The Instigator
karththegeld
Pro (for)
Tied
15 Points
The Contender
PetIn_the_Box
Con (against)
Tied
15 Points

Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2009 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,247 times Debate No: 7808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

karththegeld

Pro

I thank PetIn_the_Box 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.
PetIn_the_Box

Con

I thank karththegeld for starting this debate. I hope that it will be a good one.

I offer the following analytical framework of the resolution as to provide clarity to arguments and voting hereon:

The resolution gives the Affirmative the burden to prove the cricket is better (of higher quality) than baseball. If he cannot distinguish cricket as a better sport than baseball either because they are equal in merit or because baseball is the better sport, you must vote Negative.

I will rebut my opponent's case before moving to my own arguments.

1. Cricket bats are better than baseball bats.

His argument is that the flat surface on a cricket bat allows for better variety of shot selection. If you are to buy my opponent's argument, baseball bats must be unable to hit the ball in a 360 degree radius. However, it is equally possible to hit a ball to various areas with a baseball bat. In baseball, when the ball is 'fouled,' it is sometimes hit straight backwards. The ball is hit in various angles depending on both the pitch and the swing. If the pitch is away from the batter, he or she is more likely to hit it to the opposite field. Further, if the batter swings earlier they will pull the ball whereas a late swing will hit the ball to the opposite field. The ball's final location depends on all of these factors, but can be anywhere in a 360 degree arc of home plate.

2. Bowling is better than pitching. (TURN)

Here his argument is that there are more ways to spin the ball in cricket than in baseball. When using a spherical object as a ball, there are always going to be the same number of ways to spin it. The argument that there are a greater number of spins to put on one ball of the other is silly since neither possess any structural features that would prohibit one from spinning it in a certain direction. A baseball can, too, be thrown at the batter. This is known as a beanball. That is not a distinction either. HOWEVER, a baseball can have larger spins put on it. The more dense a ball is, the less distance it will break when it is spinning. For example, a soccer ball might break a few feet while a cricket ball or baseball may only break a few inches. Since density = mass/volume, a simple equation will determine which ball breaks more:

Cricket ball = 159.45 (average) grams

V=(4/3)pi(r^3)

Cricket ball has 226.5 (average) mm circumference

Cricket ball diameter = 72.0971892 -> 72.1 mm

Cricket ball radius = 36.05 mm

V = (4/3)pi(36.05^3)

V = 196,247.628 -> 196,247.6 mm^3

Density of a cricket ball = 159.45 grams/196,247.6 mm^3 -> 0.000812494013 kg/m^3

Baseball = 145.5 (average) grams

V = (4/3)pi(r^3)

Baseball has 231.8 (average) mm circumference

Baseball diameter = 73.7842316 -> 73.8 mm

Baseball radius = 36.9 mm

V = (4/3)pi(36.9^3)

V = 210,459.099 -> 210,459.1 mm^3

Density of a baseball = 145.5 grams/210,459.1 mm^3 -> 0.000691345729 kg/m^3

0.000691345729 (Baseball)

<

0.000812494013 (Cricket ball)

Thus, a baseball is less dense can break farther.

3. There are more runs in cricket.

I concede that more runs are scored in cricket, however this means nothing. The setup of the cricket field makes run scoring very easy and much less challenging than baseball. Let's look at the difference in the layouts of the fields: http://www.qedoc.org... As you can see, the layout of the cricket field has MANY more gaps and makes the batsman's job easier than that of the batter in baseball. A double to center field in baseball which could possibly amount in 0 runs would be 4 or maybe even 6 in cricket. Further, since cricket games are MUCH longer, there is plenty of time for the runs to be scored. Thus, the scores are simply inflated.

4. Longer games are better. (TURN)

Though my opponent argues that longer games are more entertaining, the opposite is true. As every fan has their own commitments, they are most likely unable to dedicate as much time to watching a sports game as they would need to watch a full cricket game. HOWEVER, if they do have that amount of time for whatever reason, baseball offers season tickets in which a fan can watch all of a team's home games as they please rather than all at once over the course of an entire day (or 5).

