Chess (Full resolution in first round)

This is a huge voting issue as fallacies are not legitimate arguments, so at the point that an argument is shown to be a fallacy an opponent of that argument is under no burden to refute the argument. The fact that it is a fallacy illegitimatizes the argument at a basic level; consider the following logical syllogism as an example Person A: Grass dies. Men also die. Therefore men are grass. Person B: My opponent's argument is a fallacy, as the major premise and minor premise do not support the conclusion. Person A: So you don't deny that men are grass? Person B: I don't need to refute the argument because it's a flawed argument. This is fundamentally the same for the arguments my opponent provides; because they are fallacies I don't have to refute them. They refute themselves. Second; Sources- Here's where some analysis on the cherry-picking comes in; my opponent fails to provide any manner of compelling sources for her income argument until the last round. Instead in the rounds where clash is available to happen she cites forums and the such for these numbers; this is illegitimate as these speeches were reserved by opponent to be rebuttal speeches. At the point an argument gains a different warrant than was originally advocated, it is a new argument. Not to mention a perfect example of ad hoc rescue, instead defending the logic and warrants employed in prior rounds my opponent ditches them in favor of new warrants. Now I am under no burden to answer these new arguments, but a simple answer (I'm talking about the income of chess players here) is that 50,000 is a decent income[13]. [13] . http://www.convertunits.com... Third; More Cherry-Picking Now the basic assertion to my opponent cherry-picking fallacy was not in her sources, but in her refutations of my arguments. I argue that in refuting my own arguments my opponent fails to address my arguments in their given context, but instead cherry-picks certain lines that she can easily defend. This goes unanswered, and so we see that my opponent's refutations must be rejected So what do these three things mean? It means that my opponent has no arguments in her favor to warrant a vote for the Pro. When Pro commits the cherry-picking fallacy and fails to defend herself, all attacks on the Con must be dropped. If the attacks are fallacies and do not refute my arguments in their given context, then they are not legitimate refutations. When Pro commits the Ad Hoc rescue fallacy and fails to defend herself, she drops her prior arguments and their warrants in favor of new arguments and new warrants. So then there is nothing on the flow which would warrant a vote for the Pro. Fourth; the art of competition is not addressed In round two I show that while the game of chess in and of itself is an art competition is an art as well; this argument is never answered an it was perhaps the biggest argument of the Con. Except perhaps indirectly from her competitive chess argument which she outright drops in the final round. So in summary the argument for competition is as follows- We both agree that the student will appreciate the game of chess; so either way we get the benefit of the art of the game of chess. When a chess coach teaches their students to become chess players, they also gain the benefit of learning the art of competition; this is not the case when a coach teaches his student only to appreciate the game. So when a coach fails to teach their student to become a chess player he fails his students as they do not come to appreciate the art of competition. Fifth; Chess Coaches are expensive; they should the bill I show this in my round two, but Pro fails to respond to the argument (unless by inference of her income argument, which I'll cover in a moment). Instead Pro claims that the coaches do not fail their student if they teach them to appreciate the game; the problem with this refutation is that they students already appreciate the game. As I've said prior, for a student to shell out the necessary cash to pay for a Chess coach they're going to have to appreciate the game. So for them to spend this much money solely for the coach to teach them something they already know is for the coach to fail the student; as a parallel, if an man were to hire a personal trainer to help them get in better shape, but the personal trainer instead taught the man to appreciate a healthy lifestyle, then the personal trainer would have failed the man as he already appreciates a healthy life style. If he did not he wouldn't have hired the personal trainer in the first place. Keep this analogy in mind as I will employ it again in a moment Before that, in the case that the income argument was meant as a refutation to the expense of hiring a chess coach, you need to reject it for the following reasons; First; A Chess Player-Chess Coach's income doesn't negate that s/he cost a lot of money Secondl It is my opponent's responsibility to make a connection here. It is not the job of the judges to make the link by inference of their own merit. and, Third; I show that 50,000 to 70,000 dollars a year is a decent amount of money (which my opponent is unfortunately unable to respond to since she failed to make this argument until round 4) Finally; Teaching a student a certain way doesn't mean they'll turn out a certain way I spoke on this argument in round three; just because a chess coach teaches their students to become a chess player does not mean that the student will become a chess player. When I took statistics last semester my professor taught the class as thought I were planning to pursue a career where statistics would be utilized. This was a huge benefit to me as I learned the material on more than a topical level and I am able to use that knowledge in other areas of my life -- as for my career, I don't plan on attaining any career which would require the regular use of statistics; I plan to be a debate coach instead. Once more employing the example of a man and his personal trainer; for the personal trainer to train the man in such a way as to become an athlete doesn't obligate the man to become an athlete. He already appreciates his health which is why he hired the coach in the first place, but with the coach training him to perform at a level beyond his desires he gains further benefit aside from the appreciate of his health. The same is true with Chess. The student who hires the coach already appreciates the game; but they lack sophisticated skills. These are skills they want to learn and for the coach to deprive them of these skills is for him to fail his student. He provides these skills by training his students to become Chess Players, regardless of their actual intention to become a chess player. I thank my opponent once again for a good debate, and I urge a vote for the Con! Accordingly: Vote Con! -- -- -- -- -- Also I apologize for my misspelling in the prior round and hope that it did not confuse anyone too much.