the boys and i have the uncanny ability to initiate and perpetuate a sports debate in any venue and at any time, completely disregarding the level of appropriateness, rationality, or logic for a given environment.  having all of us sitting around watching any athletic contest (from world series of darts to the softball world cup) is like having a "real world" season with paige, mariotti, wilbon, kornkeiser, bayless, ryan, and adande living under the same roof, and all channels but the espns blocked on the t.v.  points and counterpoints are made, voice inflection and anger levels increase, tensions grow and boil over, and then some third party person or event occurs to remind us all that this debate: 1) was started by a seemingly harmless comment, 2) cannot ever be resolved, and 3) is very unimportant in the grand scheme of things.  this process occurs several times daily, and although we recognize its futility, we engage in it time and time again. 

and we are not unlike other groups of males, who see this process as part of their daily routine, and almost rite of passage into manhood.  just as women gather to discuss fashion, celebrity gossip, and whether or not meredith should make one last push for mcdreamy, men gather to discuss sports, constructing or destructing things, the maxim top 100, and how our group of friends relates to the cast of entourage.  however, the differences in social norms between males and females is bound to decrease my female readership and is the topic for another installment, so i digress.  the point is that almost all groups of males come together on sports.  from the casual fan ("how 'bout them _____ ?"), to the informed fan ("barry bonds probably took steroids.  just look at that dude's dome."), to the obsessed/schwab fan ("how do they pitch to him there?! don't they realize he has a .450 average against lefties on tuesdays in april during the first quarter of a lunar cycle?!"), anyone can engage in sports debates.  of course, it is customary and most efficient if one finds someone on his level with whom to debate.  imagine what the casual or informed fan would say in response to the obsessed fan after stating the example given.  the response would probably involve (in no particular order) raising of eyebrows, slowly nodding of head, and backing away cautiously. 

to some, sports is paramount of importance, and their lives are centered around being a fan, debator, writer, speaker of or about sports.  and while others' priorities may be politics or financial matters, as males in our low-20s, we don't have as many other realms of influence on which we need to focus.  we don't have enough patience to watch msnbc for the latest middle east developments.  we don't have enough money to worry about finances.  and we certainly don't have other responsibilities (kids, wife, work-intensive career, house maintenance, etc.) to impede upon our time to read about, watch, and debate sports.  we like it, we have the time, we have the resolve, and so we do it.    

of course, we always tend to gravitate towards "defending" our own.  one friend swears up and down that tom brady is the best and most clutch quarterback in football history (ignoring montana, favre, bradshaw, starr, and a host of others).  another claims that brian dawkins is the best safety in football (despite the recent breakouts of roy williams, troy polamalu, and ed reed).  and i am notorious for defending the claim that "hines ward is the best all-around receiver in football," despite his only barely above average numbers on a run-first team.  the point is, similar to sticking up for a family member or friend in a fight, we identify with, and thus we must defend, our teams and players of choice.  we feel as if we know these athletes on teams we support better than everyone else, or that they fail to remember certain events (i.e. "don't these people realize that hines cried on national t.v. after losing the 2004 afc championship because of another player?")  we embody the spirit of these teams and treat them as if they are an extension of family or a circle of friends.  we have a vested interest in their well-being and success, we get angry with them if they fail or are irresponsible, and we cheer and jeer them accordingly.  we will be the first to point out their shortcomings, but we are also the first to defend their actions.  no one can say that the aformentioned claims about brady, bdawk, and hines aren't accurate, but it is certainly up for debate. 

there are also characteristics of each debator which manifest themselves during the arguments.  for example, the friend who defends brady is ruthless, passionate, and unrelenting.  he will hit detractors with stats, stories, and (occassionally outlandish) predictions, and will not let up or concede certain points to make his case stronger.  in addition to his original stubborness, he will continue the debate far beyond the confines of the room in which it began.  for example, two days after a debate over brady's place in qb lore began and ended (unresolved), he will hit a fadeaway three to end a pick-up game and follow it with "that's for tom" or something of the sort.  you know that if he doesn't completely agree with an original claim, you have unknowingly signed up for a week of displeasure. 

