Which Team win the NBA Finals of 2011 ?
Debate Rounds (3)
What this debate is about
Each side will choose a team that is still currently in the NBA playoffs (as of 30/4/2011) and present arguments that their choice is more likely to win the NBA Finals of 2011 than their opponents choice of team.
Burden Of Proof
Both sides have a burden of proof in this debate.
Pro will argue that its more likely their nominated team will win when compared to Cons nominated team.
Con will argue that its more likely their nominated team will win when compared to Pros nominated team.
First Round is ONLY for nominating your NBA team. No arguments in the first round. No changing your nominated team in the debate.
If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics.
NBA = The National Basketball Association (NBA) is the pre-eminent men's professional basketball league in North America. It consists of thirty franchised member clubs, of which twenty-nine are located in the United States and one in Canada 
NBA Finals = The NBA Finals is the championship series of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the conclusion of the sport's postseason each June. The series was named the NBA World Championship Series until 1986.
The series is played between the winners of Western Conference Finals and Eastern Conference Finals. At the conclusion of the championship round, the winner of the NBA Finals is presented the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. 
I haven't been able to watch many NBA games so far, but with the NBA playoffs now here I am sure that will change.
I will be arguing that the Los Angels Lakers is more likely to win than Cons (yet to be chosen) team.
I remind Con that round 1 is only for selecting your team, arguments don't start till round 2.
I thank IllegalCombatant for starting this. Sports debates are always fun.
First, the teams we pick will probably play some games before this debate is over. If in the odd event that a team we argued for is being crushed 3-0 or something, I would suggest that it not be taken into consideration as a way to automatically give a win to the other side, since that would kill the point of presenting stronger arguments.
Secondly, I am not going to pick a team that your average person thinks will win the championship. However I ask potential voters to kindly judge the debate based on the arguments presented rather than personal bias. Thankfully my chosen team is not one that is widely hated across the league, however, I simply ask voters to take my points into consideration before writing my choice off as ricidulous and voting for my opponent right away.
That being said, I pick the Dallas Mavericks as my team. This should clash very well with my opponent as they are actually playing the Lakers in the next round.
I thank Con for their selection. I would also like to add my support to Cons contention that what should be judged here are the arguments presented, and that any personal bias should be put aside.
As such I will be arguing that the Lakers are more likely to win it all than the Mavericks. Now let me be clear, I am not arguing that the Lakers deserve to win, or don't deserve to be hated or that they are the most liked team. Never the less I will show that the Lakers are more likely to win the 2011 NBA finals than the Mavericks.
This is indeed an interesting choice as Con has noted, because the Lakers and Mavericks are playing each other in the next round. 
Size does matter
More specifically, skilled size matters. There is a reason that the NBA is full of tall men, and anyone playing in the NBA who is average height is a rarity. The NBA still is a big mans game.
Well the Lakers just so happen to have two skilled 7 footers in their starting line up in Andrew (I hope I don't get injured) Bynum and Pau (Hopefully my beard makes me look tough) Gasol. For all of Kobe Bryant’s brilliance, the Lakers’ back-to-back title runs were built on the defensive dominance and offensive mismatches created by their two 7-footers. Few teams can match the Lakers sheer size, and even fewer can overcome it in the paint.
NBA championships are won by teams with a Superstar
When I say superstar, I don't mean an All star, or some one who has a few all star selections under their belt. By Superstar we are talking about the all stars of the all stars the hall of famers, the players that go down in history as legends of the game.
Nearly all the past champion winners of the last 20 years have a "Superstar" on their team.
For instance the Lakers have Kobe and in 80's had Magic Johnson
The Spurs have Tim Duncan
The Bulls had Jordan
The Rockets had Hakeem
The only real exception here seems to be the 2003-2004 Champions the Detroit pistons.
Suffice to say, if you want to win an NBA championship your going to need an NBA superstar.
The Lakers have Kobe, the Mavericks have Dirk. Yes Dirk is a multiple all star, but is Dirk in the same league as Kobe, Duncan, Hakeem, Magic and Jordan ? I don't think so.
Good things come in 3's, espically NBA championships.
The Lakers are the Champions for the past 2 years, and winning the NBA finals of 2011 will make it a 3-peat. The NBA seems to be quite fond of 3-peats.
From 1979 to 2007-2008 NBA season there have been 6 Instances where a team has won 2 NBA championships in a row. Out of those 6 instances of winning 2 championships in a row, 3 times out of those 6 the the winner went on to win another championship the next year to make it a 3 peat. 
