Were the 1960s Boston Celtics better than the 2010s Golden State Warriors?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Were the 1960s Boston Celtics better than the 2010s Golden State Warriors?". Your opponent's style: Socratic Philosopher

ok ill start so i think when you take deep into the 1960's celtics they have to be a better dynatsy they won 9 of the 10 titles in the 60s and they actually had a solid competiton having the best point guard before magic johnson with oscar robertsion the best shooter at that time with jerry west the best scorer and 2nd best defender at that timew ith wilt chamberlain the best rebounder at that time with bob petit all these people winning 9 out fht e10 champions shows the dominance which checks the list for a perfect dynatsy the warriors never had this domiance ever so give a argument for why the warriors couldd be better

You're conflating "era dominance" with "actual competition," and that's your fatal mistake. Those nine titles came against a watered-down league with eight teams, no shot clock until mid-60s, and rosters so thin Oscar and Jerry West were basically playing against bench players. The Warriors faced the Spurs, Heat, Thunder, and Cavaliers, peak talent stacked into a 30-team league. Beating weak competition 9 times doesn't prove superiority, it proves the Celtics had weak competition. Why should dominance over expansion-era opponents count more than dominance over elite modern teams?