Contrary to popular belief, strategy is important in the game of rock paper scissors.

org for making all of this possible. Note: In this debate, I am going to use the abbreviation "RPS" for "rock paper scissors". Now going right into my opponent's first argument, the con side's main point is that it is most likely a widespread belief that strategy IS involved in rock paper scissors, and that I must provide proof that it is NOT a widespread belief that strategy is involved in rock paper scissors in order to win this debate. I wonder if I am the only one with the facial expression: O_o when reading my opponent's first contention. The point of this debate, clearly, is not about how common a belief it is that strategy is involved in RPS. The point of this debate, is whether there really is strategy involved. What the general population's opinion on this issue is NOT relevant whatsoever. I made the statement that "contrary to popular belief, strategy is important in RPS" merely as a hook to introduce my stance. Therefore, I do not have to prove whether that is true or not, as it is not what the debate is intended for. Now, if you do not buy what I said, I will go ahead and humor my opponent and dispute his first contention. He has cited a site that does contain strategies for RPS and go on saying that there are RPS tournaments around the world. Neither of these two facts, however, prove that it is commonly believed that RPS is a game of strategy. The owner of worldrps. com does not reflect the views of the general population. The owner may believe that RPS is a game of strategy, but that is only the owner's view. Moving on, the fact that there are national and world tournaments of RPS does not prove that the general population believe RPS is a game of strategy. Contrary to what my opponent said, a tournament is not necessary a test of skill. People could attend the RPS tournaments because they want to have a chance of winning money. People could also attend because it is a fun and unique event. Thus, one could see why my opponent hasn't proved anything with his first contention. Now, I don't have to defend my statement that it is not a popular belief that RPS is a game of strategy, and I will confess that I cannot "prove" that it is the case that the general public believe RPS is just luck. There are no polling done, and there are no other data I could use. I believe, however, that the voters would agree it is indeed a common belief that RPS is mostly luck. I cannot speak for other people though, but in my school, it is definitely that case that very few people sympathize with my belief that strategy is important in RPS. Before addressing my opponent's second contention, I'll say that if the voters do not buy my attempt to rebut my opponent's case, or my attempt to make my own case, voters should disregard my opponent's first contention EITHER WAY, because as I have already said, this debate is not about how common a belief it is that RPS is a game of strategy, the debate is about whether there really is strategy involved in RPS. Moving on to my opponent's second contention, he stated that RPS may or may not involve strategy based on the situation. His example is that if neither player really care about the outcome of the game, they would both just do completely random throw. I agree with this statement, however, this is a moo point, and is NOT a contention substantial enough for the voter to consider. This is an unsubstantial statement because in ANY game that involves RPS, there are situations when there will be no strategy involved. An example would be the game of chess, a game that is widely considered as a game of strategy. If two players do not know how to play, or they are just fooling around, making random moves on the chess board, there would be no "strategy" involved. This phenomenon can be apply to any other game. My only burden is to show that when two players want to "win", they will be strategy involved in RPS, I do not have to prove that in any possible situation one can dream of, there will always be strategy involved in RPS, because this is impossible to do for any game. Thus, the voters would have to completely disregard this particular point my opponent has made. To sum it up, I have addressed my opponent's first contention and explained why it should be disregarded by the voter. Then I have explained why my opponent's second contention should be disregarded as well because of it lacks substance.