The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Chess is a sport

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,335 times Debate No: 58468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)




Core Statement | Chess is a sport and not only a game.

1st Round: Acceptance / something you might want to add before we start
2nd Round: Arguments only
3rd Round: Rebuttals / Optional more Arguments
4th Round: Last rebuttals / No additional argument

Some side notes | Like traditional ball-sports there is of course a context in which chess is merely a game. Three 8y-old boys in a backyard are for example perusing football as game and not as a sport.
But in a competitive environment chess is as much a sport as such as football, rugby or swimming.

Let's go!


Since you didnt put out the Definition for sport i will: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

I would also like us to look at Chris Crawford's definition for a game throughout this round:

if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.
Debate Round No. 1


Note | Thanks for your patience. I am looking forward to debating and I wish my opponent good luck. This is the first time I'll use the style of premise(s) and conclusion and I am really excited to see if I can handle it.

Argumentation Structure | I'm very pleased with the definitions my opponent provided for me, as I hesitated to bring them myself in the light that the definition is rather central for this debate and it felt like providing myself an advantage by providing the definition myself. I did not expect that there would be an equal focus on whether chess is a game but I am also willing to deal with that aspect, as my opponent wishes.

Basic Fulfilment of the Definition

Premise 1 - physical exertion includes the biological entity of the human body
Premise 2 - mental exertion is physical exertion
Premise 3 - chess causes physical symptoms
Conclusion - chess is an activity that leads to physical exertion

Additional Thought - Chess as a game

Basic Fulfilment of the Definition | Chess already fulfills most of the definition for sports without doubt.
- it's an activity
- it requires skill as it is trainable
- teams and individuals can compete against each other
- it's for (some people's) entertainment and pleasure

But chess fulfills also the last part of the definition as chess, against common believe, does include physical exertion, as will be shown in the following:

Premise 1 - physical exertion includes the biological entity of the human body | Physical exertion does not only include muscles. A broken arm is a physical damage that has nothing to do with muscles. Many forms of Headaches, even when caused by stress, can be treated with medicine and "pain killers" which cause actual chemical reactions to happen in the human body. Aspirin, or acetylsalicylic acid, is an actual chemical ammonium acetate solution that cause actual reactions in the human body, as it is also used to treat non-mental-related pain issues such as cramps [1].

Premise 2 - mental exertion is a physical exertion | The human brain and brain chemistry are biological units within the human body, therefore any exhaustion caused by the human brain can be seen as part of physical exertion. "Mental" exertion is therefore wrongly fully separated from any physical exhaustion, as thinking is not a mystical but a biological process (or better a series of processes) in the human brain.

Premise 3 - chess causes physical symptoms | To quote Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist, on chess:

"You have two humans, and they are taking part in some human ritual. They are sitting there silently at a table. They make no eye contact; they’re still, except every now and then one of them does nothing more taxing than lifting an arm and pushing a little piece of wood. And if it’s the right wood and the right chess grand masters in the middle of a tournament, they are going through 6,000 to 7,000 calories a day thinking, turning on a massive physiological stress response [...]" [2]

For anyone who doesn't usually read the backside or just consumes food that does not have nutrition facts printed on, 6,000 calories are about three times as much, as an average human usually burns during a day (without exercise and with average thinking-behaviour).
Chess therefore results in a increased energy use within the body (which is already a physical symptom) but can also trigger stress reactions such as ringing in the ears, rapid heartbeat and tense muscles [3]. These are symptoms that are equally encountered by other athletes such as football players.

Conclusion | As the activity of increased thinking during a chess game is physically exhausting, due to increases chemical process in the brain, chess can be regarded as physically exhausting therefore the activity of chess includes physical exertion. Which means chess fulfills fully the given definition for sports.

Additional Thought - Chess as a game | Sports and Games are not separate things. As shown, is chess a sport. And it also a game as the act of "attacking" the opponents pieces is a clear act of attacking with the aim to hinder the opponents performance.
With traditional ball sports, such as football or volleyball, chess shares the characteristic of being a game (by allowing attacks) and a sport (by being a physically exhausting skill based competition).

