The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Torvald
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,793 times Debate No: 35108
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, Torvald, for your willingness to debate this with me directly following your overdue return to DDO.

I. Resolution


The full resolution for this debate is as follows: "In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black."

II. Definitions

Inherent: existing necessarily as a property of a thing or phenomenon.

Advantage: any state, circumstance, or opportunity that is favorable or beneficial in achieving a desired end.

"The one who plays White" is the player in control of the white pieces (occasionally hereafter referred to simply as "White" while his/her opponent sometimes referred to as "Black"). White is the one who, by standard Chess rules, makes the first move.

Any other word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate.

III. Debate Structure

In this debate, I will be arguing that making the first move is an action which provides White with an inherent advantage not sufficiently counter-balanced by Black's assets, and so Black must therefore play that much better to achieve an objectively superior position.

Further rules are as follows:

(1) The burden of proof will be on me.

(2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.

(3) Con must use his/her first round for acceptance only. Later rounds are to be used however we see fit.

(4) 8,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 8,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 8,000 character limit (including posting "pictures" of nothing but text a la Apeiron) is strictly prohibited.

Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.

Good luck and have fun!
Torvald

Con

I graciously accept your challenge, Dakota, and thank you for the welcome back.

I naturally accept your terms, and will try not to take it personally that the definitions are heavily redundant and repetitive.

As the burden of proof is on the Pro, it need be understood that I am not obligated to make a case for why white moving first does not give it an inherent advantage, merely to counter any argument that Pro makes.

Might I make the request that in the last round, new arguments not be made?

I look forward to an engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, Torvald, for making this debate possible. As some of you might know, this is now the fourth time I've tried to get a good debate out of this resolution; hopefully it will prove more fruitful this time around.

Now, before we get into the core of this debate, allow me to offer this preamble:

If we were to turn the resolution around and ask ourselves, "In standard Chess, does Black have an advantage over White because he plays second?" I feel the responses would be unanimous: of course not, why would he?

Yet when asked "Does White have an advantage over Black because he plays first?" the answer comes less quickly. The average Chess player, particularly one sensitive to the subject, would be inclined to argue the playing field is even, though this is usually grounded more in want than reason. "Whoever wins a game of Chess will do so by skill and skill alone. No other factor plays a role." That is what many of us wish to believe.

Then what reason do we use to dismiss the significance of White’s first move? It is a move like any other, and just as significant. Because of it, however many moves Black has thus far played (X), White will have played either X or X+1. He therefore has speed above Black, initiative above Black. Keep this in mind while reading the coming arguments and White's first-move advantage will become clear.

Now, without further ado, I present my arguments:

I. Control of the game


Throughout the course of a Chess match, control of the game may switch from one player to another, as he/she gains a superior position or initiates a powerful attack. It can be said that whichever player whose moves are forced is certainly not in control of the game. And by using the initiative granted by the first move, White can more easily force his opponent's moves in the opening.

My argument here can be summarized with the following syllogism:

P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.
P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.
C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.

The above syllogism is logically airtight, so if the premises are granted, the conclusion cannot be avoided. Warrants for the premises are as follows:

P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.


Take, as an obvious example, a player who is in check. He can't make any move that pleases him. He must somehow move himself out of check. Many checkmates that are read four or five moves ahead involve putting the opponent in check on almost every turn (if not every turn), because it forces your opponent to make an obvious, and therefore easily planned for, move. The one constantly in check is simply doing what he has to, and what his opponent wants him to do. Therefore, his opponent, the one doing the checking, is (at least temporarily) in control of the game.

One doesn't necessarily have to have a superior position to be in control of the game. For example, consider a match where one of the players has more minor pieces than his opponent and is just one move away from an unpreventable checkmate. The only available option to the other player (in this hypothetical scenario) is using the queen to check the opposing king (to which he only has one legal response). Then, check again (to which he moves back to his original position). Check, check, check, back and forth, until stalemate. Though his position was inferior, by forcing his opponent's moves and thereby taking control of the game, he was able to gain a more satisfactory conclusion than the alternative.

To synopsize, having control of the game is how a player can gain a superior position or quickly reach some other desired end without unwanted retaliation. And to do this, he must be more capable of forcing responses from his opponent than visa versa.

P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.


By playing the first move, White sets the course for not only the opening, but the entire rest of the match. After e4 (the most common opening for White), Black does have a few options, some more popular than others, some of which may even necessitate a certain response from White, but they are all moves in response to e4, and therefore are all moves that can be said to have been forced by White and could be easily predicted by him.