My opponent's fifth argument is essentially the same as his first, so just disregard it and apply my rebuttal to his first argument to his fifth as well.

I'll now move to my own arguments.

1. Baseball games include entertaining nuances not included in cricket.

Between innings, the scoreboard and announcer are used extensively to entertain the fans while game play is paused. Cricket does not utilize this feature, thus baseball has that feature as an edge in entertainment.

A. Baseball is more romantic.

Proposals through baseball games... enough said...

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
karththegeld

Pro

Thank you PetIn_the_Box for accepting this debate.

I accept my burden.

I'll start with my opponent's rebuttals before moving onto his case.

1. Hmm, I can't say that is wrong because what I said is wrong (looking literally). What was meant was that, in cricket, you can hit the ball within a 360 degree radius and have it still count. Fouls may count as one of the first 2 strikes, but you cannot run to 1st base on a foul ball which is what I mean by count.

2. Cricket balls have the advantage in that in a game you generally do not throw a full toss every ball in cricket. Here is an example of Shane Warne's genius (watch the video). His leg spins are amazing.

Spin a ball, have it bounce, and see it go off in a direction. This is what happens in cricket. It is not necessary for a ball to break farther because that does not matter in a game in most cases. In baseball, according to an enlightening discussion I had with my opponent earlier today, the ability of a baseball to break an inch more than a cricket ball (8 to 7) could decide a game. But, this is not so with cricket. Unless there is equal relevance to both sports, this type of argument cannot be used to decide which sport is better or to declare both sports on equal ground.

3. The scoring systems are different, and that is true, but my argument was that it is more entertaining with higher runs on the board. My opponent has not addressed my argument, but rather said why (though I must say one of them is wrong) there are more runs in cricket and simply claimed that more runs means nothing.

4. People make time to go to a baseball game. People make time to go to a cricket game. Many times, people leave halfway through a cricket game during one of the breaks. Often times people watch a bit at home. In the US, because of time differences, people can pull off an all-nighter to watch a game or something like that. For public appeal, 20-20's have been introduced. Test matches do not happen continuously through 5 days; they are 2 inning games with no limit on number of overs.

5. My opponent is correct about the similarity, so apply my response to his rebuttal to my 1st point.

I shall now move on to my opponent's arguments.

1. Cricket is a longer game, there is less time for the nuances present in baseball. And the commentators in cricket are used quite often, and the commentary is pretty good too. And the big point of this rebuttal is that we are comparing sports, and not the in between stuff that are not part of the sport.

A. You know, I never thought a stadium full of loud fans created a romantic mood. *Watches video* And I still do not find that romantic.
Baseball is a sport, it cannot be romantic. Romantic things may take place at a baseball game, but that does not make baseball romantic.

I await my opponent's next intriguing response (you should hear how he talks, unbelievable!).
PetIn_the_Box

Con

Thank you for responding. Let's jump right in.

Burden/analysis was conceded so it is extended throughout the round and should be used to evaluate the round/

Opponent's arguments first:

1. Cricket bats are better than baseball bats.

->

1. Cricket is better because it does not have foul balls.

Apparently my opponent's argument has a different meaning now. Fine. Foul balls do not generally count for hits, however my opponent has not provided any reason why this is worse in any way. Aaaand unless we know why this matter, assume that it doesn't.

2. Bowling is better than pitching.

I'm not sure what my opponent was trying to do when he responded to this point, he both concedes that his point is useless and argues for it having solvency at the same time. I guess I'll try o respond to both:

Firstly, he says that cricket balls being able to bounce before passing the batter way more often than baseballs is better. Again he has changed his argument, but he hasn't explained it. WHY is that better? Untill he tells us, you disregard it. Next, the particular skill of any individual player really has no bearing on the round so that should be disregarded as well.

