Golden State Warriors will win the Western Conference.

My opponent has obviously not paid any attention to my request to keep the argument short in the last round. He posted his longest argument, by far, in the third round. However, it does hurt him more than it hurts me, as he can't respond to my rebuttals. He may NOT refute or post any comments in the comment section about my arguments, as he brought this upon himself.Also, NO BUTTHURT FANS.And to make this debate to the largest extent of ironic, I hate both the Thunder and the Clippers... Anyway, onto rebuttals. I apologize how long they have to be, but in my defense, your rebuttal was long.--Rebuttal 1a: Clippers--In this argument (and all of his arguments) he refers to the PAST seasons to help him out. However, we are talking about the present and future here. The San Francisco Giants won in 2012, and then collapsed in 2013. This shows that the past, which you relied very heavily on, is not always reliable.Now, you state that injuries. Before I start my rebuttal on this one, I would like to point out a definition error of yours:Blasphemous: expressing or involving impiousness or gross irreverence towards God, a divine being, or something sacred [1]. ...How was what I said an insult to God or something sacred? Voters, please note this in S&G. So, I do not need to refute the Andre Igoudala part. But I will anyway. You state that in the past, Andre Igoudala has only missed 27 games. This season, he has missed twelve. This shows signs of him getting older and less durable, as the past can and has worn down even a tough guy like him.Then you state injuries and Steph Curry. You show he has been durable in every year except 2011-12. When stating this, you also do not know (and failed to research) the exact number of games he has missed, and instead used a 40-game space for yourself. Furthermore, you were OFF on that stat even with the wide margin you gave yourself. Steph Curry has missed a total of 70 games since the start of his career [2]. That is only twelve games away from a WHOLE SEASON. Giving him the injury prone label seems fair to me. Now you state that the Clippers have played more games against the Eastern Conference than the Warriors. Yes, but only by a four game margin (27 to 23.) Also noted, the Eastern Conference also means the Heat and Pacers. One of the Clippers' me was against the Heat, and another against the Pacers.And next, the Western Conference, which is harder, proves that the Clippers are better. The Clippers are 16-7 against the Western Conference, while the Warriors are only 15-12 [3]. How do you expect the Warriors to beat the West when Phoenix, San Antonio, Oklahoma, Los Angeles Clippers, and the Trail Blazers have better Western Conference records than them?Whoa! The style of Doc Rivers hasn't been fitting DeAndre Jordan?! He is shooting 65% from the field (leads league), has netted 207 points, and has played 1,242 minutes [4]. He is not useless from more than three feet out. Seems to be playing pretty well to me.Next, it is almost impossible to improve upon a .683 winning percentage [5] in the Western Conference. This year, they are sporting a .639 win ratio [6], which is still very, very good for any team. They are projected to have more losses, but you can't blame that all on Doc Rivers. Some of the players have goofed up.As for the Clippers argument, I apologize also that my rebuttal had to be that long. --Rebuttal 2a: Houston--You state that no team has ever won a championship with only four good players. This relies on how you define "good." I will say it means top ten in the league at your position good.This doesn't even state that the WARRIORS have four good players. First off, there is only ONE player on the Warriors (Curry) that is in the top 5 of the big stats [7]. Meanwhile...Clippers: 5 appearances by two different players (Paul, Jordan)Rockets: 3 appearances by two different players (Howard, Harden)Thunder: 2 appearances by two different players (Ibaka, Durant)Warriors: 1 appearance by one player (Curry.)Now, let's see how many players the Warriors have that are truly "good."[8]Steph CurryDavid LeeHuh... only two! But you state that you need five good players to win a Western Conference Championship. You just crossed out your own argument. So therefore, by your logic, the Warriors CAN'T WIN. I see no need to refute this section anymore.--Rebuttal 3a: Thunder--Even though I have no need to continue further, I will because I am so very, very bored.First, you state that Russell Westbrook being injured means that the Thunder can't survive without him. That was last season. As I stated before, this was last season. This is a new season and the Thunder have learned to cope without Russell Westbrook, it seems. Same point goes to Serge Ibaka.Next, you state that the Warriors gave the Spurs a very tough series in the playoffs. Really? I beg to differ. The Spurs beat the Warriors 4-2 in the series [9]. Just to prove that it wasn't tough, here's a breakdown:G1: 129-127, SpursG2: 100-91, WarriorsG3: 102-92, SpursG4: 97-87, WarriorsG5: 109-91, SpursG6: 94-82, Spurs.The point difference was 23, in favor of the Spurs. Next, you state that the difference between the playoffs and the regular season are huge. If they really are, tell me how the four regular-series games were split right down the middle at 2-2, just like in the playoffs? The point difference... 2 in favor of the Spurs. Just nine points, or three three pointers, away from the playoff at game four. So therefore, the Thunder will average 100ppg in the playoffs. Plus, the Spurs-Warriors matchup last season was lower-scoring than the playoffs.You also state that only three teams in the playoff seeds have four players averaging 10+ PPG, and the Thunder are one of them. This hurts your resolution. Plus, it is false... The Warriors only have four of their five starters averaging 10 PPG [10]. If you didn't mean starters, the Warriors have the exact minimum of players over 10 PPG. Plus, the Thunder have a guy at 9.9 PPG [11]. One shot changes that to a 10.0, so your point is significantly, significantly weakened. Plus, the rest of the big contenders (Spurs, Rockets and Clippers) all have 5 guys over 10+ PPG. So really, the Warriors are just another contender, weak at that, in the Western Conference.--Rebuttal 4a: Spurs--For my last rebuttal of the day, I will only be focusing on a few points as I have less than 1,000 characters left.First, you say that the Warriors are indeed clutch with no evidence for your claim. You say that if Richard Jefferson was not at the free throw line, they would've won. Possibly (slim chance, though), but to be clutch, you need to have most to all of your players perform in big moments. Since Richard Jefferson failed to even MAKE a free throw, this proves that the Warriors are not clutch.Next, you state the difference between a playoff game and a regular season game, but I have already addressed that and I can not address that now due to the lack of characters. I have to end my argument here. The debate is done, and pro did not meet his resolution, as shown in the end of rebuttal 2a (by the most) that the Warriors will without 100% doubt win the Western Conference Championship. I thank pro for his time and you for reading. Thank you for the debate. Take care.Sources:[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.basketball-reference.com...[3] http://www.nba.com...[4] http://www.basketball-reference.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.nba.com...[7] http://espn.go.com...[8] http://insider.espn.go.com...[9] http://espn.go.com...[10] http://espn.go.com...[11] http://espn.go.com...