Chess (Full resolution in first round)

"My opponent's entire resolution seems have fallen one one, purely opinion-based, concept that "If you don't love something, there's no point in mastering it." Now, I am going to tear her cute little adorable baby of an argument and then shall reinstate everything that I said (which will be awfully easy considering her single comeback to absolutely all that I said was "If you don't love something, there is no point mastering it.""I am rather offended by CON's attitude towards me during this debate. Second thing to note of, my arguments are fact-based arguments, supported with references provided by experts in their fields, unlike my opponent, who's arguments are entirely opinion-based supported by his own little quotes. My so-called "single comeback" of "If you don't love something, there is not point mastering it" was, as I believe, suffice for the only argument provided by my opposition. "To make a beast at chess, a coach needn't give two sh*ts about their student's love for the game. They must raise the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. Coaching isn't a fairy-tale and only a few of the human race qualify to be professional coaches at anything BECAUSE it requires brutal harshness."The above short paragraph is the only argument presented by the opposition that is directly related to the topic of the resolution. Readers, please do not become distracted by his previous biffle and baffle on how you can only master something before you find your love to that thing. It is evident that all he has been able to say to support his resolution are the following two things:1. As a coach, you must care about the student's love for the game. They must make them the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. 2. You must become good at something before you can love it. My responses to these two and only arguments are simple:The first argument proposed by CON is majorly flawed and therefore simply refutable. If a chess coach doesn't care about his/her student's feelings to the game, only focussed on forcing them to improve in their ability to play the game, chances are, the student will end up holding a grudge to both his/her coach and the game itself. With that, the student (if they at least have normal parents) will, with approval from their parents, quit being coached in chess. The second argument by CON is, first off, not directly related to the topic, making it a considerably weak argument. I have already refuted that argument by saying "If you do not love the game, there is not point in mastering it" as I believe that is sufficient. However, I made add a little more to that argument considering I have the chance. Would you have any potential to succeed if you did not have the passion in the game? Compare a chess geek to a regular person on the street. Which person would have more potential to succeed in chess? I'm getting off topic as well now...Back to the point: Things to take note of:- Most of my arguments provided in R2 have been CONCEDED. As the last round is for refutations, defence and conclusion, CON still has chances of winning this debate if he successfully refutes them in the final round. - All of my opposition's arguments have been based on weak opinions specifically made for this debate. - The quotes provided by my opponent are his OWN quotes. Chances are, made just for this debate. - CON has drifted off topic during this debate a fair few times. Conclusion: My opponent still needs to refute my arguments based on psychological stress experienced by chess players and the violence they may be subjected to. I will allow the readers to decide on the results of this debate at the very end.