There is, of course, huge relevance in both sports as to how far the ball breaks. For example, if the ball breaks an extra inches it could result in a wicket (or not) based upon how much it can break. The same applies to a ball going over the plate in baseball (or not). Thus, either can decide a game. As a baseball is more versatile in that it can break more (my opponent has not refuted this so you can extend it) it is upheld that pitching is better than bowling. Extend the turn I made last round.

3. There are more runs in cricket.

My opponent basically disregards my rebuttal, thus I will reiterate. There are, indeed, more runs in cricket. As this is because scoring a run is comparatively easier in cricket, this has no bearing at all. The scores are simply inflated. If similarly hit balls in baseball, for example a grounder to second base (generally an out), were worth runs, baseball games would have much higher scores. Thus, higher runs mean effectively nothing. If my opponent is attempting to argue that it is more exciting to have more runs then he hasn't explained the premise at all and thus you disregard it.

4. Longer games are better.

Firstly I would like to notice that my opponent concedes any bearing that his initial argument ever had. He firstly argued that length made games better but in his rebuttal he is saying that they are equated, thus you cannot go Affirmative on this argument. Next, you can extend my argument. This is because, regardless, baseball games are inherently less of a time commitment than cricket. If in either sport you can see a game extremely often and as such they offset, then you Negate based on the premise that you can see an entire baseball game in the same amount of time it would take to see part of a cricket game. If we are operating under the premise that either sport is entertaining (which we are), then being able to see a game conclude is comparatively better than seeing half of it and then leaving. If there are pressing obligations, fans may leave baseball games as well. Thus extend the turn I made in the first round.

5.

On to my arguments:

1. Baseball games include entertaining nuances not included in cricket.

Apparently my opponent is missing bit a bit of what I said here. Let's look back:

"Cricket is a longer game, there is less time for the nuances present in baseball... the commentators in cricket are used quite often."

The first part of this is an attempt to justify lack of entertaining nuances. You can disregard this because simple justification does not matter. My point is ONLY that baseball contains such nuances, not why. Secondly, baseball has commentators as well thus the statement that cricket uses commentators is pretty futile. Don't all sports have commentators, anyway? Whatever. Continuing into his rebuttal:

"And the big point of this rebuttal is that we are comparing sports, and not the in between stuff that are not part of the sport."

Ignoring the interesting wording, the nuances must be included in the evaluation of which sport is better. This is because, when going to a game for either sport, the fan is subjected to such entertaining nuances. Since they are associated in and widely used in the game, they must be part of our evaluation. Extend.

A. Baseball is more romantic.

You can basically what I wrote about entertaining nuances to this: the fan experience is an important element. Romance is included. That is entertaining. Extend.

I'll overview the round:

AC:

1 holds absolutely no bearing.

2 goes negative because it adds to the versatility factors of baseball.

3 is either misleading inflation or holds no bearing.

4 goes negative because baseball is easier to fit into the average person's day. Aff has conceded that this does NOT go affirmative.

5 was deleted.

NC:

1 is extended because nuances are important elements of a sport which add to the experience of the fan (in an enhancing manner).

(A is extended as well for the same reason)

THUS:

If my opponent proves cricket a better sport he wins the round, if not I win the round.

There are 2 points on the AC and 1 (plus a sub-point) on the NC that go Negative. Nothing goes Affirmative.

Not only does my opponent not meet his burden, but Negative has so far shown baseball to be a better sport.

And so I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
karththegeld

Pro

That's an interesting start there, but anyway, thanks for responding, and "let's jump right in."

1. Nice arrow you got there.
1. Cricket, you can hit the ball in any direction and have it count for a hit. Baseball, you can only hit a ball that counts for hit by hitting the ball within a 45 degree radius to either side of straight ahead. Being able to hit a ball in every direction and have it count for a hit provides a little more entertainment to the audience as otherwise, in baseball, the swing is not too different every ball and the ball only goes a bit to the right or left. Easier for the batsman in cricket to hit a ball that is coming at him if he can hit the ball anywhere. Both easier and more entertaining if you can hit the ball anywhere.

2. I am not quite sure what my opponent is trying to say here: "I'm not sure what my opponent was trying to do when he responded to this point." And I am further confused by what he says directly afterward...

I did NOT change my argument, and I do not know how my opponent came to that conclusion. I am clarifying that by bouncing the ball, the ball turns more and veers off in another direction. And that generally, the cricket ball's inability to break farther than a baseball is pointless because of it. This was a rebuttal to my opponent's point about baseballs being able break farther than cricket balls, and not my actual argument. I used Shane Warne to show that the cricket ball turns and does not need to break farther than a baseball because that is not as important in cricket. He is an EXAMPLE.

Little info unimportant to the debate, but my opponent did not know that cricket balls bounce only once before reaching the batsman or do not bounce at all, so I am clarifying:

The cricket ball bounces once before reaching the batsman. If it bounces twice or more, then it is a dead ball and does not count. If it does not bounce at all, then the ball must be under the batsman's waist because, otherwise, it would also be a dead ball.

Typo there, you added an -es after "inch." But anyway, the balls ability to break an extra inch will rarely result in a wicket because in nearly every case, the ball is meant to hit the ground and bounce, going either straight or spinning into or away from the wicket. The relevance is unequal because in baseball, the entirety of pitching is basically making the ball break this way or that, whereas in cricket, the ball's ability to break farther only applies to the not-so-common swing bowler and the rare full tosses thrown by bowlers.

Why bowling is better than pitching:

Watch Shane Warne bowl, or Muttiah Muralitharan, and then play a game of cricket, and try to spin the ball as masterfully as you can get, and then rejoice when you take a wicket. The simple exhilaration taken from bowling makes it better. The exhilaration comes because firstly, it is harder to take a wicket than it is to get someone out in baseball. The difficulty would then make it seem better.

3. My opponent struck gold in that last sentence of his rebuttal. Anyway, there is a thing about humans that makes us want more of the good stuff: more money, more love, more fun, etc. More runs is greater than fewer runs because the goal is higher making it seem harder, even if it is not harder. For instance, at stores, they might advertise 10 of product x for $10 with the unit value being a $1, but they show 10 for $10 to get customers to buy more. More runs in cricket simply make it seem more exciting, and is thus more entertaining, and, in turn, better. Happy now?

4. *Sigh* I shall start by giving a few numbers here. Approximately 3 billion people watch cricket each year, and approximately 500 million people watch baseball each year. Obviously, if 6 times the number of people watch the longer game, it must be more appealing, or the sport more appealing and time is made to go watch the games. The source for that is in the 2nd round of the debate titled: "Cricket is a better sport than baseball."

This is an interesting time to realize that the title of the debate is: Cricket is a better sport than CRICKET v2.0.... If anyone else missed that, join the club! ...It's pretty pathetic on my part...

Back to my opponent's response (still on 4). Even if there is something more appealing about cricket that makes more people watch the games, the time factor must make a difference. If people cared so much about time, and time was actually a problem, then they would not have watched cricket and instead watched baseball. Seeing as 6 times as many people watch cricket every year than baseball, time cannot really be a problem. Furthermore, I also mentioned that longer games were better for the people actually playing, and my opponent has yet to respond to that, so it is extended.

No more 5 and now onto my opponent's arguments.

1. I am tired of sighing (I do it more often than it is written in). First clearing up commentators. You said... never mind. My fault entirely, I misread what my opponent had said. But anyway, the extra nuances in baseball do not really do much to make the sport more entertaining. Nuances are not part of the sport, and should not be considered. The sport is what is actually being played, not the side dishes (nuances) thrown in for free with the main entree. This is a debate about the main entree and not the side dishes. Therefore, nuances must be excluded from consideration when debating whether one sport is better than another or not.

A. Not really entertaining, but sure, if you find it interesting, be my guest and propose to your lover person x at a baseball game (invite me too, I want to join in on the "AAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" part :D).

You can apply what I have said about extra nuances to this as well.

OMG this is my final response. I ought to start noticing things earlier. I shall conclude then.

My opponent's argument(s) are the about the same thing (hence the "(s)") and are both irrelevant to the actual SPORT, which is what is being debated here.

My arguments:
1) Misinterpreted by my opponent, but the extra room to move allows for better gameplay. Thus, better sport.
2) My opponent's rebuttal does not hold equal ground in both sports, thus his argument does not prove pitching better than bowling. Bowling, as I have shown, is more exhilarating for the player.
3) The fact that the runs are higher makes the sport more entertaining and better. Why, you ask; the answer is written above, so scroll up and look.
4) The time means nothing to the viewers, but makes it more fun for the players.
5) As my opponent has said, it was deleted.

My conclusion is that there are reasons that make cricket more appealing and making it more popular worldwide. These reasons, a few listed above, make the sport better than baseball.

Something happy: It is the Pope's birthday (and mine!)
Something disappointing: This debate should have been 4 rounds...

Thank you dear audience members for reading this far. Do not forget to read my opponent's response below, and do not forget to vote AFF/PRO. You may also vote NEG/CON. I would not hate you, but I might get the Indian mafia to attack you... HAVE FUN! :D
PetIn_the_Box

Con

Okkkkkkkkk, opponent's arguments:

1. Cricket is better because it does not have foul balls.

I obviously concede that baseball does not allow a fair ball in all directions. However, I don't see the significance. There will still be a variation in swing. For example, if a ball crosses the plate at head level versus at ground level the batter would swing differently. Thus, this does not take away from variation in swing but rather where the ball is allowed to land (and be in play at the same time). Since my opponent has never at any point in this debate provided us with a reason that it is more entertaining for a ball that is hit backwards to be fair, extend my rebuttal.

2. Bowling is better than pitching.

Since my opponent is confused:

Round 1:

"There is not much else you can do to the baseball. But, in cricket, you can spin the ball any which way."

Round 2:

"Unless there is equal relevance to both sports, this type of argument cannot be used to decide which sport is better or to declare both sports on equal ground."

HOWEVER, he also argues (in the same round):

"Cricket balls have the advantage in that in a game you generally do not throw a full toss every ball in cricket."

Thus, I concluded:

"I'm not sure what my opponent was trying to do when he responded to this point, he both concedes that his point is useless and argues for it having solvency at the same time."

I can't make it more blatant, I'll rebut what he says after that point:

"By bouncing the ball, the ball turns more and veers off in another direction."

NO. DISREGARD THIS. He has already conceded the density calculations. THUS, the cricket ball veers off less.

"I used Shane Warne to show that the cricket ball turns and does not need to break farther than a baseball because that is not as important in cricket."

Because one guy in one case doesn't need it to break more is not substantial evidence that my point is invalid. Inches decide games fairly often.

"The cricket ball bounces once before reaching the batsman. If it bounces twice or more, then it is a dead ball and does not count. If it does not bounce at all, then the ball must be under the batsman's waist because, otherwise, it would also be a dead ball."

I don't think I said otherwise?

"the balls ability to break an extra inch will rarely result in a wicket"

Fine, but when it does result (or not) in a wicket it is extremely significant.

"Watch Shane Warne bowl, or Muttiah Muralitharan, and then play a game of cricket, and try to spin the ball as masterfully as you can get, and then rejoice when you take a wicket. The simple exhilaration taken from bowling makes it better. The exhilaration comes because firstly, it is harder to take a wicket than it is to get someone out in baseball. The difficulty would then make it seem better."

