The Instigator
karththegeld
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
rofflewoffles
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Cricket is a better sport than baseball

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,323 times Debate No: 7774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

karththegeld

Pro

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

In my opinion, cricket is better than baseball as far as sports go. Here is why:

1) Cricket bats are more fun to play with than baseball bats. The flat surface allows for more variety in shot selection. With baseball bats, all anyone can do is hit it straight on, and that is not fun.

2) Bowling is better than pitching. Though there are plenty of different pitches (i.e. curveball, sinker, etc), there is not much else you can do to the baseball. But, in cricket, you can spin the ball any which way, make it bounce in different places, aim at the batsman's crotch if he happens to get annoying without having to suffer a penalty (well, you have to make the ball bounce first, otherwise it is illegal). There is more to do in cricket than there is in baseball.

3) More runs in cricket. Instead of having scores such as 4-2, cricket has scores such as 285-267. Just from looking at the numbers, I find cricket more interesting. One BATSMAN can score 4 runs in one BALL, but in baseball, one TEAM scores about that much in one GAME, and that makes baseball seem pathetic.

4) Longer games = more entertainment. Cricket games last either half a day, a day, or 5 days. Baseball games last 4 hours or so. Cricket lasts longer, so there is more time to play and enjoy the game. But, in baseball, you have approximately 3 balls; the amount of time is minuscule.

5) Coming back to the better shot selection, you can hit the ball in every direction in cricket. In baseball, the direction the ball can go in and count is 1/4 of that of cricket. In cricket you can hit the ball through your legs if you want and score runs, but that cannot be done in baseball. In cricket you can hit the ball wherever you choose.

From the 5 reasons above, I say cricket is a better sport that baseball.

This time around, there better be a taker.
rofflewoffles

Con

[note: I'm used to using aff instead of pro and neg instead of con, so mind that when reading if I accidentally use it]

Greetings to all of you avid sports goers. It may seem odd to you that I, rofflewoffles, who does not play either baseball or cricket is joining this debate.
This actually makes me a much more legitimate source of argumentation in this sense because I am completely unbiased to these two sports. That puts me immediately ahead of the Pro's like towards the sport he clearly prefers, cricket.

-ONTO MY FIRST POINT-
--THE RESOLUTION--
I do not need to prove that baseball is better than cricket - I merely need to prove that cricket is not better than baseball. Thus, if I prove that cricket is on equal grounds with baseball then I have won this debate because I have negated the fact that "cricket is a better sport than baseball."

-NEXT-
--THE LIKE OR DISLIKE OF SPORTS IS COMPLETELY OPINIONATED--
The neg seems to have neglected the fact that it is impossible for a thing as subjective as sports to be comparatively "better" than other sports. Sports, much like food preferences or music tastes, are not objectively measured. The first time someone picks up a cricket bat or a baseball bat or whatever kind of sport instrument and starts playing a game with it, they don't think: "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport - t I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay!" No! That is nothing what sport is about. You cannot objectify such things as the pure enjoyment from playing a sport.

--THEREFORE, CRICKET CANNOT BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN BASEBALL NOR CAN BASEBALL BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN CRICKET - THEY ARE EQUALS DUE TO THEIR INNATE SUBJECTIVE NATURE--
If there is no objective way of measuring enjoyment from a sport, then one cannot claim that "cricket is a better sport than baseball." It is roughly the same as saying that "red is a better color than blue" - a statement I'm sure none of you would find makes any sense. Therefore, since a sport being "better" than another sport is completely subjective you must negate the resolution and vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 1
karththegeld

Pro

Thank you rofflewaffles for accepting this debate.

I do not believe the word "like" is directly related to the word "better." Say someone has a choice to eat figs or Twinkies, which he/she likes to eat, as a snack. Of the two choices of snack, the figs are BETTER because they are healthier, but that does not mean that the person will LIKE figs more than Twinkies. There is no direct relation between "like" and "better," so my opponent has no advantage over me in that aspect.

On a side note, if anyone happens to think: "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport[;] I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay!" That someone ought to meet a psychiatrist, or ought to get out and actually breathe some fresh air...

If you find a sport more engaging, more fun, then it is a better sport. My opponent has stated, though in other words, the same statement. My opponent also claims that it is impossible to say that a sport is objectively more enjoyable, thus impossible for a sport to be a better.

