Chess (Full resolution in first round)

I preface my responses in this round with two observations; one which concerns itself with the nature of my opponent's refutations and one which concerns itself with my opponent's cited sources. First; to refute an argument by referring to a single line of the argument and concluding that the claim is false is a fallacy known as 'cherry-picking'. This can be a dishonest tactic, but is not always malicious in nature; if I can show that my opponent's selective citation and refutation is a cherry picking fallacy then these arguments must be discounted and made voting issues for the Con. Second; My opponent's first source is an answered question from Ask.com and her second source is a forum. Neither of these sources are authoritative academic sources and shouldn't be considered sound empirical evidence. I will not refute my opponent's arguments going directly down the flow. First: My opponent cites my major premise for negation, that "simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have." This was not an argument unto itself, but was a thesis of negation that I stand behind. The reason chess players and aspiring chess players sacrifice everything they do in order to become Chess players is that they deeply care about the game. To attempt to sway them from this goal due to fear of potential harms is abhorid; it makes the awful assumption that a person is incapable of of accomplishing the goal of becoming a chess player. One does not achieve greatness lest they make sacrifices; and thinking negatively does nothing to assist that goal. When a coach doesn't teach their student with the belief that they are able to become a chess player, they fail them. According to the Mayo Clinic[9], basic positive thinking can do world of good for a person, and this is especially true in regards to something like becoming a Chess Player. [9] http://www.mayoclinic.com... As for the Garry Kasparov argument my opponent Expressly cites Kasparov as an example of one who feels stressed; do not let them back out of this example. Next: My opponent cites my criticism of her reference to Pogonina's article- a quick review of the prior round will show that Pro does indeed suggest that losing a game while being a chess player could bring about intense levels of psychological distress. Given this claim was made after being filtered through three different sources, my prior attack should be accepted. This implication of irreparable psychological damage can be reasonable assumed based on my opponent's provision and analysis of the Garry Kasparov documentary. Furthermore to suggest that IMB had truly utilized human intervention in their chess machine against Garry Kasparov is not only an attack against the legitimacy of Deep Blue in the first place, but it is unfounded and only reassures my prior claim that Kasparov's downfall came as the result of pride. Kasparov couldn't handle the idea that a machine could have matched his ability to play Chess, much less beat him. If IBM had intended to cheat with the use of human intervention, then they would have done so during one the first two games Kasparov played against Deep Blue as well. At this point I would like to introduce a concept known as an 'ad hoc rescue[10]'. This a fallacy which occurs when one redesigns an argument once faced with opposition instead of directly refuting the argument. My opponent has claimed several times throughout this debate that I did not understand her arguments or that her arguments meant to covey a point other than how I interpreted them. This is the case with the high blood pressure argument specifically; Pro claims that she meant the high blood pressure example only as point of reference and stresses the phrase 'prone to' in her refutation. [10] http://www.iep.utm.edu... Next: Violence- If one has a violent personality, they are going to be violent no matter how committed or concerned they are about a given activity[11]. This is the very reason that many psychologist and counselors will tell those in abusive relationships not to return to their partner even if the partner promises that they will reform their actions and not act in such a manner. Teaching a person to simply appreciate the game instead of honing them to be a competitive Chess player will not curb these violent tendencies if the person is already prone to violence. [11] http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org... To call my argument here unreasonable is to reject it without fully addressing it. Next: Concerning my opponent's attack on my refutation of her second argument, as I've shown in the prior round, hiring a Chess Coach is not a cheap endeavor [6][7][8], so if one chooses to hire a coach it is highly likely that they already appreciate the game. They care about the activity and they want to improve, to pay a coach that much money for them to only teach the student something they already know is abhorred and is not preferable to a coach grooming a student to be a Chess Player. Furthermore it must be expressly noted that my opponent drops my analysis that competition is an art as well as Chess. This argument is a perfect example of my opponent cherry-picking her refutations; she takes a transitory line of analysis and makes it the make point of the refutation all the while dropping the argument of competition. Next: Coach's Responsibility- Furthermore, simply because a coach trains their students with the intention of them becoming Chess Players does not mean that they must become Chess Players. In the same way a Statistics professor would teach her students statistics in such a way as to prepare them high level math courses, the students are not obligated to takes these higher level math classes. They will likely appreciate the math they learned in that class much more as the result of having been taught in such a way, but still they are not obligated to take high level classes. In the same way a Chess coach should train his students with the intention of them becoming Chess Players whether they do or do not become Chess Players. We've already established that for some-one to employ a coach they must already care about and appreciate the game, so then if the coach does not provide the student with anything new he has failed his students. Next: Competitive Chess is not suited for everyone- From my opponent's sixth source in her second round[12] "In 1927, three Russian psychologists (Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik) studied eight of the best grandmasters of the time. The players included Emanuel Lasker, Richard Reti, Savielly Tartakower, Carlos Torre, Peter Romanovsky, Ernst Gurenfeld, and Rudolf Spielmann. They did not find any differences with a control sample on general intelligence or visuo-spatial memory, with the exception of memory tasks where the material to be recalled was closely related to chess. After a century of investigation, not a single study with adult chess players has managed to establish a link between chess skill and intelligence. Intellect had little predictive power among strong chess players." [12] http://www.chess.com... Despite what my opponent argues here, the precedent of her evidence concludes that anyone can become a great Chess Player if they dedicate enough time and energy to it. Back to you Famer!