Watch Johan Santana pitch, or Jake Peavy, and then play a game of baseball, and try to spin the ball as masterfully you can get, and then rejoice when you strike the batter out. The simple exhilaration taken from pitching makes it better. The exhilaration comes because firstly, it is harder to get such power on a throw when you do not run up to it. The difficulty would then make it seem better.

Thus you extend the turn I made in the first round (again).

3. There are more runs in cricket.

"The goal is higher making it seem harder, even if it is not harder."

The goal is making it seem harder even if it isn't harder? Isn't that deception?

"More runs in cricket simply make it seem more exciting"

A run in cricket can be derived from the equivalent of a grounder to second in baseball. Having grounders to second count as runs is more entertaining? Funny, I don't see how.

Next, notice contradiction:

In (2) my opponent argues that bowling being harder makes it better. In (3) he argues that hitting being easier makes it better. Is HARDER better or is EASIER better? PICK ONE.

Thus you can extend as he hasn't adequately refuted.

4. Longer games are better.

My opponent has made up a totally new argument here so you can extend my initial rebuttal.

His new argument is that cricket has higher attendance.

Uhhhhhh so? If organic chemistry had more attendance than cricket, would that make it better? No. Next, I doubt the reliability of that article. The author gives no citations as to where the numbers come from, so my saying that baseball has 20 billion followers is just as reliable.

Extend the turn I made since it hasn't been refuted.

1. Baseball games include entertaining nuances not included in cricket.

His only argument:

"This is a debate about the main entree and not the side dishes"

Really? Well if that was true you should have mentioned that a looong time ago. But you didn't. So too bad. Extend.

A. Baseball is more romantic.

Extend, since when is romance not interesting?

AC:

1 holds absolutely no bearing.

2 goes negative because it adds to the versatility factors of baseball.

3 is either misleading inflation or holds no bearing.

4 goes negative because baseball is easier to fit into the average person's day. Numbers given by the Affirmative are not adequate proof, thus disregard them. Aff has conceded that this does NOT go affirmative.

5 was deleted.

NC:

1 is extended because nuances are important elements of a sport which add to the experience of the fan (in an enhancing manner).

(A is extended as well for the same reason)

THUS, you must vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
correction: tied WITH not tied to...
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
Thanks. Any idiot to play a full game has lost his mind (or its his career, in which case thats fine). My personal opinion, but anyway, how do I have 15 points tied to my opponent?
Posted by WhiteAfricanAmerican 7 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
Love the debate guys.

I'm torn, I'm a South African Immigrant to the USA. I enjoy both sports, although I do tend to enjoy limited overs Cricket more ( 5 day Series SUCK).

Also Cricket is a whole lot older and more refined than Baseball.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
Yeah, my case sucked. But even so, CRICKET FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't get a sport as good as cricket (IT'S AN OPINION, DEAL WITH IT!).
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I'm glad one of these debates finally got to finish properly. Pro did a good job listing some interesting differences between the sports, but didn't make a strong case as to how one was superior to the other. Entertainment is subjective, so some objective parameters to judge by would have helped. That said, I lean toward Con.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
I FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!

Who you agree with is up to you (I would much prefer you agree with me, but not many people agree with me on anything...).
Conduct was generally the same on both sides, so that is tied.
S&G- we both messed up a few times, so tied.
Convincing Args- Con won by far
Sources- Con as well

I was the first to vote! And FIY, there are more cricket fans than baseball fans. Look it up. :)
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
If you missed the flaw in the title where it says, CRICKET is a better sport than CRICKET, then say aye.

Aye!
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I had no idea what I was looking at in Pro's video. I need to look up the rules to cricket haha.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
karththegeldPetIn_the_BoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 7 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
karththegeldPetIn_the_BoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
karththegeldPetIn_the_BoxTied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
karththegeldPetIn_the_BoxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
karththegeldPetIn_the_BoxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05