I do not know how many of you have gone to a baseball game, but I went once, and it was one the most boring things I had seen. I could have fallen asleep and understood the game just as well. Though that is subjective, waiting 2 minutes between each pitch is about as fun as watching a sapling become a tree, and most people would (I would hope they would) agree with me on that.

I'll get my point across very simply: better quality sport = better sport. There are certain characteristics of baseball which are not as good in quality as similar characteristics of cricket. Certain characteristics can be measured objectively in a sport, and those characteristics provide more quality to the sport, which, in turn, makes the sport better. First, pitching is much like bowling, but bowling allows you to do more than just pitch. Bowling essentially encompasses pitching, and has a bit more. The bit more is a good bit more for reasons I stated in round 1, so more quality there. Batting in cricket is better than batting in baseball because you can bat near exactly the same way in cricket as you can in baseball, but you can also whack the ball any which way as I said in round 1. More of the same quality of batting found in baseball is found in cricket, so batting in cricket is better.

To sum up:
(Better quality bowling+better quality batting > okay quality pitching+okay quality batting)=cricket > baseball

Ain't that a great way to look at things?

By the way, color preference is quite a bit more subjective than sports...

I await my opponent's next response.
rofflewoffles

Con

--LIKE AND BETTER--
I am unsure as to where this argument came from, but I'll answer it regardless. In fact, I'll use the Pro's own argument against him. In the choice between figs and twinkies, healthiness is only one aspect to determine "better"-ness. Enjoyment from eating is another big one, and there are probably an almost infinite number of criterion we use to determine which food is "better" than another. I warrant that just because a food is healthier does not mean it is "better" as health is not the only measuring criteria. Thus, Twinkies could just as well be better because they provide more enjoyment to the person eating them or they provide more carbs or more fat (in case they're starving) and you cannot objectively compare twinkies in figs in an overall sense without abstaining from personal opinion.

--"Logistically that bat has a..."--
Unfortunately, this means you are condemning yourself to visiting a psychiatrist or breathing fresh air. You argued in your entire first speech mechanic qualities of cricket which made it supposedly better than baseball. I quote, "...in cricket, you can spin the ball any which way, make it bounce in different places... the flat surface allows for more variety in shot selection...you can hit the ball in every direction in cricket..." Where are the mentions of the joy you get from simply HITTING the damn ball and getting a home run for your team in the last few minutes of the game, giving yourselves the championship game, the crowd going wild... that's what baseball and cricket are all about. Not these mechanic qualities.
Thus, because Pro is advocating that he himself should see a psychiatrist, vote Con!

--THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL OPINION--
"I do not know how many of you have gone to a baseball game, but I went once, and it was one the most boring things I had seen. I could have fallen asleep and understood the game just as well. Though THAT IS SUBJECTIVE, waiting 2 minutes between each pitch is about as fun as watching a sapling become a tree, and most people would (I would hope they would) agree with me on that."

Disregard all of my opponents arguments from personal experience because, as he states himself, they are completely subjective. We cannot determine whether a sport is better than another sport through subjective argumentation because then we will get nowhere - it will be one opinion against another and that accomplishes nothing towards proving a certain sport is better than another sport. Only objective argumentation can lead to the conclusion of "cricket being better than baseball" or "baseball being better than cricket" or whatever, but that type of argument doesn't exist in the realm of sports.

--BETTER QUALITY SPORTS?--
"There are certain characteristics of baseball which are not as good in quality as similar characteristics of cricket. Certain characteristics can be measured objectively in a sport, and those characteristics provide more quality to the sport, which, in turn, makes the sport better."
This is the crux of my opponents argument. Apparently, some aspects of cricket make it objectively better than baseball. Unfortunately, as I have established before, there is no way to measure how truly good a sport is that is purely objective. Still, if you agree with his "objective" analysis, I will indulge you in a step by step explanation as to why it is flawed.
"...pitching is much like bowling, but bowling allows you to do more than just pitch. Bowling essentially encompasses pitching, and has a bit more."
Here, Pro argues that the more variety there is in a sport, the better it is. By his measure, a sport with an extremely complicated ruleset, an infinite amount of options for play, and a gargantuan amount of players would be the best. This is clearly undesirable because no one would be able to play that sport effectively. Baseball is less complicated than cricket because it has slightly less options for pitching as compared to bowling. Thus, I argue that it is easier to pick up baseball and easier to play it and thus it is better in its simplicity. Simplicity is better because people who are new to the sport can easily play it without spending too much time learning all of the intricacies of sports like cricket, and also because simple things are generally easier things and easier things lead to more enjoyment on the account of someone playing the sport because they will fail less and win more, giving them pleasure. Therefore, it is actually better for baseball to be more simplistic than cricket for these reasons.