You will notice that I left out the last 2 years of the NBA in this data, cause even though the Lakers have won the past 2 years, we don't know for certain if they will win or not so its not part of my analysis here.
Only two teams have done a 3 peat in the past 20 years, the Chicago bulls and....................the LAKERS.
The NBA has a small pool of winners, the Lakers are part of that pool the Mavericks are not
Some sports can make the claim that any team or most teams can win the whole thing, this can not be said of the NBA as Fanbay says... "The NBA Finals. It remains a long time with only 1 fresh winner since the 1979 season among the last 31 titles (including the 2009-2010 World Champion NBA Finals winning Lakers) all going to only 7 different teams (plus the momentary shake-up of Miami Heat in 2005-2006) have been winners including the Los Angeles Lakers 10 times and the Chicago Bulls 6 times." 
The main points here are that ONLY 8 teams have won the NBA championship since 1979. The Lakers are part of this small elite, the Mavericks are not.
In order to win the NBA finals you first have to get to the NBA finals
In the past 20 seasons the Mavericks have reach the NBA finals a whopping...................ONCE. Contrast this to the LA Lakers who in the past 20 seasons have reached the NBA finals a mere SIXTEEN times.
In the past 10 seasons the Lakers have been to the Finals 7 times, compared to the Mavericks once.
In the past 4 seasons the Lakers have been to the Finals 3 times, compared to the Mavericks zero. 
The Lakers have a good playoff record against the Mavericks
The last 3 times the Lakers have met the Mavericks in the playoffs, the Lakers have won the playoff series against the Mavericks. 
For these reasons, it is more likely that the Lakers will win the NBA finals of 2011 than the Dallas Mavericks
I look forward to Cons reply.
I thank IllegalCombatant for his opening arguments.
First my case, then his.
Contention 1: Maverick's strengths
A. Dirk Nowitzki dominates in the playoffs.
At 25.6 points per game, Nowitzki ranks number 10 all time in playoff scoring (1). Plus, he's averaging over 27 a game this year (2).
His game is truly unstoppable. He's a seven foot power forward, yet he shoots threes, hits layups, shoots 89% from the free throw line, and his signature shot is a...turnaround fadeaway? That alone makes him unguardable, as its literally impossible to defend a seven footer fading away.
B. Supporting Cast
1. Jason Kidd has become a force since the playoffs began, shooting 48% from the field and 40% from the three point line (3). He has also reduced his turnovers and increased his points per game by four. Additionally, he hit a huge clutch three pointer against the Blazers last game, which solidified their victory on the road.
2. Shawn Marion does everything. He shot 52% in the regular season and averaged almost 7 rebounds, despite being a shooting guard most of the time. While his shooting has dropped since the playoffs, he maintains a very solid 47% (4). More importantly, he is a lock-down man defender, which will help immensely against the LeBron's and Kobe's he will run into (5).
3. Tyson Chandler is sick, averaging an insane 65% field goal shooting on the season, 16 PPG, and 9.5 rebounds (6). He is the difference between this year's Mavericks and all the other Mavs teams. The one missing piece Dallas had been missing the whole last decade was a Center. Chandler is dominating in that role.
The stereotype of the Mavs being all offense and no defense fails to apply this year.
The Mavs allow 96 points per game, tenth in the league (7). They're also boasting the third best defense in the playoffs.
The Mavs lead the league in bench scoring (9). Additionally, their bench is first in Assists, 2nd in Efficiency, and 8th in defense. They also rank top 16 in literally every major category, except turnovers.
Dallas had the best road record in the league, at 28-13 (10). This will greatly help them in winning the first (critical) game in LA, and will ensure that the series isn't over if LA gets one in Dallas.
Contention 2: Mavs vs Lakers
Clearly, if the Mavericks defeat the Lakers in the second round, they will obviously be more likely to win the finals.
I will outline why the Mavs have the advantage.
1. Derek Fisher can't defend
Against strong point guards, Fisher has gotten torn up. He lacks the lateral quickness to defend speedy guards, and lacks the strength to defend big ones.
As far as efficiency goes, Fisher's point guard opponents literally average over ten points of efficiency more than he does (11).
This will pose a severe problem for LA, as the Mavs' Jason Terry fits the bill of a dynamic and explosive point guard. He averages 17 points a game in this year's playoffs. Expect that number to rise to the mid 20's against Fisher. J.J. Barea is also lightning fast, and he should work to tear him up as well when Terry's not on the court.
