Screw it I'm doing this again. Just pick a topic related to games.
Debate Rounds (4)
Already tried this once, but the servers at DDO are messed up. So yeah, just pick a topic related to gaming. I will debate the opposite side, regardless of my opinion. First round: state your position and topic clearly, as well as acceptance; my acceptance, while I don't know the topic yet, is given already.
You may also state definitions, if you wish.
Good luck, and, of course, LEEEROOOOOYYYYYYY JENKINS!!!
The Definition of Sport
Alright, in order for this debate to take place, we may very well wind up spending a large portion of our time arguing as to what the definition of a sport is. My opponent, no doubt, will insist that sports require physical exertion; However, I will argue that that is not true. There are a selection of things that have been dubbed "intellectual sports", such as chess and poker. Both of these have been broadcast to ESPN before, and many consider them, albeit by loose definition, to be "sports".
Further, even if you do not believe these to be sports, a large number of people claim that golf is a sport. While golf does involve walking from one place to another, and thus physical exertion, there is no direct correlation between the player's fitness or physical exertion and the actual gameplay. Further, even though swinging a club does require physical activity, the goal is not to swing as hard as you can. Most times, I would assume, the game requires one to swing lightly or with a medium stroke, not exerting one's stamina or muscle to the extent that many others are.
Skill and Strategy in Games
I hope that my opponent's stance doesn't include "Games require no/minimal skill/strategy, and therefore cannot be considered sports", which, fortunately, I have no reason to believe that he or she will. This, quite simply, is false; If you are playing games that require no skill, then you are simply playing games that require no skill, which has no bearing on the gaming industry as a whole. Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability(such as what you see in the youtube videos of Esports champions playing StarCraft. It is insane).
Innocent Until Proven Guilty, Feasable Until Proven Illogical
This next segment will not be proving my point, but simply stating that the only thing I can really say for why Esports deserve to be sports or not is "why shouldn't they be?". Both of my previous statements were premeditated counterpoints to points that may or may not even show up. I believe that, under the context of this debate, you need to prove why games cannot be a sport moreso than I need to prove that they can. I cannot easily counter your points until you make them. In other words: your move, con.
Indeed, the definition of sports is very important in this debate. Let me first establish what I would consider the definition for sport. "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:"  Now we must realize that for an activity to be a sport, it must have skill, physical exertion, competition and it must entertain people. My opponent clearly knows that video games have no physical exertion whatsoever otherwise he probably would have said so. So we then must come to the obvious conclusion that either the definition has to change or video games are not a sport.
To back up the definition of sport, I will give a version of the definition that my opponent obviously thinks sports should be. My opponents version of sports is, "An activity involving skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:" If my opponent objects to this definition, please state so and give your own definition.
Now I shall give the definition of a game. "A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules."  The definition of a game as you can see is a lot like my opponents definition. In fact, my opponents definition of sport is practically the definition of game (excluding "sport").
Sports are under the definition of game, as well as video games, board games, etc. You can see that games span across a wide variety of activities. If we were to take out the physical exertion in the definition of sports, literally all games could become sports. Music could become a sport, typing could become a sport, your job could become a sport because it all would fit under the broadened definition. This is why physical exertion is needed in the definition of sport and in the activity for it to qualify as a sport.
Think of it as a squares and rectangles analogy. A rectangle is a four sided polygon with four right angles and opposite sides are equal. Games represent the rectangle and sports are like the square. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle can never be a square. And the only thing that makes that so, is the fact that the definition says so. The definition for a square and a rectangle cannot change otherwise both shapes would become muddy and unable to define. A rectangle, by definition, cannot be a square. The same is with sports and games. Why else are video games called video games?
My opponent brings up the topic of chess being a mind sport. Chess is recognized as a mind sport. A mind sport is, "a sport or game that relies on a participant's mental ability as opposed to their physical strengths."  Mind sport has its own definition apart from sports.
If my opponent is implying that because chess is a mind sport, therefore video games are one too (therefore under the umbrella of the definition sport), the evidence for that is seriously lacking. Mind sports, as clearly shown, rely on a participant's mental abilities (ex. Strategy). And to have something become a mind sport, it has to obviously be of about the same caliber in strategy and mind abilities as chess. Chess only became a mind sport because of the amount of mental abilities and strategy it took to win, more so than any other game. A mind sport is not the same thing as a game of risk. So what makes video games of the same caliber to chess?
