Why the Boston Celtics will not win the NBA title

Well, I'd like to firmly believe that my opponent dropped his arguments due to lack of time. However, due to this being he last round, we'll never really see. So, I'll just go over why under the arguments presented in this round, the Celtics are the most likely to win a championship. 1. Best Record - I asked my opponent to provide something that measures who will win a championship more accurately, and he did not provide any system of measurement. Thus, he concedes that the best way to determine who will win the championship is to look at record. The Celtics have the best record in the league, and therefore are the most likely to win. To clear up the "most likely" phrase: We are debating who will win the NBA Championship. Now obviously, neither of us are psychics, nor have any inside information. That means that we cannot be SURE. However, the resolution is clear that the Topic is that the Celtics will not win the Championship. I simply must prove that they are the most likely to win out of all the teams, and their record says it all. The gold standard for regular-season success is the 72-10 Chicago Bulls of 1995-96. They, too, were 29-3 after 32 games. The 69-win Los Angeles Lakers of 1971-72, the team that set the NBA record for consecutive wins with 33, was in the middle of that streak after 32 games and also was 29-3. Again, the Bulls show up: The 1996-97 Bulls also went 69-13. They were 28-4 after 32 games. And the 1966-67 Sixers, who went 68-13, also were 29-3 after 32 games and didn't lose their fourth game until they had amassed 37 victories. Those four teams all have one thing in common: They won the NBA championship. Point Made. 2. Best Team The next best team (statistically) is the Detroit Pistons. I gave evidence showing that the Celtics are slightly better in all major categories, and gave analysis on the players. The Celtics have a slightly different team. As for the games they recently played, the Celtics are 1-1. The first one they lost off of a silly foul made by a rookie (which I can guarantee won't happen again) and the latest one, they won handedly, 92-85. The one argument my opponent made was that the Pistons have more experience. But how is experience made? By getting out there and doing it, something the Celtics can do. 3. The Bets My opponent dropped this, so I really don't think I need to prove the validity of it. However I can prove the significance. The bets are designed to circumvent the litany of unknowns and strike at the heart of this matter: Who will win. While the Celtics weren't at the top of the bets, those bets were earlier season versions (i. e. before the Celtics became 29-3). I think it would be fair to say that the Celtics have a place above, as the bets main concern with the Celtics (chemistry) has been addressed adequately (29-3 is such a good number. .. ). My Opponents Arguments (All Refuted before): Record doesn't matter - No Evidence on this claim. I proved that record is the only thing we can look at to predict a winner. Weak Bench - The Article I gave (. http://mvn.com...) refutes this point quite well. My opponent (who I concede, may have just lost track of time) didn't answer to this, thus agreeing with my side. I think that adequately answers the point. Lack Of Experience - I had two arguments here, both of which stand still. 1. Experience doesn't matter all that much (Look at the 90's Rockets) 2. The only way to gain that is to get out there and play, which the Celtics have been doing. Alright, I don't want to bring up another argument that my opponent has no chance to refute, but I want to make a little note to phans86: Had I felt I had no other arguments, I could have attacked the topic. The topic simply states 'Why The Celtics Will Not Win The NBA Title'. I could have simply said that it is ridiculous to claim a team that is historically as good as the Celtics will never win a championship ever again, and this argument would have held weight. You need to specify what EXACTLY you are debating. I myself would never run an attack like this (unless I had no others), but some debaters might. I ask that this argument (and only this argument) hold no relevance in the voter's decision. All in all, I believe I have won this debate as I have fulfilled my two main duties in proving the Pro wrong: Refuted my opponent's arguments AND defended my own points. In the end, he may have agreed with may (or just lost track of the time). I won't comment on which one it is just yet, but he may leave a comment shading some light on the situation.