Instigator / Pro

7000series

1511

rating

debates

38.64%

won

Topic

#5350

What musical instrument would be best as a baseball bat?

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Mharman

Tags

Music

Sports

Parameters

Publication date: 03.13.2024 01:21AM
Last updated date: 04.22.2024 11:22PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Two days
Max argument characters: 5,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Mharman

1421

rating

debates

30.43%

won

Description

I will be arguing that the bass saxophone is the best musical instrument to use as a baseball bat.
We can squabble over the definition of 'best' during the debate.

Round 1

7000series

03.14.2024 04:13PM

Pro

The bass saxophone is the best musical instrument to use as a baseball bat.

Durability:

A bass saxophone is made of metal. A bass saxophone would be able to last the entire game without getting completely destroyed.

Weight:

A bass saxophone might look heavy, but it's actually really light. I would bet that a bass saxophone weighs less than 20 pounds.

Handling:

A bass saxophone may look painful to swing, but batters in the MLB wear gloves.

Range:

A bass saxophone is about 7.5 feet long. That's two meters of range.

Mharman

03.16.2024 04:12PM

Con

I submit the bassoon as my contender.

Definition of "best?"

My opponent submits that the best bat would be the one that is most adept at hitting the ball. However, I submit that not only is their instrument worse at hitting ball than a bassoon (more on this when we talk about weight), but that the true definition of "best" is the option that is the closest to baseball bat.

This is because baseball, as a sport, is based on the idea of it being difficult to hit a moving ball with a narrower bat; a bassoon is definitely closer to a baseball bat than bass sax. While a bass saxophone makes hitting the ball unnecessarily hard because of its weight, a bassoon makes hitting a baseball necessarily hard because of its narrowness. Since a bassoon would be truer to the game of baseball than a bass saxophone, it is better, or best when compared to the bass sax.

Range

MLB regualtion says bats must be no more than 42 inches. While a bassoon, being 4'5", is longer, it is closer than the bass sax.

Durability

Bassoons are made of hard maple wood, just like some baseball bats. If that isn't good enough for you, bassoons can be made of a harder plastic as well. It will certainly be able to take some punishment.

Weight

Baseball bats are usually around 1-2 pounds while a bassoon is 7-8lbs. The average person has little trouble swinging an object around that is less than 10lbs, so the 20ish pounds of bass sax would make the swing too slow. This makes it better for hitting a baseball, despite its narrowness. It the perfect mix of making hits difficult in the normal way, but not too hard in a really weird way.

Round 2

7000series

03.16.2024 07:23PM

Pro

😂😂😂

The bassoon is the worst instrument you could have possibly chosen to be a baseball bat:

The bassoon is not durable in any way. Bassoons are known for breaking while still in the case, so don't even talk about durability.
A bassoon usually costs a ton of money. Mid-quality bassoons cost upwards of $7,000, but you can get a mid-quality bass saxophone for only $4,000.
The bassoon is very likely to miss. The bassoon is much narrower than the bass saxophone, making it less effective as a baseball bat.

Okay, so I win. Right?

A bass saxophone makes hitting the ball unnecessarily hard because of its weight.

The average batter could swing a bass saxophone very fast without a problem, so the weight of a bass saxophone is not a problem.

Also, if you cannot swing an 18 pound bass saxophone, you need to go to the gym more.

Mharman

03.18.2024 07:23PM

Con

The bassoon is not durable in any way. Bassoons are known for breaking while still in the case, so don't even talk about durability.

I'm gonna need some more citation on that, because right now I'm thinking your only source is "trust me bro." I did some research on your claim, but the most compelling evidence I could find was some r*dd*tor who damaged some keys after dropping their bassoon onto a hardwood floor. While keys are necessary for playing music, they are not necessary when using a bassoon as a baseball bat.

All that matters here is the body of the bassoon, to which the user only reported having "small dents in the wood of the bell joint." Small dents are not a concern.

