Chess (Full resolution in first round)
Full Resolution: As a chess coach, you should not teach your student to become a chess player, but to teach them to appreciate the game.
I am PRO, therefore arguing to that given resolution. My opponent (CON) will be arguing against that resolution.
BOP is shared.
Rules of this debate:
First round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY
No new arguments in last round. Last round for final rebuttals, defence and summarisation.
Chess player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc.
Chess coach: A person who teaches an adult or a child to improve their ability to play the game of chess.
Appreciate: To be grateful, to recognise the beauty of etc. (definition should be clear in the context of this debate).
Other definitions should be common sense.
And of course, no semantics and trolling.
I hope both my opponent and I will gain something from this debate after it is finished.
I happily accept and look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
I would firstly like to thank DoctorDeku for accepting this debate and his welcoming opening statements.
Before the debate actually starts, I would like to clear out any confusion. As we both delve deep into this debate, both sides will eventually realise that a chess player (in reference to the 1st round definition) is more than likely to appreciate the game of chess, but we are focussing on the more beneficial goal for the coach. I will now begin with my arguments.
As the resolution states, I am proving why you should NOT teach your student to become a chess player, but to appreciate the game. It should then be clear why I am making arguments regarding the disadvantages of chess players along with the advantages of being a person who is simply appreciating the game.
Without further ado, I will now begin with my arguments.
“Chess is mental torture” – Garry Kasparov 
“Chess is a war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent’s mind” Bobby Fischer 
“Chess is life” Bobby Fischer 
“I learnt an enormous amount, but there came a point where I found there was too much stress. It was no fun anymore. Outside of the chessboard I avoid conflict, so I thought this wasn’t worth it. (On training sessions with Kasparov)” – Magnus Carlsen 
These quotes came from the mouths of the best of the best chess players that have ever existed, which gives a good introduction to my arguments. As you can witness, the life of a professional chess player (not necessarily those as competitive as them) is incredibly difficult.
Argument 1: Downsides of becoming a chess player
Sub – Argument 1: Stress in the lives of competitive chess players
The level of stress experienced by those of competitive chess players are considerably higher than those of an average person out there in the workforce. For example , the following player, who identifies himself to be a competitive player, but isn’t a full-time chess player manages to feel quite a lot of stress.
Psychological stress is also a major factor in all chess players and a difficult barrier for many to overcome. As outlined by WGM Natalia Pogonina  within the high-class chess players, a simple loss or draw against a player, you could “end up in trouble again and waste a lot of nervous energy along the way”. It distracts you from your future games, makes you hate your opponent, wastes a lot of your energy.
For example, an interesting documentary on Garry Kasparov’s  loss against Deep Blue (A chess engine) during the peak of his chess abilities tells us how after his first loss to the machine, “it wasn’t simply a loss of the game. It was a loss of the entire match” says Garry Kasparov. After his first loss (details too complicated to explain here. Watch entire documentary for the full idea), he was psychologically destroyed.
The “cognitive” psychology within chess has been studied through by Dr Fernand Gobet  and as his information shows, not all players are suitable to become great chess players. Quoting for that article:
“ It took an average of 11, 000 hours to reach 2200. One player needed around 3, 000 hours to reach 2200, while another player spent more than 23, 000 hours to achieve the same level.”
Another interesting factor that I would like to take note of is, with a high level of stress would usually result in high blood pressure. High blood pressure usually leads to higher chances of heart attacks. A good look at the deaths of famous chess players may be of interest. 
Referring back to the resolution, IF you were a chess coach, would you want to subject your student to such things? Allowing them to suffer intense levels of psychological distress from their failures? (Unless you can expect them to become perfect chess players).
Sub – Argument 2: Violence amongst different players
The pressure to improve your own game as a competitive chess player appears to be too difficult for some to cope with. As shown here, chess players have been murdered or have been involved with violent activities during the peak of their playing career.