Because it is Black who is forced to play more defensively, to respond to White's moves within certain responses, it is therefore White who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves than visa versa.

C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.


II. Initiative


Consider if you could pass in Chess (not make any move at all but still declare your turn over), except during a Zugzwang position (a position where it would actually be disadvantageous to make a move). Would anyone do it? No, of course not, why would they, unless to purposely hand some advantage over to the opponent?

The same reasoning applies to the first move as well. Why would White pass his first move? He wouldn't, unless to freely give up an advantage.

The syllogism for this argument is as follows:

P1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it is more advantageous to make the next move than not.
P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.
P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.
C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.

Again, this argument is logically valid, so unless one of the premises is untrue, the conclusion must be accepted.

P1: In an even, non-
Zugzwang position, it is more advantageous to make the next move than not.

A non-Zugzwang position is one where there are moves the players want to make, or at least one move the players want to make. Therefore, it should be obvious that being the one able to make these wanted moves first would be preferable.

P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-
Zugzwang position.

This seems not only true, but obviously true. The two starting positions at the beginning of a Chess game are perfectly mirrored off of each other, and so must be seen as even. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, please do so next round, but I don't feel wasting more effort on this point is necessary for now.

P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.


This is, by standard Chess rules, an indisputable fact and was outlined in the instigation.

C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.


III. Grandmaster statistics


If it were true that White does indeed have an inherent advantage, however minute, then we'd expect this to be reflected in the game records of the world’s greatest players. And, in fact, it is, quite clearly:

In the 2009 CEGT chess engines tournament (where the greatest Chess computers were pitted against each other), we found White won 34.7 percent of the time, while Black won only 24 percent (the remaining 41.3 percent being draws). [1]

Currently, of the 668,956 games logged into the database on ChessGames.com (where the ELO rating of the average player is 2211), White wins 37.35 percent of the times, whereas Black wins only 27.40 percent (the remaining 35.25 percent being draws). [2]

The difference in winning percentages here is certainly not small enough for my opponent to dismiss as coincidence.

Now over to you, Torvald.

Soucres:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.chessgames.com...
Torvald

Con

You make a very excellent case, and I can hardly make rebuttal of it, and will accordingly make little of one and alternatively spend the more time on my own arguments. I think the best point you make would have to be citing the statistics of grandmaster games and CEGT statistics, in which white seems to have an inherent advantage indeed. I find, however, the logic in your first syllogism to be somewhat shaky; point 1 is valid; point 2 is an assumption.

The Curse of the First Move
While moving first may offer a definitive advantage for white, it may also offer some degree of disadvantage. White is forced to play the aggressor, to shape the game. Some players thrive in this scenario, but even the best of players may find it harder to set the pace of the game. Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov remarked that white must play for checkmate, while black must play for stalemate. While many view this as an advantage to white, who then knows from the start what sorts of moves to expect from black, this same advantage works reciprocally well for black, who will likewise know exactly what sorts of moves to expect from white.

Safe Following Distance
The term 'safe following distance' is typically associated only with autos (at least to my knowledge), but I think can also be applied to chess. As I have mentioned before, the necessity to open gives white the disadvantage of being forced to set the pace of the game. This pace-setting posture of white gives black the opportunity to form more intricate plans, to use white's more predictable nature as an advantage. While black's moves will in some part be dictated by white, as black will have to spend a great deal of time countering white's moves, black is afforded the opportunity of adapting more quickly. This allows a sort of 'guerilla chess,' in which black can gain a distinct advantage simply by establishing a good defense and slowly attenuating white's forces at each deflected barrage.

The Ironic Nature of this Debate
I find myself now in a rather ironic, in my opinion, position; the best proof for either of our arguments will be decided not by the actual debate, but by the outcome of the debate. The one who wins will have proven his point in winning, rather than winning by proving his point (though I imagine the title of winner will be awarded for proof of point).

Over to you, Pro. Dazzle us.

Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Pro

To dazzle you all is why I'm here. This round of mine will be much shorter than my last as there is little needed to be said.

I do want to mention, though, that I'm surprised you brought up that quote by Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov: "Black players cannot afford to make even the slightest mistake ... from a theoretical point of view, the tasks of White and Black in chess are different: White has to strive for a win, Black—for a draw!" Here, Sveshnikov is clearly agreeing with my position in this debate, not my opponent's.

