Cricket is a better sport than baseball

--LIKE AND BETTER-- I am unsure as to where this argument came from, but I'll answer it regardless. In fact, I'll use the Pro's own argument against him. In the choice between figs and twinkies, healthiness is only one aspect to determine "better"-ness. Enjoyment from eating is another big one, and there are probably an almost infinite number of criterion we use to determine which food is "better" than another. I warrant that just because a food is healthier does not mean it is "better" as health is not the only measuring criteria. Thus, Twinkies could just as well be better because they provide more enjoyment to the person eating them or they provide more carbs or more fat (in case they're starving) and you cannot objectively compare twinkies in figs in an overall sense without abstaining from personal opinion. --"Logistically that bat has a..."-- Unfortunately, this means you are condemning yourself to visiting a psychiatrist or breathing fresh air. You argued in your entire first speech mechanic qualities of cricket which made it supposedly better than baseball. I quote, "...in cricket, you can spin the ball any which way, make it bounce in different places... the flat surface allows for more variety in shot selection...you can hit the ball in every direction in cricket..." Where are the mentions of the joy you get from simply HITTING the damn ball and getting a home run for your team in the last few minutes of the game, giving yourselves the championship game, the crowd going wild... that's what baseball and cricket are all about. Not these mechanic qualities. Thus, because Pro is advocating that he himself should see a psychiatrist, vote Con! --THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL OPINION-- "I do not know how many of you have gone to a baseball game, but I went once, and it was one the most boring things I had seen. I could have fallen asleep and understood the game just as well. Though THAT IS SUBJECTIVE, waiting 2 minutes between each pitch is about as fun as watching a sapling become a tree, and most people would (I would hope they would) agree with me on that." Disregard all of my opponents arguments from personal experience because, as he states himself, they are completely subjective. We cannot determine whether a sport is better than another sport through subjective argumentation because then we will get nowhere - it will be one opinion against another and that accomplishes nothing towards proving a certain sport is better than another sport. Only objective argumentation can lead to the conclusion of "cricket being better than baseball" or "baseball being better than cricket" or whatever, but that type of argument doesn't exist in the realm of sports. --BETTER QUALITY SPORTS?-- "There are certain characteristics of baseball which are not as good in quality as similar characteristics of cricket. Certain characteristics can be measured objectively in a sport, and those characteristics provide more quality to the sport, which, in turn, makes the sport better." This is the crux of my opponents argument. Apparently, some aspects of cricket make it objectively better than baseball. Unfortunately, as I have established before, there is no way to measure how truly good a sport is that is purely objective. Still, if you agree with his "objective" analysis, I will indulge you in a step by step explanation as to why it is flawed. "...pitching is much like bowling, but bowling allows you to do more than just pitch. Bowling essentially encompasses pitching, and has a bit more." Here, Pro argues that the more variety there is in a sport, the better it is. By his measure, a sport with an extremely complicated ruleset, an infinite amount of options for play, and a gargantuan amount of players would be the best. This is clearly undesirable because no one would be able to play that sport effectively. Baseball is less complicated than cricket because it has slightly less options for pitching as compared to bowling. Thus, I argue that it is easier to pick up baseball and easier to play it and thus it is better in its simplicity. Simplicity is better because people who are new to the sport can easily play it without spending too much time learning all of the intricacies of sports like cricket, and also because simple things are generally easier things and easier things lead to more enjoyment on the account of someone playing the sport because they will fail less and win more, giving them pleasure. Therefore, it is actually better for baseball to be more simplistic than cricket for these reasons. "Batting in cricket is better than batting in baseball because you can bat near exactly the same way in cricket as you can in baseball, but you can also whack the ball any which way" This is, once again, an advocacy for more options = better sport. This is blatantly untrue, for the same reasons as above. --OF COLORS AND SPORTS-- "By the way, color preference is quite a bit more subjective than sports..." WRONG. Colors are in exactly the same boat as sports for many reasons: 1. Color preference, as well as sport preference, is completely subjective. 2. Color and sport preference vary by individual 3. Not everyone enjoys the same sport, just as not everyone enjoys the same color. Accept my analysis more because he provides no warrants for his argument, only a statement. Now, onto how this applies to baseball vs. cricket. Because I have established that colors == sports in the domain of determining which is "better," and you cannot find a "better" color, it leads that you cannot find a better sport. If there were an objective best sport, WE'D ALL BE PLAYING THAT SPORT. Even if it were a tiny bit better than another sport, everyone would play it rather than another sport because it WOULD BE BETTER. This is just the same with colors - if we preferred one color objectively over another, we'd all have everything painted in that color. This is not the case. --IN CONCLUSION-- -There is no objective way to measure "betterness" of sports. -The Pro arguments are based on personal experience and complete opinion - disregard them because personal opinion does not at all determine how objectively good something is. -Sports are like colors - none are better than another. They are different, sure, but none are better. -Vote Con because there is no way to check how good or bad a sport is and thus we cannot determine which is "better." Objective analysis beats subjective analysis in the framing of this topic resolution.