Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

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.