Instigator / Pro
30
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3151

Chess > Board Game Of Your Choice

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
5
4
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

DeadFire27
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Chess is my favorite board game. Let's see yours's.

CHESS = a board game of strategic skill for two players, played on a chequered board on which each playing piece is moved according to precise rules. The object is to put the opponent's king under a direct attack from which escape is impossible ( checkmate ).

RULES:
1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.
6. No Kritiks.
7. Bones cannot participate (Due to me being sick of losing elo XD)
8. A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss.

FRAMEWORK:

PRO: Will argue that Chess is the best board game out there.
CON: Will argue that another board game is better.

R1: Opening Statements.
R2: Rebuttal and Defense
R3: Closing Statements.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

CON forfeited all arguments after initial arg.- meriting full forfeit without consideration of arg.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

When I started into this I mistook it for a 4 round debate, with con forfeiting half. With him committing a technical full forfeiture, this vote will be easily outweighed by plenty of others. That said, I do believe con is the clear victor in spite of his self sabotage.

AI's and complexity: con
While an assertion is not always directly challenged after it is made, sometimes it is pre-refuted by arguments that outweigh it. That was the case with the computers, as much as con could have done better on sourcing how it will reshape the world, we have a believable appeal that AlphaGo will contribute to machine learning for vehicles and more (bettering the entire world), vs the inferior (from the debate: brute force to solve less complex problems) AI of AlphaZero which a few chess players can learn a couple tricks from.

Popularity and Age: Draw
Both are old, and have players. Since they're highly comparable on these, I don't see either coming ahead in a way to have comparable weight to quality discussion.
And I got to say, the claim that chess would have died out was too unsubstantiated to require a real defense.

chutes and ladders: commentary only
This was such a weird thing to bring up from the comment section (I actually check such things with a word search, and could not find the "too well known" bit in the comments or the debate proper). The problem with mentioning chutes and ladders, is that when you're making the argument that chess is better because it's more simple, it implies that this obviously more simple thing would be better than chess (in this case a game that is an elongated flipping of a coin). Had con not forfeited, he could have done that pivot for a two pronged assault.

Conduct: Pro
Forfeiture.

Sources:
Two Wikipedia quick facts (one at least was used in an appeal to simplicity), and a YouTuber (without the relevant portion of the video indicated), vs 6 different websites, including Business insider and even a chess website (credit here, as that website is logically pro chess, but used as an argument against chess via the increasing draw problem).
I tend to glance in at sources (as opposed to reading everything within, or watching whole videos), and con's sources made me genuinely learn things and want to go back to read more. Granted, the length of the blockquotes was a bit long, but that is my main hesitation in giving sources to him; to which he overcame with the Verge source going into driving AIs (thereby reinforcing one of his appeals; making it warranted instead of just an assertion).

And as a bonus, my round by round thoughts on the debate (the sources analysis was almost entirely later):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3151/comment-links/39457

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: RM couldn't respond, so I'm assuming he conceded since he never apologized for forfeiting.

Conduct: Forfeiting without apologizing to your opponent is bad conduct.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Voted for the wrong person last time.

Anyways, forfeiting is wrong.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

What intel said. Good job deadfire!