Yet people have different reasons for engaging in the activity. Children's focus for playing football usually lies not in the mere skill performance but in the pleasure that they gain during the game. Adults meanwhile do also play to show off their body control and fitness. But whether we call the activity "playing a game [of chess]" or "doing sports" is not relevant as long as both phrases are correct, which is, in terms of chess, correct.

Sources |


Premise 1 - Flawed Logic
Premise 2 - RE: Flawed Logic
Premise 3 - Misguided Logic
Conclusion - Chess has no physical exertion and thus qualifies as a game and not a sport

Chess does fufil the following, you are correct:
- it's an activity
- it requires skill as it is trainable
- teams and individuals can compete against each other
- it's for (some people's) entertainment and pleasure

However the following also define a game and since chess takes no physical exertion as i will show below it is infact only a game and not a sport:

Premise 1 - physical exertion is derrived from physical movement not a biological entity:
Your logic to show physical exertion includes biological enities of the human body is flawed, while your right muscles are not injured in the breaking of a bone it is still hindering the movement of muscle and physical exertion that you can place on it. it is not the same as a headache at all. I also find your login behind pain killers flawed as well, Pain killers can treat and numb gums too and no physical exertion is ever caused by ones gums. Under your logic sitting is a sport because individuals can see them selfs fitting it into the same guidelines and because their gums can be numbed they are paticipating in a sport.

Premise 2 - Flawed Logic
I find this point flawed as well, under your logic speaking aloud is a sport. you are causing exaustion and can even feel pain from speaking however this is not a sport either. Almost any activity in existance will cause exaustion, heck even living causes exasustion, we must sleep because we are constantly burning calories, but living isnt a sport either.

Premise 3 - standing causes physical symptoms
standing for long periods of time burns calories as well, BBC reported: "There was also evidence, from the heart rate monitors that they were wearing, that by standing they were burning more calories." [1] But guess what this also isnt a sport. the logic used in this point also supports the idea of stressful environments making an activity or game a sport. If im stressed from work ill be just as stressed as someone planning thier next move because my job keeps me fed and my family alive, but my job is not a sport.

Bonus Observation:
Look, chess is a game, it requires skill, time, effort, practice, but like E-gaming it isnt a sport. Its a game, it doesnt matter how competitive it is, its a game. Chess isnt even a competition because you can interfere with your opponent.

Because my opponent is affirming they hold the BOP, and since they have yet to provide us with sound logic explaining why it takes physical exertion to preform, thus it is a game and not a sport.

Debate Round No. 2


Recap | My opponent conceded, that the only part of the definition given by him (Con - Round 1), that he regards as not fulfilled, is the physical exertion and exhaustion caused during a game of chess.

He states the following arguments:
- physical exertion derives from physical movement not a biological entity.
- just causing exhaustion does not qualify a sport
- stress has no part in the exhaustion during sport (A/N this is freely paraphrased as Con did not actually name his premise here, he leaves me with the guess - I hope Con can clarify this point further if I am severely mistaken)

Con already made two mistakes during the second round:

1st He started with rebuttals, although the 2nd round, according to the rules to which he agreed by taking the challenge, was solely for arguments. This is a technical fault. If Con did not agree with the outline of the debate, we should have solved that issue before posting his answer.
In fact, all that Con has given so far are rebuttals therefore he does not actually have proper own premises, that's why in the following I'll refere to Cons arguments as "premises" in doubtful quotation marks, as they are all mere rebuttals.

2nd He critiques the definition, which was introduced by himself or overlooks the necessity of a full-applying Definition to qualify a sport -see Rebuttal for further explanation of this point

Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 1 | physical exertion does not only derive from physical movement [and Con can not pre-limit the definition further to his own advantage, without explaining why this is crucial to qualify a sport]

In Round 2 have I already shown that the brain is part of the human body, therefore part of his physiology. Exhaustion of the brain and because of the brain can therefore be seen as physical exhaustion, therefore only be caused by physical exertion. That we can't see synapses proceed an increased amount of electrical impulses does not mean the brain isn't doing something.

