The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Chess is not need in Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 5/29/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 75947
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Chess is needed in the schools. Its more than just a game, it teaches life skills that students can use.
Debate Round No. 1


The Con has said how its more than just a game, and it that it teaches life skills, well I'm here to tell you why that is wrong. Chess is a very strategic game and it can be confusing to some kids, if it is part in the school curriculum then the people that don't get how to play or doesn't want to learn how to play how can you force them? its just a board game and if its part of the curriculum then you can't skip the class because its now a subject, like math or english and you can't skip those.

There are many other board games like chess, checkers, sequence, and even game of life that teaches the same and even more fundamentals then chess. Is every single board game now going to be part of school subjects? why chess. there are others that are more easier, fun and more enjoyable then just chess.

As i chess lover myself i really like playing the game but chess... really? part or the school curriculum? thats like saying playing computer games is now going to be a school subject.

Thats why i think chess should be a game where you play after school if you want to or just at home.


As a person who's worked with with students, they can pick up the game and learn it. Students minds are sponges, so they can learn stuff pretty quickly. Even a 4 year old can learn the game.

There are a bunch of other board games that can teach life, but chess is a game that teaches the most, such as: planning ahead, learning consequences, being respectful, showing good sportsmanship, etc.

Chess also helps with math studies since it deals with algorithms, graphing, and probability.
Debate Round No. 2


What you have said is true but what about the Kids that have disabilities? some kids don't want to play or if they wanted to they would have to gone to chess club but not every student is at chess club.

Students are already learning Math, English. Science, PDHPE, Swimming, Singing, Art, Drama, Languages, Computer skills, Business skills, Typing, Learning to talk, Count, Learning the alphabet and much more in just 5 days 8:30 - 3:00 and not even homework will count for that.

lets face it school has a lot of subjects and its just too much to just add one in even if its just chess


There are kids who have disabilities that will hinder their learning, but they are gonna have trouble learning any subject regardless, and chess can be an extra way of teaching that may help them understand.

I've taught children who's had ADHD, anger management problems, dyslexia, and chess was a game that they learned and use to help them in their studies when not even medicine was working. It took a while for them to grasp the game, but it's so rewarding once they actually did learn the game.

Adding chess is not adding another subject, its more of enhancing what they are already leaning in a different way. Chess opens so many doors that people don't realize, and chess helps open their minds, so they can see these doors that other people may miss.
Debate Round No. 3


Children with special needs do struggle with other subjects as well but Chess will just add more to the problem.
Chess would be part of the school curriculum if it was added AND it would add to those subjects. So what the Con has said is false it would add to the subjects as the Economist John Adams has stated on the ABC news.

Chess is a great game, but why chess? there are many other games that are easier or more fun and sometimes even have more benefits then chess. Adding chess to curriculum is basically random. why not add monopoly? it teaches life skills and about money. Go is a great game as well and many people believe that as well, as when you search up "that Go is better then Chess" there are so many topics about it. Go is a mix between chess and checkers and other games as well. it has risk taking, it broadens the mind and the imagination as well as many more!

And thats why Chess is NOT needed in Schools because there are many other games out there in the world that have the same fundamentals and maybe even more


Well let me go ahead and shut down your arguments:

Your first argument is saying we should not incorporate chess is because it's too hard, and students won't learn it.
-If this is true, then why don't we take out English, and math? Just because a subject is too hard, we need to remove it? If this was the case, we would have no subjects since everyone will have a subject they will struggle in.

Your second argument, is why don't we put a more fun and enjoyable game in the curriculum (monopoly, go, etc..)?
-The reason we shouldn't put a game like monopoly, is because that game favors heavily in luck, by rolling the dice. Chess is all skill, and requires no luck. It takes skill to find the best move to make checkmate, you don't get lucky that you won.
Debate Round No. 4


Let me re-state my arguments

1: i have already said that chess is a board game and not a school subject. People HATE bored games, and yes people dislike Math or english as well but adding chess is a weird idea. Go as i have stated in my 3rd argument, is a great game and has the same fundamentals, Same benefits and more as it has no Luck just problem solving, risk taking and more.

2:Yes, i agree that monopoly is a game of luck but what about the other statement that i have said? that Go is a better game in many different ways.

Now I'm going to talk about your arguments and state why all of them are wrong and then prove to you that Chess is a great game but still should not be added into the school curriculum as there are many other games that have the same benefits and fundamentals, maybe even more.

1: You have first stated that Children's minds are like sponges and that they can pick up the game and learn it even when
they are only 4 years old. studies from the kids growth site has said that children's attention spans are only around 3 - maybe 15 minuets as you are a teacher your self you should know that little kids have a habit of mucking around or not listening. Little kids can't just sit down and learn things especially chess which is very confusing to learn, and as i have stated before there many other games in the world that have the same fundamentals or has the same benefits as chess, including Go or Sequence. Chess Can help with Algorithms and graphing but don't you just learn them in Math? when i wen to school graphing was a fun bit in math and so was Algorithms but adding a whole subjects just to "help" with those are a bit much.

2: Yes that is really great how you are teaching kids that have disabilities chess and i take my hat off to you for that. Chess would be a great game to learn but i think that Chess isn't that important to learn as you should be doing more Math or English then playing board games. Most of your statements all lead up to the fact that there are other board games out there in the world, why chess? what about Go? Sequence? even chess champions agree that Go is sometimes better then chess in some situations.

and thats why chess is a great game to learn but it is still a board game and that there are many other games in the world that have the same benefits and fundamentals as chess and maybe even more.


gritmoon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Oshawott478 1 year ago
??? homely sherlock! he has fortified a round! why D;
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by HomelySherlock 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar lacked and arguments were clearly flawed. Had Pro used sources they would have gotten the "sources" points as well.