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

The order is Kritik, then case.The pro goes very heavy against the kritik in the form of irrevalence, which is understandable, since the pro probably doesn't know what a Kritik is. In real debate, a Kritik is a special kind of argument that criticizes the underlying presumptions the pro/affirmative (if you're a policy debater like me) has. In this case, I'm critiquing the kind of education the pro is fostering, which is nonexistant. For the voters, the reason why this Kritik is relevant, and the pro links, is that the pro's debate/methododology of debate fosters the decline of good education that the Kritik said was bad. Lastly, keep in mind the con does not have the burden of topicality. As long as the con can show the case links to it, the con can run anything the con wants. It is the pro that must remain topical to whatever resolution is established.That is the only argument the pro goes for. The pro has completely dropped that the alternative solves, and is sufficient to solve the case. The pro has also conceded that the Kritik outweighs the case (seee first speech), thus voters, evaluate the Kritik before the case; education is a voter issue. Even if there is a chance I will fail to prove I am a better chess player than the pro, education still is the biggest impact in this debate since the only thing you voters get out of any debate really, is EDUCATION. Education, the literal FOUNDATION of debate. I don't see that education here. Now, let's take apart the pro's arguments against the Kritik piece by piece:1) " First off, con does nothing to provide evidence as to wether or not he is a better chess player than I am. In fact, he argues a point that is not related to the topic. Because of this, his argument here is irrelivant. " First, the lack-of-evidence argument doesn't belong here, it belongs in the Case debate. I will address it there. Second, as I said before, the Kritik doesn't need to be directly relevant to the case, ie. the Kritik does not need to criticize the entirety of the case. That would be limiting. The Kritk is criticizing just the education the pro "fosters", thus link.2) "Rather than debating the given topic, Con makes a case that this debate shall not be intelligent. I will not argue against this, but it is not the topic of the debate. If Con chose this debate simply to call me a troll and saying that debates like this shouldn't be here, why is he taking part of a so called "Troll debate". Because of this, I am also labeling this irrelevant. "Let me make this clear: I am not calling the pro a troll. The pro is not one of those "PROBLEM, U MAD BRO?" memes, let's make that clear. It's clear that the pro is critizing the presumption that this debate is a "troll debate", as I called it. Let's also make this clear: the kritik is saying the pro's case supports a growing movement of bad debates, in which pointless topics are debated. I already showed the voters examples of this movement, now let me show you what embracing the alternative could do:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...These debates are what the alternative advoate for. Serious debates about real-world issues, with logical, coherent claims. The discinction between this debate and these debates is that a) chess isn't a serious issue, b) the only method of comparison the pro has extended insofar is statistics (more on that in the Case debate), c) the only thing voters learn is how to compare numbers, which most voters probably learned in pre-school.3) "Again, off topic and irrelevant. "Same as aboveNext, Case.Let's next go line-by-line on the pro's arguments.1) "Actually, Con stays on the subject of his last arguement. How funny."What does that even mean? I don't see how this is sufficient to answer the wrong-forum argument. Thus this argument goes uncontested. Voters, this means this case SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE. That is sufficient already enough to vote con. Thus, for the pro to actually prove he's good at chess, I want to see him actually PLAY rather than hide behind the veil of statistics.2) "One does not need a chess.com account, but simply proof that they can play the game well, or better than the oppenent. I have merely provided evidence that supports that I am a better chess player than Con. Because of this, I have proven I have A) More expereince in chess: and B) Excel against others in daily games. Con has no evidence of this, and most likely will fail to provide any. <-(This is a statement, and has no verifiable proof)"Let's start with "play the game well." Let's cross-apply the dropped wrong-forum argument. How else are you supposed to provide proof of "playing the game well" than PLAYING THE GAME? The pro makes it clear he wants to use statistics to answer that question, given he doesn't offer any other method of proof. True, I don't have a chess.com account. But even if I don't, chess.com should not be the method of comparison. First, extend my first speech argument that the best methods of comparisons should be those in which both sides have the possibility of meeting, which the pro DROPPED. Second, chess.com is an amateur website, which is not recognized by the World Chess Federation (https://www.fide.com...). That organization is the one that runs the World Chess Championships, basically the Super Bowl of chess. I don't think chess.com can even stand up to that.Ultimately, the only valid proof in this debate is a real chess game. No statistics should be used.3) [dictionary argument]I'm not going for this argument, concede that this argument is irrevalentLastly, I request to the voters that the role of the ballot be not who gives the most relevant arguments as the pro has so emphasized, I request the role of the ballot be which voter fosters the most and best education.