Why the Boston Celtics will not win the NBA title

Well, first off... I'd like to go into the merits of a debate. As the Pro, you must prove that, without a doubt, your case is impossible to deny. This is called the Burden Of Proof. You several times referenced several factors about why the Celtics would not win, yet never listed the factors. As such, I have nothing that is technically on case with your arguments (because you haven't really made any). My one on-case attack so far would have to be just to disagree with your topic statement. Follow my logic: The NBA Regular Season is to weed out the bad teams from the good teams. We then move onto the playoffs, with the teams that performed best being rewarded the most, with higher seeds. Logically, the best teams perform the best. Now, what exactly does a win-loss record indicate? Well, it indicates the wins versus the losses. To carry further, a team with a bad record, isn't likely to be good. Now sure... there is a slim chance of something terrible affecting the team EVERY night for every loss, but how likely is that? The inverse is just as true. A good record reflects a good team. So, lets just assume that barring a terrible mishap, the Celtics will at least get into the playoffs. From there, they will face the cream of the crop. The only other noteworthy team from the Eastern Conference would be the Pistons. Comparing the Pistons with the Celtics: Positions: Celtics: PG: Rajon Rondo SG: Ray Allen SF: Paul Pierce PF: Kevin Garnett C: Kendrick Perkins Pistons: PG - Chauncey Billups SG - Richard Hamilton SF - Tayshaun Prince PF - Rasheed Wallace C - Antonio McDyess So, let's go thru. Billups will beat Rondo any day. Pistons 1, Celtics 0. Allen over Hamilton, because of assists and perimeter shooting. Pistons 1, Celtics 1. Pierce over Prince any day. Pistons 1, Celtics 2. Garnett over Wallace, that's inarguable. Celtics 3, Pistons 1. Center position has to go to Pistons, but it is still 3-2, Celtics winning. Bench is arguable, but for the argument, I'll go ahead and assume Detroit wins. All tied up. Where else can we look at? Well, record? Celtics are 27-3, while the Pistons are 25-7. Celtics win. So that leaves the Celtics on top of the Eastern Conference. If you want to argue a team from the West, go ahead and name the team. There are a few that are good, and I don't want to waste space pre-emptively responding. I'll just mention that the Celtics are the best team in the league (record-wise. The ENTIRE league. My Arguments So Far: 1. No team is better 2. Celtics record (the best way to justify how good a team is) is best in the league 3. No reasons why they would lose (burden of proof) One more argument: http://www.betus.com... Now, if you look at that link, it basically says that the Celtics have a 1 in 450 chance of winning the championship (Spurs - 1 in 350). However, the articles criticism and reasoning for the Celtics being placed lower wasn't for lack of talent, but rather lack of chemistry. So let's refute that. If there were to be a chemistry problem, wouldn't it have been most prevalent at the beginning of the year? That would be most logical. However, the Celtics have only lost 3 times. Seem like a chemistry problem? Not to me. My arguments (Final): 1. No team is better 2. Celtics record (the best way to justify how good a team is) is best in the league 3. No reasons why they would lose (burden of proof) 4. The bets on who will win are in favor of the Celtics Thank you for your time.