On this page , a well-detailed page describes the many cases of violence that has occurred during the lives of chess players (not all of these are competent players!). For example, the famous Garry Kasparov:
On April 15, 2005, former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was attacked by a man posing as a chess fan who wanted his wooden chess board signed. Instead, he hit Kasparov in the head very hard with the chess board.
To something as serious as this:
In February 2009, a man killed a friend with a sword after a chess game in Alameda, California. An argument broke out during their game, and the two started wrestling. Joseph Groom retreated to his bedroom and returned with a sword, which he used to stab Kelly Kjersem once. Kjersem later died.
Majority of chess players become too emotional after a loss in very important tournaments and end up holding grudges against the victor.
Argument 2: Benefits of appreciating the game of chess
Sub – Argument 1: Chess is an art
Many of you may be wondering, how do you “appreciate” a game of chess? To put simply, chess games or moves can be witnessed like a movie or a good book. A geek with books is able to tell what makes a book good or bad, and a movie critic understands to a great deal what movies are categorised as good for the market. Chess is very much the same. A person educated in chess is able to witness great games of chess.
Next question, what is chess? To the beginner, it is merely a board game with random pieces that run around on the board with the aim to capture the king. However, to professionals, it is much more than that. Some regard chess to be a type of science, war, psychological warfare, and lastly, a lot of people regard chess to be art.
In the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer”, Bruce (the chess coach), mentions how Fischer regards chess to be art.
“Bobby Fischer got underneath it, like no one before him and found at its centre, art”.
There are many things in chess that makes it art. There are many types of games that are beautiful to witness and certainly many different beautiful moves that have been played out. For example, in the following position, it first appears that white is completely lost, yet, a move as crazy as that (shown in green arrow), secures a win.
I will briefly outline how this move wins for the white pieces. After the rook moves to that destined square, if the pawn captures the rook, the white pawn moves on square forward to secure a win (with checkmate) and if the black bishop moves, the rook simply captures the black pawn with a win (Checkmate).
The move was very unexpected, yet is so powerful, which makes the game of chess so beautiful. There have been many chess games that have caught great attention to chess critics to spend hours on end providing a concise yet thorough analysis of a well-played game.
Some of the most famous game ever played have been given the following titles:
- The “Immortal” Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky)
- The “Evergreen“ Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne)
- Bobby Fischer’s Game of the Century (Bobby Fischer and Donald Byrne)
I have spent most of this round arguing why it is not a good idea to coach a student to become a chess player while touching on why it is more beneficial to coach them to appreciate the game. I will spend most of R3 elaborating on why you should teach them to appreciate the game.
And, to you, DoctorDeku…
The overarching thesis behind Con's negation will be that anything one works towards, they should work towards with intentions of greatness. Simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have. However, in that same vein of thought, one must not allow their pride to get the better of them.
Going on to my opponent's constructive,
1. The downsides of becoming a Chess Player-
Garry Kasparov, considered by many the greatest Chess Player in history is not an accurate assessment of the stress felt by all Chess players. As for the article by Natalia Pogonina, it explicitly speaks on how chess players should not allow their losses to frustrate them to such high degree, not that losing could have that the irreparable psychological damage that Pro Posits it would. The given article even gives suggestions to use the psychological frustration to the player's advantage; As Vladimir Akopian stated "Losses and defeats are a part of a professional chess player's life just like upheavals and victories. Of course I'd like to have fewer defeats. For me losing a game or an overall tournament failure is not a tragedy." and Wang Yue " Life is life, chess is chess. OK. I lost. So what?"
So onto the loss of Garry Kasparov to Deep Blue in my opponent's cited video, it is apparent that Kasparov's frustration comes as the result of his pride being shattered - not an implicit effect of being a Chess Player. Kasparov outright forfeited one of his six rounds against Deep Blue after because computer made a move he wasn't expecting, and towards the end of the documentary states in so many words the he wished he hadn't made such a big deal out of his loss. Kasparov didn't like being humbled, especially after making fun of the notion that a computer could play Chess; his downfall was by his own pride.
As for the high blood pressure argument, the only Grandmaster to die of a heart attacks at a young ages were Gyula Brewer and 28 and Leonid Stein at 38. Furthermore these were grandmaster players, not typical players; this argument is not an accurate illustration of a common chess player.
Finally on the issue of violence, the two examples my opponent offers are from a list that details a large number of deaths related to Chess; not all of them were even from chess players. One of the examples on the given list talks about a prisoner killing another prisoner for refusing to stop commenting on his game with another inmate. If one is prone to violence they're going to be violent whether their coach teaches them to love the game or play competitively.
That said stress is a natural thing for anyone doing something difficult. You don't get to the same level as Kaspov or Kasparov without being a little stressed at times. To assert that this stress stands as a reason not to work towards that greatness is to say that anything challenging isn't worthwhile.
2. Benefits of appreciating the game-
As my opponent clearly states in her opening remarks, one who becomes a chess player is more than likely going to appreciate the game. It would be really sad if one committed so much time and energy to Chess and didn't appreciate it. So the first refutation here is simply that these benefits aren't unique to my opponent's advocacy.
Bobby Fischer was once cited with saying, "I like the moment I break a man's ego."; this is an appreciation of not just the game, but of competition. And while I agree a good game of Chess is an art, it's more than just that. Chess is a competition, a game, a challenge -- for a coach not to equip their pupil with the necessary tools to excel at this challenge is for the coach to fail their student.
Keeping this in mind, paying a coach isn't a cheap ordeal. Victor Mikhalevski of Isreal charges $75 an hour to coach, Rakhmanov Aleksandr charges $400 for ten hours of private training and Sam Shankland charges $85 and hour for person lessons. The were just the top three listed coaches on Chess.com who listed their hourly price. clicking any of these coaches profile's mirrors the same sentiment; that paying for a Chess coach isn't cheap.
The question at this point is one of justification; if the coach is only teaching a student to appreciate the game, something they already appreciate if they're paying this much for lessons, they're wasting their money. As much as chess is an art, competition is also an art. When Chess coaches teach their students only to appreciate the game, the art of competition suffers damage possibly beyond the point of repair. However when Chess coaches teach their students to be Chess Players, there is a benefit to both of the aforementioned arts; neither is forced to suffer.
In conclusion, nourishing effective competition should be the goal of a Chess coach. If they fail to stimulate this competitive spirit then they've done their students no good.
Back to you Famer!
I thank CON for his interesting responses.
My first response was directed to be an additional argument, but it appears it will be presented as both an argument and a refutation.
“Simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have.”
The underlying problem is that a chess player must give “EVERYTHING” that they have to become a chess player. They must sacrifice a huge amount of time and money before they reach the required level to become a chess player. Chess has become biggest part of their life, their occupation. Their money comes from chess. Most of their workmates will come from chess. Their life has become chess.
Also, it is important to understand that we are talking about chess players, not chess coaches, chess critics, chess book authors etc. This means that the majority of their income would come from playing chess. Most chess players who are good enough to make a living out of playing chess are WGM/GM’s and questionably, WIM/IM’s.
This may not sound so bad. However, in comparison to someone who is simply there to appreciate the game of chess, they have not bonded their entire life to chess. If they are frustrated about a loss, it will not affect their income rate like it may for a chess player. As these two sources show , along with most other sources, most pro chess players make close to nothing, and most of the GMs make a decent source of income, not a spectacular income.
As well as this, it points out that the Grandmasters (WGM included) make a reasonable income, whilst most IM’s are completely broke and have to result to teaching, writing etc. to make enough money simply to participate in tournaments. The amount of efforts they must put to acheive a reasonable income is completely absurd.
It is evident that CON has misunderstood some parts of my arguments and the misdirected implications he has made from my arguments.
In my first argument, in which I was referring to Garry Kasparov’s “irreparable psychological damage”, under no circumstances was I implying that all chess players would be exposed to. The ideas that I proposed with that argument were that chess players will be forced to deal with psychological discomfort and stress (it will, no doubt, happen to all chess players), using Garry Kasparov’s defeat as an example.
The second misinterpretation from CON:
“… it explicitly speaks on how chess players should not allow their losses to frustrate them to such high degree, not that losing could have that the irreparable psychological damage that Pro Posits it would”.
Once again, I never proposed the idea that losing a chess game will give you “irreparable psychological damage”. The second refutation is that all chess players are aware that frustration from a loss is harmful to their future play. As pointed out by CON, chess players should not allow themselves to become frustrated to such high degrees; however, losses will always affect a chess player and their future play, either for the worse or for the better.
At this point, I would like to point out that Garry Kasparov’s loss to Deep Blue was not because of a downfall of his own pride. The video clearly illustrates all the angles as to why they thought there was human intervention in the moves that was “supposedly” played out by the computer. Garry Kasparov had given up on the entire match altogether after that incident because he had excellent reasons to think that his opposition were cheating (as said, a chess player cooperating with a machine (one that can make 3 million calculations per second), is a Killer Combination, in which nothing could possibly be stronger). It was logical that Kasparov gave up at that point because of his suspicions that they were cheating, NOT because of a downfall of his own pride.
My high blood pressure argument, is once again, only meant to be an extreme example of what chess players are prone to. If some/a young grandmaster chess player/s can have a heart attack from high blood pressure, it is a good idea that all chess players will deal with a lot of stress in their lives.
I’d like to note back to the definition of “Chess player” that we was used from R1.
“Chess Player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc.”
As mentioned before, this definition would only be applicable to WGM/GM’s and possibly WIM/IM’s. Therefore, it makes sense why we are not referring to a “common” chess player. We are referring to the best chess players. Only the ones who make enough money from playing.
“they're going to be violent whether their coach teaches them to love the game or play competitively”
This judgement is flawed as a person who appreciates the game, as a form of art, science (no matter what their viewpoints on chess are), are under no pressure to play well and therefore won’t be prone to violence (at least nowhere near the degree in which a chess player would). It is highly unreasonable to think someone who is simply appreciating the game, just by spectating a game, a commentary of a game etc. would become violent.
Most chess players (following the definition provided) would encounter similar levels of stress experienced by Kasparov and Karpov to note, or at least extreme levels of stress. Once again, I never asserted that stress stands as a reason not to work towards that greatness, but am implying that the levels of stress that WGM/GMs or WIM/IMs are exposed to will be damaging to their health and could also pose as a barrier to success.
“It would be really sad if one committed so much time and energy to Chess and didn't appreciate it.”
I am not so sure what my opponent is implying here, but nevertheless, I am will make a response. The fact he mentions that someone may end up not appreciating it is double-sided in this debate. If someone does not like chess, it they will not end up appreciating the game, but if they don’t appreciate the game, they have close to no potential in becoming a chess player.
I need to repeat that we are arguing that we are focussing on whether a chess coach must be focus on making a chess player out of his/her student or teaching/helping their student appreciate the game.
“for a coach not to equip their pupil with the necessary tools to excel at this challenge is for the coach to fail their student.”
Most chess students do not end up becoming chess players. Does this mean most chess coaches have failed close to every single student that they have had? If a chess student has grown to love the game after being taught by a good chess coach, and loves looking over brilliantly played-out chess games, does this really mean that the coach has failed their student? I think not.
Competitive chess is not suited for everyone
GM-levelled play doesn’t come to everyone. As shown from three of the best players ever, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Judit Polgar, their IQ is catergorised within the genius ranged . Although some may comment that the IQ test is not a reliable way to measure a person’s intelligence level, it is a good outline that some people are highly advantaged compared to others, whilst most people are likely to not achieve such abilities to become a chess player. Therefore, it much more beneficial to simply teach their student to appreciate the game, a part that almost anyone is capable of doing.
