The Instigator
dylanlewis0215
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

BBCOR Baseball Bats

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 73381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

dylanlewis0215

Pro

Should High School baseball players be only limited to using BBCOR certified baseball bats?
Zarroette

Con

I accept. Pro has the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
dylanlewis0215

Pro

dylanlewis0215 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Pro has yet to give an argument to affirm the resolution, so I am still winning this debate, as it stands. However, I will still make a negative case, in order to allow Pro at least a round to respond to it.


Negative Case


Premise: Home-runs make for an exciting game

The site of a ball flying into the crowd excites the crowd. This is somewhat due to the crowd becoming involved in the action. This is also somewhat due to the spectacle of a ball being hit really far. I think this is self-evident, so unless my opponent objects, this is a premise of my case.


Premise: Excitement generates revenue

I think that it is also intuitive and factual that the more excitement that can be promised, the more people will attend a match and buy things there.


A1: More home-runs are hit with aluminium bats

According to statistics, taken from 1970 through to 2014 of the NCAA Division I of college baseball, a couple of data sets indicated that with the introduction of aluminium bats in 1974, there was an immediate effect of balls being hit over the fence [1].

Further evidence of home-runs being related to bat type (i.e. aluminium vs. BBCOR) can be seen in the introduction of BBCOR bats in 2011. In this year, home-runs significantly dropped to the lowest amount since 1974 (which was the year aluminium bats were introduced. Coincidence?)


So, there are more home-runs hit with aluminium bats that are not BBCOR, and via my premises, this would create the impacts of: more excitement and revenue in baseball games if they were not to use BBCOR bats.


Conclusion

I'll break my argument down into a syllogism so it can easily be seen:

P1: More home-runs means more excitement
P2: More excitement brings more revenue
A1: Not using BBCOR bats brings more home-runs
C1: Therefore, not using BBCOR bats would bring more excitement and therefore revenue. Thus, high school baseball players should not use BBCOR bats.

I will expand my argument here, if my opponent responds in the final round. As it stands, the resolution is not affirmed by Pro and it is further negated by my argument here.

Reference

[1] http://www.acs.psu.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
dylanlewis0215

Pro

dylanlewis0215 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Sorry for being an S&G Nazi in my RFD ... I tied S&G anyway, so it doesn't matter.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
dylanlewis0215ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: Pro's ff. => Con's win. - Arguments: Pro provided no argument whatsoever, while Con has shown through a well supported case, on both evidence & logic, that "not using BBCOR bats would bring more excitement and therefore revenue. Thus, high school baseball players should not use BBCOR bats.", which categorically negates Pro's affirmative resolution. => Con's win. - Sources: Con used one, Pro used none. => Con's win.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
dylanlewis0215ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. | S&G: Neither side made any major S&G errors. "According to statistics, taken from 1970 through to 2014 of the NCAA Division I of college baseball" - this is a minor error, with an unnecessary comma between "statistics" and "taken". Pro unnecessarily capitalized "high school". Con also misspelled "sight", and Pro's structure of "only limited to" was incorrect; it should have been "limited to only." Both sides had 2 errors (S&G) each. Tied. | Arguments: Pro's "case" was merely repeating the resolution in full form. Con showed how aluminum bats hit more home runs, which cause excitement, which in turn generates revenue. | Sources: Con used the only source in the debate. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
dylanlewis0215ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to FF by Pro. | Arg to Con as she provided the only arguments. | Sources to Con, as Con was the only one to use source. | S&G goes to Con, as Con had only 1 error (misspelling "sight"), and Pro had 3.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dylanlewis0215ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
dylanlewis0215ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF