The Instigator
ADHDavid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
asi14
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Pro is a more skilled and strategic chess-player than Con

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 79402
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

ADHDavid

Pro

Hi! First round accpetance only, and after that, you can choose to refute, prove, or strengthen your arguments.
asi14

Con

I accept, although I don't think DDO is a good forum for chess
Debate Round No. 1
ADHDavid

Pro

Alright! I will link my chess.com account profile to compare my stats. Since I do not know cons stats, I request he provide evidence this round that he is better than I am.

http://www.chess.com...
asi14

Con

The order is 1 off, then case

First Off: Education Kritik
There is a rising prevalence in DDO in what are called "troll debates": debates which either a) have no real meaning, or b) are pointless to debate. Here are a few examples:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

This debates qualifies as b) pointless to debate, primarily because this is debate, not chess. (more on this in the Case debate) Should more and more of these troll debates come up, the good education we once got from DDO will be adulterated and poisoned with useless debates, scaring off/turing off many intelligent debaters. This differs from the kind of education the pro advocates, which basically is nonexistent. Ultimately education should be the biggest impact in this debate. Even if I do not play chess often (I don't have a chess.com account, more on that in the case debate), the one thing that both sides of this debate and the voters get, is education, however much it may be. But engaging in these kinds of "debates" simply destroys it. Thus the alternative is to reject the prevalence of these troll debates (ie. the pro), and return to true debate, in which we discuss real-world issues.

Last point: Kriitk outweighs and turns the case. 1) Magnitude: Education is literally a reason why we debate. Taking that away would take away the core of debate itself. 2) Probability/timeframe, education occurs in every waking moment. By doing the alterantive, we solve the case by putting these debates where they ought to be (in this case, a chess website)



Next, case

First, this is the wrong forum for this debate. The only way to establish who is superior in a chess game is to actually play the game.

Second, the pro's proposed method of comparison is not the best "comparison," primarily because I don't have a chess.com account. The best comparisons ought to be those in which people actually have a chance of meeting.

Third, while we're at it, let's define what "better means":
Better: greater than half (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). So in other words, the pro is trying to say his skill is better than half of me, half of my body. This is true, particularly because in the title, it says "more of a player than con". If the pro wanted to refer to the con's skill, the pro should have said "more of a player than the con is, as a chess player." The pro's grammatical vageueness enables me to conclude that the pro's claim is total nonsesnse. It's illogical to compare chess skill to a body.
Debate Round No. 2
ADHDavid

Pro

Con says: "The order is 1 off, then case

First Off: Education Kritik
There is a rising prevalence in DDO in what are called "troll debates": debates which either a) have no real meaning, or b) are pointless to debate. Here are a few examples:"

First off, con does nothing to provide evidence as to wether or not he is a better chess player than I am. In fact, he argues a point that is not related to the topic. Because of this, his argument here is irrelivant.

Con says: "This debates qualifies as b) pointless to debate, primarily because this is debate, not chess. (more on this in the Case debate) Should more and more of these troll debates come up, the good education we once got from DDO will be adulterated and poisoned with useless debates, scaring off/turing off many intelligent debaters. This differs from the kind of education the pro advocates, which basically is nonexistent. Ultimately education should be the biggest impact in this debate. Even if I do not play chess often (I don't have a chess.com account, more on that in the case debate), the one thing that both sides of this debate and the voters get, is education, however much it may be. But engaging in these kinds of "debates" simply destroys it. Thus the alternative is to reject the prevalence of these troll debates (ie. the pro), and return to true debate, in which we discuss real-world issues."

Rather than debating the given topic, Con makes a case that this debate shall not be intelligent. I will not argue against this, but it is not the topic of the debate. If Con chose this debate simply to call me a troll and saying that debates like this shouldn't be here, why is he taking part of a so called "Troll debate". Because of this, I am also labeling this irrelevant.


Con says: "Last point: Kriitk outweighs and turns the case. 1) Magnitude: Education is literally a reason why we debate. Taking that away would take away the core of debate itself. 2) Probability/timeframe, education occurs in every waking moment. By doing the alterantive, we solve the case by putting these debates where they ought to be (in this case, a chess website)"

Again, off topic and irrelevant.



Con says: "Next, case

First, this is the wrong forum for this debate. The only way to establish who is superior in a chess game is to actually play the game. "


Actually, Con stays on the subject of his last arguement. How funny.


Con says: "Second, the pro's proposed method of comparison is not the best "comparison," primarily because I don't have a chess.com account. The best comparisons ought to be those in which people actually have a chance of meeting."

One does not need a chess.com account, but simply proof that they can play the game well, or better than the oppenent. I have merely provided evidence that supports that I am a better chess player than Con. Because of this, I have proven I have A) More expereince in chess: and B) Excel against others in daily games. Con has no evidence of this, and most likely will fail to provide any. <-(This is a statement, and has no verifiable proof)


Con says: "Third, while we're at it, let's define what "better means":
Better: greater than half (http://www.merriam-webster.com......). So in other words, the pro is trying to say his skill is better than half of me, half of my body. This is true, particularly because in the title, it says "more of a player than con". If the pro wanted to refer to the con's skill, the pro should have said "more of a player than the con is, as a chess player." The pro's grammatical vageueness enables me to conclude that the pro's claim is total nonsesnse. It's illogical to compare chess skill to a body. "
(Is it illogical to assume that the word "better" has different meanings?)

Con uses a typical dictionary grammar check to try and win by saying I used the wrong word. If you look at the link he provided, it actually lists five definitions of the word "better". He qoute mined the one that fitted his arguement best, and disregarded that words mean different things in different contexts. The link he provided actually has a list of uses of the word better, and here is one of them: "
  1. She's a better golfer than I am."
Now, if I replace golfer with chess player....

  1. She's a better chess player than I am."
It is used properly. Because of this, Cons arguement is again irrelevant.



____________________________________________________________________________________


Now, onto my chess stats. Currently, I have played a total of 1720 games of Blitz chess (10 Minute 3 minute) and 1698 games of bullet chess.
Let us combine those two numbers, and say that the average time spent playing is about 3 minutes. This means I would have spent around 10254 minutes playing chess. That's around 170 hours of non-stop chess. This proves that I have more experience playing chess than con, as he hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims. (http://www.chess.com..., If one has a premium account, he can view this. during my next round arguement i will post pictures of this stat page, sorry for this.)

(Here is my Missouri chess page) http://www.uschess.org...;
(I am in the 68th percentile, which means that I am better than most Rated players in my state)

I am very expereiced in the "Fried Liver Attack" and the "Owens Defense" as I have played them numerous times. Although I am rather new to chess, I am learning more everyday. I will let Con argue his case next round, and hopefully he makes statements that are relevant to the debate.

asi14

Con

The order is Kritik, then case.

The pro goes very heavy against the kritik in the form of irrevalence, which is understandable, since the pro probably doesn't know what a Kritik is. In real debate, a Kritik is a special kind of argument that criticizes the underlying presumptions the pro/affirmative (if you're a policy debater like me) has. In this case, I'm critiquing the kind of education the pro is fostering, which is nonexistant. For the voters, the reason why this Kritik is relevant, and the pro links, is that the pro's debate/methododology of debate fosters the decline of good education that the Kritik said was bad. Lastly, keep in mind the con does not have the burden of topicality. As long as the con can show the case links to it, the con can run anything the con wants. It is the pro that must remain topical to whatever resolution is established.

That is the only argument the pro goes for. The pro has completely dropped that the alternative solves, and is sufficient to solve the case. The pro has also conceded that the Kritik outweighs the case (seee first speech), thus voters, evaluate the Kritik before the case; education is a voter issue. Even if there is a chance I will fail to prove I am a better chess player than the pro, education still is the biggest impact in this debate since the only thing you voters get out of any debate really, is EDUCATION. Education, the literal FOUNDATION of debate. I don't see that education here.