Limiting the definition to being a heavy movement-based activity is incorrect as the definition provided by Con does not imply it. This means he either critiques that his definition is not enough to qualify a sport or he adds another limitation without properly explaining, why this limitation is necessary.
Other sports that include little actual movement by the athlete but still are usually considered sports are race-driving or shooting. Both require more movement than chess but still significantly less than running or swimming.

Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 2 | Just being exhausting/ burning calories is not enough to qualify a sport; standing is not a sport - yet is this not enough to disqualify chess as a sport.

This is where Con right, by being totally wrong in the conclusion. Something that is physically exhausting is not automatically a sport. Yet something that is physically exhausting can be a sport. The crucial point is, that all the other parts of the definition need to be fulfilled as well. As Con already agreed that these are fulfilled by chess (-see Recap -see Con Round 2) the resolution that chess requires physical exertion is enough to fully fulfill my BOP.

Running for example is widely considered a highly exhausting activity which is, under the right circumstances considered a sport. These "right circumstances" are given, when all other parts of the definition are fulfilled. Running from home to the bus station for example is not a sport as the intention is not to entertain but to catch a ride.

Counter Rebuttal "Con-Premise" 3 | Stress is part of sports.

That stress has no part in sports and sport-related exhaustion is obviously wrong. Many athletes report nervousness before a big match or competition. The adrenaline that the body produces during emotional and psychological stress directly leads to physical stress. It allows the athletes to perform even better than during mere training and there is no evidence whatsoever that competition-induced stress from Runners is biologically different than the competition-stress experienced by chess players. Adrenaline is adrenaline.
Why it's produced is so far neither crucial to fulfill the definition nor of any difference for the physiology that has to cope with it.

Counter Rebuttal "Additional Observation" | ad hominem/ Competition factor is not given

The last observation given by Con that is (probably?!) a rebuttal to my explanation how chess can be a game and a sport. It starts with a lot sugar coating/ empty ad hominem addressing that uncomfortably makes me want to remind my opponent, that I am a fully grown woman and not a stubborn little girl ;D

The last sentence yet has an actual argument in it, by saying that chess is no competition. This is weak for the following reasons:
- The given definition for competition and game does not imply that being a game or a competition is in any form relevant to evaluate whether it is a sport.
- All ball-sports are game-based. Yet they are commonly considered sports
- In a chess tournament not all players always play all players. They are therefore allowed to attack in a certain game, the overall tournament yet is a competition, as they can't attack other players while they play against each other.
- I am also confused by the statement that it "does not matter how competitive it is" when it's a game and not a competition. That might be poor use of words but a competitive situation that is no competition? I am not a native-English, but that sounds wrong to my ears.

If Con wishes to include the definition of competition and game into this debate (as he introduced them) he should first be able to explain me and the readers why this is actually relevant.

Additional Argument | Chess has physical movement in it; shifted focus is valid.

Chess has physical movement. The act of lifting your arm and pushing a piece from one end of the board to another is visually recognisable movement. Currently chess is not a common sport for Jedis.
Shooting, like during biathlon, has similar characteristics by being rather still and minimalistic in it's movement, having the focus on mental precision. The thinking and strategic performance is more important for success than the exhaustion-ratio of the movement (brain performance > movement). The required hand-eye-coordination is something that is brain-based not muscle based.

Sprint | movement > strategy/ coordination
Marathon | movement = strategy
Boxing | movement = strategy
Shooting | movement < strategy/ mental performance

The fact that chess is on the lower end of the physical-movement-to-strategic-performance-relation does not automatically exclude it from being a sport and has no clear relevance for the initially given definition.

I only present this argument as, so far, Con denies chess any form of physical movement, or better, all his arguments base on the assumption that there is no physical movement at all. Although I feel personally comfortable that chess is even a sport, if the players do not have to move the pieces themselves, this scenario is hypothetical and in reality there (usually) is physical movement. There is no need for me to make my case more difficult than it already is, by conceding to assumptions that are not generally true.

Conclusion | Definition and further limitations

I have shown that chess fulfills Cons Round 1 definition, which I indirectly agreed to by not protesting. I don't see how Con can justify to add further limitations to my BOP if he fails to properly outline why his own core factors are not enough. I see it the following way:

Con either needs to show
- why only physical movement can be physical exertion (and probably also, why minimal movement is no physical movement at all)
OR - why his own requirements given in Round one are not longer enough, therefore why he was wrong.


RE:Recap: I would like to start with an apology when I read arguments only I assumed you didn't want me defining things as done in round one, remember that a rebuttal is in fact a directed argument, but to be honest what arguments do you make against the general statement "Chess isn't a sport" if your opponent has already addressed them because this debate is centering around the definition I provided. So I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

My opponent as done by many is grasping at straws:
-gives two "Mistakes" that are not followed up (so you can ignore these comment entirely)
-she agreed to a definition and then decided to argue it in her "Con-Premise" (very punny)
-she attempts to show flaw with my interpretation of her logic by stating standing isn't physically exhausting, let me tell you 3 hrs of standing hurts.
-she disregards herself when she speaks about how stress reactions legitimize chess being a sport.
-she tries to pass me the BOP when it is not negs responsibility to prove anything only to simply disprove pros arguments thus causing pro to fail at filling the BOP

Rebuttal to Con-Premise 1| Physical Exertion is derived from physical movement and I can argue this. its illogical and abusive to try to force me to accept this as a fact and deny me the ability to argue it.

I would also like to point out that in round two while the brain is part of the human body no physical exertion or physical movement is taking place. Remember there is a difference between mental exertion and physical exertion. Thus this point flows to me.

My opponent then addresses the definition, movement is not heavy-based activity, my argument is simply that there is no physical exertion caused by chess. she then attempts to skew the definition HOWEVER the definition still holds because she provides no counter to mine.

Rebuttal to Con-Premise 2|My opponent clearly misunderstands what physical exertion is, she in round 2 argued with evidence that you are burning calories thus chess is a sport. HOWEVER standing burns calories and it is physically doing so, I'm not arguing standing is a sport but instead that under her logic it would be. REMEBER physically exhausting is not in the definition I provided physical exertion is, she is not showing how physical exertion is being applied to chess thus chess is not a sport.

Rebuttal to Con-Premise 3| here is where my opponent steps up her confusion, apparently the signs of stress being shown in chess prove its a sport in round 2 but in round 3 they no longer do, my opponent is setting up a double standard that doesn't make sense.

Rebuttal to "Additional Observation"| I find it rude that my opponent thinks stating " I am a fully grown woman and not a stubborn little girl " would gain her any ground. my opponent has already agreed to my Chris Crawford card by omission to evidence. so where I'm showing chess qualifies as a game and not a competition is just, notice again she provides no counter evidence. second she again tries to move the BOP onto me to show why the definition for sports applies to sports. lets just use some sound logic, we are talking about sports, this defines sports, THUS it applies to sports. Again she has yet to actually show how chess is a sport in this other than by restating some sports that are games, however if she hasn't shown chess has actual physical exertion then it doesn't matter what sports she tries to apply, she hasn't met the BOP.

Rebuttal to "Additional Argument" | Chess doesn't require physical movement, people play chess by calling out piece to position then the piece is moved without them moving. And I would still argue simply lifting an arm is not physical effort because it does not require ample effort, remember that this logic and mindset would allow standing to fall under the definition of sport. My opponent then CONCEDES that chess can be played without any movement whatsoever by stating "there (usually) is physical movement." notice how usually is there, that's not an accident. in chess low-level tourneys allow the movement of pieces however many competitors at higher tourneys have physical disabilities, thus calling allows them still to play.

My Own Additional Argument | My opponent has not throughout this entire debate shown how my definition is wrong nor provided us with another so we must stick to my definition. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. She has not shown how physical exertion is exercised at all in chess, lets just define this real quick.

Exertion: physical or mental effort.

Effort: a serious attempt to do something.

the definition calls for PHYSICAL EXERTION, while chess may require mental exertion it does not require physical exertion and my opponent hasn't show any physical exertion, a serious attempt to do something physically, at all.

My opponent has not adequately provided the BOP by giving any example of a serious attempt to do something physically.

my opponent has constantly tried to hand me a Burdon of proof, but I wont accept it, its the affirmations job to show proof they are correct and not the negatives.

thus we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation.
Debate Round No. 3


Small Rebuttals | Side-Issues and Misunderstandings
- It's not like there is no way Con could have built up an own case and it's just a pity because the rule was there to ensure us both an equal amount of rebuttals. Especially as he sees the BOP solely on my side he should see that his actions were bit poor sportsmanship, as I actually have a disadvantage by him disobeying the stated rules. I wouldn't mind it would't matter.

- I am not trying to pass the BOP, I am explaining where I regard mine as fulfilled and where Con created points in his argumentation that he needs to prove or resolve. I've not introduced a link between being a game and being a sport and can't accept a BOP based on something I have not claimed.

Such as that only physical movement is physical exertion - another claim that is not mine. And it's not obviously what you can read out of the definition, as far as I can see. So if Con claims that this as a proper counter argument than he needs to explain it, if he doesn't, my arguments stand.

The intention here is not to pass a BOP but to show where Con's arguments are unable to disprove mine. Not-holding most of the BOP does not mean any half-baked counter is already a good one. I have the same right to ask why a claim is relevant or valid if it isn't properly or understandably explained from my perspective. There is nothing punny about it. I am proofing it the way I can assume Con is demanding it to be proven (as he gave me a definition he must have considered valid) and relying on a definition that I personally would have used as well - I am an oxford dictionary fan.

- Being offended by the choice of words is a purely subjective feeling that came from the continued habit of using phrases like " look, there", "REMBEMBER" or "let's use some logic." (as if I weren't using any logic or needed a capitalized reminder) - How does Con think that these phrases are going to win him any ground? That's not my level and I am pretty sure that's not Cons. Having a strong opinion doesn't mean we can't talk freely on an equal level; there is no need to rhetorically attack one's statements, if we can attack them logically.

- Contrary to Con's statement that I provided no counter to his claim that chess is a game and not a competition, I actually addressed that point in Round 3. I explained that chess as a one-to-one is a game and chess in a tournament is a game within a competition. And also, that there are other games that are sports as well. And all that still does not mean that chess is not a sport because, so far Con has not explained why either resolution would be relevant for debate's resolution.

Big Rebuttal |
Core Statements

It's the forth round, it's getting messy and repetitive so I am dealing with the following of Con's Core arguments taking the risk that I might miss something in the attempt to avoid repetition. uwah.

Counterrebuttal to | Mental and Physical exertion are absolutely to separate

Well, isn't that the problem of the debate? The believe that your mind and thinking is not a biological feature of you is outdated. Our thoughts are not magic, they rely on electrical impulses and chemical reactions. Every action you purposely do is coordinated by your brain and purposely and strategically moving your hand to push a Bishop is in it's essence created the same way as strategically moving your feet to kick a ball. We need the sensory areas, occipital and parietal lobes [4] [5] to see and interpret and the the frontal lobes to make a decision about the next move.

So if your brain is showing increased action during chess [5] than this is, as the brain is physical feature of you, physical exertion. And stress symptoms like headaches are symptoms you can experience afterwards just as muscle pain.

Counterrebuttal to | Exertion is not Exhaustion

Continuing the previous Argument are signs of exhaustion such as heavy breathing or muscle pain often caused by exertion. If your body is healthy than exertion leads to exhaustion. Whether you notice this active or the exhaustion is so small you don't is not the point. Exhaustion is not caused by nothing, it's the end of the line.
Activity > exertion > use of physical resources such as energy for muscles or brain activity > exhaustion > symptoms of exhaustion.
Ergo signs of exhaustions can be reasonably seen as an indicator for exertion.

Counterrebuttal to
| Standing would be sport according to my logic
I've never said that standing is not physically exhausting (is it my writing that encourages people to misquote me or is that a technique I don't know about?). However: I have indeed pointed out that just being physically exhausting is not enough to qualify as a sport.

