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

Con says: "The order is 1 off, then caseFirst Off: Education KritikThere is a rising prevalence in DDO in what are called "troll debates": debates which either a) have no real meaning, or b) are pointless to debate. Here are a few examples:"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. Con says: "This debates qualifies as b) pointless to debate, primarily because this is debate, not chess. (more on this in the Case debate) Should more and more of these troll debates come up, the good education we once got from DDO will be adulterated and poisoned with useless debates, scaring off/turing off many intelligent debaters. This differs from the kind of education the pro advocates, which basically is nonexistent. Ultimately education should be the biggest impact in this debate. Even if I do not play chess often (I don't have a chess.com account, more on that in the case debate), the one thing that both sides of this debate and the voters get, is education, however much it may be. But engaging in these kinds of "debates" simply destroys it. Thus the alternative is to reject the prevalence of these troll debates (ie. the pro), and return to true debate, in which we discuss real-world issues." 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. Con says: "Last point: Kriitk outweighs and turns the case. 1) Magnitude: Education is literally a reason why we debate. Taking that away would take away the core of debate itself. 2) Probability/timeframe, education occurs in every waking moment. By doing the alterantive, we solve the case by putting these debates where they ought to be (in this case, a chess website)" Again, off topic and irrelevant. Con says: "Next, caseFirst, this is the wrong forum for this debate. The only way to establish who is superior in a chess game is to actually play the game. "Actually, Con stays on the subject of his last arguement. How funny.Con says: "Second, the pro's proposed method of comparison is not the best "comparison," primarily because I don't have a chess.com account. The best comparisons ought to be those in which people actually have a chance of meeting."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)Con says: "Third, while we're at it, let's define what "better means":Better: greater than half (http://www.merriam-webster.com......). So in other words, the pro is trying to say his skill is better than half of me, half of my body. This is true, particularly because in the title, it says "more of a player than con". If the pro wanted to refer to the con's skill, the pro should have said "more of a player than the con is, as a chess player." The pro's grammatical vageueness enables me to conclude that the pro's claim is total nonsesnse. It's illogical to compare chess skill to a body. " (Is it illogical to assume that the word "better" has different meanings?)Con uses a typical dictionary grammar check to try and win by saying I used the wrong word. If you look at the link he provided, it actually lists five definitions of the word "better". He qoute mined the one that fitted his arguement best, and disregarded that words mean different things in different contexts. The link he provided actually has a list of uses of the word better, and here is one of them: " She's a better golfer than I am." Now, if I replace golfer with chess player.... She's a better chess player than I am." It is used properly. Because of this, Cons arguement is again irrelevant. ____________________________________________________________________________________Now, onto my chess stats. Currently, I have played a total of 1720 games of Blitz chess (10 Minute 3 minute) and 1698 games of bullet chess. Let us combine those two numbers, and say that the average time spent playing is about 3 minutes. This means I would have spent around 10254 minutes playing chess. That's around 170 hours of non-stop chess. This proves that I have more experience playing chess than con, as he hasn't provided any evidence to support his claims. (http://www.chess.com..., If one has a premium account, he can view this. during my next round arguement i will post pictures of this stat page, sorry for this.)(Here is my Missouri chess page) http://www.uschess.org...; (I am in the 68th percentile, which means that I am better than most Rated players in my state)I am very expereiced in the "Fried Liver Attack" and the "Owens Defense" as I have played them numerous times. Although I am rather new to chess, I am learning more everyday. I will let Con argue his case next round, and hopefully he makes statements that are relevant to the debate.