Now, let's take apart the pro's arguments against the Kritik piece by piece:

1) " First off, con does nothing to provide evidence as to wether or not he is a better chess player than I am. In fact, he argues a point that is not related to the topic. Because of this, his argument here is irrelivant. "
First, the lack-of-evidence argument doesn't belong here, it belongs in the Case debate. I will address it there
. Second, as I said before, the Kritik doesn't need to be directly relevant to the case, ie. the Kritik does not need to criticize the entirety of the case. That would be limiting. The Kritk is criticizing just the education the pro "fosters", thus link.
2) "Rather than debating the given topic, Con makes a case that this debate shall not be intelligent. I will not argue against this, but it is not the topic of the debate. If Con chose this debate simply to call me a troll and saying that debates like this shouldn't be here, why is he taking part of a so called "Troll debate". Because of this, I am also labeling this irrelevant. "
Let me make this clear: I am not calling the pro a troll. The pro is not one of those "PROBLEM, U MAD BRO?" memes, let's make that clear. It's clear that the pro is critizing the presumption that this debate is a "troll debate", as I called it. Let's also make this clear: the kritik is saying the pro's case supports a growing movement of bad debates, in which pointless topics are debated. I already showed the voters examples of this movement, now let me show you what embracing the alternative could do:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
These debates are what the alternative advoate for. Serious debates about real-world issues, with logical, coherent claims. The discinction between this debate and these debates is that a) chess isn't a serious issue, b) the only method of comparison the pro has extended insofar is statistics (more on that in the Case debate), c) the only thing voters learn is how to compare numbers, which most voters probably learned in
pre-school.
3) "Again, off topic and irrelevant. "
Same as above

Next, Case.
Let's next go line-by-line on the pro's arguments.
1) "Actually, Con stays on the subject of his last arguement. How funny."
What does that even mean? I don't see how this is sufficient to answer the wrong-forum argument. Thus this argument goes uncontested. Voters, this means this case SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE. That is sufficient already enough to vote con. Thus, for the pro to actually prove he's good at chess, I want to see him actually PLAY rather than hide behind the veil of statistics.
2) "One does not need a chess.com account, but simply proof that they can play the game well, or better than the oppenent. I have merely provided evidence that supports that I am a better chess player than Con. Because of this, I have proven I have A) More expereince in chess: and B) Excel against others in daily games. Con has no evidence of this, and most likely will fail to provide any. <-(This is a statement, and has no verifiable proof)"
Let's start with "play the game well." Let's cross-apply the dropped wrong-forum argument. How else are you supposed to provide proof of "playing the game well" than PLAYING THE GAME? The pro makes it clear he wants to use statistics to answer that question, given he doesn't offer any other method of proof. True, I don't have a chess.com account. But even if I don't, chess.com should not be the method of comparison. First, extend my first speech argument that the best methods of comparisons should be those in which both sides have the possibility of meeting, which the pro DROPPED. Second, chess.com is an amateur website, which is not recognized by the World Chess Federation (https://www.fide.com...). That organization is the one that runs the World Chess Championships, basically the Super Bowl of chess. I don't think chess.com can even stand up to that.
Ultimately, the only valid proof in this debate is a real chess game. No statistics should be used.
3) [dictionary argument]
I'm not going for this argument, concede that this argument is irrevalent

Lastly, I request to the voters that the role of the ballot be not who gives the most relevant arguments as the pro has so emphasized, I request the role of the ballot be which voter fosters the most and best education.

Debate Round No. 3
ADHDavid

Pro

I have provided more evidence to my claims than con has, and he has failed to see that i have posted my USCF account as well.

Con said: " True, I don't have a chess.com account. But even if I don't, chess.com should not be the method of comparison."


Which is why I linked my USCF account! What is the USCF? It's the rating and ranking system of chess based in the united states, the same exact format the Chess.com uses. I linked chess.com as games that I have played are on there, and I linked my USCF ( http://www.uschess.org... Con seems to have missed.)

So far, Con is not even staying on subject, instead trying to debate wether or not the topic is relevant. I will not argue against this, as it is not the debate. I have linked my stats, and at this point I have proved I have more skill than Con based on experience alone. Con, please be relevant.
asi14

Con

The order is: Kritik, then Case

Kritik
EDUCATION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IMPACT, IF NOT THING, IN THIS DEBATE!
Not only has the pro basically dropped the Kritik (asides from the Link), the pro has gotten my entire Kritik wrong. "instead trying to debate wether [it's spelled "whether"] or not the topic is relevant." Relevant to what? DDO? I never debated the relevance of this debate. I made the argument this debate furthers a movement of uneducational, useless debates. Aside from that, the pro has not contested any apart of the Kritik. Therefore, the Kritik outweighs the case, turns the case, and the alternative solves the case.


