BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chess cannot ensure fair play

Even if we were to accept all other reasons for including chess in the Olympic Games, it is actually not implementable. The Olympics have strict regulations against any form of cheating in their sports14, and have thus required chess competitions to be subject to drug tests before they can be considered. However, cheating in chess goes far beyond doping. There have been abundant chess scandals where players used computer programmes to aid them throughout the game. As technology develops, it is likely that these will become even harder to detect. Furthermore, another form of cheating that is impossible to prevent is collusion. Players can meet beforehand and agree to draw games for their mutual advantage15. Both of these kinds of cheating are impossible to regulate, and thus chess cannot compatible with the Olympics’ zero-tolerance regulations. [14] “Factsheet: The fight against doping and promotion of athletes’ health”, International Olympic Committee. January 2013. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Fight_against_doping.pdf [15] Everding, Gerry. “Cheating in world chess championships is nothing new, study suggests”, Newsroom, Washington University in St. Louis, 9 October 2006. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7935.aspx
Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself

Opening up the Olympics for chess leads to a dangerous slippery slope. After this concession it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line for bridge, poker, or even videogames. This is problematic, because in the status quo there are many sports that are universally recognised as such (unlike those mentioned above), and yet have to be excluded from the Olympics due to lack of space. These include bandy, baseball, bowling, cricket, netball, rugby, softball and rugby. All of these already have massive support internationally and form a coherent category. As a result of this lack of space some sports are sometimes replaced, for example at the moment wrestling is not certain to take place at the 2020 Olympics with baseball and squash vying to take its place.16 Chess, bridge, and similar games, on the other hand, have a very different nature. It makes more sense for the future of both categories to draw a distinction between conventional sports on one hand, and mind games on the other. That way, as many players as possible can participate in a top level competition, with more space in the Olympics for physical sports, and competitions such as the World Mind Sports Games dedicated to mind games.17 [16] AP “Wrestling, baseball-softball, squash make 2020 Olympics short list”, CBS, 29 May 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57586663/wrestling-baseball-softball-squash-make-2020-olympics-short-list/ [17] “History”, International Mind Sports Association. http://www.imsaworld.com/wp/about-imsa/history/
Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics

It would not benefit chess to become a part of the Olympics. In the status quo, the World Chess Federation organises a Chess Olympiad every second year, clashing with the Olympic Games. If the motion passed, the Chess Olympiad and many other chess competitions would, if not disappear, at least lose much of their prestige and popularity. This is harmful for the chess community. Although chess-specific tournaments are less renown internationally than the Olympics, they have a high status within its fan base. In the Olympics, chess would become meshed with other sports with which it shares nothing. Having to compete for viewers with other sports’ Olympic tradition, it would be unlikely to amass great support. Thus, chess would risk both losing its own successful competitive events, and failing to obtain an equally high status in the Olympics.
Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport

The fact that the body is the vessel in shooting, curling and taekwondo is more relevant than this argument suggests. It means that the final determining factors are physical ones, such as speed, control, and precision. In chess, although stamina is involved, it could never be sufficient to win a game. The determining factors are intellectual, such as the mind’s precision in calculating many moves into the future. The brain is an organ: but we do not call anything that tires our brain a sport.
Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games

It is not a good in itself to make modern Olympics resemble the ancient events as much as possible. Ancient Games, for instance, only allowed men to compete, and many of the sports involved today did not exist then. Progress is generally considered a good thing, and the purpose and meaning of the Olympics has progressed since then. This does not mean that art and culture have no place, and indeed there are cultural festivities surrounding every Olympic event. But modern Olympics have an identity of their own, and the question of whether chess belongs to it is a different one.
Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good

The benefits of chess should be promoted in their right context: a competition exclusively about chess can emphasise these aspects. The Olympics’ motto, on the other hand, is “Faster, higher, stronger”11: chess is very much in the periphery of its message. Such an event is incapable of emphasising all of chess’ merits without a serious and controversial transformation. It is even unlikely to gather more viewers for chess when it competes with other sports, closer to the Olympics’ purpose. [11] “Opening Ceremony”, International Olympics Committee, 2002. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reports/EN/en_report_268.pdf
Chess is highly popular and should be represented

Chess is not as appealing to an ignorant observer as other sports, by virtue of not being physical. Most people can relate to the impressive nature of Olympic gymnastics or a goal-scoring back-flip, even without knowing the rules or the complex strategies involved. This is not the case for chess: it requires a more patient and informed audience. Even if it is viewer friendly for its strong fan base, it is unlikely to gather more support in the Olympics, where many other more established sports are also at their most available.
Opening up the Olympics for borderline sports is bad in itself