2. Mavs have size advantage, not Lakers
The Laker's size usually gives them the advantage over opponents. However, the Mavericks actually are taller than LA. Chandler, Haywood, and Nowitzki are all over 7 feet tall. While two of the Laker's trio of big men are are over 7 as well, Lamar Odom is only 6-10, giving the Mavs the lead.
3. Dirk mismatches every Laker big man
There's no one LA can rely on to guard Nowitzki. Bynum and Gasol are built for low-block defense and shot blocking, lacking the lateral quickness to guard Nowitzki's drives to the basket (12). His fadeaways are also, as previously indicated, unguardable. Furthermore, using one of them to guard Dirk will limit their presence in the paint, as Dirk can rotate to the perimeter and force his man to follow him, for fear of his shooting.
Lamar Odom is more agile but is two inches shorter. Plus, he usually comes out to give Gasol and Bynum a rest. That means if he's guarding Dirk, then the Lakers lose one of their dominant big men until he comes off.
4. Kobe struggles vs Mavs
In three games this year, Kobe averages 22 points a game, however thats only on 40% shooting, 6% below his season average (13, 14, 15). He's also only made one three pointer against the Mavs all season, hitting them at an abysmal 10%. Clearly Shawn Marion can take Kobe 1 on 1. Not only does this limit Bryant, it frees up Dallas' other players to take away everyone else.
5. Lakers bench pales in comparison to the Mavs
The Lakers have been extremely dependant on their starters in this year's playoffs. Their bench has only scored 145 points. Contrast this to the Mavs, which has scored 205 (16).
Therefore, its likely that the Mavs pull off the upset and knock off the Lakers.
Lets move to my opponent's arguments.
First, notice that with the exception of his first point, every single argument he has made has been based off past events being extrapolated onto the future. Just because something has happened years before does not mean it will happen now. I'll explain this more on his specific points, but this will be a key issue.
His point here is that the Lakers have two seven footers. However, he fails to compare this to the Mavericks. As previously indicated, Dallas' trio of big men are actually taller than the Lakers', so this is actually a Con argument.
2. Superstars win championships
I agree Kobe is a superstar.
However, the notion of Dirk not being one is ridiculous.
He claims Tim Duncan is one, so I will use him as my comparison.
Duncan career average: 20.6 PPG, 8.9 Rebounds (17)
Dirk career average: 23 PPG, 8.4 Rebounds
So if he wants to say Dirk Nowitzki is not a superstar, he must contradict himself and say that Tim Duncan is not one either.
His argument is that three of the last six two-time defending champions have won three in a row.
Several problems here.
1. Here we see the extrapolation my opponent has employed. Just because something happened previously is no measure of its viability in the present.
2. Even if you buy this, its only three of six, meaning there's a 50% chance LA doesn't win the title.
3. Con hasn't showed why this Laker's team is comparable to the ones that have had three-peats. If they are different, then he can't use data from previous teams to predict the ones that exist now.
Small pool of winners
To save character space, I'll keep this really short.
Both the Heat and Pistons have broken into the pool this decade. This point gives no warrant as to why the Mavericks can't do the same.
Getting to the finals
His argument is that the Lakers have gotten to the finals more than the Mavs
1. Previous successes or failures cannot be extrapolated onto the future; a good team can make a run any given year.
2. Extend all five arguments as to why the Mavs likely beat the Lakers. Clearly the Mavs have a better shot of making the Finals if the Lakers lose.
Lakers vs Mavs playoff record
He says Lakers have won the series last three times
1. Not applicable; as previously indicated, this year's Mavericks team possesses a strong center. This was the only real weak link they've had in recent memory. Filling this hole means any past successes a team had against them will mean nothing.
2. But furthermore, lets not forget that the Memphis Grizzlies had also lost three straight playoff series, before they knocked off the team with the best record in the NBA.
NBA teams change every year, no matter how subtle they may be. Just because a team did X five years ago, or a team hasn't done X before, doesn't mean it can can never happen. This invalidates the majority of Pro's points, which are predicated on occurrences that happened years ago.
He has not compared the LA Lakers of this year to the Dallas Mavericks of this year, while I have. And lets not forget, the topic is about the 2011 finals. This year is all that matters.
Thus I urge a con vote.