I've also no idea what Counterarguments 2 and 3 my opponent has read in round 3:
"signs of stress being shown in chess prove its a sport in round 2 but in round 3 they no longer do"

Physical exertion is already fulfilling one part of the definition. But only given all the other parts are fulfilled does it qualify a sport. Something that is only stress inducing is not automatically a sport but something that (as chess) already fulfills the rest of the definition can be declared a sport if it involves stress for the participants.

The logic here: It's C when A and B are given. If only B is given, it's not C. If only A is given, it's not C.

- it's an activity

- it does not actually require skill but it's trainable therefore this point might be given
- teams and individuals may under some odd circumstances compete against each other
- it requires physical exertion

BUT it's NOT generally for entertainment but a mere necessity of daily life

A competition where people are standing in front of each other for hours till one drops would be rather boring but assuming you find the audience for it, it may be regarded as a sport. Yet, the day-to-day action of standing is not a sport, as it lacks the entertainment factor. It's therefore controversial for other reasons than chess and the acceptance of stress as an indicator for physical exertion will not flood our daily life with ridiculous amounts of new sports.

Final Words |
The good old last part
Con so far didn't address (as far as I see it!)

- Why it's even relevant for the resolution "chess is a sport" whether chess is a game or a competition;
while I have shown why I don't see a relevance (-see Counter Rebuttal "Additional Observation" Round 3)

- That increased bio-chemical brain reactions are something physiological therefore increased bio-chemical brain reactions are physical exertion.

- That stress is neither only mental nor only physical and that the adrenaline that is important for many classical athletes is the same adrenaline that is important for the performance of a chess player, therefore that stress is supporting the theory that chess requires as well physical exertion as classical sports do.

- I claimed that chess is a sport
- Con provided me with a definition for sports
- We agreed that chess fulfills all parts of the definition apart from requiring "physical exertion", while we disagreed whether chess requires physical exertion
ERGO: if chess requires physical exertion it's a sport
- I have given Premises and Rebuttals that show why chess is physically exhausting
- I have shown why physical exhaustion is an indicator for physical exertion
ERGO: I have shown that chess requires physical exertion
CONCLUSION: Chess is a sport

The comment section critiqued a lack of explanation how chess requires "skill". As outlined in the second round: it's trainable. You need to train the strategics and which pieces moves how. Other than a talent can't just a person play chess if he knows neither the rules nor the tricks. That means there is clearly a skill-factor.


Once again that's not how BOP works, if it comes down to it and no points stand i still win because you haven't fulfilled your BOP, my argument have been explained and your responded to them last round without issues, this is simply a poor last ditch effort to get points. She herself has broken her own rules by bringing up new Cards when she clearly calls for this round to be used as a rebuttal only.

I showed evidence and provided logic behind why physical exertion is physical movement and why thinking is mental exertion.

my opponent contradicts herself in her introduction while criticizing how I debate by stating "let's use some logic." (as if I weren't using any logic or needed a capitalized reminder) " then commencing to saying "Having a strong opinion doesn't mean we can't talk freely on an equal level; there is no need to rhetorically attack one's statements, if we can attack them logically." she essentially criticizes me and the says what she criticized me for. I find this conduct unruly and should provide you with reason to move conduct points in my favor.

And lastly my opponent didn't refute my definition until now and through omission of the evidence it still stands.

Response to Mental and Physical exertion are absolutely to separate;
At no point did i claim thoughts were magic i simply stated its not physical exertion, but instead mental. my opponent doesn't refute this and instead stated what we use our brain for. All of which require mental, and not physical, exertion.

Response to Exertion is not Exhaustion ;
Once again because you get tired does not mean you are participating in a sport, and in fact doing nothing does exhaust you, THIS IS WHERE MY OPPONENT IS CONFUSED, she thinks exhaustion causes a sport, STANDING CAUSES EXAUSTION, thus her logic states STANDING IS THUS A SPORT. which we all know is absurd, standing is not a sport and neither is chess because at no point in this argument does my opponent show how chess requires physical exertion.

Response to Standing would be sport according to my logic;
to clairify on stress my opponent in round two states chess "can also trigger stress reactions" im stating just because there are stress reactions doesn't mean there is a sport going on. But real quick im going to address my opponents flawed requirements for a sport; Chess isn't a competition as I have shown and qualifies as a game, however it doesn't meet the requirements to be called a sport (Physical Exertion).