Now then, let's take another look at my three arguments for why White has an inherent advantage in Chess and discuss Torvald's objections to them:

I. Control of the game

P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.
P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.
C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.

Torvald concedes the truth of P1, but takes exception to P2, claiming that it is nothing more than an assumption. Yet he goes on to say that, in making the first move, White is the one "to play the aggressor, to shape the game" and "to set the pace of the game." He also states Black will "have to spend a great deal of time countering White's moves." If this is not an agreement to the second premise, I don't know what is.

The only tangible objection he does raise is that Black is able to, by virtue of playing second, adapt more quickly than White. This is, however, left disappointingly unwarranted. Logically, the opposite holds true. As stated in my preamble, White is the one who is afforded speed; if either player can adapt more quickly than the other, it's him, not Black. For however many moves Black has thus far played in any given game (X), White will have either played X or X+1. Inarguably then, we can see White is the one with greater speed, speed which Black can logically never surpass.

II. Initiative

P1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it is more advantageous to make the next move than not.
P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.
P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.
C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.

My opponent did not specifically address this argument at all and so it remains unscathed.

III. Grandmaster Statistics

In his introduction, Torvald admitted that (in his opinion, at least) this is the single most impressive argument of the three I presented, yet he makes no attempt to refute it. In fact, he seems persuaded by it, saying that "White seems to have an inherent advantage indeed."

So far, all three of the arguments I erected in round two are still standing tall. I now give the floor to Torvald.
Torvald

Con

Control of the Game
I apologize for not making it clearer as to the issue I take with P2. It is the bit about 'forcing moves' that I think needs alteration; in a position of defense, black can force moves just as easily as white can. I'm sure any chess player can attest to the frustration, as white, of being repeatedly unable to carry out an offensive strategy because of a simple block, and in many a case, such a failed offensive strategy leaves white at a more vulnerable position than before the beginning of the gambit. As I have said, as white is doomed to play the aggressor, his moves are more predictable (the mind may, rightly, jump to the extreme predictability of black when cornered in midgame or endgame; this is an exception to the mold of white as the more predictable), thus allowing black to anticipate white's next strategy before the current one is finished, and afford black the opportunity to, if possible, take defensive measures that offbalance white by countering both the current and next offensive. Gradually, this ability to shut down strategies in their inception takes the active forced-hand from neutral to a distinctive advantage for black, as eventually white will be sealed in, at a zugzwang position; it will be better for white to not move at all, as no strategy will not be deflected.

Zugzwang
I had meant to address the zugzwang position after receiving your rebuttal for my first argument, since I find your style somewhat verbose, and easier to handle if broken down into smaller parts. Thank you for reminding me.
I am actually glad that my opponent should mention the zugzwang position, since it seems to me that that very position is a hole in your argument; while you may conclude that it is more advantageous to be white than not based on that advantageous move from a non-zugzwang position, I conclude the opposite about that first move. As I have thoroughly emphasized, maybe overemphasized, white's forced position as the aggressor makes his moves more predictable. Even if an unanticipated move is exacted by white, a competent opponent would take little time to interpret its significance, simply because such an opponent would understand that white was obligatorily moving as the aggressor. As the game progresses, this forced aggression takes its toll, allowing white to eventually be lured into a zugzwang position, at which point it is no longer perceptibly advantageous to be white. While I'm no master of the syllogism, certainly not like my opponent, I believe this one accurately represents my position on this particular issue:

P1: Moving first forces an aggressive strategy.
P2: Mandatory-aggressive strategies are easily predictable.
P3: A predictable strategy is more easily-manipulated.
P4: An easily-manipulable strategy may be more easily forced into a zugzwang position.
P5: A zugzwang position is not advantageous.
C: It is not advantageous to move first.

I realize that much of that argument relies on possibility rather than certainty. However, that it is possible or even plausible for such an argument to act as true eliminates the possibility of an inherent advantage to moving first.

Grandmaster Statistics
As my opponent states, almost failing to do so non-victoriously, I concede the grandmaster statistics argument to him because it is excellent; the best chess players in the world, and 'perfect' simulated games by analytical computers both indicate that the player who moves first wins more frequently. That is hardly debatable. However, this is not a debate of practical application, but theory, and while the practical application may speak in my opponent's favor, it isn't at issue, and the theory has yet to be established in either way.