Past and the Facts
Con says "First, notice that with the exception of his first point, every single argument he has made has been based off past events being extrapolated onto the future"
This is obvious, since we can't travel into the future (maybe Con can?) any past events/facts we refer too are going to be in the past. Various facts that Con presents are no different.
Con says " Just because something has happened years before does not mean it will happen now. I'll explain this more on his specific points, but this will be a key issue."
This is a strawman argument, I never argued that just because something happened in the past It WILL happen again, I merely have presented arguments that show it is more probable that the Lakers will win it all than the Mavericks. Reasons which have gone either uncontested or unrefuted.
Good things come in 3's, espically NBA championships.
Con says "1. Here we see the extrapolation my opponent has employed. Just because something happened previously is no measure of its viability in the present."
Its still more than you got :)
Con says "2. Even if you buy this, its only three of six, meaning there's a 50% chance LA doesn't win the title."
Oh no, only a 1/2 chance of the Lakers winning the title ? And what were the chances again of the Mavericks winning the title ? Alot less than 1/2
Con says "hasn't showed why this Laker's team is comparable to the ones that have had three-peats. If they are different, then he can't use data from previous teams to predict the ones that exist now."
The Lakers do have similarities to the past teams that have 3 peated which included........
1) The previous teams had previously won 2 championships before winning there third. (The Lakers have won the title in the past 2 years)
2) The previous 3 peat teams like most championship teams had a "Superstar" (The Lakers have Kobe)
3) The previous 3 peat teams kept most of their core players in tact (The Lakers core of Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Coach Jackson have been kept in tact.
The NBA has a small pool of winners, the Lakers are part of that pool the Mavericks are not
Con says "Both the Heat and Pistons have broken into the pool this decade. This point gives no warrant as to why the Mavericks can't do the same."
I never argued that the Mavericks can't break into the pool, I merely presented this fact as part of my argument of why its unlikely for the Mavericks to win the title. A fact that Con has not refuted.
In order to win the NBA finals you first have to get to the NBA finals
Con says "Previous successes or failures cannot be extrapolated onto the future; a good team can make a run any given year."
Passed facts can be used too make a probability argument.
The Lakers vs Mavericks In the playoffs
Con says "Against strong point guards, Fisher has gotten torn up. He lacks the lateral quickness to defend speedy guards, and lacks the strength to defend big ones"
Never the less, the Lakers keep on winning. This shows that Fishers weakness is not a crucial factor in whether the Lakers win or lose. I think there two past championships are proof enough of that. The Lakers in winning their championships have gone through teams with ELITE point guards such as Boston and Raja Rondo, Utah and Deron williams (before he got traded) the Hornets and Chris Paul, the Suns and Steve Nash (even when they still had Stoudamire)
Speaking of weakness, how is Dirk defense going to hold up during the series, since he will most of the time if not all of the time (depending on Lakers rotation) either be defending Bynum, Gasol or Odom. Shooting jump shots all day isn't going to offset weak defense by Dirk or counter the offensive rebounding by the Lakers.
As Con notes the Main trio of big man for the Lakers is Bynum, Gasol and Odom and the main trio of bigs for the Mavericks is Chandler, Haywood, and Nowitzki.
I actually did refer to "skill" size. I am assuming most people who are voteing on this have some basic knowledge of the NBA with that in mind I would ask this question, All other things being equal, if you could choose which trio was on your team would you rather have the trio of Bynum, Gasol and Odom or Chandler, Haywood, and Nowitzk ?
Most people would pick the Lakers trio for good reason.
NBA championships are won by teams with a Superstar
Con didn't disagree that you need a superstar to win a championship, Con merely implied that Dirk (Why take it to the rim when I can shoot jumpers all day) Nowitzki is in the same category as Duncan, Jordan, Kobe, Hakeem etc
Con merely gave 2 statistics to try and justify this, trouble is your going to need more than 2 statistics to get into this elite category of NBA players.
Con says "So if he wants to say Dirk Nowitzki is not a superstar, he must contradict himself and say that Tim Duncan is not one either."
Sorry how many times has Dirk gone to the final again ? Compared to Duncan. How many championships does Dirk have compared to Duncans 4 ?
Con says about Dirk "His game is truly unstoppable." Rather than just accept Cons subjective assessment of Dirk "Unstoppable" Nowitzki, lets look at some facts.
Dirk the unstoppable has being with the Mavericks since 1998, in those 12 years................
