Since the NBA regular season is over and the playoffs continue to rage on, I have been part of countless discussions about whether Steve Nash deserved the MVP, who is the best player in the league or if anyone is going to be as good as Michael Jordan. Pretty much any comparison that you can think of has been argued to no end.

The problem seems to be that, in many of these cases, there is no clear way to definitively prove your argument or come to an agreement with the other people in the conversation on what the criteria should be to make the final determination. Most people can throw out statistics or championships or gold medals or whatever tangible evidence is used to show an athlete's accomplishments in their respective sport. But, how to determine a winner?

So, as I was sitting on the Metro the other day, I was thinking about this problem and came up with another, somewhat more thought provoking idea, of how a person should think about it when making this type of comparison. Next time you are going back and forth with someone over who is better between two current or past players, ask yourselves which one you would rather have representing you and the rest of the world if the fate of the world was in the balance.

Consider the question with the backdrop of an alien race coming to take over the planet and they could produce a team or a player or an athlete in any sport. Then you, as the head of the planet, was charged with the decision of deciding who would represent the Earth against these hostile aliens.

This may seem somewhat odd, but it definitely makes you really think about your decision without just mindlessly throwing out career stats. Stats are easy ways to compare athletes or their accomplishments, but are not worthy of a truly philosophical sport's discussion. Let's start with some easy arguments.

Who in the NBA is the better player right now -- Lebron or Kobe? To look at this from a statistical standpoint, you could easily make arguments either way. They are both dynamic scorers and have had outrageous statistical games in their career. To me, this doesn’t prove the answer one way or the other.

Kobe has three rings, but he got them playing second-mate to Shaq, which definitely tarnishes that rationale some. Lebron is only 21 and is already one of the most talented and marketable players who, in these playoffs, is showing that he can take a team on his back and succeed. Kobe hasn’t done that. This is one argument that I would probably use, but it can also be refuted.

Now, if someone said to you that you had to choose either Lebron or Kobe to lead a team in a seven-game series against a team of alien beings (who, incidentally, look like humans and don't have superhuman strength or 12 foot arms or anything) with the fate of the world riding on the one series, who would you choose?

The prize: If the aliens win, they use their supercharged, destruction lasers to completely eradicate all human life from the planet and take it for their ownand. If the humans win, the aliens go away peacefully never to return again.

Making the decision under this circumstance does not seem as easy and would depend on more than which of the two hit more three pointers this season.

Other choices under these circumstances may not be so easy though. Think about all the other sports and debate who you would rather have representing the world in a life or death situation:

If you could have one guy on the mound to pitch that one game and your choice was Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux, who do you choose? Or Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson?

If there was one at-bat for possibly the rest of eternity, would you take Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols? How about Ted Williams or Babe Ruth?

Who is the best QB in the league today? With one game to be played for world domination, would you rather have Peyton Manning, who has been statistically unbelievable over the course of his career, or Tom Brady, who just seems to know what it takes to get a win? How about John Elway and Dan Marino? How about Johnny Unitas or Terry Bradshaw? There are endless choices.

Boxing is a great one to debate, in my opinion, because it is one-on-one, man-on-man, for 15 rounds. (I think we could use 15 rather than 12 since the destruction of the planet is on the line.) Now consider that the aliens would also have weight classes, so you wouldn’t get screwed by choosing a flyweight and they choose a heavyweight. In a heavyweight match, would you rather have Muhammad Ali or Joe Frazier? How about Floyd Mayweather or Roy Jones? You could pick any fighters, from any era, to and compare.

The list goes on and on with Tiger Woods or Bobby Jones for 18 holes? Pete Sampras or Rod Laver in tennis? Secretariat or Seattle Slew in horse racing? Carl Lewis or Maurice Greene in a 100 yard dash? You choose.

We could even get into teams to make it more interesting. Would you rather have the Chicago Bulls' teams with Michael Jordan on the court, or the old Boston Celtics with Bill Russell? In football, the 2006 Texas Longhorns or the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers? The '95 Bears or the '79 Steelers? Touch choices for sure.

So next time you are sitting around drinking some beers with your friends and you all are drunk enough to the point where these discussions become life or death (as they always seem to be after a 12-pack each), inject this question into the mix and make the argument really about life or death.

See if the discussion and the rationale behind who you choose changes your mind for future arguments so you don’t just blurt out Lebron James or Joe Montana or Michelle Kwan (figure skating could be one too, but it might not come up with a bunch of guys drinking beer) without thinking about it first.

Why? Because you never know when the fate of the entire planet could rest on your shoulders and you will be in position to have to make these choices.