The Olympic does not hold precedence as a justification for including a given sport. They do not have fixed guidelines, and they include sports on a case by case basis. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this would force the IOC to accept other mind games. Bridge and poker, for instance, rely on an element of chance, which chess does not. This is a criterion that impacts their appropriateness for assessing human potential, and a ground on which other mind sports ought not to be included. Furthermore, it may well be true that the Olympics cannot continue expanding due to lack of space, and the inability of most countries to host such large events. However, chess is one of the examples where the least space and infrastructure is required. This is an argument for not having infinite sports, but it provides no reason to exclude chess from a finite selection.
Chess-specific competitions create a better event for chess players than the Olympics

All other Olympic sports have their own competitions. Even if the Olympiad was to fade out due to clashes, other prestigious competitions will doubtless remain as in any other sport. Being recognised as an Olympic sport would be a great gain for the chess community. Exposure creates attention and support: for example, chess had its first boom in Norway after Magnus Carlsen became internationally recognised18. Being part of the Olympics will show people the benefits of chess and provide a higher platform towards which amateurs can strive. [18] “Norway makes its international chess move”, News & Events, Norway: The Official Site in the UK, 3 September 2010. http://www.norway.org.uk/News_and_events/Current-Affairs/Norway-makes-its-move-in-the-international-chess-world/
Chess ought to qualify as an Olympic sport

Chess is not a predominantly physical sport, yet neither are shooting and curling (which, in fact, has been nicknamed “chess on ice”5). The opposition may respond that the determining factor in these is still physical, such as speed and precision. However, chess too requires precise calculation in short periods of time. There is no relevant distinction to be drawn between the human brain and other organs: both can be trained and strained, and doing so should be equally rewarded. More importantly, taekwondo is a further example of what may be called a mind sport. As in chess, both participants have the same set of moves which can be combined in a near infinite number of ways: it thus becomes a battle of intellect and strategy rather than strength. The body merely becomes the vessel through which to compete, precisely as a chess board. Although the vessels are different, the fundamental activity is the same, and thus if taekwondo is valid as an Olympic sport, so should chess be. [5] Tomlinson, Brett. “Chess on ice”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 28 January 2009. http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2009/01/28/pages/5296/index.xml
Introducing chess would preserve the spirit of the ancient Olympic Games

When the IOC spokeswoman Emmanuelle Moreau stated that “mind sports, by their nature, cannot be part of the program”6, she contradicted Olympic history. The Ancient Greek Panhellenic Games (forerunners of the modern Olympic Games) indeed emphasised musical, theatrical and painting competitions.7 Even the modern Olympic Games had non-physical competitions such as painting, design and poetry between 1912 and 1952.8 Through chess, the cultural and mental aspect now lost in the Olympic Games is protected. The limits of human capability can be investigated from a new, intellectual, angle. This would allow the Games to celebrate, as intended, human potential in its entirety. [6] Haire, Meaghan. “Should Chess Be an Olympic Sport?” TIME, 5 August 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1827716,00.html [7] "Pythian Games." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485272/Pythian-Games [8] Conway, Richard. “The Curious History of Olympic Art Competitions”, Huffington Post, 26 July 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-conway/history-of-olympic-art-competitions_b_1705248.html
Chess is proven to have great cognitive benefits: increasing its support is objectively good

The sports in the Olympics promote good values: they display attributes and disciplines that we want to encourage in society and children in particular. Chess is no different from this. Numerous studies have shown that chess has large cognitive benefits, strengthening a wide range of skills: problem-solving, decision-making, memory, mathematics, logic, and creative thinking.9, 10 These are skills we want to actively promote, and thus if including chess in the Olympics would increase its support, we should do so. Making chess an Olympic sport would make it more accessible to people who would otherwise not watch it. It would also incentivise young enthusiasts to become more involved in the hope of participating in such a recognised competition. Bringing chess to a highly recognised event would doubtless increase support, and thus have an objectively positive impact on society. [9] Dr Dauvergne, Peter. “The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children’s Minds”, University of Sydney, July 2000. http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm [10] Dr Ferguson, Robert. “Chess in Education: Research Summary”, for the BMCC Chess in Education, “A Wise Move” Conference. http://uschesstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/chess-in-education-research-summary-by-robert-ferguson.pdf
Chess is highly popular and should be represented

