Instigator / Con
7
1540
rating
30
debates
56.67%
won
Topic
#126

Will the Bears Win The Division(NFC North)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Vader
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1485
rating
6
debates
50.0%
won
Description

1. I would prefer anyone who has a general consensus of the NFL to come and challenge
2. No points should be given other than convincing arguments
3. We are only debating that they will win the division, not if they make the playoffs, therefore claiming they are a wild card playoff team will cause your argument not to be counted
4. Injuries will take a role in this debate, as they affect the playoff chances
5. Forefiet of around results in an auto loss
6. Evidence should be mostly fact related(stats, injury confirmations), your analysis is an opinion and that is what judges are looking for
7. Respect the opponent
8. The opening person may start with 3 opening arguments, the con may add +1 to the round 1. Then there shall be no more addition args

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The case made by Pro is that the Bears stand a chance of winning whereas the case made by Con was that the Vikings are blatantly going to be the winner instead while decimating the strategy choices made by this coach 'Nagy'.

For me, Con blatantly takes the point on Offence in that he makes Pro back-foot strongly (not even concede later like with Nagy but entirely back-foot from Round 1 through to Round 2) that the Bears have nowhere near the best offence of the seeming only four teams [I am very ignorant of American Football and never ever want to get into such a braindead sport but I fully read both debates, I assure you]. The issue here is that Pro doesn't do anything other that the Bears can run down a team? Is that knock them over with raw momentum and stuff or is it literally running to strike or what? I don't know but I fully understand that what Pro is saying is Bears can maneuvre at high speeds in ways the other teams in their particular division struggle to equal but concedes they have irrational passing strategy relative to the other 7 as well as relying on 'overall league' performance whereas this debate is about division and not the overall NFL so even if you're a running specialist and those that perform well in the league have good 'rush stats', this alone means it's a stat that's worth considering (like leg muscle toning for a fighter of ANY martial art for example) but not that it is good enough to counteract their deficiency in passing stats which Con clearly proves are subpar relative to the others in the division and which ultimately factors in more than rushing in output of a team. Pro's counter was logically fallacious in that he proved that a passing-specialist (Chargers) didn't beat their opposition for their Division as well as the #4, #6 and #9 in 2017 and does an extremely similar thing for 2016 stats but everything is relative in divisions (because you could be the best of the worst division or the worst of the best one if I'm not mistaken in how it all works, the splitting isn't based on skill unless I'm wrong). Even if I am wrong, the sample sizing and analysis of WHY passing matters so much would have won Pro the point. I was waiting to see more of a scientific 'here is why their passing prowess will be enough to win and counters rushing stats' etc but instead all I got was a justification of them standing a chance to win the division and the burden of proof to prove they win the division. I think that Pro does do a decent job but that Con does a 'good' job and wins by a margin that's slight due to how LITTLE they explained here.

Now let's look at defence. It seems that 'front line' functions much less like a 'front liner that engages ON THE enemy' and rather a tank-like being that waits to be hit and tank tackles and manoeuvres such that the mid-to-back liners can grab the ball and push it forth to a 'scorer' or something. That's how Pro portrays the strategy in how they put the front line relative to the team and this passive form of a front line seems to indeed then directly translate into good defence but what I'm at a loss at is if their defence is truly that optimal how do the bears get scored against so frequently relative to games played?

I feel the only strong point Pro made is that Bears seem to perform well against tough opponent in ways these "Packers" clearly don't. It seems both debaters think Packers are losing. I think that Vikings and Lions were insufficiently attacked by Pro because just proving something is possible to beat doesn't mean the probability of beating them is such that we should hedge bets on the bears winning the division (which in my eyes is basically what this debate is, if you were to bet money would you bet if for or against the Bears winning the division? Yeah, that's the debate). Con simply states that he's proven you defeat rush attacks with efficient passing and since Vikings are good at the counter-style to Bears, it's clear that Bears are far more likely to use than if they were not against a counter-styled opponent yes? Both debaters agree it's either Vikings or Bears so really this debate became that.and if your playstyle counters your opponent, you have to put in less effort and can afford to be less good and still equal them so imagine if you are equal what an unfair advantage that is.

It seems Pro is forced to drop that Nagy is a terrible coach due to restrictions in the agreed debate structure, that's Pro's fault for accepting the debate and I award the Nagy argument to Con.

Honestly Con won in my eyes.because this whole "weakness" line of attack by Pro only really affected the packers and Lions and Con keeps saying that it's the Vikings who will win the division.