Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

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... http://www.youtube.com... I await my opponent's response.