"Batting in cricket is better than batting in baseball because you can bat near exactly the same way in cricket as you can in baseball, but you can also whack the ball any which way"
This is, once again, an advocacy for more options = better sport. This is blatantly untrue, for the same reasons as above.

--OF COLORS AND SPORTS--
"By the way, color preference is quite a bit more subjective than sports..."
WRONG. Colors are in exactly the same boat as sports for many reasons:
1. Color preference, as well as sport preference, is completely subjective.
2. Color and sport preference vary by individual
3. Not everyone enjoys the same sport, just as not everyone enjoys the same color.
Accept my analysis more because he provides no warrants for his argument, only a statement. Now, onto how this applies to baseball vs. cricket.

Because I have established that colors == sports in the domain of determining which is "better," and you cannot find a "better" color, it leads that you cannot find a better sport. If there were an objective best sport, WE'D ALL BE PLAYING THAT SPORT. Even if it were a tiny bit better than another sport, everyone would play it rather than another sport because it WOULD BE BETTER. This is just the same with colors - if we preferred one color objectively over another, we'd all have everything painted in that color. This is not the case.

--IN CONCLUSION--
-There is no objective way to measure "betterness" of sports.
-The Pro arguments are based on personal experience and complete opinion - disregard them because personal opinion does not at all determine how objectively good something is.
-Sports are like colors - none are better than another. They are different, sure, but none are better.
-Vote Con because there is no way to check how good or bad a sport is and thus we cannot determine which is "better." Objective analysis beats subjective analysis in the framing of this topic resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
karththegeld

Pro

I thank rofflewoffles for his response.

To clarify where the argument came from, my opponent had stated in round 1 that "if there is no objective way of measuring enjoyment from a sport, then one cannot claim that 'cricket is a better sport than baseball.'" I uses the measurement of enjoyment to say something is better whereas liking something does not necessarily make that object better.
Figs taste pretty darn good, better than twinkies at least. Ever read the book, Twinkie, Deconstructed? It'll make you throw up, almost guaranteed. Anyway, my opponent is right that it was a bad example. But, I would like to point out that still, liking something or enjoying something does not necessarily make that something better.

No, actually, I am not. Where to begin? First of all, what I said there was about the traversing-a-60-degree arc thing and not the mechanics of a sport. For my opponent's wellbeing, I suggest he go see a psychiatrist if that is what he thinks about in his spare time. If not, he should at least get a breath of fresh air. I said this simply because no one should be thinking of hitting a ball at 50 mph so that it traverses a 60 degree arc!

Yes it was subjective, and denying that is much stupider course of action. What was subjective was how entertained I was watching the game. But I stated a truth, there is a pause between each pitch that lasts for at least a minute, most likely, around 2 minutes. I cannot speak for everyone, but waiting that long is no fun.

I am not even going to touch on opinionated arguing because saying that it does not exist in the realm of sport is, at best, foolhardy.

Where did the more players come from????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That aside, I will look at my opponent's argument that baseball is better than cricket because of its simplicity.
Neither simplicity nor complexity make a sport better, but what has yet to be rebutted is my argument that a little more variety in cricket makes it better in baseball because having the room to do a little more is more comfortable for players, and easier for them as well.

IT AIN'T AN ARGUMENT! Where are you getting the argument from? Do you not know how to differentiate between an aside like comment and an argument?

If sports were completely subjective, then there would be a near equal number of people who played and watched cricket as there would be of baseball, football, rugby, boxing, golf, soccer, etc. Soccer is estimated to have 3.5 billion viewers worldwide. Volleyball is estimated to have 900 million viewers. The difference is about a 1/3 the world's population. So sports cannot be completely subjective, there must be some appeal in certain sports that make them more popular.