To back up the fact that video games lack the mind abilities and strategy necessary to qualify as a mind sport, I shall point out what my opponent said. " Games can require large amounts of strategy and even certain skill sets, such as twitch reflexes and hand maneuverability..." That is just about it. There is no backing up of points aside from saying that video games have reflex skills and hand maneuverability. There is no example of strategy, nothing that suggests that video games have remotely any mental skills let alone ones that could even qualify to become a mind sport. Video games compared to musical instruments and actual sports have relatively little strategy and even less skill.
Then my opponent goes on to say that video games should be a sport and proves that with the words, "why shouldn't they be?" As if that's a valid point, my opponent continues on to say that I should be the one to argue that video games aren't a sport. May I remind my opponent that video games currently are not a sport. May I also remind my opponent that he is arguing for video game to become a sport and therefore has to actually put forth facts to prove so. I am here to defend sports and stop my opponent from making video games a sport. The Burden of Proof is upon my opponents shoulders and so far has not shifted. You cannot argue that a rectangle should be recognized as a square with the words, "why shouldn't they be?"
Definition of Sports
On the subject of the definition you asserted for me, I don't quite believe that definition covers the term "sports", at least not fully. Before I tell you my definition, I would like to restate the topic and make one clarification.
"Should video gaming be a sport?"
The use of the word "should" implies that it does not matter whether or not gaming is already a sport, but whether or not they deserve to be sports. In stating my definition, I will have to make it clear that, currently, video games aren't sports and perhaps, no matter how much they deserve it, may never be sports. My definition is as follows:
"A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community"
I understand that this may cause some issues, so allow me to clarify:
when I say, "by the community", I mean those who deem it relevant; understand the topic (at least enough to make a decision); and identify as viewers, participators, or otherwise people who experience sports in some other fashion. And, to clarify my clarification, when I say "Identify as", I mean that it is up to the person to decide whether or not they are "players" (or "fans", or whatever makes sense) of the sport; If I watched one Nuggets game, that does not make me a fan of basketball.
Furthermore, I know that there is room for misconceptions or loopholes in my definition, but those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up.
Also, a quick sidenote: golf and chess don't directly require physical exertion. So we have already taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite.
Mental Sports and Skill/Strategy
Both of my opponent's arguments from here on out base themselves on video games requiring no strategy. As I mentioned before, this was really a topic I didn't want my opponent to bring up. Perhaps I was unprepared for this, but I don't know how to explain games and their strategy to a person who has either never played video games or does not play games related to strategy. I can only assume that one of those two topics applies to you, otherwise you would not be talking about them here with me.
So allow me to either enlighten you or fail at doing so.
First of all, games are a diverse medium. In order to say that games in general do not have strategy, you must claim that games do not have the potential to have strategy, a claim that doesn't make sense, or claim that games that have strategy are few and far between, and therefore the games played on high level Esports streaming are unlikely to have any strategy.
Assuming you are an outsider to gaming (which may be putting you into a box a little, but I don't really know what to assume) the latter claim may seem to hold water, so I understand that this argument not a surefire way to take your claim down.
So, allow me to show you some of the aforementioned strategy:
There is a game called League of Legends, or LoL. In this game, each of the playable characters has a different skill set, different special attacks (called abilities), different stats, etc. The goal of the game is to destroy the enemy side's "Nexus", which is guarded by the enemy team, a few turrets, and a lot of minions. Simple enough, right?
Now that you have the background, allow me to show you some of the strategy in the game
-->skip the first two parts, they don't deal with strategy.
--->Most of this is just definitions and important terms. I would recommend the "choosing items" and lower for actual strategy, but the vast number of terms and details do prove my point about strategy.
Handled that just fine? Here's something just a bit more complex.
And, if you're doing this at Esports levels, it just gets harder. Way harder. This is essentially surface level stuff in comparison.
OR, if reading these guides is too much, which it may be (they are very long, and I only skimmed them myself), you could just trust me and everyone else who has had firsthand experience with these types of games before, and believe me when I say they require strategy. I swear it on my honor, these things require strategy in order to work. If you were to play me in LoL, I would demolish you.
Also, it should go without saying, there are more strategy based games then just LoL, many of which require as much strategy. I didn't list them here because if I did, I would be posting links to strategy guides all day.