1) Has never won an NBA championship
2) Has only being to the NBA finals once
3) Since the 2000-2001 Season Dirk has being on a Mavericks team which always had a season winning percentage in the regular season above 60% and always made the playoffs. Since the 2000-2001 four of those teams had a regular winning percentage of over 70% (Dirk can hardly complain about being on a bad team or not having a lack of chances)
Even Kobe hasn't always gone to the playoffs in the past 10 years as the Lakers did not make it in the season of 2004-2005.
Also in the past 10 years Kobes Lakers only had a regular season winning percentage of over 70% twice. Yet Kobe still has won 4 championships over these same 10 years.
Tim Duncan who Con compares to Dirk, has been to every playoffs in the past 10 years like Dirk and has 3 championships to show for it. 
So with all these playoff runs on a good mavericks team, why hasn't Dirk won a championship ? Simple, you need a superstar to win a championship and Dirk isn't one of them.
The Lakers are more likely to win an NBA championship in 2011
If the Lakers are more likely to win an NBA championship in 2011 than the Mavericks, then its follows necessarily that the Lakers are more likely to beat the Mavericks in a playoff head to head match up. This is because its a necessary pre condition that the Lakers beat the Mavericks in order to win the the NBA championship.
1) It is more likely that the Lakers will win an NBA championship in 2011 than the Mavericks (Supported by my previous arguments)
2) Therefore The Lakers are more likely to win a head to head matchup with the Mavericks in the 2011 NBA playoffs
Summary and Conclusion
1) Alot of Cons objections were based on arguments I never made. As such my arguments that I did actually make such as using facts to make a probability argument went unchallenged
2) The facts that the NBA has a small pool of teams that win the NBA championship and the Lakers are one of them and the Mavericks are not went unchallenged
3) The facts of the 3 peats went unchallenged
4) The facts that the Lakers have being to the finals numerous times and the Mavericks has not went unchallenged
5) Dirk is not a Superstar and you need a superstar to win an NBA championship
6) The Lakers have a Superstar in Kobe Bryant
7) The Lakers are more likely to win an NBA championship than the Mavericks thus are more likely to win a playoff match up against the Mavericks
Conclusion: Therefore its more likely that the Lakers will win the NBA championship of 2011 than the Dallas Mavericks.
I ask that your vote go to the Pro.
I thank my opponent for finishing.
Although my position looks much stronger after last night, I will abide my my observation 2 and not bring up last night's game in this debate.
First, I must confess that I am somewhat infuriated by pro repeatedly claiming in his conclusion that certain points went "unanswered", especially at the point where he himself tried to refute arguments I did indeed make.
In his conclusion points 2, 3, and 4, he claims these were dropped. Yet, in his speech, he lists the arguments I did make against them so that he can respond.
So please don't just let him claim a bunch of drops unless they actually are. I trust the voters to read the debate and know that I refuted all arguments made.
Now to the arguments
First, I'll point out some drops that did indeed happen.
My entire first contention went unrefuted. There were five arguments under this point alone. Extend all the strengths the Mavericks possess. This is also frustrating considering that I spent a whole hour compiling statistics and arguments to show how good the mavs are, only to have it completely dropped.
Arguments three, four, and five as to why the Mavs likely beat LA were dropped as well. Considering this is the biggest point in the round, I see no way pro can win at this point.
Past vs Present
Against my claim that he is only using numbers from the past, he says that anything either of us reference will to be from previous events.
I agree. However, there is a big difference between my statistics from a few months ago, and his numbers from years, if not decades ago. Notice how all of his arguments, with the exception of Size, are all based on things that happened many many years ago. For instance, one of his arguments was that the Lakers beat the Mavs the last three series. However, the last time they played was in 1988.
Since all of my numbers are from 2010 or 2011, and the resolution questions 2011, mine should be preferred over ones from the 1980's or early 2000's.
Next, he says he was using these numbers to predict the probability of something happening, not what will definently happen.
My argument applies to probability as well. For instance, if I flip a coin five times and all five results are heads, that doesn't mean the next result will also be heads. There is still a 50% chance, the probability doesn't change just because the same thing happened before.
So its established that the past does not equal the present. This is what my opponent's entire advocacy is based off of, so we can toss the case right there. But to be fair, I will refute his case regardless.
1. After accusing him of extrapolation, he says "Its still more than you got :)"
This isn't really an argument, but ok :)
2. He says "And what were the chances again of the Mavericks winning the title ? Alot less than 1/2"
No warrant at all.