While I should probably proceed to make another argument, stay on the offensive, I have had a harrowing day and will settle for rebutting my opponent's argument alone. The way I see it now, I have provided an at least compelling counter for each of your points. Your move.
Debate Round No. 3
DakotaKrafick

Pro

I. Control of the game

P1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.
P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.
C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.

Torvlad elucidates his issue with the second premise: because White plays first, he must play the aggressor. And because he must play the aggressor, his moves are more predictable. And because his moves are more predictable, he is not the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves.

He says this is the case because White can often be frustrated after an offensive strategy that fails due to a mere block by Black. Obviously, White should not be trying to checkmate Black within the first few moves; he will certainly become quickly frustrated if this is his strategy. Torvald seems to be confusing the purpose of White's offensive openings; it's not to set up a ninja-like quick death for Black. It's simply to expand influence on the board (most importantly, the center).

When White plays A and Black plays B to block a potential, devastating C attack, White is not frustrated for losing the chance to play C; on the contrary, he's satisfied to have been able to play A without losing control of the game. And because Black must either play moves like B or risk potential, devastating attacks, his moves are the more predictable ones. White, on the other hand, has the freedom to attack (or threaten to attack) as he wishes, which could never be more predictable than Black's needed defensive moves.

Torvald goes on to explain how Black might be able to force White into a Zugzwang position later in the game due to playing more defensively; these arguments bleed into the next major point of the debate so I will address them there.

II. Initiative

P1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it is more advantageous to make the next move than not.
P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.
P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.
C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.

My opponent did not directly object to any of this argument's premises. Instead, to counter this argument, Torvald introduces a syllogism of his own, outlining how White can be forced into a Zugzwang position by virtue of having the first move. Let's take a look at his argument:

P1: Moving first forces an aggressive strategy.
P2: Mandatory-aggressive strategies are easily predictable.
P3: A predictable strategy is more easily-manipulated.
P4: An easily-manipulable strategy may be more easily forced into a zugzwang position.
P5: A zugzwang position is not advantageous.
C: It is not advantageous to move first.

Since the conclusions of our arguments contradict each other, of course, only one of them can be true. So which one fails? Well, we have so far seen no reason to believe my own argument fails. P2 and P3 of my argument are indisputable, so the only premise to attack would be P1; however, to deny the truth of P1 would be to accept its absurd negation: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, the next move played, no matter how good, does not affect the outcome of the game. This is obviously untrue, since every move played affects the outcome of a game, and every move White plays should somehow benefit White (in a non-Zugzwang position).

So as it stands, my argument seems rock-solid; simply knowing this would be enough to deny my opponent's argument, since his conclusion logically buds heads with the conclusion I flawlessly established. But regardless, let's take a look at the specific reasons why my opponent's argument does fail:

(a) P2 may be true, but is misleading. Any mandatory move is predictable; the question is, is a mandatory defensive move more predictable than an offensive one? As I stated earlier, it is. Theoretically, an attack can come from any piece, from any space on the board, but a block can only come from the pieces which can directly block the attack.

(b) Even if it were somehow true that an aggressive move is more predictable than a defensive one, there is no way for the defending player to utilize this predictability in a way that can be said to be of any significant help. That is, even if Black knows White will play an offensive first, second, and third move, there is nothing Black can do to prepare for it beforehand. (Black, the player, can study opening lines before the game to prepare, but that is an example of how Black can prepare in practice, not in theory. In theory, Black cannot prepare his pieces for White's opening assault no matter how predictable it is since, legally, he can make no moves beforehand.)

As an example of how unhelpful predictability can be, when one player plays a string of three or four checks in a row (finally resulting in an inevitable checkmate), the player who is being checked may be able to predict that he will be put in check again on the next move, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is a way to prevent it.

(c) As a final note, for the record, a Zugzwang position is a very rare thing. Most high-level games begin and end without a Zugzwang position ever occurring for either player. With that in mind, it seems absurd to be persuaded by an argument which depends on establishing the premise that Black will likely be able to force White into a Zugzwang position later in the game due to playing more defensively. Even though I hold the position that White is more capable of forcing Black's moves, I wouldn't say it is therefore likely he can force Black into a Zugzwang position halfway or so through the game.

Taking into consideration that Torvald's argument suffers flaws (a), (b), and (c) and that my argument suffers no flaws at all, it ought to be clear which of our conclusions we should embrace.