Also note that from the same source, there are 3 billion viewers of cricket and only 400-500 million viewers of baseball. If more people watch one sport over another, then, as my opponent says, it is better.

source for info above:
http://ezinearticles.com...

A little summary of cricket and baseball:

Baseball is a horrible rip-off of cricket. It is like a kid I know on my school's debate team. He takes arguments from other people, and manages to dumb it down beyond comprehension (including his own). Baseball is cricket but degraded so that it is worse than cricket.

Looking at my opponent's conclusion, I see words. I will now look at the meaning of them.

1st "-": The "betterness" of sports can be objectively measured by their overall popularity for otherwise they would be equal.
2nd "-": I included both personal opinion (which I stated for the heck of it) and then some facts (from which I made my arguments). If one were to read through what I have written, that person would know that.
3rd "-": But sports are more popular than each other, and colors are not.
4th "-": It is round 2 so I will not urge any "vote this way" or "vote that way" junk. Just follow along through the third round, and then pick a side, and click buttons!

I await my opponent's final response.
rofflewoffles

Con

rofflewoffles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
so sad...
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
man i'm getting way too lengthy.
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
Then you're right, Jake4d, it does devolve into a debate about the definition of better. We'll have to wait and see where karththegeld takes it :D
Posted by Jake4d 7 years ago
Jake4d
rofflewoffles, the answer to your question is YES. If more people prefer one color over another that makes that color *better* than the other in a meaningful way. If your job is to create an advertisement for a product, the color you choose as the dominate color for the ad will objectively determine the effectiveness of that ad. Most adult males have blue as a favorite color, so if you are targeting adult males you better have some blue in your add (I bet your web browser is blue. And you will notice that this commercial site has a lot of blue) Three year old males, on the other hand prefer red, thus all the red wagons, and fire trucks you see being sold to kids.

Maikuru, you are right about the entertainment value of a sport being subjective, but the revenue aspects of a sport are definitely objective. If you are evaluating a sport for which is "better" both components come into play, but the subjective aspect does not take a back seat to the objective aspect of the measurement of "which sport is better". One measure is quantitative, the other is qualitative, but both measurements are valid.

Also, an undefined "better" is a *relative* term. Different people have differing definitions of "what is better" so it is pointless to debate what is better until the term "better" is defined.

Better could mean "more fun", "a better revenue generator", "more complex, or advanced", or several other things. To make this debate more meaningful, I think it is necessary to define the term *better*
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
An interesting point. I suppose the revenue and effect the sport has on people's lives has could be evaluated, but then I'd argue we aren't debating about the actual sports themselves as the resolution asks but of the consequences of the sports existing in the way they do.

I had never even considered that argument when I began the debate though, and I don't know where I'd start negating it... I'd probably end up arguing that baseball outweighs because
baseball -> jackie robinson -> racial inequality solved -> racism solving through baseball yay!
and then it'd get messy.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, roffle, but the color analogy seems a bit off. While color preference is completely subjective, professional sports involve entertainment and revenue. An argument could be made that a sport with a larger audience offers a greater degree of these things and is therefore "better."
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
jake4d: you are assuming majority count actually means anything in the context of determining, for lack of better word, "betterness." since you liked the red is better than blue argument, i'll continue with it.

say that the people whose favorite color is blue are decreasing in number over time while people whose favorite color is red is increasing over time. does that make red any better than blue?
Posted by Jake4d 7 years ago
Jake4d
I like the "red is better than blue" argument, but it is possible to take *qualitative* measurements as well as *quantitative* measurements. I know nothing about cricket, but I know that baseball has been on a decline for the past several years. That would indicate that people have found *better* things to do with there time. Cricket may be one of these *better* things.

Does anyone know if Cricket has a growing following? Maybe some ex-baseball fans are now watching cricket because it is *better*?
Posted by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
Ignore the "- t" in "Hey, logistically this bat has a better spin gradient than those in that other sport - t I can fully aim my shot in such a way that in can traverse a 60 degree arc at a speed of 50mph! Yay!"
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
This is totally opiniated.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
karththegeldrofflewofflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
karththegeldrofflewofflesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70