Chess is a sport

This debate was effectively one about where our definitions should come from. Pro basically argues that chess is a sport because it is treated as a sport and because the definition of a sport, broad as it may be, encompasses the game of chess. Con leans on the origins of the word, the fact that the term sport loses much of its descriptive power at the limits of the definition (thereby requiring a new word, cogni), and that the very existence of this debate calls into question whether chess is or is not a sport.

There isn't very much to talk about with regard to Pro's case because Con basically agreed with all of his points. Con choosing to emphasize the origins of the word is interesting, but he undermines his own argument by talking about English as a fluid and ever-changing language. With Con admitting this fact, he has to prove that one should ignore the flexibility of the English language and refer to a word's roots, but this groundwork is never established.

Con also creates a cumbersome burden of proof for his case. Instead of arguing that the word "sport" does not apply to chess, he takes the more complicated position that the word "sport" ought not be applied to chess. Though, Con does put in a good effort, proposing his own replacement to the word "sport," "cogni." The main issue I had with this argument was, as pointed out in the debate, that "cogni" can very well overlap with the term sport. While Con does a good job arguing that his word better describes games like chess, he struggles to establish that "sport" and "cogni" are mutually exclusive terms.

Con is able to string together his best point when he talks about the implications of this debate's very existence. He basically states that the existence of this debate reflects the fact that chess doesn't satisfy the common conception of a sport. This is a good point because it begins to approach the question of why a new term ought to be created, but again, I am left wanting a little more. Even if I accept what Con said, I still don't know why the term "sport" and any replacement term cannot comfortably overlap. Sure one might have more descriptive power or specificity, but why does that mean that both words cannot apply? Again, I really like where this point was headed, but I felt like it just needed a little more work to go seal the deal.

In short, while Con made some convincing points, Pro's case was left practically untouched and Pro did a good enough job of poking holes in Con's case. Pro accomplishes this by discussing the flexibility of the English language and the lack of mutual exclusivity between "sport" and "cogni." Con had the much tougher case to argue, and while he did a good job, he fell just short, in my opinion.