First; to refute an argument by referring to a single line of the argument and concluding that the claim is false is a fallacy known as 'cherry-picking'. This can be a dishonest tactic, but is not always malicious in nature; if I can show that my opponent's selective citation and refutation is a cherry picking fallacy then these arguments must be discounted and made voting issues for the Con.
Second; My opponent's first source is an answered question from Ask.com and her second source is a forum. Neither of these sources are authoritative academic sources and shouldn't be considered sound empirical evidence.
I will not refute my opponent's arguments going directly down the flow.
First: My opponent cites my major premise for negation, that "simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have."
This was not an argument unto itself, but was a thesis of negation that I stand behind. The reason chess players and aspiring chess players sacrifice everything they do in order to become Chess players is that they deeply care about the game. To attempt to sway them from this goal due to fear of potential harms is abhorid; it makes the awful assumption that a person is incapable of of accomplishing the goal of becoming a chess player.
One does not achieve greatness lest they make sacrifices; and thinking negatively does nothing to assist that goal. When a coach doesn't teach their student with the belief that they are able to become a chess player, they fail them. According to the Mayo Clinic, basic positive thinking can do world of good for a person, and this is especially true in regards to something like becoming a Chess Player.
As for the Garry Kasparov argument my opponent Expressly cites Kasparov as an example of one who feels stressed; do not let them back out of this example.
Next: My opponent cites my criticism of her reference to Pogonina's article-
a quick review of the prior round will show that Pro does indeed suggest that losing a game while being a chess player could bring about intense levels of psychological distress. Given this claim was made after being filtered through three different sources, my prior attack should be accepted. This implication of irreparable psychological damage can be reasonable assumed based on my opponent's provision and analysis of the Garry Kasparov documentary.
Furthermore to suggest that IMB had truly utilized human intervention in their chess machine against Garry Kasparov is not only an attack against the legitimacy of Deep Blue in the first place, but it is unfounded and only reassures my prior claim that Kasparov's downfall came as the result of pride. Kasparov couldn't handle the idea that a machine could have matched his ability to play Chess, much less beat him.
If IBM had intended to cheat with the use of human intervention, then they would have done so during one the first two games Kasparov played against Deep Blue as well.
At this point I would like to introduce a concept known as an 'ad hoc rescue'. This a fallacy which occurs when one redesigns an argument once faced with opposition instead of directly refuting the argument. My opponent has claimed several times throughout this debate that I did not understand her arguments or that her arguments meant to covey a point other than how I interpreted them. This is the case with the high blood pressure argument specifically; Pro claims that she meant the high blood pressure example only as point of reference and stresses the phrase 'prone to' in her refutation.
If one has a violent personality, they are going to be violent no matter how committed or concerned they are about a given activity. This is the very reason that many psychologist and counselors will tell those in abusive relationships not to return to their partner even if the partner promises that they will reform their actions and not act in such a manner. Teaching a person to simply appreciate the game instead of honing them to be a competitive Chess player will not curb these violent tendencies if the person is already prone to violence.
To call my argument here unreasonable is to reject it without fully addressing it.
Next: Concerning my opponent's attack on my refutation of her second argument,
as I've shown in the prior round, hiring a Chess Coach is not a cheap endeavor , so if one chooses to hire a coach it is highly likely that they already appreciate the game. They care about the activity and they want to improve, to pay a coach that much money for them to only teach the student something they already know is abhorred and is not preferable to a coach grooming a student to be a Chess Player.
Furthermore it must be expressly noted that my opponent drops my analysis that competition is an art as well as Chess. This argument is a perfect example of my opponent cherry-picking her refutations; she takes a transitory line of analysis and makes it the make point of the refutation all the while dropping the argument of competition.
Next: Coach's Responsibility-
Furthermore, simply because a coach trains their students with the intention of them becoming Chess Players does not mean that they must become Chess Players. In the same way a Statistics professor would teach her students statistics in such a way as to prepare them high level math courses, the students are not obligated to takes these higher level math classes.
