The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Chess should be an Olympic event.

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 4 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,828 times Debate No: 49684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

In this debate, I will argue that the game of Chess should be implemented into the Olypmics. My opponent will argue the opposite stance. This debate will follow a specific structure and will have specific rules. In this debate, there will be no forfeitting. Sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format. Proper conduct will be observed. In round one, my opponent will only accept the debate and state his stance. Round two will be for main arguments. The debaters will offer rebuttals and more arguments in the third round. The fourth round will be for further rebuttals and any last arguments. The fifth round will be for any last rebuttals and conclusion paragraphs. I look forward to this debate.
TN05

Con

First off, I want to thank my opponent for an interesting debate topic. I will be taking the stance that chess should not be an Olympic event. Good luck to us both!
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. This is a very interesting topic and I look forward to debating it. Before we truly begin, I would like to clarify a few things. Chess as an Olympic event would be a lone entity. It would have no other events attached to it. It would be a match between two people. The winner of that match plays the winner of another match, and this process continues until one out of a dozen or so people emerges as the victor. Gold, silver, and bronze medals will be awarded and it will be treated like any other Olympic event. And now, without further ado, let's begin.



Main Argument
Chess is an acclaimed game throughout the world. I believe that adding chess into the Olympics would add a whole new aspect to it. Chess is not athletic whatsoever and it is rather the brain involved than the body. It would make the Olympics more than just a huge sports event. It would make it unique and distinct. Chess is very beneficial for the brain. According to a 1974-86 study in Belgium, fifth grade students "experienced a statistically significant gain in cognitive development over a control group." Now, people of such a young age will not particpate in the Olympics - of course - but this fact gives you an example of how chess positively influences the brain. When you are younger, things such as chess can accelerate development much easier than when you are older, but the reality is that chess is truly beneficial for the brain. Implementing chess into the Olympics would not only benefit the actual players, but it would revolutionize global sports in general. Chess would become more acclaimed and more people would benefit from it.



It is simple cause and effect. When people see people playing chess on television and hear of its positive effects, they will most likely play the game as well. I have not listed sufficient evidence for how chess positively influences the brain. For that reason, above all, I am going to post another image below.




This you cannot deny. However, this is not a debate arguing that ordinary people should play more chess. The debate is exclusively about how chess should be an Olympic event. I am going to make an additional point. I believe that chess builds friendships more than sport does. Chess is engaging, exhilarating, and distinct in a way sports cannot aspire to. According to squidoo.com, "Chess prevents anxiety and depression by encouraging self improvement, improving self esteem and self confidence." Athletes need self-esteem and self-confidence, don't they? Chess, when implemented into the Olympics, will have benefits only. There are no negative effects of this action that I can imagine. It is your duty to prove me wrong.


MLA Citations

"Benefits of Chess." Benefits of Chess. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <http://www.quadcitychess.com...>.

"10 Benefits of Chess regarding Health." Squidoo. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
<
http://www.squidoo.com...>.



TN05

Con

Before I begin my main arguments, I agree with all definitions and rules my opponent has offered.

There is little doubt chess is one of the greatest strategy games man has created. Chess has appeal to many people, young and old - when I was a kid I got a game called Chessmaster for my Game Boy Advance. Even though it was brutally hard (I couldn't get past the second difficultly level, and there were probably around two dozen of them), it was so cool to be able to play such a fun game on the go. Now that I'm older it is fun to see my fourth-grade cousin get into chess as well. However, the question here is not whether or not chess is good or fun - it is whether or not chess is an appropriate event for the Olympics? I will be arguing the contraries point - that chess is not an appropriate event for the Olympics.

To begin, the purpose of the International Olympic Committee, the group that organizes and runs the Olympics, is to "promote Olympism throughout the world and to lead the Olympic movement" (Olympic Charter 16). What is Olympism? According to the Olympic Charter "Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the
qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles" (Olympic Charter 11). Here is where we run into our first problem: chess is not a sport, it is in essence a board game. Chess may indeed be a mind-enriching game, but that is all it is - a great game, but not a sport. he Olympic motto "Faster, Higher, Stronger" demonstrates this best - because chess doesn't provide any sort of athletic benefit, it doesn't fit the ideals of Olympism or the Olympic motto. Chess may be a great game but, as the BBC points out, "Scrabble fans don't agonise over the fact that it's never going to be at the Olympics. Aficionados of Settlers of Catan don't complain that it's not on Sky Sports on a Sunday night. You wouldn't want to see Monopoly on a big screen in Times Square" ("10 Reasons Chess May Never Make It as a Spectator Sport").