III. Grandmaster Statistics

My opponent has conceded this argument. He does, however, make the point that grandmaster statistics only prove that White has an inherent advantage in practice, not in theory (and this is a debate concerning the latter, not the former), which is true. I presented the grandmaster statistics as evidence to compliment my arguments, not as an individual proof.

That is to say, if it were true that White has an inherent advantage in theory, then we should expect that to be apparent in practice. And it is apparent in practice. It doesn't prove the validity of my arguments, but it is hardly irrelevant as my opponent would like for us to believe.

Likewise, if it were true that neither White nor Black had an inherent advantage in theory, then we should expect that to be apparent in practice. But grandmaster statistics do not support such a theory; they support the theory that White does have an advantage.

Finally, I would like to thank Torvald for another fun and interesting Chess-related debate and the audience for taking the time to read and enjoy it.
Torvald

Con

While this may be a disappointing answer, I make it anyway. I've as good as lost the debate, and never expected to win in the first place. I did find one or two flaws in Dakota's final argument, but I doubt I could make any case that would hold water; from the introduction of the grandmaster statistics, Dakota had won. Well played sir, well played.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
Beautiful debate. I always play black, though.
Posted by Navya 3 years ago
Navya
Wow,I thoroughly enjoyed reading this debate.Being an avid chess fan myself,I too, have to concede that even though both arguments were excellently presented,I couldn't help agreeing to what dakatokrafic put forward.It would be interesting to note that in the 2010 10th International Computer Tournament, out of 63 games involving 14 different chess computers, 24 games were won by white, 25 games were won by black, and 14 of them were draws.Since only 63 games were played and the difference was just 1,it's not very statistical..but perhaps it could have been used by the con to defend his arguments.On hindsight,I don't think the first move advantage really plays any sort of concrete advantage when playing against humans as it all comes down to how well you are able to strategize and plan your moves.When a human plays against a computer with the black pieces,it's undeniable that the computer will have some sort of advantage as it's close to perfect.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
I'm sorry I didn't give it as much effort as I could have. I just grew fatigued at portraying devil's advocate.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 years ago
DakotaKrafick
A generally well-played debate, Torvald (though your last round was a bit disappointing). I did notice at least one glaring mistake in my last round and was actually hoping you'd point it out. Either way, though, thanks for the fun debate.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
I always win when I'm black.
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
The debate now over, I do feel comfortable admitting that I never supported my stance to begin with, I took it for the sake of arguing what seemed to me to be a lost cause. It was really a stretch making the case that I did.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 3 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Dakota won arguments in this debate, as per the debate itself. Torvald, while extremely gracious and gentlemanly, lacked argumentative rigour. As a general note though, and let me note that it is perhaps wrong of me to note this, I did not find either side terribly persuasive. The manner in which this was debated seemed somewhat weak to me as a chess player. That said, I'm not going to regurgitate the same comment as I did awhile back. Dakota, if you're incline to, send me a quick challenge on the topic.
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
WHAT? GANDALF GAVE UP? GANDALF NEVER GIVES UP! HE FELL DOWN A ****ING MILE-LONG DROP AND HE COMES BACK ALIVE. D:
"GANDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLFFF NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Frodo Baggins
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Torvald
Concession? It was the last round, that's not a concession...
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
You doing Ok Torvald, I especially liked your point about the defender holding an advantage over the attacker, This is also true in some fighting styles,

Although me comparing your point to a fighting technique to win a game of chess, is perhaps not quite the same, but on the other hand, it might be.

Also Dakotakrafic, you are doing pretty good also....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
DakotaKrafickTorvaldTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins the conduct as an acknowledgment of his willingness to take a highly disadvantaged side and argue it both well and honestly. No disrespect to Pro in the awarding of that point. Pro's arguments were more or less irrefutable from the outset, hence the argument points.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
DakotaKrafickTorvaldTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: A one sided match, and I wager Con knew this going in. For knowing the odds, and yet still courageously attempting the near impossible, I award him the single point of conduct as well as my respect. Dakota's skill is impressive in any circumstance. When he has such a favorable battleground, he's nearly insurmountable. He earned those argument points.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
DakotaKrafickTorvaldTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, good job to both of you. Bravery on Torvald's part for accepting a debate he knew would be challenging, and expertise arguing tactics coming from Dakota.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
DakotaKrafickTorvaldTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con from round three "I concede the grandmaster statistics argument to him because it is excellent"