Side Note: If you don't know what "ouweighs, turns, solves" means, here's a few meanings:
Outweigh: to be evaluated first before the Kritik (see my first speech)
Turn the case: to cause it.
Solve the case: to resolve the problems the case brings up (see my first speech)

Even if the pro wins that the Kritik doesn't talk about chess, the case still links heavily to the Kritik. As I said before, this debate fosters just as much education as the rest of the debates in the No Education movement. I gave a bunch of URLs to both kinds of debate in both of my speeches showing the difference, and I also showed how this debate linked to the No Education movement debates. Keep in mind the pro has not contested this at all!

Something the pro doesn't understand is that there's a bigger world than his affirmative. In the real world of debate, any part of the case can be analyzed and criticized; that criticism can be expanded to something bigger, like a Disadvantage, or the Kritik. Just because the con decides not to do much in the case debate (which I didn't do, more on that in the case debate), doesn't mean he should lose. There is still the expanded versions of various criticisms of the case, in this case that of education.

**If you voters try to reason that not all debates should make education**
Yes, it should. There is plenty to know in a debate. To say otherwise simply means you don't really debate. In that case, I kindly suggest you watch a few debates before voting.

Case
The pro has conceded that the only good evidence is an ACTUAL GAME! I see the pro continues to hammer down on the statistics he has gathered, but that doesn't matter if the suggestions the statistics give are demonstrated in a live game. Throughout this debate the pro has focused on statistics, continually conceding that those very statistics are not valid in this debate. The only way to resolve the case debate would be through a chess game between myself and the pro. (Although that won't matter also because the Kritik outweighs the case).

Even if you, the voters, completely and unjustly ignore my entire Kritik and case arguments, there's still reason to vote con. Remember how I said last speech chess.com is insignificant next to the World Chess Federation? Same example here. Sure, the pro is affiliated with US Chess, fine! But that is just the United States. I am talking about INTERNATIONAL chess, which totally outweighs the statistics the pro has given. None of the pro's evidence is sufficient to outweigh the International Chess Federation, thus vote con on that too.

Thus voters, I urge you vote con because 1) the Kritk outweighs, turns, and solves the case, 1.5) the pro has practically dropped the entirety of it, 2) Statistics are invalid in this debate, 3) the pro's statistics are insignificant.
I also urge you to actually read the Kritik instead of focusing on the case debate.

I thank the pro for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
Lastly, it's clear you don't know what an "offcase" position is, something that's pretty self-explanatory.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
Let the voters decide for themselves; take this dispute over to PM.
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
If the voters used their minds, the would vote based on the topic, not their concern over who received an education. Also, it would be a false report as I am arguing from the outside, which means I am talking about the debate without actually being in it.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
Third, I never said the Kritik was saying this debate shouldn't happened, if the pro knew what my Kritik actually was. Pro, please stop giving the voters propaganda (which is also incorrect propoganda). Let the voters use their minds.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
The debate is over. Stop or I will report you. Second, I showed even more that education outweighs the pro's case, which I remind you, the pro dropped!
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
Con is asking you to vote for him even though his entire argument is basically saying that this debate shouldn't be happening. He has literally shown no proof that he even plays the game!
Posted by Fudge_Packer 2 years ago
Fudge_Packer
Lol. WTF? You're posting from jail? Hey, nothing wrong with that. More power to you.

By the way, what does one do to win prisoner of the year? Does it involve certain compromising positions with the guards?
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
What if I am an Inmate? What's wrong with that? I'll let you know my uncle was incarcerated and he has won the douglas county jail prisoner of the year award twice since he's been in for the last 39 years.
Posted by Fudge_Packer 2 years ago
Fudge_Packer
You want me to debate you on whether or not you're a better chess player than me without playing? Sounds like you have more time on your hands than jail inmates.
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
Alas, then I would play the game, but I want to debate wether I am better or not. If you are up for it, challenge me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.