the friend who argues for bdawk is much different.  he is internally completely governed by logic and rationality, and attempts to persuade via these avenues.  during the first portion of an argument, he will respond as anyone would, citing what stats and other information he knows to defend his claim.  however, you can tell that he is listening intently to each thing being said, and along with his current response, he also stores a bit of information that can be used at a later time.  unbeknownst to his opponents, he is also recalling every statement you made since you two met (including ones uttered while intoxicated), searching for inconsistencies between something you said in 2002 and something else 45 seconds ago.  at some point in the argument (usually when little or no progress is being made and a stalemate has been reached) he unleashes all of these saved up tidbits, and completely sinks your argument from a logical standpoint.  for example, while discussing barry bonds' admittance into the hall of fame: "wait a minute.  when barry broke the all-time record for hrs in a season, you said you admired him, his work ethic, and how he overcame pressures to reach this point.  then about a year ago, you said that if mcgwire was even accused of using by a reliable source, he should be banned from baseball.  and now you are saying that even with circumstancial evidence piled sky high against barry, he hasn't officially failed a drug test, so he's allowed in the hall?"  now, this isn't to say that your point of view isn't valid, but he disproves the way in which it was argued.  usually, this deflates his opponent and he "wins" by default (through either frustration, anger, or amazement), since the other argument dies down after his major counterpoint.

i tend to be the most conceding one.  i never want the argument to affect any other aspect of a relationship, even in the short term, and sometimes the escalation of these debates brings them fairly close.  i mentioned before that my one friend was passionate.  that is not to say that the other friend and i are not, but we are passionate to a point past rational but before dangerous.  i am proud of how much i know about sports, i enjoy learning more about them, and, for now, they are my main hobby and source of enjoyment.  however, i tend to avoid direct conflict, which requires me to give a concession almost every time i make a new point.  for example, i would respond to the brady argument with "i mean brady is very clutch and accurate, especially in the playoffs.  he truly embodies what it means to be a leader and they wouldn't have three rings without him.  but i mean joe montana had better numbers, more comebacks, and his stats went up proportionately higher than brady's in the postseason.  plus, he did it for longer, and brady might not have as impressive of a career."  this way, i figure, my opponent will understand that i have knowledge of his point and that i recognize how he can feel how he does, but i think differently.  i always believe that superior knowledge and information retainment will prevail, so if conceding little bits of the argument allows me to hold his attention for another effective round of point-counterpoint, then it is worth it.  

as one can imagine, these styles interact very differently with each other.  for instance, an argument between friend #1 and i is very one-sided, because with each point i concede, he pounces and assumes i am agreeing with him, failing to listen to my point made after the concession.  an argument with friend #2 and i ends fairly amicably, but with less resolve.  he successfully shoots down my means to argument, but nonetheless, i present enough facts to make a solid case.  i believe i impress him enough with information to negate my flaws in argument and it ends without much fanfare.  arguments between friends #1 and 2 are the most volatile, and thus more entertaining.  during friend #1's rants, friend #2 stores enough ammunition to bring down the argument in short order.  when he attempts this (earlier than with most other opponents), friend #1 becomes more vehement in his pursuit of victory, thus making more mistakes for friend #2 to remember.  this vicious cycle continues until one leaves, some third party breaks up the discussion, or a more satisfying activitiy (such as drinking, playing a sport, or causing mayhem) is suggested.  of course, friend #1 will not forget this debate for at least a week, while friend #2 forgets it the moment it ends, making for an interesting next couple of days. 

the purpose of this article was twofold.  first, it was meant to give my insight on why it is (any by what means) people, especially males, continually debate sports.  and second, it explained a dynamic between three friends, all fans of different sports, teams, and players, and all with different (and occassionally conflicting) personalities.  readers may identify aspects about themselves and their friends that they relate to or disapprove of, but they will hopefully gain a better understanding of why we debate as often, as intently, and as passionately as we do.