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

The order is: Kritik, then CaseKritikEDUCATION 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. CaseThe 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.