Cricket is a better sport than baseball

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.