And yes, I stand by what I said about twitch reflexes and finger speed. It sounds stupid, but play a game that requires twitch reflexes or anything like that (such as an FPS), and note the differences between how well you would play and how well professionals would play (there is footage out there on youtube, I guerrantee).
The Burden of Proof
I stand by what I said earlier. If games do not contradict the characteristics of sports, then they have the potential to be sports. Therefore, in order to argue that games should not be sports, you must find these contradictions and reveal them; I don't have to prove them to be capable of being considered sports because being capable of being sports is simply not contradicting with what could make it a sport.
To paraphrase, if we were to find nothing that disqualifies it from being a sport, then it is a sport. Therefore, the only thing I can do, as well as the only thing I should have to do, is shoot down the arguments you make, which are the aforementioned disqualifications.
You could argue that if nothing qualifies it as a sport, it is not a sport, which would be my argument flipped on its head. However, some of these qualifications are implied (if you ask me, strategy should be; you can't just assume that video games are incapable of strategy), so it is much simpler for you to explain why these qualifications don't count than it is to go over every given.
With all of that said, what we are doing right now can be viewed as either discussing qualifications, disqualifications, or the lack thereof on either of those two terms. It doesn't matter how we phrase this from here on out, we are currently arguing over these topics, which is something we can both agree on.
My opponent's definition as stated before is, "A sport is a game that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three, which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game. Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community" Let us break it down bit by bit considering that it is a very lengthy, broad definition.
"A sport is a game..." We already know that sport falls under the umbrella definition of game.
"... that requires skill, strength, strategy, or any balance of the three,..." My opponent has basically said that for a game to be a sport, it has to have skill, strategy or strength, varying in how much of each. Now we know that skill and strategy is something that is iffy about video games, but strength is a whole other matter. Now the definition for strength is, "The quality or state of being physically strong:"  Now we come back to the argument over physical exertion. If my opponent means 'balance of the three' meaning it could be just a balance of "skill and strategy" or "strength and skill", etc and not the third option (if the game didn't have strength for example), that is literally the definition of game and therefore makes my opponents definition invalid.
If that isn't so, that means all three are a, "must have" for a game to be a sport. My opponent said golf and chess don't require physical exertion. May I remind my opponent that chess is a mind sport and therefore is apart from the definition of sport. May I also remind my opponent that golf is physically exerting. Just in the same sense that my opponent thinks that LoL has strategy, golf requires strength. If it did not require you to be physically strong, how come men's swings are more powerful than others? Wouldn't they all be the same if golf wasn't physically exerting? So we actually haven't taken out physical exertion as a prerequisite. Therefore, this has made your definition unhelpful to your cause.
May I also point out the fact that my opponent used the words, "or any balance of the three..." This is extremely vague and is practically still the exact same as the definition for game.
Like I said before, if you took out the 'physical exertion' in the definition for sport, you'd end up with the definition for game. May I remind my opponent of the analogy of the square and rectangle. A square can be a rectangle but a rectangle cannot be a square. The definitions for sport and game may be similar, but they're not. Do not get them mixed up when trying to create a new definition. Otherwise the definition, like my opponents one, is wrong in this context.
"...which can be used to test those qualities and the ability to apply such qualities in the game..." That's exactly what sports do.
"... Further, it has to be widely known and understood, and, above all else, it must be considered a sport by the community." And then my opponent clarifies this by saying, technically if the fans who care about the game want the game to be a sport, therefore it is a sport. Firstly, this has absolutely no logic to it whatsoever. Just because I want tic-tac-toe to become a sport does not mean that it makes it a sport just because I want it to be one. Tic-Tac-Toe does not qualify to be a sport and my 'willing' it to be one, won't make it a sport. Therefore, it makes this last bit of my opponents definition invalid. Just because video gamers want to tell people they play a sport when they actually don't, does not mean that their 'wanting' has any bearing on whether video games become a sport or not.
Look at it this way, if my opponents definition were true, a sport could be a game of monopoly. If the monopoly players truly believed their game was a sport, then it would be one because my opponents definition is incredibly vague. A game of tic-tac-toe could be a sport under my opponents very broad definition.