3. He says this Laker team is similar to the three-peats because they
A. Also won 2 titles
B. had a superstar
C. Had Gasol/Bynum/Kobe/etc in all of the three-peats/
On the first, I'm referring to personnel.
Second, many teams have superstars, that doesn't mean they win three championships in a row.
And three, the last Lakers three-peat was in 2002. This was before they had Odom, Gasol, and Bynum, so the argument is false.
Thus, the 2011 Lakers team and the ones that had three-peats before are not the same, so he cannot extrapolate their successes from 2002 onto 2011.
Small Pool of winners and Getting to the Finals.
He makes the same argument on both; that these arguments say that its unlikely the Mavs make or win the finals.
Extend my Coin example. My argument refutes probability analysis as well. If I have a 30% chance of making the finals each year, and I won the last two Finals, my probability of winning the Finals after that is still 30%. So his examples from what has happened in the past don't apply.
Plus, he dropped my second argument against Getting to the Finals.
Mavs vs Lakers in playoffs
My opponent dropped both of my arguments on Lakers vs Mavs Playoff Record from last round. Lets extend that the Lakers winning the last three series between them is irrelevant.
First, he says the Lakers win in spite of Fisher's weakness
1. This means that he tacitly concedes that Fisher indeed can't defend.
2. But furthermore, the Lakers won in spite of Fisher against other teams because they had Gasol and Bynum tearing up the boards and wearing down opposing big men, which outweighed it. But as I showed, the Lakers do not have such an advantage in this series, as the Mavs are taller and just as skilled as LA's big men. So this weakness he concedes the Lakers have is magnified.
Second, he says Dirk cannot rebound with LA's big men.
Dirk averages 11.3 rebounds a game against LA this season (and thats not counting his 14 last night). This is 4.3 above his season average.
Finally, he says that given the choice, people would choose LA's big men over the Mavs'.
Several problems here.
First, this is just a blank assertion with no proof.
Second, opinions don't make something true.
Third, he says they would pick LA's players "with good reason". What reason? He doesn't give any.
Finally, he gives absolutely no statistical proof that LA's bigs are better than the Mavs, whereas I proved in my last speech that Dallas does have the size advantage.
Champions have superstars
My opponent makes two arguments here.
First, he implies that Dirk Nowitzki is not a superstar because he hasn't won any championships.
Being quite honest, this is a gruesome argument. By this logic, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Derrick Rose, Dwight Howard, and many others are not superstars because they don't have a ring. Clearly, they are.
Second, he says that Dirk has had a winning team around him but still hasn't won a ring.
Its fairly obvious that a winning team in the regular season isn't necessarily a winning tram in the playoffs. I've already indicated that the Mavericks were lacking a strong center in the last decade. You can overcome this in the regular season, so it looks like you have a winning team, but in the playoffs this weakness is magnified. While its obvious that they had a "good" team around him before, they did not have a complete team, which is necessary for playoff success. Contrast this with the Lakers, who had Shaquille O'Neal.
Look at the Cavs last year for another reference. LeBron was clearly a superstar, and had a 66 win team, but still didnt have postseason success because they lacked a center. That doesn't invalidate LeBron as being a superstar, just as it doesn't invalidate Nowitzki now.
Lakers more likely to win
He makes two conclusions. I have space so I'll quote them
"1) It is more likely that the Lakers will win an NBA championship in 2011 than the Mavericks
2) Therefore The Lakers are more likely to win a head to head matchup with the Mavericks in the 2011 NBA playoffs"
While this conclusion is technically sound, it is also circular. The two conclusions can easily be switched with each other, as if the Lakers lose to the Mavs, then its less likely they win the finals. I have showed that conclusion much more strongly than my opponent, who dropped three of my arguments as to why the Mavs have the advantage in beating LA.
Lets conclude with Voting Issues
Here's why you should vote Con
1. My entire contention 1 was dropped
2. Arguments 3, 4, and 5 as to why Dallas will beat LA were dropped.
3. My statistics from 2010 and 2011 outweigh his references of LA's three-peats in 2002 and their playoff series against the Mavs in 1988.
4. My opponent has still not given any arguments of his own as to why LA is a better team than the Mavs this year, or why they are more likely to win this year.
5. My opponent implies that to be a superstar, you must win a championship. Clearly this is false, as this means LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, etc, aren't superstars either.
For all of these reasons I must urge a con vote.
Thanks again for the debate, and putting effort into it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Staerkel 5 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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped most of the cons case, Poor in conduct. Accused con of dropping arguments he didn't drop.
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.