The topic is TBA

There are two issues with the argument presented. As such, there will be two critiques. 1st: Time challenge. The term "is" in a debate topic is defined as something used to illustrate a normative statement is being made. Meaning, the topic is a statement of truth that is intended to be applicable in all cases. If one says "the grass is green" they mean that all grass is green and is always green. Vague statements cannot be utilized to create a statement of truth. Capsulation - specific to a time frame - is necessary to derive truth statements. We all know that the grass is typically green, however, when summertime comes, the grass may become shades of brown due to water-deficiency. Ergo, the statement "the grass is green" no longer holds true. However, the statement "when in ideal conditions, grass is green" is a more conclusive, normative statement because it adds parameters that isolate when the truth is indeed true. The implication is that, even if Albert Pujols is better now, he may not have been ten years ago, or he might not in the future. So, then, to say that he "is" better is logically inconclusive at best due to a lack in specificity and thus an inaccurate time-placement. _____________ 2nd: Perspective challenge An additional take-out of this lazy topic is that this normative statement of truth does not hold true in all cases. The reason from this derives from the notion of perspectivism. A perspectivist would argue that the knowledge of a subject is inevitable, partial, and limited by the individual perspective from which it is viewed. This topic is a statement of opinion; not one of fact. All I have to do is posit that there is at least one person who "perceives" this baseball player as someone who is not "better", I believe that Casey Kotchman is a better baseball player. This means that we are at a standstill, if perspectivism is an agreeable philosophy (which so far there are no opposing theories -- thus making this one hold true), then only in some* cases the video is "incredibly funny". At this point you are to vote CON because the topic is not "Albert Pujols is (sometimes/usually/typically/generally) a better player in major league baseball than Casey Kotchman", but rather a statement of a normative truth. _____________ 3rd: Statistics, pshh... Here is the absolute best quote I have ever heard about why "the average" is meaningless: "It's like putting Bill Gates down in Ethiopia and saying the country has a pretty high average income." (1) – Dr. Dirk Brockmann, the engineering professor who leads the epidemic-modeling team at the Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems FURTHERMORE, you shouldn't believe a single word from a think thank, it is likely to be BS. Think tanks are dishonest about their studies and aren't peer reviewed. Don't let the PRO invalidate these arguments on the basis that they're ad homs; his think tanks evidence doesn't disclose their methodology for deriving their statistics. As such, the PRO relies on the credibility of the "tank" to make his argument. If the Think Tanks aren't credible, you shouldn't buy evidence from them. And indeed, they are. (2). Sources are for horses: 1) http://www.nytimes.com... 2)  Benjamin Wallace-Wells in 2003 [Editor, Washington Monthly, "In The Tank", Dec 2003]