In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

Before diving into the core of this round, I'd first like to address something rather misleading my opponent said: "We are not arguing about professionals here. We are arguing that having the white pieces will give an advantage to ANYONE."As was thoroughly outlined in the instigation, I am arguing that White inherently has an advantage over Black by virtue of having the first move, not that every player on planet Earth can fully utilize this advantage. One of the salient points I raised in this debate is grandmaster statistics because if White does have an inherent advantage, we'd naturally expect this to be reflected in their game records; we wouldn't necessarily expect this to be reflected in the game records of beginners or intermediate players who are prone to make mistakes and are overall not qualified to fully utilize any advantage they might have.This isn't to say, though, that beginners don't inherently have an advantage when playing the white pieces; merely, they can't fully utilize it. Tic-Tac-Toe for instance should (as we all know) result in a tie, though it's likely untrue that every Tic-Tac-Toe game between beginners results in a tie.I. Control of the GameTo recap my opponent's response to this argument: he conceded the truth of the first premise, but took exception to the second by stating it is possible to control White on Black's first move. But I already addressed this in my original argument; yes, Black has certain options available to him that may necessitate certain responses from White. But even those options are inherently in response to White's first move. An opening line is not initiated by Black; it is initiated by White. My opponent has done nothing to show this is not the case.II. InitiativeI hate to say it, but my opponent did very little to scratch the surface of this argument. Instead of attacking any of the three premises, he merely restates that there are some players who prefer to play Black, which is irrelevant to say the least unless these players he refers to play flawlessly.It seems he wants to object to the first premise, that it would be better to play the next move in an even, non-Zugzwang position, but offers no actual objection to it. Just imagine you and your opponent are in an even non-Zugzwang position; there are good moves you want to make; there are good moves your opponent wants to make. If it happens to be your turn, would you pass if you were legally allowed to? Of course not; there are good moves you want to make.To deny the truth of the first premise would to be to accept its absurd negation: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, the next move played, no matter how good, does not effect the outcome of the game. This is, of course, false. Every move played effects the outcome of the game and every move White plays should benefit White in some way.III. Grandmaster StatisticsMy opponent raises one objection to the legitimacy of the statistics I presented: perhaps the skewed win/loss ratio in White's favor is caused by an equally skewed tendency for the stronger of the two players in matches to take White. In other words, how do we know grandmasters who take White keep winning because they have an inherent advantage and not because they are coincidentally stronger than their opponents?Most importantly, that's merely calling the heavily skewed percentages a result of coincidence, which seems dubious on its face. If you take a look at my sources, you will see the sum of all games in all the examined Chess tournaments and databases exibit a win/loss ratio in White's favor. Due to the time restraints of being born mortal, I can't go through each and every game to prove White's ELO was not much higher than Black's in all the tens of thousands of games on record; but nor can my opponent prove that they were.