They will likely appreciate the math they learned in that class much more as the result of having been taught in such a way, but still they are not obligated to take high level classes. In the same way a Chess coach should train his students with the intention of them becoming Chess Players whether they do or do not become Chess Players.
We've already established that for some-one to employ a coach they must already care about and appreciate the game, so then if the coach does not provide the student with anything new he has failed his students.
Next: Competitive Chess is not suited for everyone-
From my opponent's sixth source in her second round
"In 1927, three Russian psychologists (Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik) studied eight of the best grandmasters of the time. The players included Emanuel Lasker, Richard Reti, Savielly Tartakower, Carlos Torre, Peter Romanovsky, Ernst Gurenfeld, and Rudolf Spielmann. They did not find any differences with a control sample on general intelligence or visuo-spatial memory, with the exception of memory tasks where the material to be recalled was closely related to chess.
After a century of investigation, not a single study with adult chess players has managed to establish a link between chess skill and intelligence. Intellect had little predictive power among strong chess players."
Despite what my opponent argues here, the precedent of her evidence concludes that anyone can become a great Chess Player if they dedicate enough time and energy to it.
Back to you Famer!
The biggest thing is that a chess coach has a responsibility for how a student treats chess within their lives for their future. They must understand that IF their student becomes a chess player, everything that they must face. A good coach will do what they should (What would be more beneficial etc.) do for their student.
They will understand that if their student became a chess player, they will:
- Have a standard income at GM-levelled playing ability (Takes approx. 10,000 hours of chess study  to achieve such playing ability)
- Be forced to deal with psychological distress from their losses
- Earn their income based on how well they perform in tournaments, where simply one mistake could take away a large portion of what they could have earned.
On the other hand, if their student simply appreciated the game:
- They have much more varieties in life as they have not bonded their life to the game. This could include achieving a job that they equally enjoy with a much better salary. People who are diligent enough to study 10,000 hours to acheive something are capable of attaining better paying jobs than becoming Grand-master chess players.
- Take breaks from playing if they suffer a loss from a fun tournament.
- Still love the game as much as a chess player, without being obliged to deal with high levels of stress.
“To attempt to sway them from this goal due to fear of potential harms is abhorid; it makes the awful assumption that a person is incapable of of accomplishing the goal of becoming a chess player.” (Correct spelling: Abhorred)
Simply by not aiming to produce a chess player out of your student does not mean you are making an awful assumption that a person is incapable of becoming a chess player. To quote myself, and to ask CON along with the readers/voters:
“If a chess student has grown to love the game after being taught by a good chess coach, and loves looking over brilliantly played-out chess games, does this really mean that the coach has failed their student?”
I’d like to point out that at this point whether or not I have used the two fallacies “ad hoc rescue” and “cherry picking” is not directly related to the debate and could be considered as a “straw man” tactic. Whether not I have used these two fallacies, it is important to note that my refutations were there to serve as a form of defence and clarification towards my arguments.
Either way, in response to the “cherry picking” claim, my opponent has still not proved my argument wrong or doubtful, but simply went about saying I used forum-based sources. I will provide other sources to back up my point that GM chess players only reasonable salaries . Source two, an article written by IM Silman says “the competition for the little money that’s out there is intense.” Note that his article (ignoring the part talking about the French Def.) is only relevant to talking about GMs and how most will resolve to writing and teaching.
Another article  this time from WGM Natalia Pogonina says that GM’s would generally make between $50-$70k per year. However, we must note that the article talks about teaching, writing and other money-making techniques that are not relevant to this debate. I’d assume there is no more “cherry picking” from here.
Either way, CON has failed to prove one of my major argument to be wrong, but only resulted to accusing my sources over the argument presented. Instead of attacking my arguments, he had attacked my sources.
