Golden State Warriors will win the Western Conference.

I have found a significant problem with my opponent's resolution. He states that the Warriors WILL win the Western Conference. That means 100% of the time, the Warriors will win it without a doubt. He must prove that. I thank my opponent for a well-thought second round which he obviously put a lot of time and effort into.I ask, that in the third round, rebuttals and arguments are kept to a limited stance because you will not be able to refute my rebuttals, and that is somewhat unfair. My opponent can accept or decline in the next round. Anyway, onto my rebuttals. Also, I'm a Warriors fan. This is kinda ironic..--Rebuttal 1a: The Backcourt and The Clips--In my opponent's first argument, he (first) says that I focus too much on the stats. Yes, I do focus on the stats a ton, because in these types of debates, it is really hard to win just by throwing unproven things out there. So stats and experts is really the only thing I can really turn to in this case. So, onto the main section of the arguments/rebuttals of my opponent.In my opponent's first main argument, my opponent tries to prove the backcourt issue wrong by pointing out injuries. However, you got the numbers wrong. 5 different players on the Clippers have been injured [1] compared to 8 on the Warriors [2]. So the injury number is favoring the Clippers, but not by as much as you think. Second, the rash of injuries to the Warriors can also show that they are not durable in the playoffs. Stephen Curry and Andre Igoudala are both delicate (as pointed out by your stats) and may not be able to complete the whole season. So, this argument does not help your case at all. The conclusion part of my opponent's argument is more stuff about Doc Rivers. I still await to see exactly what his faults in coaching are. You have only said that he is not a success with no evidence for it. Point out his faults before I refute, please.--Rebuttal 2a: The Bench--My opponent's opening statement was now pointing out that I used opinions. I thought that is what you wanted me to do. First you say used WAY to many statistics, and now you say it was wrong to go off of an opinion of experts... please explain.On to the actual argument of this side. My opponent states that he did not say that the Warriors had one of the best benches. While he did not say this in a direct manner, he did come borderline to it, which invoked my rebuttal:"...deep balanced bench that will give them good numbers in the playoffs."And now, you say that you can argue that the bench won't help/need to help in the playoffs. Which one is it? I believe that benches do need to help in the playoffs. Proving that the Warriors do not have a good bench affects your resolution.However, you state that the bench is "deep enough" to give the Warriors starters time off. However, San Jose Mercury News quotes something very different than what you are saying. "The Warriors bench is still very much a work in progress, but it's at least one-fifth of the way there."Like most teams, the Warriors do spot one (but really, only one) bright spot. And one bright spot on the bench is not nearly enough to propel one through the playoffs. Harrison Barnes is not doing as well as you think, only shooting 42% from the field and 69% from the free throw line [3]. Also, he's not really a "bench player," as he has started 15 out of his 31 games this season. And Draymond Green, the "bright spot," is only shooting 38% from the field [4]. This is not a playoff-strong bench, let alone a Conference Winning bench. --Rebuttal 3a: Houston--My opponent, right of the bat (right through the hoop? Into the end zone? Into the net?), says that they have four players (good) on the court, but no PF. He states that the best power forward on the Rockets is Terrance Jones. Yes, that is true. However, he does not lack the neccesities to be considered the fifth man on the court. The Heat won it with three main guys, and four good players overall in the starting lineup last year (LBJ, Dewayne Wade, Chris Bosh, Udonis Haslem.)However, Terrance Jones is 18th in blocks per game [5]. He is 5th in blocks per game (PF) in the Western Conference [6]. Not to mention he is still putting up 10 PPG [7]. So it is actually safe to say that Terrance Jones fits in as the Rocket's fifth man. Therefore, they do have a reasonable PF, and the ability to win the Western Conference.Also, the need for Omer Asik is nullified, as they have all five men. Also, Omer Asik is a center. He could not beat out Dwight Howard for this spot. He is an O.K bench player (slightly above average in terms of statistical categories.)--Rebuttal 4a: Thunder--In my opponent's rebuttal/argument, he states that Serge Ibaka's numbers are only so good because Russell Westbrook has been out. However, this argument turns to my side when looking at it the right way.First, Russel Westbrook being injured says that the Thunder can survive without their number 2 star and that they have backup in case of injury. I know you are going to say that this crosses out my Clippers argument, but it is not so. The Warriors have a mildly worse record than the Thunder while only missing Steph Curry for a couple games. Second, this also shows that Serge Ibaka has the ability to step up in times of need, which means that he, and the team, are Western-Conference material. So this argument fails to help your resolution, but rather weakens it.Also, the Thunder have been putting up about 103 PPG [8], so it is not fair at all to say that their numbers will ever drop to the high 80's in the playoffs. As for Kendrick Perkins, he isn't really a bench player nor anyone that the Thunder need, so he shouldn't be a big problem. Maybe a little bee sting for the Thunder, but nothing more.Now, I fail to see any need to refute the Spurs section as you have already stated that they can beat the Golden State Warriors. However, there is one thing I would like to say. Playoff games boil down to one little mistake (as in game 1, as you pointed out) that really describes who a team is. So by pointing out the two missed free throws, it shows that the Warriors are not clutch in clutch moments.Last, but not least, the Warriors pretty much had experience against playing great teams the whole 2012-13 season, and were prepared for the playoffs. And they still lost. So I can not see how they will win the Western Conference.Thanks to pro for his time. I hand over the debate to pro for the last round. Thank you for reading.[1] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...[2] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...[3] http://www.basketball-reference.com...[4] http://www.basketball-reference.com...[5] http://espn.go.com...[6] http://espn.go.com...[7] http://insider.espn.go.com...[8] http://espn.go.com...