Informal: Hockey is "better" than baseball.

Because the burden of proof is on my opponent, I will begin by noting the fallacies in Pro's argument. In doing so, I will negate his arguments. Pro begins by noting that a "baseball season is 162 games long," whereas there are "82 games in a season of hockey." According to Pro, this means the "importance of each game in baseball is .61% to the season total," whereas in hockey, "each game is worth 1.12% of the season." Pro then claims that with "more importance of the game to the season usually brings more emotional value for the spectator." This claim is not backed by any evidence. To begin with, the word "usually" as employed by my opponent in his statement negates his argument, as something that "usually" happens is not enough reason to say that the "importance of the game to the season" does without a doubt bring "more emotional value for the spectator." Furthermore, my opponent does not show how "emotional value for the spectator" is related to the value each game has in the season's sum total of game. As a result, even if my opponent's claim were true (and I disagree that it is), Pro has failed to provide any evidence that it is true. The only thing that Pro has show is that there are more games of baseball per season than hockey. This evidence does not demonstrate that hockey is a better spectator sport. Further, Pro states that "the amount of minutes of action each sport offers" on average is "1,944 minutes" for baseball and "hockey offers 4,920." This shows that Pro is in fact contradicting himself. First, he states that hockey has fewer games and therefore more emotional value. Then he states that baseball has on average less minutes of action. As such, we can conclude, using my opponent's logic, that baseball has more emotional value for the spectator per minute of action. Pro's logic is flawed. Moreover, because there are more games of baseball than hockey, I would argue that baseball is a better spectator sport: baseball offers the spectator more games to enjoy. In baseball there are more games to watch, and according to my opponent, fewer minutes. This means that each moment in each game has far more importance than each moment in a hockey game. Therefore, by offering more opportunities to be viewed, baseball must be a better spectator sport. As such, I contend that baseball, because it has more games per season, is arguably a better spectator sport. The next point that Pro argues is that the "action per game" of baseball is "6.66%," whereas the action per game of hockey is "40%." There are a number of problems with this argument. First, this number is the percent of the game in which the ball is in play. Pro confuses both the "time of action" and the "time invested by the viewer for each game" with the amount of time the ball is in play. In baseball, just because the ball is not in play does not mean that the game yields less action and less time invested by the viewer. Second, even if it were the case that there is only an average "12 minutes" of action per game of baseball, it does not mean that there is less potential for excitement in a baseball game. Those 12 minutes can easily yield as much or more excitement for the viewer as the entire "2.5 hours" that the hockey game takes to watch. Pro has thus proven nothing by saying that the quantity of action in baseball is less than the quantity of action in hockey. And finally, my third point on this issue: my opponent's source for his numbers is a question that was asked on "Ask Yahoo," a website where people can ask questions and answer them. As such, my opponent's source is unreliable. Further, his source is not only unreliable because of where it was found, but also because the source itself states that its findings are not "scientific." The source also notes that many viewers "find baseball's leisurely pace relaxing." In other words, baseball is a better spectator sport for those who prefer relaxation to excitement. Pro has not shown how a more exciting sport is a better spectator sport. Indeed, the QUALITY of the two experiences, that of baseball and hockey, cannot be compared. To say one is a better spectator sport than the other is something that cannot be determined precisely because they are completely different sports. People who enjoy a "slow" sport will enjoy baseball more; people who enjoy a "fast" sport more will enjoy hockey. In either case, it does not prove that one is a better spectator sport than the other. It only proves that one is a better spectator sport for some spectators – and this is something that can be said about pretty much anything. What can be said, however, is that baseball is a more popular sport than hockey. Baseball "attracts more ticket sales than any other sport in the United States, and is considered the second most popular professional sport" [1]. Therefore, because baseball is more popular than hockey, we can conclude that baseball is a better spectator sport. Again, because more spectators choose to buy tickets to baseball games, the evidence suggests that baseball is a better spectator sport. And therefore, my opponent's resolution is negated. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro's next point is about the "athletics of each sport." I do not know why my opponent is arguing that one sport is more athletic than the other. Pro argued that he would show that hockey "required more skills," not that it was more athletic. They are distinct categories. Pro then claims that "as far as the physical aspects oh the game, hockey definitely outweighs the power needed on both offense and defense." My opponent makes a spelling error – "oh" – at the same time that he makes a claim that is irrelevant. Again, the amount of "power needed on both offense and defense" does not mean that hockey requires "more skills." The skills that are required for these games are extremely different. Pro states, "As a hitter you have to hit a ball traveling between 70-105 mph with a bat. Some people say it is the hardest thing to do in sports, but if that is true why are there so many hits? On defense in baseball, you are expected to throw the baseball between 90 and 270 ft once in a while when the ball it hit to you. Other than that it is catching the ball and fielding the ball in typically undemanding circumstances." In this statement, my opponent completely misrepresents the difficulty and skill required to play baseball. To begin, noting that "there are so many hits" does not negate the fact that "some people say it is the hardest thing to do in sports." Those people are correct: hitting a ball that is travelling above 100 mph is one of the hardest things to do in sports. The reason the number of hits is high is because so many baseball players use steroids. In fact, the high prevalence of steroids in baseball suggests that it is such a difficult sport that a large number of professional players have to use drugs to perform at the level required. And finally, Pro's last argument to "show the difficulty of each sport for the athlete" rests on the "scoring numbers in each sport." Pro argues that because players score less in hockey than baseball, hockey is harder. Pro fails to realize that if it is easier to score, that means both teams will have an easier time scoring. This means that it is equally as difficult to win by score, as both teams face the same kind of challenges as the other team. In other words, although baseball players may "score" more often than hockey players, this only means that the nature of the game is to score more. In Basketball, for example, the players score far more than in hockey or baseball. And yet, would you also argue that basketball requires less skills than both hockey and baseball because it has such high scoring numbers. I argue that baseball thus requires as much if not more skill than hockey. My opponent's argument is negated.