Chess is a sport

Small Rebuttals | Side-Issues and Misunderstandings - It's not like there is no way Con could have built up an own case and it's just a pity because the rule was there to ensure us both an equal amount of rebuttals. Especially as he sees the BOP solely on my side he should see that his actions were bit poor sportsmanship, as I actually have a disadvantage by him disobeying the stated rules. I wouldn't mind it would't matter. - I am not trying to pass the BOP, I am explaining where I regard mine as fulfilled and where Con created points in his argumentation that he needs to prove or resolve. I've not introduced a link between being a game and being a sport and can't accept a BOP based on something I have not claimed. Such as that only physical movement is physical exertion - another claim that is not mine. And it's not obviously what you can read out of the definition, as far as I can see. So if Con claims that this as a proper counter argument than he needs to explain it, if he doesn't, my arguments stand. The intention here is not to pass a BOP but to show where Con's arguments are unable to disprove mine. Not-holding most of the BOP does not mean any half-baked counter is already a good one. I have the same right to ask why a claim is relevant or valid if it isn't properly or understandably explained from my perspective. There is nothing punny about it. I am proofing it the way I can assume Con is demanding it to be proven (as he gave me a definition he must have considered valid) and relying on a definition that I personally would have used as well - I am an oxford dictionary fan. - Being offended by the choice of words is a purely subjective feeling that came from the continued habit of using phrases like " look, there", "REMBEMBER" or "let's use some logic." (as if I weren't using any logic or needed a capitalized reminder) - How does Con think that these phrases are going to win him any ground? That's not my level and I am pretty sure that's not Cons. Having a strong opinion doesn't mean we can't talk freely on an equal level; there is no need to rhetorically attack one's statements, if we can attack them logically. - Contrary to Con's statement that I provided no counter to his claim that chess is a game and not a competition, I actually addressed that point in Round 3. I explained that chess as a one-to-one is a game and chess in a tournament is a game within a competition. And also, that there are other games that are sports as well. And all that still does not mean that chess is not a sport because, so far Con has not explained why either resolution would be relevant for debate's resolution. Big Rebuttal | Core Statements It's the forth round, it's getting messy and repetitive so I am dealing with the following of Con's Core arguments taking the risk that I might miss something in the attempt to avoid repetition. uwah. Counterrebuttal to | Mental and Physical exertion are absolutely to separate Well, isn't that the problem of the debate? The believe that your mind and thinking is not a biological feature of you is outdated. Our thoughts are not magic, they rely on electrical impulses and chemical reactions. Every action you purposely do is coordinated by your brain and purposely and strategically moving your hand to push a Bishop is in it's essence created the same way as strategically moving your feet to kick a ball. We need the sensory areas, occipital and parietal lobes [4] [5] to see and interpret and the the frontal lobes to make a decision about the next move. So if your brain is showing increased action during chess [5] than this is, as the brain is physical feature of you, physical exertion. And stress symptoms like headaches are symptoms you can experience afterwards just as muscle pain. Counterrebuttal to | Exertion is not Exhaustion Continuing the previous Argument are signs of exhaustion such as heavy breathing or muscle pain often caused by exertion. If your body is healthy than exertion leads to exhaustion. Whether you notice this active or the exhaustion is so small you don't is not the point. Exhaustion is not caused by nothing, it's the end of the line. Activity > exertion > use of physical resources such as energy for muscles or brain activity > exhaustion > symptoms of exhaustion. Ergo signs of exhaustions can be reasonably seen as an indicator for exertion. Counterrebuttal to | Standing would be sport according to my logic I've never said that standing is not physically exhausting (is it my writing that encourages people to misquote me or is that a technique I don't know about?). However: I have indeed pointed out that just being physically exhausting is not enough to qualify as a sport. I've also no idea what Counterarguments 2 and 3 my opponent has read in round 3: "signs of stress being shown in chess prove its a sport in round 2 but in round 3 they no longer do" Physical exertion is already fulfilling one part of the definition. But only given all the other parts are fulfilled does it qualify a sport. Something that is only stress inducing is not automatically a sport but something that (as chess) already fulfills the rest of the definition can be declared a sport if it involves stress for the participants. The logic here: It's C when A and B are given. If only B is given, it's not C. If only A is given, it's not C. Standing - it's an activity - it does not actually require skill but it's trainable therefore this point might be given- teams and individuals may under some odd circumstances compete against each other - it requires physical exertion BUT it's NOT generally for entertainment but a mere necessity of daily life A competition where people are standing in front of each other for hours till one drops would be rather boring but assuming you find the audience for it, it may be regarded as a sport. Yet, the day-to-day action of standing is not a sport, as it lacks the entertainment factor. It's therefore controversial for other reasons than chess and the acceptance of stress as an indicator for physical exertion will not flood our daily life with ridiculous amounts of new sports. Final Words | The good old last part Con so far didn't address (as far as I see it!) - Why it's even relevant for the resolution "chess is a sport" whether chess is a game or a competition; while I have shown why I don't see a relevance (-see Counter Rebuttal "Additional Observation" Round 3) - That increased bio-chemical brain reactions are something physiological therefore increased bio-chemical brain reactions are physical exertion. - That stress is neither only mental nor only physical and that the adrenaline that is important for many classical athletes is the same adrenaline that is important for the performance of a chess player, therefore that stress is supporting the theory that chess requires as well physical exertion as classical sports do. Summary - I claimed that chess is a sport - Con provided me with a definition for sports - We agreed that chess fulfills all parts of the definition apart from requiring "physical exertion", while we disagreed whether chess requires physical exertion ERGO: if chess requires physical exertion it's a sport - I have given Premises and Rebuttals that show why chess is physically exhausting - I have shown why physical exhaustion is an indicator for physical exertion ERGO: I have shown that chess requires physical exertion CONCLUSION: Chess is a sport Extra The comment section critiqued a lack of explanation how chess requires "skill". As outlined in the second round: it's trainable. You need to train the strategics and which pieces moves how. Other than a talent can't just a person play chess if he knows neither the rules nor the tricks. That means there is clearly a skill-factor. [4] http://www.ninds.nih.gov... [5] http://www.tc.umn.edu...