Ultimate Debate #4: Baseball is a Better Sport than Football

A few of my opponent's rebuttals were semantics. I would explain which ones, but I'm not allowed to address his rebuttals. In the rules he states that semantics are not allowed and that breaking said rules would result in a forfeit and the opposition getting all seven points. Be that as it may, I will still refute his arguments. Round 2 rebuttals 1. Injuries. It is true that football has a higher occurrence of injuries, yet the players are aware of this before they ever decide to play. This is actually a benefit to my argument, because they judge the reward as being worth the risk. Also, the claim that "this never happens in baseball" when referring to concussions and other head injuries is completely false. (1) It happens most often with catchers, but they are far from the only players to get them. Also, defense was misspelled. 2. Time. I already showed in one of my previous arguments that baseball is nowhere close to the 2 hours of game time that my opponent claims, therefore his argument is refuted. The difference in time is only 7 minutes, so it is a negligible. 3. International appeal. In my opponent's own words, the reason for the international appeal is it's similarity to other sports. "While yes, the two sports are generally associated with the US and Canada, Baseball is more appealing to a worldwide market because it is quite similar to other sports, like cricket and tennis.". Therefore, the inverse is true. If baseball is more similar to other sports then football is more original. Originality gives football an advantage here. Round 3 rebuttals 1. Pay. Baseball has 25 players on their roster, with 9 active on the field. Football, however, has 53 players on the roster, and 11 active on the field. (2) When you have to pay more people, it logically follows that you would have to pay each less. Plus, it speaks to what I said in the injury rebuttal about players wanting to play despite disadvantages like higher injuries and lower pay. It must be a more enjoyable sport to play. Also, the wording is play well, not "play good" and these reasons, not "this reasons" 2. Price. I said myself in my argument about merchandise that people spend more money on football. This isn't a bad thing for my argument, though. In a consumer driven economy like ours, what people spend on something correlates directly with how much the consumer enjoys what they are buying. Therefore, people must enjoy football more if they spend more money on it. And the word is yeah, not "yah" 3. Game time. My opponent claims that extra innings and more games per week is a good thing. I disagree. People have lives. If I have something to do after a football game, I like to know I can plan around it and tell people I can leave when the game is over. If it lasts longer, then I have to change my plans. As to more games per week, there comes a point where too much is too much. No one wants to miss their favorite team play, but if you want to see all the games then you have to dedicate a good portion of your life to watching the game several nights a week. This can be a big problem for someone with a family or a social life. Round 4 rebuttals 1. Fan behavior. Pro seems to think that fans being more exited about football is a negative. I disagree with this premise. I say that fans getting more exited about football means they enjoy it more. Just because my opponent doesn't understand the appeal that goes along with this behavior doesn't mean the appeal isn't there. Also, I would hardly call the fans "certifiably nuts". Had Pro simply said they are nuts, I would accept it as a turn of phrase. However, using the word "certifiably" brings in an official clinical declaration. 2. Strategy. I already conclusively showed in my argument that football is much more strategic than baseball. Therefore my opponent's argument is invalid. Calling baseball unpredictable is a little bit of a stretch as well. As to the variations, that's hardly a difference as football has two hand touch, flag football, sprint football, etc. (3) As to the claim that baseball has many more variations, the link lists 13, but exactly which ones you count as football variations is up to the individual. 3. Equipment. What my opponent said about needing all that equipment just to play a simple backyard game is simply untrue. I remember as a kid playing several games with only a ball. That means baseball actually needs more equipment for a pickup game, since it's nearly impossible to play with just a ball. Unless you use sticks and no gloves, and who wants to do that? In conclusion, I have refuted every single one of my opponent's arguments, and unlike him I did it without resorting to semantics and misdirection. I will admit I felt a bit childish pointing out specific spelling and grammatical errors, and apologize if it came off that way, but since Pro pointed out my one mistake I felt like I should point out his several. I also conclusively showed in my arguments that football is better in almost every way than baseball. Thank you for reading and voting. I hope you all enjoyed it. And I would like to thank my opponent for a fun and informative debate. 1. http://www.nbcnews.com... 2. http://www.answers.com... https://answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...