Then my opponent tells me not to look too closely to his definition because in his words, "... those circle around specifics, or otherwise loopholes and misconceptions that don't need to be brought up." This is incredibly ridiculous. A definition is the exact meaning of a word. There shouldn't be any loop holes in a definition, which is what makes my opponents definition even more invalid. Therefore by giving this definition, (which is essentially the definition for game), my opponent has gained absolutely nothing and video games still do not deserve/qualify to be a sport.
Strategy is used in sports and mind sports. Since we already know that video games still do not qualify/deserve to be a sport, it therefore doesn't matter whether my opponent proves that gaming takes strategy. Nevertheless, I will continue.
My opponents next points are basically, LoL has strategy, to prove that, here are a ton of links. Or you can just not check my links and accept that LoL has strategy.
So, I did not take my opponents word for it. I checked all the links and actually, they're not 'strategy guides'. They are basic to intermediate manuals on how to play LoL, which actually don't really elaborate too much on how LoL has strategy.
May I point out the fact that my opponent vaguely says LoL has strategy. May I also point out the fact that my opponent just posted a bunch of links without actually elaborating on what the links say. If debates were like that, why would anybody bother trying to write out everything? Why not just post a bunch of links? My opponent even admits that he himself only briefly glanced at these links before posting them. These links are barely adequate to prove that LoL has strategy that is even complex. May I also state that LoL is one game out of many video games. So tell me, how does a FPS game like Battlefront have strategy? How about other genres of video games? Do they have strategy too?
As a side note, it really doesn't matter that LoL has lots of terms and details. So does D&D. Does that make D&D a sport? Science has lots of terms, more so than LoL. Does that make science a sport?
Then my opponent says that the guides are surface level compared to the strategy in ESports. This is again, an empty statement like many of my other opponents statements.
So basically my opponent has provided empty statements with links to manual guides to back up his statement that LoL has strategy.
To back up the fact that video games do not contain much strategy let alone enough to qualify as a mind sport, I shall state that LoL is just one game out of many games. And obviously my opponent chose LoL to represent that video games have strategy because it's probably the most strategic video game out there. So that means that LoL is the pinnacle game for strategy. All other games are below it in that category. LoL may have strategy, but the majority of other video games do not have as much strategy as LoL (the strategy in LoL is even doubtful). When the majority of video games do not have strategy, or a bare minimum of it, how could my opponents definition let alone mind sports definition aide my opponents cause?
For someone who is supposedly an "insider" in LoL, feel free to explain your strategy. Try not to lie though, I've had many an opponents who's lied to put forth an argument.
As for "should video gaming be a sport?" Let me use a comparison.
Should I eat this apple?
The use of the word "should" means that I haven't eaten the apple yet and am pondering whether I should. This is the same for should video games be a sport? They are currently not a sport and we are pondering whether it should be one. I do not have to do anything because video games are currently not a sport. You are the one who has to come up with a point that could actually shift the BOP off your shoulders. Right now, all you have been doing is trying to refute my points. You have one last round to come forth with a point.
As for disqualifications/qualifications. You said it yourself that we need to prove that either video games qualify or don't qualify to be a sport. To qualify for something, generally the thing that's qualifying has to meet all the prerequisites. Since video gaming has not met the prerequisite for sports (physical exertion), it therefore still isn't a sport.
Ok, I might have to concede here. If mind sports are to be considered separate from the overall term of sports, then I cannot debate that Esports can be considered real sports. I'm fine with losing this debate, both sides did well, and I feel we have accomplished much ground. Besides, I only have 16 more hours before this debate gets shut down.
WOW, I had a page typed up then my internet temporarily went down. I hate everything right now.
ANYWAYS, to summarize, everything that I had typed, I decided to address arguments despite having had already forfeited. The idea that games don't have strategy as a blanket statement is absurd. One of the sources that you shrugged off actually had some good bits of strategy, which you had ignored. I can't do this argument justice because I'm not good enough at strategy games, and even if I was, it's not as much something that can be explained as it is something learned through practice. Not good enough an argument? Too bad, I'm tired, and most people from my experience already know it's true.
I ended it with asking if you were serious about the strategy thing. I found there were a few reasons you could be arguing against games having strategy without believing it. Since I have already forfeited, just tell me if you have, ok?
Well debated, etc., I'm going to bed
As for strategy and skill, it doesn't matter whether video games have it or not becuase my opponent never proved that video games have physical exertion.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.