be evaluated, then the resolution defaults to false as there is no way to prove the resolution true.

My sole argument is that best is open to one's perception
Example: Lebron James vs Kobe Bryant(who is better0

if we evaluate this based on sheer stats, people could argue "Kobe is more determined, or Kobe can knock down shots at the last second therefore he is better," thus making the "best player argument" all the more confusing. For example, lebron has the stats, but kobe has the ability to hit game winners. Even if we evaluated the term best based on game stats, the term would still be unable toe evaluated. For example, lebron might lead in the scoring field, but kobe can lead in the "Most championships or finals mvp department" thus the debate over who is best depends on an individual's perception of which stats matter the most. The only way my opponent can sqeeze out of this is if he somehow manages to prove tiger was so dominant during all of those years that he was in the lead in terms of stats every single year.
Second, i would say "best cant be evaluated because before we can determine who is best everyone has to have an equal headstart, while tiger woods started playing when he was twom giving him a huge start. Furthermore, his initial influence gave him huge sponsorhips allowing him better trainers, thus putting him way ahead of other small town boys who perhaps was equally talented but were unable to reach the same heights due to perhaps determinisitc factors.
Debate Round No. 1
Destruction

Pro

Well, first of all we are debating if he was the best player between the time frame I offered. You have to look at the statistics to determine who is better.
If you ask anyone they'd probably say that Tiger Woods is the best golfer in that time period. Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors.
To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories.
200machao

Con

"Well, first of all we are debating if he was the best player between the time frame I offered. You have to look at the statistics to determine who is better."

I am staying within your timeframe, however your argument implies tiger woods was ALWAYS the best player during that time, however since he sustained an injury during that month in your timeframe, he was unable to play, and thus cannot be considered the best player ALWAYS in the timeframe.

You say we need to look at the statistics, but who says which statistics are better? Use the example of kobe and lebron, i could say points are most important whereas you could say rebounds are more importamnt. For you to solely decide which stats matter most is unfair.

"Statistics tell that Tiger Woods has set a bunch of records therefore holding him in a higher position and place than other competetors."

First, you don't provide any amount of records he has had, furthermore, I still say "best" is in the eyes of the beholder. I can tell you think records determine who is best, I think effort and heart does(sorry if that sounds cheesy).
Furthermore, you can extend the fact I say best must be evaluated on equal grounds, so there is no way to evaluate it since different people start at different times. Tiger Woods started wen he was two, whats to say some other dude who played golf since he was two would not do better?

"To determine the best golfers they need to have better statistics, the amount of Majors won and PGA tour events won. Tiger Woods, on record, is the one with the most wins in both categories."

Once again, he's asserting his own standards of "best player, furthermore, he started playing alot earlier then rookies so its too early to tell.
Debate Round No. 2
Destruction

Pro

When always comes up it means you have to look at the statistics of Woods as compared to other golfers. So yes, Woods is still the better golfer. Thank you.
One more thing I'm not saying which stats matter most. If you compare and contrast Woods with others he is still the better golfer.
Also you go on to say that their amount of skill can be determined upon when they started and you go on to say Tiger Woods at the age of two but just in case you forgot the resolution let me repeat it back to you, "Tiger Woods was the best golfer from 1996 to 2009." His starting at the age of two has nothing to do with it since we are debating the time frame i put up.
I don't provide any amount of records? Why don't you wikipedia it? Type in Tiger Woods in wikipedia and you will get your statistics.
Best player is evaluated on statistics and Wood's statistics are higher than everybody elses. Also judges don't let him try and say he started early so that was a determining factor. It was but that is not what we are debating. We are debating from the timeframe of 1996 to 2009.
200machao

Con

200machao forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by zGodMode 6 years ago
zGodMode
He also only won one Super Bowl.
Tom Landry / Vince Lombardi were more significant.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Considering how impossible this is for con, this looks like a great time for some semantics!
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Zgodmode... Madden does not even play... i believe the game is called madden because essentially you are coaching a game, you are calling plays like a Coach. Madden as the coach with the highest winning percentage, game being named after him makes sense
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
I don't see how anyone could negate the resolution.
Posted by zGodMode 6 years ago
zGodMode
Not true.
Madden was never the best at anything he did.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
You know your the best when the video game is named after you
No votes have been placed for this debate.