The Instigator
sarmad5
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

shahid afridi is the best cricket player

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 71032
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

sarmad5

Pro

from by heart and my observations i saw from his first innings that he has miles of potential. he has clearly surpassed any other player
Zarroette

Con

I accept. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
sarmad5

Pro

sarmad5 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Despite my opponent not providing an affirmative case, I will still construct a negative case.


Negative Case


A1: Donald Bradman is a much better batsman of all time

Based on test cricket, Shahid Afridi's batting average is considerably less (36.51 [1]) compared to the astounding average of Donald Bradman's of 99.94 [2]. Based on batting averages, Afridi is about a 1/3 of the batsman Donald Bradman was. Furthermore, Donald Bradman's highest score of 334 is more than double Afridi's. Donald Bradman was so much better as a batsman than Afridi that Bradman should be considered for the best cricket player over Afridi.


A2: Gary Sobers is a better all-rounder of all time

For test cricket batting-wise, Gary Sober's average of 57.78 [3] surpasses that of Afridi's (36.51 [1]). Furthermore, if you wish to consider the bowling, Sober's bowling average of 34.03 also beast Afridi's of 35.60 (lower is better). Clearly, in both batting and bowling, Sobers is better than Afridi, therefore making Afridi not the best cricket player of all time.


References

[1] http://www.espncricinfo.com...
[2] http://www.espncricinfo.com...
[3] http://www.espncricinfo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
sarmad5

Pro

sarmad5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
sarmad5

Pro

sarmad5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
sarmad5

Pro

first off, he has the fastest 50, fastest 100 , most sixes , biggest six and also the longest carrier as just to name a few of the world records he has set. he has gotten 2 50s of just 18 balls and he hit a six while he had a bad cramp in his foot and back and scored 128 in that innings with 7 sixes.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, sarmad5.

Since this is the last round, I will not only respond to my opponent, but I will also bring attention to important facets of this debate.


Negative Case

Both arguments were dropped entirely. These arguments showed how: (A1) Shahid Afridi is nowhere near the best batsman in the world, and (A2) is nowhere near the best all-rounder in the world. Since these arguments went uncontested, they are devastating to my opponent's case as both show why Shahid Afridi is not the best cricketer in the world. I have displayed Shahid Afridi's record side-by-side on the macro-analysis that is batting average and bowling average, and I have shown how there are clearly players with better statistics than Shahid Afridi.


Counter-case

My opponent's only round of arguments does not come close to meeting the burden of proof. Firstly, his entire argument is completely unreferenced, meaning that all of his points are unsubstantiated.

Secondly, even if we assume that these statistics and facts are true, why do they make him the best cricketer ever? Is the "biggest six ever hit" a true indication of cricketing greatness? As it seems, these are merely random, impressive (potentially true) facts.
My opponent never defined or indicated what the requirements were for being the "best cricket player". This is a fundamental flaw with my opponent's arguments as they never begin to ascertain what the requirements are, hence the random fact recital aims to fulfil no purpose in regards to the resolution, therefore the resolution is never fulfilled.

Conclusion

My opponent only provides unreferenced assertions which do not substantiate as arguments, but even if they were referenced, the burden of proof still has not been met due to my opponent failing to link the resolution with the random fact recital. Comparatively, I showed how Shahid Afridi was indeed significanly inferior to other players in some major categories. The resolution was never affirmed.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I'd Fvck them both up at cricket, whatever that is
Posted by Dazz 2 years ago
Dazz
I think who stays at pitch for long time has a better credibility for Test game. One having good strike rate is best for One-day cricket. And Shahid Afridi is a stuff of T-20, excluding his bowling (that's unpredictable).
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
sarmad5ZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 3 rounds. So there was no way for them to come back in this debate. Con successfully showed how Sir Don Bradman had better stats than Afridi, and how Gary Sobers also had better stats then Afridi. Pro then forfeited the next 2 rounds. So conduct, and arguments goes to Con. Con had considerably less spelling mistakes, and also used sources.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
sarmad5ZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's negative case was constructed in detail, drawing comparisons between Shahid Afridi and some of the greatest batsmen of all time (i.e. Donald Bradman and Garfield Sobers) statistically. Pro's forfeiture of two rounds gives conduct to Con. Pro also had poor spelling & grammar ("first off, he has the fastest 50, fastest 100 , most sixes , biggest six and also the longest carrier as just to name a few of the world records he has set" - here the "as just" is completely inaccurate; no punctuation whatsoever by Pro). Con used the only sources in the debate. All 7 points to Con.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
sarmad5ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON for the forfeit. No attempt by PRO to engage any of CON's case, much of which was induced by the dual forfeits, so arguments to CON.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
sarmad5ZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: No capitalisation, general poor use of grammar = loss of s&g FF two rounds drops conduct. No sources vs several drops sources, especially given Pro makes physical assertions. Pro's opening was entirely subjective. Con refuted the by comparing scoring rates vs Donald Bradman and all round statistics vs Gary Sibers. Pro failed to engague with these counter arguments. Thus args Con. @ Cassie... Hi.