Tuesday was a very pleasant day. I went to college to attend my composition 2 and math classes. It was fun. At my composition 2, the professor assigned us to write about an argument in which I actively participated. I went home not at all worrying about the homework since I had plenty of time till Sunday. In the evening, I and my friend Raj went to play pool. We ordered a game, and two large pitchers of beer. Little did I know that time, I would find a theme for my paper so fast. As we started the game, we heard people cheering, clapping their beer bottles, and patting each other’s shoulders. We turned back and saw it was the Spurs vs. Miami game. That was the beginning of our conflict. Suddenly, we found ourselves in a very heated argument.
The reason for the conflict was very simple: I supported my favorite team Spurs, and my friend started cheering for the Miami. We both looked at each other’s faces and asked each other a very similar question. For me it was whether my friend was gunning for Miami, and for Raj it was whether I pulled for Spurs. Immediately, both of us started praising our teams and explain why his team had been the best. The situation grew tense. It seemed that we were almost ready to break each other’s head with the beer bottles.
My position on the issue was quite expectable since I had been a fan of Spurs for a long time. Generally, I was motivated by my personal feelings of sympathy for this team, and I also had an understanding regarding the strong points of my favorite team. During the argument, I mentioned my strongest reasons and evidences. Particularly, I explained that Spurs had more time to have a rest and analyze their mistakes in the previous game than the Miami Heat. Also, I said that the strongest players of the Miami, Dwyane Wad and Chris Bosh, had been injured. In addition, I explained that the Miami Heat had been a team with older players than the players of Spurs. As a result, having not enough time to renew their form, the Miami players were about to lose. Finally, I reminded that the leader of the team was a four-time NBA champion, Tim Duncan.
My opponent told me that I was mistaken. He fortified his position by the facts that the age of Miami players brought them experience; this experience made them strong in defense, which would make it very difficult for Tony Parker to shred guards; and The Heat had already been straight champions before whereas Spurs had been seeking for the title since 2007. To respond to these objectives, I said that in basketball, the age means a lot because players have to be in their best form to win. Also, I mentioned that Spurs had seven days to get ready for the game, which allowed them find enough time to develop a successful tactic against the Miami guards. Finally, I said that although Spurs were not straight champions before, they had already won five titles before 2007.
In the end, the situation resolved in a good way. Although both of us maintained our own vision of the victory chances of both teams, reality became our conciliator. Because Spurs won, I appeared to be right in our argument regarding that game. During the whole game, I was almost ready to start fighting with Raj. The same can be said about him. However, we managed to get cool after the end of that match. As five minutes passed, we started thinking about our situation. We realized that our friendship was more precious than our sports preferences. Life is life, and this means that the Miami or Spurs will both win and lose many more times. Therefore, it is better to demonstrate tolerance to each other.