The thread's OP later reported that they were able to play the instrument just fine.

One of the musicians in the comments section of the thread reports two similar stories:

"I've done this, but not from a high distance. Bassoon was fine. Also had a fellow bassoon player lean her instrument against a chair in a heavy-traffic area and it somehow got knocked over. Only damage was a minor bend to a rod (thank god)." -DancingChip

Additionally, my opponent overlooked the part of my argument where I said a plastic bassoon would be even better if you were so concerned. Dave_the_nerd echoes this sentiment:

"I have never done that particular thing, but I've done other things involving concrete. Plastic Foxes can take a beating." (NOTE: Added a link so you know what he's talking about here.)

A bassoon usually costs a ton of money. Mid-quality bassoons cost upwards of $7,000, but you can get a mid-quality bass saxophone for only $4,000.

This is outside the scope of this debate. No one is going to think about cost when deciding on what instrument to use as a baseball bat. If you truly cared about cost, you wouldn't be using any instrument for this in the first place. In this debate, we are arguing about the merits of the instruments, not the method of obtainment (using money to purchase one is a method of obtainment, so it's irrelevant to argue about cost). Nonetheless, if we really wanted to argue about cost, I could just point out that there are many people who would be willing to sell any used instrument for far cheaper than the normal price.

The bassoon is very likely to miss. The bassoon is much narrower than the bass saxophone, making it less effective as a baseball bat.

My opponent here repeats the false claim that effectiveness at hitting the ball makes the bass sax better. This isn't the case, but I'd like to take note of the fact that my opponent has not challenged me on my definition of best, when I said similarity to a real baseball bat is what makes the bassoon best.

Furthermore, when it comes to hitting, the size of the bass sax is not enough to overcome the 20lb weight of the bass sax. My opponent tries to counter this by saying...

The average batter could swing a bass saxophone very fast without a problem, so the weight of a bass saxophone is not a problem. Also, if you cannot swing an 18 pound bass saxophone, you need to go to the gym more.

This is not true. This is 18 pounds, being held by the thinner part (because holding by the larger end is suboptimal for the size "advantage"), where the majority of the weight is toward the end of the 7.5 ft long instrument. That's like adding 8lbs worth of plates to one side of a super-extended 10lb bar, and trying to swing it. Sure you could, but not as fast as you think. A 5lb bar with 3lbs at one end (like a bassoon) is much more fast and agile. Pitches will blow right past you with the bass sax.

There is zero way to deny that a bass sax is not significantly slower than a bassoon, let alone a real baseball bat.

Round 3

7000series

03.18.2024 10:02PM

Pro

Remember readers, a bassoon comes in 4 separable pieces.

A bassoon would simply fall apart if it was hit by a baseball.

Here is a quote from this bassoon repair site:

Unfortunately, bassoons seem to be especially prone to malfunction. As a private bassoon teacher who worked with hundreds of students, I routinely repaired 1-2 whisper keypads, bent rods, missing locks, and other small items on a weekly basis.

Do you know how much shit can go wrong with a bassoon?!?

And don't worry if you lightly bumped your instrument, bassoon bocals only cost $1000.

Anyway. . .

Oxford's (obvious) definition of 'best':

Of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.

The best = The most effective.
The best baseball bat = the most effective baseball bat.
The best baseball bat = The saxophone.

Readers, it is that simple.

And why is the bass saxophone so effective as a baseball bat?

Durability: The saxophone is made of metal. The saxophone is very durable.
Weight: The saxophone is heavier. It will hit the baseball with a greater amount of force when swung.
Range: The saxophone has a great range too!

Mharman

03.20.2024 10:02PM

Con

Remember readers, a bassoon comes in 4 separable pieces.
A bassoon would simply fall apart if it was hit by a baseball.