Chess is among the sports with the greatest number of federations and of active participants worldwide.12 Its large fan base, however, is completely unrepresented in the world’s largest sports competition. Chess, furthermore, is highly viewer friendly, so its popularity would only flourish from its representation. It is possible to broadcast any game online, for all to watch at home. Games also often feature high commentary action explaining and analysing the players’ strategies, to make them approachable and exciting to the public. Furthermore, it could take the shape of a team sport in the Olympics, leaving greater space for tactics and discouraging draws, once again making it more appealing for a broad audience. [12] “FIDE – World Chess Federation”, FIDE, 8 April 2009. http://www.fide.com/fide.html
An ICC enforcement arm would be quicker

If international criminals are to be caught it needs to be clear that there is an organisation with the responsibility and authority to catch them. This is especially important when the criminal in question is able to slip across borders to avoid the national authorities in one state as Joseph Kony has done as the ICC would be able to cross borders itself and coordinate the response from multiple countries. The importance of an organisation that is able to catch international criminals can be highlighted by the experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia where despite a Memorandum of Understanding relating to the detention of war criminals in Bosnia NATO denied it had the power to make arrests so leading to patrols actively avoiding wanted men to avoid a situation in which they might have to engage in arrests.[1]A lack of clarity over whether an organisation can enforce its warrants for arrest results in arrests not being made. Ultimately the ICTY was successful because this situation was resolved with the creation of multinational police forces backed up with traditional NATO military power if necessary leading to the arrest of 126 individuals.[2] [1] Zhou, Han-Ru, ‘The Enforcement of Arrest Warrants by International Forces From the ICTY to the ICC’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.4, 2006, pp.202-18, http://droit.umontreal.ca/professeurs_personnel/corps_professoral/Documents/han_ru/Article%20-%20JICJ.pdf  pp214-6 [2] Ibid, p.203
An ICC Enforcement arm would bring in a higher proportion of defendants in to trial

Eight out of the thirty people indicted by the ICC (four in the Darfur situation, including Omar al-Bashir, three Lord’s Resistance Army leaders in Uganda and one in the DR Congo investigation) are still alive and avoiding justice. An in-house enforcement arm would be more effective at capturing indictees than many of the forces of the state parties, as it is likely to be more competent than many of the under-resourced or under-trained national forces. An in house force would be solely focused on capturing the wanted war criminals so would both be focusing resources and much less likely to be sidetracked by other priorities (many of which may be influenced by politics) than national forces. One of the suggested solutions to the failure to capture Joseph Kony and leaders of the LRA is to have greater involvement of peacekeepers; an ICC force would provide the same kind of help.[1] [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/09/how-catch-joseph-kony
An ICC enforcement arm would make the ICC more credible as an organization

To its critics, the ICC is an organization that can be mocked with Stalin’s dismissal of the influence of the Pope: “how many divisions does he have?” An ICC capable of arresting its own fugitives would become a more credible organization, not only due to the show of competence through the arrests – it would lead to more trials, and more convictions, that would help contribute to the acceptance of the ICC as a serious court that is effective at bringing international criminals to justice. A legal institution needs to be effective to remain credible.[1] This would make countries much more likely to cooperate because the ICC would be doing more to help them by providing some of the necessary resources. Henry Kissinger apparently said “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?” (he is not sure he said it) because there is no single European leader, and if the US wants political or military cooperation it calls the UK or France. In much the same way if countries need help apprehending and convicting someone they are much more likely to call in the ICC if it can actually help them catch the wanted person.[2] [1] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999, https://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=henry_perritt p.293 [2] Sobczyk, Marcin, ‘Kissinger Still Lacks a Number to Call Europe’, The Wall Street Journal, 27 June 2012, http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2012/06/27/kissinger-still-lacks-a-number-to-call-europe/
An ICC enforcement arm is unnecessary

To create an enforcement arm for the ICC would be to accept that state parties are incapable of enforcing decisions themselves, that is not necessarily the case. State parties have supplied the ICC with many of the defendants that it desires to face trial, including Bemba and the Gbagbos. Some, such as Uhuru Kenyatta have appeared voluntarily. The current system is working in many cases. While it does not in all, there are some that will be extremely difficult to capture by anyone.
An ICC enforcement arm would be unduly expensive

In a climate where the ICC’s budget is determined exclusively by contentious negotiation between states (at a time where the ICC itself has threatened to close down investigations due to a lack of funds[1]), many of whom are undergoing austerity, an enforcement arm is not the best use of scarce funds when its role can be taken by the state parties. The ICC is already expensive enough – it cost over €100M in 2009. [1] Nzau Musau, “Kenya: ICC Threatens to Drop cases for Lack of Funds”, The Star (Kenya), 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201307311473.html
An ICC enforcement arm would be highly detrimental to the relations between the ICC and state parties

