The basketball analogy is an easy way to think of debate in a non-debate enviornment. Right now, you are a basketball coach for a college of your choice. There are two possible groups that you have to choose from for your team. However, you will have to choose one or the other, not mix or match.
On one side of the gym, there is a team of tall players. However, these players are also very slow during play. The other side of the gym features short but fast players. You have to choose one of these groups to play for the team. Which will you choose?
Now, you have a dilemma. You are required to select a group to play for your team. However, you have either have a team fully comprimised of tall and slow people or a team fully comprimised of short and fast people. Which would you choose? Below are the questions you would have to ask yourself.
The diagram below shows an example scenario where the coach wishes to get to the NCAA championship. He decides that his team needs to score more points. Now, he has to choose a team based on what shots he wants them to make: 3 Points, 2 Points, or Free Throw.
Complicating our discussion is the defense part of the game. In basketball, there are three defensive ways to prevent the opposing team from scoring points.
Each group would have varying skills in each defensive aspect of the game. Without a doubt, the short, fast players would be able to steal the ball more. However, the tall players will be able to easily block the shot. Both sides may be more or less adepts with rebounds.
Thus, if we translate this into debate terms, we get this: