Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player of all time.

Now let's begin with argumentation. My opponent's first claim is that I have conceded that Chamberlain was statistically superior. There are two responses I have to this:1. I have not conceded that Chamberlain is statistically superior to Jordan. It's simply that there are cold hard facts that I can't change being that, in SOME areas, Chamberlain has better statistics. 2. We must consider all stats, and ALL aspects, when attempting to label the greatest. By this, we see that Jordan is statistically superior. He says it's common to attack the era in which Chamberlain played. Simply, yes, it is. The reason? There is truth in that Chamberlain's era wasn't as good as it was when Jordan played, or now. My opponent has more or less conceded to this as well. ("Jordan came into the NBA in the 80's which was considered the best era in NBA basketball. ") Because my opponent profusely attempts to refute the era argument, I must thoroughly discuss it. He also brings up that the talent was more concentrated during Wilt's era because there was only 8 teams. However, statistics, which he obviously holds in high regards don't concur with that notion. Instead, they show that Wilt's era was overall worse than following era's (especially in regards to Jordan's era). Refer back once again to that Resnick evidence. .. "There's many more players who didn't shoot the basketball very well at that time, but it's also interesting to see the team shooting percentages. In 1959-1960, the Philadelphia Warriors shot 40.9 percent, Detroit Pistons 39.7 percent, Minneapolis Lakers 38.6 percent, Cincinnati Royals 41.2 percent, Syracuse Nationals 41.4 percent, Boston Celtics 41.7 percent, St. Louis Hawks 41.9 percent and the New York Knicks 42.1 percent. .. (continued)According to these numbers, only one team in the 14 years that Chamberlain was in the NBA shot better than 50 percent, and that was the Milwaukee Bucks in 1970-1971. " Though the statistics can become a bore, these overwhelmingly show how the Chamberlain era was not that great, especially in comparison to Jordan's era and the current one as well. "According to these numbers, only one team in the 14 years that Chamberlain was in the NBA shot better than 50 percent, and that was the Milwaukee Bucks in 1970-1971. Now field goal percentage isn't the only thing that keeps Chamberlain from being the greatest of all time. Chamberlain has two championship rings and in seven Finals appearances, his teams went 2-5. " (Resnick [1])Now let's fastforward to Jordan's era, while we are dealing with percentages. From Resnick again, "If you recall, only one team in Chamberlain's career shot better than 50 percent in a season and that was the Bucks. In Jordan's time in the league, 27 teams shot better than 50 percent from the field in a season. That's one of the reasons why in Jordan's era, and in the NBA today, there will not be a player who averages 20 rebounds a night. It's also a reason why grabbing 20 rebounds in a game today is a significant accomplishment because shooting the basketball has come such a long way from when Chamberlain was playing. "To put it simply, a player can't play on the level Wilt did in modern eras, which is why accomplishments and achievements in more modern eras means so much more. All of the awards and points Jordan had were more difficult to attain. My opponent's next argument says that Jordan DIDN'T have competition and never played against a great team. That argument is also faulty. Teams throughout those years hosted greats like Charles Barkley, Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp, John Stockton, and many more. That competition is certainly reputable. It is proved such by the statistics from Resnick, 27 teams shooting above 50%. This competition as a whole, even, was superior, making standout players such as these comparable to some of the greats of Wilt's era. His next argument focuses on the analogy I made in the last round. He says it's an insult. However, I did clarify that the exaggeration was extreme, but only used to get the point across. He says they are a far cry from 5 year olds. While definitely true, the statistics show that the majority were not near the level of MJ's competition, regardless of size. Size coincidentally is his next argument. While it is true that his size made him one of the most dominant to ever play the game, he simply couldn't compete on the level in which he did in the 60's in the modern age. The next stats my opponent brings up are how many triple doubles and big numbers in every category during games that Wilt had. Once again, we see the aspect of competition come up. With modern competition, those feats would be unattainable. In the end, Jordan gets the edge for rings and superior competition.