Currently the ICC functions based on a relationship of trust and understanding with the state parties to the ICC – a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. This is backed up by the court’s respect for the for the principle of complementarity – it is hoped that national courts are capable of prosecuting the crimes, and the ICC only takes a role if the state is unwilling or unable to do so. Being willing to use an international force to catch criminals would make a mockery of this determination to leave power and responsibilities at the national level wherever possible. Having ICC forces on a country’s territory would be humiliating, showing that the international community does not trust that nation to catch war criminals itself. While this model did not provide for attempting to snatch government officials who have been indicted it does leave open the possibility of an international force intruding on states sovereignty without consent. This would diplomatically backfire and could even lead to an ICC force being involved in fighting with government forces protecting their national sovereignty.
ICC enforcement would create resentment

There are good reasons for why an ICC enforcement arm would be ineffective on its own. It may have all the necessary equipment and training but it would be a foreign force, that may or may not be seen as legitimate, attempting to arrest a native of that country. The result would be resentment in the community at the intrusion. This regularly occurs to national police forces when policing in minority areas. In London the Brixton race riots were seen by one inquiry as “essentially an outburst of anger and resentment by young black people against the police” as the police did not represent them.[1] The result with the ICC as elsewhere would likely to at the least be a lack of cooperation, and with most of the force unable to speak the native language altering perceptions would be difficult. Such a force may bring even fewer results than using local forces and would provide a scapegoat for local politicians.[2] [1] Bowling, Ben, and Phillips, Coretta, ‘Policing ethnic minority communities’, LSE Research Online, 2003, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/9576/1/Policing_ethnic_minority_communities_%28LSERO%29.pdf p.4 [2] Perritt, Henry H., ‘Policing International Peace and Security: International Police Forces’, Chicago-Kent College of Law, March 1999, https://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=henry_perritt p.294
An ICC enforcement is a necessity if there is to be international criminal justice

While the ICC is a multinational body, it is designed to have a respect for individual nations court systems. It is mainly a “backstop” court, it is happy to see nations prosecute those offences – the Rome Statute mandates that they be added to the domestic criminal law. This is the principle of complementarity. As such there is no need for an international force as the enforcement of international criminal law is provided by the member state’s police forces who will catch the criminals that the ICC wishes to prosecute and send them to the court.
An ICC enforcement arm would be quicker

States are capable of their own enforcement, even in the difficult cases – for example, Radovan Karadzic was arrested by the Serbian authorities for his trial by the ICTY, and would not necessarily have been arrested faster by an outside force rather than the Serbian police. A large number of states have been pouring resources in to capturing the Lord’s Resistance Army fugitives such as Joseph Kony – if they cannot do capture him, there is no reason to believe that an ICC Police would be able to. Recently the Ugandan Army has been willing to cross borders to chase Kony, so far with little to show for it.[1] [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/09/how-catch-joseph-kony
An ICC Enforcement arm would bring in a higher proportion of defendants in to trial

An enforcement arm would still have finite resources. There is no guarantee that an ICC in-house enforcement system would arrest more suspects than the existing system of state bilateral co-operation. This is particularly the case in relation to the most thorny problems the ICC faces – how to catch those who have the backing of their state. An independent force would not enable the ICC to snatch Omar al-Bashir out of Sudan unless the proposal was to create a special forces style force and any such action would have large diplomatic repercussions.
An ICC enforcement arm would make the ICC more credible as an organization

Just creating a force to bring suspects to trial would not necessarily be enough to make the ICC a more credible organization. That would have to come through more measures and building multilateral support in areas where situations have been referred to the council. This increase in credibility of the ICC also comes at the expense of the sovereignty of the states that call the ICC force in. Many nations would much prefer the current system where it is clearly solely within their purview to arrest criminals on their soil, creating a competitor with its own police force will be considered by many to be undermining their sovereignty so damaging not improving the chances of a state being willing to involve the ICC.
An ICC enforcement arm is unnecessary

An ICC police would be able to provide independent assistance to these states to aid those that do not have enough resources. The ICC has a poor track record of capturing suspects. This is not due to a lack of trying by the ICC – in some cases, it is due to the lack of trying of states such as those that have played host to Omar Al-Bashir. While individual states do, and should, have a role to play in enforcement, in some cases they are unwilling or unable to arrest suspects. Just as the ICC is there if a state is unable or unwilling to try an individual, they can have a role if they are unable or unwilling to arrest them.