Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

That's an interesting start there, but anyway, thanks for responding, and "let's jump right in." 1. Nice arrow you got there. 1. Cricket, you can hit the ball in any direction and have it count for a hit. Baseball, you can only hit a ball that counts for hit by hitting the ball within a 45 degree radius to either side of straight ahead. Being able to hit a ball in every direction and have it count for a hit provides a little more entertainment to the audience as otherwise, in baseball, the swing is not too different every ball and the ball only goes a bit to the right or left. Easier for the batsman in cricket to hit a ball that is coming at him if he can hit the ball anywhere. Both easier and more entertaining if you can hit the ball anywhere. 2. I am not quite sure what my opponent is trying to say here: "I'm not sure what my opponent was trying to do when he responded to this point." And I am further confused by what he says directly afterward... I did NOT change my argument, and I do not know how my opponent came to that conclusion. I am clarifying that by bouncing the ball, the ball turns more and veers off in another direction. And that generally, the cricket ball's inability to break farther than a baseball is pointless because of it. This was a rebuttal to my opponent's point about baseballs being able break farther than cricket balls, and not my actual argument. 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. He is an EXAMPLE. Little info unimportant to the debate, but my opponent did not know that cricket balls bounce only once before reaching the batsman or do not bounce at all, so I am clarifying: 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. Typo there, you added an -es after "inch." But anyway, the balls ability to break an extra inch will rarely result in a wicket because in nearly every case, the ball is meant to hit the ground and bounce, going either straight or spinning into or away from the wicket. The relevance is unequal because in baseball, the entirety of pitching is basically making the ball break this way or that, whereas in cricket, the ball's ability to break farther only applies to the not-so-common swing bowler and the rare full tosses thrown by bowlers. Why bowling is better than pitching: 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. 3. My opponent struck gold in that last sentence of his rebuttal. Anyway, there is a thing about humans that makes us want more of the good stuff: more money, more love, more fun, etc. More runs is greater than fewer runs because the goal is higher making it seem harder, even if it is not harder. For instance, at stores, they might advertise 10 of product x for $10 with the unit value being a $1, but they show 10 for $10 to get customers to buy more. More runs in cricket simply make it seem more exciting, and is thus more entertaining, and, in turn, better. Happy now? 4. *Sigh* I shall start by giving a few numbers here. Approximately 3 billion people watch cricket each year, and approximately 500 million people watch baseball each year. Obviously, if 6 times the number of people watch the longer game, it must be more appealing, or the sport more appealing and time is made to go watch the games. The source for that is in the 2nd round of the debate titled: "Cricket is a better sport than baseball." This is an interesting time to realize that the title of the debate is: Cricket is a better sport than CRICKET v2.0.... If anyone else missed that, join the club! ...It's pretty pathetic on my part... Back to my opponent's response (still on 4). Even if there is something more appealing about cricket that makes more people watch the games, the time factor must make a difference. If people cared so much about time, and time was actually a problem, then they would not have watched cricket and instead watched baseball. Seeing as 6 times as many people watch cricket every year than baseball, time cannot really be a problem. Furthermore, I also mentioned that longer games were better for the people actually playing, and my opponent has yet to respond to that, so it is extended. No more 5 and now onto my opponent's arguments. 1. I am tired of sighing (I do it more often than it is written in). First clearing up commentators. You said... never mind. My fault entirely, I misread what my opponent had said. But anyway, the extra nuances in baseball do not really do much to make the sport more entertaining. Nuances are not part of the sport, and should not be considered. The sport is what is actually being played, not the side dishes (nuances) thrown in for free with the main entree. This is a debate about the main entree and not the side dishes. Therefore, nuances must be excluded from consideration when debating whether one sport is better than another or not. A. Not really entertaining, but sure, if you find it interesting, be my guest and propose to your lover person x at a baseball game (invite me too, I want to join in on the "AAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWW" part :D). You can apply what I have said about extra nuances to this as well. OMG this is my final response. I ought to start noticing things earlier. I shall conclude then. My opponent's argument(s) are the about the same thing (hence the "(s)") and are both irrelevant to the actual SPORT, which is what is being debated here. My arguments: 1) Misinterpreted by my opponent, but the extra room to move allows for better gameplay. Thus, better sport. 2) My opponent's rebuttal does not hold equal ground in both sports, thus his argument does not prove pitching better than bowling. Bowling, as I have shown, is more exhilarating for the player. 3) The fact that the runs are higher makes the sport more entertaining and better. Why, you ask; the answer is written above, so scroll up and look. 4) The time means nothing to the viewers, but makes it more fun for the players. 5) As my opponent has said, it was deleted. My conclusion is that there are reasons that make cricket more appealing and making it more popular worldwide. These reasons, a few listed above, make the sport better than baseball. Something happy: It is the Pope's birthday (and mine!) Something disappointing: This debate should have been 4 rounds... Thank you dear audience members for reading this far. Do not forget to read my opponent's response below, and do not forget to vote AFF/PRO. You may also vote NEG/CON. I would not hate you, but I might get the Indian mafia to attack you... HAVE FUN! :D