Chess is a sport

RE:Recap: I would like to start with an apology when I read arguments only I assumed you didn't want me defining things as done in round one, remember that a rebuttal is in fact a directed argument, but to be honest what arguments do you make against the general statement "Chess isn't a sport" if your opponent has already addressed them because this debate is centering around the definition I provided. So I do apologize for the misunderstanding. My opponent as done by many is grasping at straws: -gives two "Mistakes" that are not followed up (so you can ignore these comment entirely) -she agreed to a definition and then decided to argue it in her "Con-Premise" (very punny) -she attempts to show flaw with my interpretation of her logic by stating standing isn't physically exhausting, let me tell you 3 hrs of standing hurts. -she disregards herself when she speaks about how stress reactions legitimize chess being a sport. -she tries to pass me the BOP when it is not negs responsibility to prove anything only to simply disprove pros arguments thus causing pro to fail at filling the BOP Rebuttal to Con-Premise 1| Physical Exertion is derived from physical movement and I can argue this. its illogical and abusive to try to force me to accept this as a fact and deny me the ability to argue it. I would also like to point out that in round two while the brain is part of the human body no physical exertion or physical movement is taking place. Remember there is a difference between mental exertion and physical exertion. Thus this point flows to me. My opponent then addresses the definition, movement is not heavy-based activity, my argument is simply that there is no physical exertion caused by chess. she then attempts to skew the definition HOWEVER the definition still holds because she provides no counter to mine. Rebuttal to Con-Premise 2|My opponent clearly misunderstands what physical exertion is, she in round 2 argued with evidence that you are burning calories thus chess is a sport. HOWEVER standing burns calories and it is physically doing so, I'm not arguing standing is a sport but instead that under her logic it would be. REMEBER physically exhausting is not in the definition I provided physical exertion is, she is not showing how physical exertion is being applied to chess thus chess is not a sport. Rebuttal to Con-Premise 3| here is where my opponent steps up her confusion, apparently the signs of stress being shown in chess prove its a sport in round 2 but in round 3 they no longer do, my opponent is setting up a double standard that doesn't make sense. Rebuttal to "Additional Observation"| I find it rude that my opponent thinks stating " I am a fully grown woman and not a stubborn little girl " would gain her any ground. my opponent has already agreed to my Chris Crawford card by omission to evidence. so where I'm showing chess qualifies as a game and not a competition is just, notice again she provides no counter evidence. second she again tries to move the BOP onto me to show why the definition for sports applies to sports. lets just use some sound logic, we are talking about sports, this defines sports, THUS it applies to sports. Again she has yet to actually show how chess is a sport in this other than by restating some sports that are games, however if she hasn't shown chess has actual physical exertion then it doesn't matter what sports she tries to apply, she hasn't met the BOP. Rebuttal to "Additional Argument" | Chess doesn't require physical movement, people play chess by calling out piece to position then the piece is moved without them moving. And I would still argue simply lifting an arm is not physical effort because it does not require ample effort, remember that this logic and mindset would allow standing to fall under the definition of sport. My opponent then CONCEDES that chess can be played without any movement whatsoever by stating "there (usually) is physical movement." notice how usually is there, that's not an accident. in chess low-level tourneys allow the movement of pieces however many competitors at higher tourneys have physical disabilities, thus calling allows them still to play. My Own Additional Argument | My opponent has not throughout this entire debate shown how my definition is wrong nor provided us with another so we must stick to my definition. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. She has not shown how physical exertion is exercised at all in chess, lets just define this real quick. Exertion: physical or mental effort. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Effort: a serious attempt to do something. http://www.merriam-webster.com... the definition calls for PHYSICAL EXERTION, while chess may require mental exertion it does not require physical exertion and my opponent hasn't show any physical exertion, a serious attempt to do something physically, at all. Conclusion| My opponent has not adequately provided the BOP by giving any example of a serious attempt to do something physically. my opponent has constantly tried to hand me a Burdon of proof, but I wont accept it, its the affirmations job to show proof they are correct and not the negatives. thus we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation.