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

People Who 'Know How To Play Chess' Are Just Pretending

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 431 times Debate No: 119847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




These people aren't smart. These people aren't clever. They sit in front of wooden boards all day, Staring at wooden figures contemplating nothing. They do nothing of any actual productive function to anyone or anything except for their own egos. In actuality the rules of chess aren't even consistent.


Are just pretending to do or be what?
Debate Round No. 1


ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


ThisSiteTrash_uPPLrTrash forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by K_Michael_Tolman 3 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I am a chess player (not professionally or anything, I just know how to play)
If you mean that chess has no strategy involved, I would say it takes at least as much strategic thinking as a clash royale game of whatever that game's called. It's not a very realistic representation of how actual battle works, But neither are health bars or an arrow to the head only taking half HP.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave claims. Con did not give an argument. Con expected Pro to answer his/her question in the next Round but Pro forfeited. I don't consider a question an argument so Con only gets conduct which should be enough for him to win.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.