MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose.

Okay, a lot to respond to here. Fist off, the proposition being debated is that "MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose", but Pro's argument seems to focus on general complaints about MLB as opposed to the particular problems of players being overpaid and losing intentionally. Having said that, I will respond to the points that Pro has made. "TO BEGIN. Even though I did not live in the 80s, I have watched some world series games from that time and there are many differences between baseball then and now. Watch the video. There's a different atmosphere of baseball." This statement is difficult to dispute or agree with due to it's subjective nature. Atmosphere is a poorly defined quality, and I personally find it hard to ascertain this through a video. I was also not alive during the 80s, so obviously I did not experience these games first hand either. "I have noticed how a lot of the fans are on their devices, (1); and eating and drinking up a storm [2] (baseball stadiums are not a place to get wasted!)." An important point to consider here is that the devices you refer to did not exist yet in the 80s. It is entirely possible that if they did, the fans back then would have used them during games as well. I think it is unreasonable to hold the advancement of technology against the MLB. As to the point about people eating and drinking, I honestly find it hard to see as something that is unambiguously negative. Arguably, drinking and eating are part of the culture of baseball. Either way, this is very far afield from the issue of whether or not players are overpaid and lose on purpose. "A side subject: the MN Twins got a new stadium. That effects the percentage of the different people who go there now. Because of the fact that it's a new park, the fans are MOSTLY just going so they can go home and tell their friends "I just went to Target Field" and it's no longer about the team winning or losing. The only reason that fits with the subject is because (I think) the Major League Baseball business, or for that matter ANY professional sport business, should stop putting millions of dollars into newer, modern stadiums. :) It's just one thing that ruins the ambience of baseball." I take issue with this part because I'm not sure what exactly your alternative plan is here. Should teams continue to play in old stadiums no matter how broken down they become? Or should they build new ones when necessary, but build them cheaply so that spectators will not be excited to visit them? It appears to me that there is no obvious solution to this issue even if it is a valid issue. "THE PLAYERS. About drugs, I wouldn't say they were MORE popular in the 80s and 90s, but at that time precursors or performance enhancer drugs were not illegal in MLB...who knows who was using what at that time. But you could tell when they were over-using and abusing the drugs, and that's all that really matters." I'm really not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that baseball was better because drugs were not illegal and possibly being used more? You say that you could tell when drugs were being over-used and abused, but who gets to define what over-use and abuse are? Some might consider any use at all to be over-use, while others may not care at all how much is being used. "So it's not THAT big of a problem now. In fact I was wrong about the title where they intentionally lose nowadays. Let's see who catches that...what do you think?" If I understand this correctly you are now abandoning the intentionally losing part of the proposition, so there is no need for me to argue that point anymore. As such, I will not touch this point from now on. "This website below here has a story about a pitcher who was "intentionally" throwing the ball at the batter. Conspiracies like this are dumb because now (a) the rules and managers are involved, (b) we don't know if the pitcher was doing it on purpose or not, or, (c) assuming the pitcher was doing it intentionally, that wouldn't have happened in the 1900s because it was a different ball game back then." It's unclear how this story supports the proposition if by your own admission we can't tell if it is true or not. Also, you say this would not have happened in the 1900s, but before you said that game fixing was a bigger problem back then. Why would such thing be worse then but another this would be worse now. "#4 The players don't try as hard. You can tell by the work ethic we see out in the field and it takes the exciting feel out of the game. Players should have a personality that we (the fans) can talk about even out of the stadium; little things such as doing a happy dance when you're safe or you got a good hit. (The video above shows some signature players doing their signature dances!!!) Now days we have things like "walk on music" and big screens [in the stadiums] where we can see the individual players' facts and life outside baseball, but that isn't the same as the players actually SHOWING their personality on the field. Hard to explain but I think you get what I mean." I'm not sure that this is indicative of the players not trying as hard so much as it is of changing technology adding different things to the experience of baseball. Honestly, though, I consider players' athletic abilities to be more important than personality anyways. "RULES. Things have changed in baseball because the mangers want to keep the game safer. My opinion is you should let the players do their thing without restrictions or extra rules that will help them be safer, because it effects each game and makes everything more boring (as if baseball isn't already kind of boring at times!)." This is an area I disagree with you on. I think rules to keep the players safer a good thing because they prevent injuries. Injuries can keep a player out of the game for an extended period of time, which is disappointing to fans who care about specific players. They also prevent the players from gaining experience, which will make them able to play better in the long run. All in all, rules to prevent injuries make the game less exciting in the short term but keep the game going better over a longer period of time. I agree that this debate is interesting and look forward to the next round.