That leads into my next argument: spectators. What is the appeal of watching Chess to the average population? The BBC notes that, in comparison to poker, a similar type of game, there isn't really that much that is good television. Moves become increasingly uncommon as the game goes on, and the expressions of the players rarely change. Beyond this, games often end in draws - sometimes after just a short amount of time. During the 2013 world championship series between defending champion Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen, the first two games ended in draws - the former after only 16 moves ("10 Reasons Chess May Never Make It as a Spectator Sport")! The fact games can and do end in draws is a significant problem, because the games are held in a short window of time and it is very possible that players could draw persistently for multiple games in a row. For example, world championship matches can take longer than six hours ("10 Reasons Chess May Never Make It as a Spectator Sport"), longer than football, soccer, or basketball games. This time could feasibly be lowered by changing the amount of time allotted to make moves, but this would arguably result in lower-quality games. Using my opponent's 12-player single-elimination knockout tournament as a model, there would need to be at, at minimum, 12 games - four games in the first and second rounds (two in each bracket in each round), two in the third round (one per bracket) and two in the fourth round (1st and 3rd place games). Assuming they cut the length in half to three hours and no games end in draws, that is still, at minimum, 36 hours. That's not even accounting for draws, which would obviously require a re-do.

In conclusion, because chess is not a sport and would not be appealing to spectators or even reasonably scheduled, it should not be an Olympic event.

Citations:

Olympic Charter. Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Committee, 9 Sept. 2013. PDF.

"10 Reasons Chess May Never Make It as a Spectator Sport." BBC News. N.p., 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Rebuttals
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his complex, reasonable argument. He makes valid points, but I would like to express certain aspects we disagree on. My opponent writes, "[t]he BBC notes that, in comparison to poker, a similar type of game, there isn't really that much that is good television. Moves become increasingly uncommon as the game goes on, and the expressions of the players rarely change. Beyond this, games often end in draws - sometimes after just a short amount of time." He goes on to illustrate how long a game of chess can last in a championship match. Granted, chess can be a very long and boring game when spectating, but the reality is that chess is a beneficial game for the brain and character. Given the evidence I have provided, I do not believe my opponent can refute the notion that chess as an Olympic event would have more benefits than flaws. My opponent illustrates that chess is not a sport. That is completely true, but I will say that I must disagree with his view of the matter. The Olympics can be slightly reformed and the community can be taught to accept chess into the program. The committee can and will accept the program in time. Chess has some flaws when implemented into the Olympics, but the game has much more benefits than flaws. I will expand on my arguments later, but I have very limited time for debates and therefore have to make them a little shorter than I wished them to be.

Thank you.
TN05

Con

Because my opponent did not expand on any of his arguments due to time restraints, I will only focus on refuting his arguments in this round.

In his main arguments, my opponent makes a few arguments. His first is that chess should be an Olympic event because it would broaden the Olympic scope, that it would be beneficial for the brain (as it would encourage young people to play chess) and that it would revolutionize sports. I have to disagree here; I have already established in my opening arguments that the Olympics exist to promote Olympism, a philosophy that seeks a balance of body, mind and will. Chess, having no more athletic benefit than a 6-hour Call of Duty session, is not balanced - it only focuses on one aspect. For this reason, it is a poor fit for the Olympics. Why should the Olympics sell out their beliefs to incorporate a board game? I hold they should not, no more than they should make a competitive Super Smash Bros. Brawl tournament or competitive eating events Olympic sports.

I find his other arguments (brain stimulation, promotion and sports revolution) much more interesting. After all, shouldn't we be promoting mentally-stimulating games to kids, and who doesn't like a good old revolution? Wouldn't the Olympics be a great spot for it? I don't see this, however. I've already established that chess isn't necessarily appealing viewing - moves become less common as the game progresses and facial expressions are stagnant. I doubt kids are going to find such an event appealing, and that's before I even note this can go on for six hours. It is certainly fun to play chess, but to watch it for six hours? Again, I don't really see how this would catch on with kids or revolutionize sports.

In my opponent's rebuttals, my opponent acknowledges the length of chess games and their limited viewer appeal as problems, but reiterates that it is beneficial for brain and character. I can't argue here - but this isn't a debate on whether or not chess is a great game. Just because something is good doesn't mean that placing it in the Olympics is justified. For example, I think we can all agree that reading is good. Does that mean reading should be an Olympic event? Of course not. His other arguments don't really refute my arguments so much as reiterate his points, but I can understand this due to RL restrictions.

I await my opponent's next round.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

I must concede.
TN05

Con

As my opponent has conceded, a vote for Con is warranted.
Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

Vote for my opponent!
TN05

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Alright, cool. I'll be accepting this then. :)
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
Chess would be its own entity. It would be simply a game of chess between two professionals.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
What do you mean by 'incorporated'? That chess should be added as a stand-alone event, or combined with another event (ie. chessboxing)?
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
Man if you were con i'd take this on. Great idea for a debate! i'll be watching it
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Which is?
Posted by WilliamsP 3 years ago
WilliamsP
MLA format is the proper method for citing sources.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
What is MLA format?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
WilliamsPTN05Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
WilliamsPTN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: WilliamsP conceded
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
WilliamsPTN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
WilliamsPTN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: concession