Garry Kasparov vs. Deep Blue
The biggest problem is that Garry Kasparov’s suspicions for the cases of human intervention were too evident that he had lost hope completely. And, it is common sense of the Deep Blue team to deny any sense of cheating as it would result in a loss of their pride, their reputation and all of the time and money that they have put. Here are some reasons as outlined by the documentary of their cheating:
- At one point, the computer took 15 minutes to make one move (it’s actually able to analyse 200 million moves per minute  I apologise for the mistake made in the previous round. Does that mean it really made 180 billion analyses for one move?)
- Apparently the computer missed a simple draw by repetition tactic. Again, 200 million moves analyses per minute, I’d regard this to be impossible and only a human is capable of making that type of error.
- Apparently the engine had an error, during the middle of the second match. A machine that has been developed for many years suddenly has an error during the middle of a match? Now that’s a bit fishy…
- The documentary clearly states that he won the first game easily, and got completely crushed in the second game. Is it really that possible to improve the machine that much in one night? Garry would not have been psychologically affected from a win, as it was rather usual for him to attain victory. Garry’s team were wondering why it was “so easy” to beat the machine once again, after an entire year.
It is also important to understand that my opponent’s only argument to hold his stand is something along the lines of “a chess player loves the game and therefore must sacrifice everything they have for it”. As this is the final round, no more arguments are permitted in this round, and if they are presented, it should be ignored and should result in a loss of conduct point.
A chess coach also has a big influence over what their student become in the future. A good chess coach will do what they would consider to be more beneficial towards the student as well as consider the outcomes of their actions. A simple-minded chess coach will just train their student to become the best chess player possible. A smarter chess coach will realise that creating a grandmaster chess player, they will generally be following the 10 000 hour rule before they have achieved that level. It is common sense that anyone who has that much diligence should use it for other purposes which are more beneficial on a long-term scale, such as attaining a well-payed job e.g. doctor or lawyer etc.
Note that the resolution never mentioned which path the student wishes to take, so the bias from the students’ wishes are non-existent and must be solely based upon the coach’s judgements.
So now, if you as a reader believe that a chess coach should train their students to become a chess player, where they will be forced to deal with huge amounts of distress and depending their income on their performance in chess tournaments, losing huge amounts of money from mistakes they make in their critical games, vote for CON.
On the other hand, if you as a reader, believe a chess coach should teach their student to simply appreciate the game, where they have much more paths in their lives, take the opportunity to have a higher-salary job, not that much stress in lives that could be damaging to their health, observe the beauty of well-played chess games etc. it is clear that you should vote for PRO.
The resolution remains affirmed.
My opponent admits to committing the fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue, or at the least she does not deny committing such a fallacy. This is a huge voting issue as fallacies are not legitimate arguments, so at the point that an argument is shown to be a fallacy an opponent of that argument is under no burden to refute the argument. The fact that it is a fallacy illegitimatizes the argument at a basic level; consider the following logical syllogism as an example
Person A: Grass dies. Men also die. Therefore men are grass.
Person B: My opponent's argument is a fallacy, as the major premise and minor premise do not support the conclusion.
Person A: So you don't deny that men are grass?
Person B: I don't need to refute the argument because it's a flawed argument.
This is fundamentally the same for the arguments my opponent provides; because they are fallacies I don't have to refute them. They refute themselves.
Here's where some analysis on the cherry-picking comes in; my opponent fails to provide any manner of compelling sources for her income argument until the last round. Instead in the rounds where clash is available to happen she cites forums and the such for these numbers; this is illegitimate as these speeches were reserved by opponent to be rebuttal speeches. At the point an argument gains a different warrant than was originally advocated, it is a new argument. Not to mention a perfect example of ad hoc rescue, instead defending the logic and warrants employed in prior rounds my opponent ditches them in favor of new warrants.
Now I am under no burden to answer these new arguments, but a simple answer (I'm talking about the income of chess players here) is that 50,000 is a decent income.