This is untrue. A bassoon is assembled by sliding the pieces together. The wood on the connection pieces of each joint is lined with cork as well, to prevent sliding. The cork adds so much grip to the inside of connection pieces, that cork grease is needed just to insert the 1-2 inch long connection pieces into the holes. To disassemble a bassoon, you need to pull the pieces straight out, from the top. A baseball hitting the side of a bassoon would not be able to disassemble a bassoon.

Do you know how much shit can go wrong with a bassoon?!?

The malfunctions mentioned in your citation is a bunch of small damage to small pieces... as I said earlier, we do not need these pieces, only the body of the bassoon. This is not a rebuttal to my argument.

bassoon bocals only cost $1000.

Another mention of piece not needed for using a bassoon as a bat. Also, one again, cost is outside the scope of this debate, as explained earlier. My opponent has not challenged me on that.

Oxford's (obvious) definition of 'best':
Of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.
The best = The most effective.
The best baseball bat = the most effective baseball bat.
The best baseball bat = The saxophone.

OR desirable type of quality, which I say is similarity to a real bat. This definition can be used to argue my point as well.

Durability: The saxophone is made of metal. The saxophone is very durable.
Weight: The saxophone is heavier. It will hit the baseball with a greater amount of force when swung.
Range: The saxophone has a great range too!

The bassoon is also durable, as I've proven thus far. And range and hitting force are irrelevant if you can't hit the ball. I've explained why the wiegght of a bass sax is a problem and it hasn't been addresed

Round 4

7000series

03.21.2024 08:33PM

Pro

I've explained why the weight of a bass sax is a problem and it hasn't been addressed.

Due to its weight, a bass saxophone could build up a lot of momentum in a single swing.

cost is outside the scope of this debate

Oxford's (obvious) definition of 'best':

Of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality.

Low cost is a desirable quality.

OR desirable type of quality, which I say is similarity to a real bat. This definition can be used to argue my point as well.

Unfortunately for you, the bass saxophone also wins in that category:

The bass saxophone is closer to the size of a real baseball bat.
The bass saxophone is closer to the cost of a real baseball bat.
The bass saxophone comes in one piece, like a real baseball bat.

Conclusion: The bass saxophone is a better baseball bat in every way.

Mharman

03.23.2024 08:33PM

Con

REBUTTALS

Due to its weight, a bass saxophone could build up a lot of momentum in a single swing.

Again, this is a hitting power thing. Momentum is mass times velocity. It doesn't help a bat swing go faster, it just makes it harder to stop (or more accurately, harder to change direction), and therefore harder to control.

Sure, if you do hit the ball, you're going to have a lot of force. But the problem, the weight at the end of a 7.5 ft long object, is going to make the swing too slow. You can't make use of that momentum when it comes to being fast enough to hit the ball.

Even if you could alter the swing (which would make things more difficult and awkward) to try and to use the momentum to speed up the swing, it will still be too slow, since heavier objects take more time and energy to move at a speed at which it could even use its momentum for further acceleration... by the time the tail end of your swing has reached a good speed, the pitch will have gone right by you, when you were taking the extra time to put the energy into building that kind of momentum with a heavier object.

By contrast, a bassoon, being significantly lighter, will have quicker total swing time, and you can control and therefore adjust the swing easier (since it's lighter), and you will be more likely to hit the ball as a result.

Low cost is a desirable quality.

As explained multiple times, cost is outside of the scope of the debate. I explained in an argument on Round 2, and even now, my opponent has not rebutted that argument and given a reason why cost is inside the scope of this debate. The whole point of this silly question is, "what instrument would you like to have people use if we replaced the bat with an instrument?"... again (and this still hasn't been argued against), no one is thinking about cost when bringing an instrument on the field. If they did, they wouldn't have brought one onto the field in the first place. We are assuming, for the sake of the hypothetical, that everyone has access to these instruments in the first place.

Furthermore, this does nothing to refute the idea that similarity to a baseball bat determines what would be a good substitute for a baseball bat in this debate.

