Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball.

I will begin by addressing my opponent's argument that hockey requires more skills. Requires more skills: My opponent states: "Con also suggests that there is a "level required" for baseball players to play at. This is also false. Con is arguing that people watch baseball for the relaxing style of the sport, yet claims that there is a required level for players to compete at. This logic seems flawed. " My opponent believes that my logic "seems flawed," but to seem flawed is not the same thing as to be flawed and to point out the flaws. My opponent has not demonstrated that it is in actuality flawed, as my opponent has not pointed out what the flaws are. A sport being relaxing for the spectator has no relation to the actual skill level required of the players playing the game. As an example, the game of chess. Chess requires an immense degree of mental skill, but for the people watching, it is extremely slow and relaxing (professional games of chess take up to 6 hours with some moves taking up to half an hour alone). There is almost no action in a chess game, and little for the spectators to see, but this does not mean that the skill level required to play professional chess is not high; if anything, it requires more mental skill than almost any other sport (Chess is considered a sport, evidenced by the fact that it is played in the Olympics). And believe it or not, chess is in fact a spectator sport, with many people gathering to watch games. Furthremore, with respect to my opponent's attempt to measure the skills required in these two sports, I think he misses a very important point. My opponent argues that "in hockey, scoring a goal is harder than hitting a baseball because it happens less frequently. " My opponent is talking specifically about the scoring numbers. These numbers cannot be compared, as they are two completely different sports. For example, gymnastics is scored in a completely different way than either hockey or baseball, but it is nonetheless a sport. Can we compare the skill required for these sports by comparing the numbers related to their scoring? To me, this does not seem right. I suggest, on the other hand, that in reality the skill level required in a sport is determined by the standard set by the other players of the sport, not by the scoring numbers. This is very logical and intuitive. Let me give an example. Imagine that the average baseball player hits the baseball 20% of the time (as my opponent stated). Now, imagine that one day someone comes along and raises the standard; instead of hitting the ball 20% of the time, he hits it 50% of the time. In effect, this player raises the skill level required to play the sport because now the rest of the players must attempt to close the gap between that player's skill level and their skill level. As the players of sports improve, the skill level required to play a sport improves. To play hockey against 10 year olds who can barely play is completely different than playing professional players. Same thing applies to baseball. In other words, skill is defined by how good you can do something relative to other people who also do that thing. For this reason, the skill level required of the two sports cannot be compared. They require different skills, and to attempt to analyze which sport has a higher standard set is impossible when comparing different skills. For example, imagine attempting to compare how high someone can jump with how fast someone can run. The skill involved cannot be compared. We can say that jumping 4 feet is harder than jumping 2 feet, or that running 20 mph is harder than running 10 mph, but we cannot say that running 20 mph is harder than jumping 4 feet. Comparing different skills is impossible because the standard set is impossible to compare. The resolution is negated. Better Spectator Sport: Pro has admitted in Round 3, if I am not mistaken, that I have refuted his resolution, namely, "to defend that hockey stands to be a better spectator sport and requires more skills. " Pro writes, "Because the quality for each person cannot be measured during this debate, I agree to drop this point. " The specific point in question when Pro writes this is my argument that hockey cannot be proven to be a better spectator sport because it is something qualitative, something that cannot be measured by mathematical numbers. By agreeing to "drop this point," Pro concedes at the very least that which sport is a better spectator sport cannot be quantifiable. Because this is the case, Pro concedes that hockey cannot be proven to be a better spectator sport. And because this is one of the points that Pro needed to prove to affirm his resolution, Pro's resolution is negated. As to Pro's specific arguments in Round 3, he merely restates the same numerical information that he presented in Round 2. Pro does not actually make any new arguments with this information. He just restates the same claims, namely, that because the ball is in play for a longer period in hockey, that hockey is more exciting and therefore a better spectator sport, that because there are more games in a season of baseball, each game is more important in hockey and therefore it is a better spectator sport. But these are subjective interpretations of quantitative numbers, and these numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. Pro does not offer any arguments as to why the specific quantitative data that he gives lead to the conclusion that hockey is a better spectator sport. Pro's argument rests on mathematical and quantitative values, but the experience of spectators is a distinctly non-mathematical experience. Spectators experience a large range of emotions and feelings, feelings that can range from excitement to disappointment, tension and relief, anger and happiness, boredom and interest, relaxation and whatever other emotions and feelings that spectators feel. The point is, the experience of a spectator cannot be measured using mathematical numbers and quantitative data. Baseball is a slow sport, hockey is a fast sport, baseball is relaxing, hockey is exciting. This is what my opponent has proved, but proving this does not mean hockey is a "better spectator sport" because my opponent cannot prove that spectators prefer exciting games to relaxing games. The resolution is negated. Thank you for this debate.