Third; More Cherry-Picking
Now the basic assertion to my opponent cherry-picking fallacy was not in her sources, but in her refutations of my arguments. I argue that in refuting my own arguments my opponent fails to address my arguments in their given context, but instead cherry-picks certain lines that she can easily defend.
This goes unanswered, and so we see that my opponent's refutations must be rejected
So what do these three things mean?
It means that my opponent has no arguments in her favor to warrant a vote for the Pro.
When Pro commits the cherry-picking fallacy and fails to defend herself, all attacks on the Con must be dropped. If the attacks are fallacies and do not refute my arguments in their given context, then they are not legitimate refutations.
When Pro commits the Ad Hoc rescue fallacy and fails to defend herself, she drops her prior arguments and their warrants in favor of new arguments and new warrants.
So then there is nothing on the flow which would warrant a vote for the Pro.
Fourth; the art of competition is not addressed
In round two I show that while the game of chess in and of itself is an art competition is an art as well; this argument is never answered an it was perhaps the biggest argument of the Con. Except perhaps indirectly from her competitive chess argument which she outright drops in the final round.
So in summary the argument for competition is as follows-
We both agree that the student will appreciate the game of chess; so either way we get the benefit of the art of the game of chess. When a chess coach teaches their students to become chess players, they also gain the benefit of learning the art of competition; this is not the case when a coach teaches his student only to appreciate the game.
So when a coach fails to teach their student to become a chess player he fails his students as they do not come to appreciate the art of competition.
Fifth; Chess Coaches are expensive; they should the bill
I show this in my round two, but Pro fails to respond to the argument (unless by inference of her income argument, which I'll cover in a moment). Instead Pro claims that the coaches do not fail their student if they teach them to appreciate the game; the problem with this refutation is that they students already appreciate the game.
As I've said prior, for a student to shell out the necessary cash to pay for a Chess coach they're going to have to appreciate the game. So for them to spend this much money solely for the coach to teach them something they already know is for the coach to fail the student; as a parallel, if an man were to hire a personal trainer to help them get in better shape, but the personal trainer instead taught the man to appreciate a healthy lifestyle, then the personal trainer would have failed the man as he already appreciates a healthy life style. If he did not he wouldn't have hired the personal trainer in the first place.
Keep this analogy in mind as I will employ it again in a moment
Before that, in the case that the income argument was meant as a refutation to the expense of hiring a chess coach, you need to reject it for the following reasons;
First; A Chess Player-Chess Coach's income doesn't negate that s/he cost a lot of money
Secondl It is my opponent's responsibility to make a connection here. It is not the job of the judges to make the link by inference of their own merit.
Third; I show that 50,000 to 70,000 dollars a year is a decent amount of money (which my opponent is unfortunately unable to respond to since she failed to make this argument until round 4)
Finally; Teaching a student a certain way doesn't mean they'll turn out a certain way
I spoke on this argument in round three; just because a chess coach teaches their students to become a chess player does not mean that the student will become a chess player. When I took statistics last semester my professor taught the class as thought I were planning to pursue a career where statistics would be utilized. This was a huge benefit to me as I learned the material on more than a topical level and I am able to use that knowledge in other areas of my life -- as for my career, I don't plan on attaining any career which would require the regular use of statistics; I plan to be a debate coach instead.
Once more employing the example of a man and his personal trainer; for the personal trainer to train the man in such a way as to become an athlete doesn't obligate the man to become an athlete. He already appreciates his health which is why he hired the coach in the first place, but with the coach training him to perform at a level beyond his desires he gains further benefit aside from the appreciate of his health.
The same is true with Chess. The student who hires the coach already appreciates the game; but they lack sophisticated skills. These are skills they want to learn and for the coach to deprive them of these skills is for him to fail his student.
He provides these skills by training his students to become Chess Players, regardless of their actual intention to become a chess player.
I thank my opponent once again for a good debate, and I urge a vote for the Con!
Accordingly: Vote Con!
-- -- -- -- --
Also I apologize for my misspelling in the prior round and hope that it did not confuse anyone too much.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|