Unfortunately for you, the bass saxophone also wins in that category:
The bass saxophone is closer to the size of a real baseball bat

Per your admission in Round 1, a bass sax is 7'6" (7.5) ft long. A bassoon, as I found, was 4'5".

An actual baseball bat is not to be more than 42 inches (or 3'6") in length according to MLB regulation (other irl bats are not far off).

So this is incorrect based on information that was previously argued and agreed upon (because both parties cited it).

The bass saxophone is closer to the cost of a real baseball bat.

Once again, citing the irrelevant metric of cost in this debate.

The bass saxophone comes in one piece, like a real baseball bat.

This similarity isn't much compared to how the bassoon is closer in length and weight.

NOTICE OF DROPPED ARGUMENTS

My opponent has dropped (or failed to rebut) some points in this debate.

1. That cost is outside of the scope in this debate.

2. That the bassoon is durable enough (they did not bother touching this in the final round).

3. That the bass sax's weight is a problem because it makes a swing too slow.

4. That the definition of "best" can also be used to argue my point, that best is similarity to a baseball bat.

Mharman

04.22.2024 11:22PM

#19

Gg.

Mharman

03.30.2024 12:23AM

#18

-->

@RationalMadman

go for it

RationalMadman

03.30.2024 12:06AM

#17

-->

@Mharman

Why don't you ask me to vote?

Mharman

03.29.2024 01:01PM

#16

-->

@Barney

@whiteflame

@Benjamin

@Savant

@Hero_In_Instatute

Got time to vote? 0 so far

Mharman

03.20.2024 11:50PM

#15

-->

@7000series

"small damage to small pieces"

For clarification, I mean "small damage to the bassoon, to small pieces"

Mharman

03.20.2024 10:38PM

#14

-->

@7000series

I submitted that last argument with 2 seconds left lol

Mharman

03.20.2024 10:04PM

#13

pardon the misspellings on low time... I'll make sure I give myself more time to type out the final round

Mharman

03.18.2024 07:27PM

#12

-->

@7000series

see below for clarification... lmk when you see this, but if you don't, that's on you, not me

Mharman

03.18.2024 07:26PM

#11

"There is zero way to deny that a bass sax is not significantly slower than a bassoon, let alone a real baseball bat."

Made a grammar mistake here on low time. It should say "there is zero way to deny that a bass sax is significantly slower than a bassoon, let alone a real baseball bat," without the word "not." This is an accidental double negative on my part, not an argument in favor of my opponent's case.

7000series

03.18.2024 07:15PM

#10

-->

@Mharman

9 min!!!!

7000series

03.16.2024 08:28PM

-->

@Mharman

It would be better if I was more confident.

7000series

03.16.2024 08:27PM

-->

@Mharman

I'm underconfident.

Mharman

03.16.2024 08:04PM

-->

@RationalMadman

Nah. He's overconfident, but he's overlooking some major things.

RationalMadman

03.16.2024 08:01PM

-->

@Mharman

After he refused to make it rated, I linked to a YT clip that could annihilate him in one swift swoop. You misplayed this.

Mharman

03.16.2024 04:23PM

"This makes it better for hitting a baseball, despite its narrowness. It the perfect mix of making hits difficult in the normal way, but not too hard in a really weird way."

I am referring to the bassoon here, not the bass sax

RationalMadman

03.13.2024 02:20AM

-->

@7000series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGHscbKIQ4

7000series

03.13.2024 01:35AM

-->

@RationalMadman

Actually no, I changed my mind.

7000series

03.13.2024 01:29AM

sure

RationalMadman

03.13.2024 01:27AM

-->

@7000series

make it rated please

Benjamin

03.29.2024 03:36PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I buy that cost is outside the scope.

CON successfully defends basson durability.

PRO fails to defend bass saxophone weight and lenght.

I buy that the basson is closer to a real bat in terms of handling and effectiveness of hitting the ball. Since PRO did not successfully refute the standard of similarity being the desirable quality, I feel like the vote can only go to CON.