- it's an activity

- it requires skill (Balance)

- teams and individuals may under some odd circumstances compete against each other (i used to work at a bowling alley, I was in these odd circumstances once...)

- it requires physical exertion

-when children first stand parents are entertained

Thus its a sport, but we all know standing isn't a sport, so whats missing here? Standing doesn't require physical exertion, people aren't moving, but it still causes exhaustion.


-my opponent has yet to show any physical exertion that is shown in chess, she didn't argue with the observation of mental exertion rather than physical.

-she hasn't fulfilled her BOP proving the resolution was true.

-she brought up new arguments in the last round

I have addressed every issue my opponent has brought up and she refutes them by simply restating what she said in the first place.

Because my opponent has not fulfilled the BOP we can only see a ballot in favor of the NEG
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
nah its not an issue, I agree with the first vote mostly, the second guy didn't even read it, he only posted info on the first two posts
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
I see. It's certainly on the line, because chemical reactions and the specific parts where they are happening are .. well... it certainly creates a depth that wasn't there before. I don't feel like I violated the rules "obviously" but I see why you think that was a bit out of line. I considered the evidence and point as part of a rebuttal.
I'll certainly restrain myself from using additional evidence (if not demanded specifically) for a round like this to avoid a controversial situation.

But I am positive to say that there no argument specifically to support the direct resolution of the debate ("Chess is a sport"). From that perspective is my strategy certainly fine.

I understand why you think it's context but isn't this sentence implying that something can't be a sport if it's a game:
"Look, chess is a game, it requires skill, time, effort, practice, but like E-gaming it isnt a sport. "
- that's were I am all like "~o~ what?"
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
:p its fine, nothing inelegant about it
- to show context
- premises are different from arguments, an argument supports a claim or contention, so when you bring up new cards I then have to form new arguments against it. you asked we not introduce new arguments, instead only rebut. So bringing up new evidence on the last round is adding new arguments to support you contention.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
I am not sure if I it's elegant to continue this here...
but... I ... can't... prevent... being curious...
- why did you argue that chess is not a competition if it's context and not relevant? and
- why it's a new card? I don't fully understand it. It totally belongs to previously introduced premises.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
its a NEW CARD, thus its a new argument against me that I have to deal with, and the competition vs game was for context.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
How is it a card we haven't had before? it's still on the card saying "brain features are physical features" - and everything in a rebuttal can call for another rebuttal, because it's questioning the previous resolution. But that's probably a different interpretation of what's an argument - should we rest it?

But something that is REALLY interesting and I am HONESTLY (and not just for any tactical debating strategy reason) curious to know: How is being a game and not competition important for something being a sport? I mean soccer/football is a game and sport, isn't it?
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
you realize you called for a rebuttals, the sensory is a new argument and yes bringing up new cards still qualify as arguments supporting a contention.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
The brain features are just a further explanation of how the brain works, but rely on the already introduced claim that the brain is physiological feature and that reactions in the brain are the reason for it being a physical thing. (Should I have pointed out that connection more clearly?)
New evidence is not the same as a new argument, because it's only supporting an argument. A different approach to the same problem (to clarify it's validity) is what a rebuttal is all about, isn't it?

But thanks for your compliment. I am still a bit shocked by your aggressive tone (capitalizing and double-formatting?), and you are not the first one who is attacking me like this in the past few days. Well probably I'm just overly sensitive...
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Good round though, your good at forming arguements
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
you bring up new evidence and bring up how the brain takes in sensory details, those are new arguments/cards I have to rebut.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both used great sources. Great grammar, and good conduct. No Points.......Con gave a definition for 'sport'. Con agreed chess falls under every definition except physical exertion. Con stated exertion is physical movement. Moving chess pieces falls under this category. Great Debate!
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully showed that chess met Con's own definition of sport, by showing how it caused physical exertion, so I award Pro the argument points. Conduct also goes to Pro because Con failed to follow the agreed upon debate format. Con's spotty use of appropriate capitalization gives the spelling and grammar points to Pro as well.