Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

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.