Is chess a sport? Ending the debate

Not at all Jeff, because teeth brushing isn't an activity often played competitively under a set of rules. You had hinged your argument on the physicality of chess not being physical enough so I simply refuted that part again although it had already been refuted when chess had been established as a sport by an argument supported by true premises and not refuted. You later asserted it didn't matter how physical a sport was as long as it had some physicality involved and you emphatically made it clear that was your point when you said, "physical...period." 

I had already established chess is a sport with argument by definition and none has refuted so until they do it will remain a sport despite mere opinions to the contrary.

By the way, I've got a book recommendation for you that I think could really compliment your existing skill set.

Kirsner, Laurie, and Stephen Mandell. Practical Argument, A Text And 

     Anthology. Second Edition, St. Martin's, 2014.

I beg to differ. Jeff and I compete at teeth brushing every day. Right Jeff ? Jeff thought he had it all won last week when he brushed an elephant's teeth, but I made an amazing come back with that hippo. Didn't I jeff ?   ;)  

Would you please cite your source for that definition. I only found the definition you used at Wikipedia which isn't a credible source.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Like I said before, it's not about the dictionary definition of the word "sport".  It's about the acceptable meaning of the word, according to the masses of sports fans.   After all, an imperfect human being wrote the dictionary.   I doubt that Daniel Webster knew a whole lot about sports.   I'm much more of an expert on sports than Webster was, because I've been watching and playing sports my entire life.   Sports absolutely must involve some of the following aspects: running, jumping, a ball, puck or projectile of some sort, a net, goal or target of some sort, heavy breathing, scoring, etc.   Chess only contains the gaming aspects (a contest between two players or teams and rules) but none of the physical aspects mentioned above.   That makes it a game.  Not all games are sports.

Please do supply your acceptable meaning of the word.

I know that there is a movement for E-sports and things like broadcasting the WSOP on ESPN. Chess is a great game and there are a lot of greatgames and these are competitive engaging activities.

But sports in my opinion must have a physically exerting component to the competition of the game in question. Chess is not a sport

Yes, the pawns and pieces are physically exerted from one square to another, so whether your intention or not, you just affirmed chess is a sport.

Perhaps the sport deniers would be more comfortable with their position if the discussion was limited to blindfold chess.

Cmon brother. you are trying to hoodwink both of our common senses. By physical exertion you and I both know it meant having to attain athletic and advanced fitness prowess to be able to compete in the specific sport in question.

Chess is not a sport but it doesnt devalue its credibility and rich history and engagement as the worlds oldest competitive board game

Please do not impugn my motives with false accusation ("you're trying to hoodwink both of our common senses"). Let's just stick to the actual argument.

So now you say it's not the specific sport in question (ie chess), but it's the attainment of "athletic and advanced fitness prowess" of the competitors that determine if the sport is a sport.

Using that logic a terrible football team would render football no longer a sport because the players didn't attain an advanced enough athletic and fitness prowess for it to be a sport. 

So today, Kentucky could be playing a game while Tennessee plays a sport even though they are both competing against one another in the same football contest.

That's great news for the sports enthusiasts among us because I have attained a very advanced athletic and fitness prowess so every chess match I play can safely enjoy your official seal of approval as a sport.

(I knew all those hours in the gym would pay off one day. Thanks!)

k ill repeat it once a gain. A sport is a game that requires a structure and set of rules and must have a physical component that requires fitness / athletic training to be able to excell at the game. You dont have to be fit but it will just make you a poor competitor so there goes your argument. BUT If it doesnt have this physical fitness requirement to be able to excell its not a sport its a game.

Why do you care so much about it not being labeled a sport? It doesnt devalue chess at all in any way

So the physical endurance required to remain upright in the chair and maintain focus throughout an over the board chess match in order to excel at Chess is what makes it a sport. Thank you for clarifying your position. Before your contribution of yet another physical component of chess, I had only considered the physical exertion required of the sportsman to move the pieces that made it a sport. Now I see you have provided another reason Chess is a sport according to the physical requirements it meets.

No you are trying to use a logic argument to distort the reality. All it is is trolling, not proving anything

Please try to stick to the actual argument instead of attempting to divert from it with personal attacks and baseless false accusations.

You are the one not sticking to the argument. Just because you type out paragraphs of well written rationalizations doesn't change the fact that its trolling. IE comparing athletic training or requiring elite physical fitness to "the endurance of being able to sit in a chair" or "physically moving the chess pieces". Stop trolling if you dont want to be called ridiculous

I made no such comparisons. You provided physical requirements chess must meet in order to be considered a sport and I simply recognized a couple of them that met your requirement. If your argument has failed it is not because the person who refuted it trolled you. It is because you did not supply sufficient evidence to support it.

You literally want me to respond with typing out that elite physical training disqualifies the minimal requirements of things like endurance of sitting in a chair and moving chess pieces? There you go i just did, but you already knew this. You are just trolling period, make no mistake. Clearly you have the comprehension to know that they do NOT meet the physical requirement. Its not my personal argument its just reality you are the one trying to say 1+1=3. Troll.

So now you have changed your argument to demand an activity requires some "elite physical training" at minimum before it is a sport.

Many people who cannot afford such elite physical training still manage to play many sports.

Surely you know elite physical training isn't required of an activity for it to be a sport.

If this is not your personal argument (and I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to claim it as your own), then whose argument is it and why are we discussing it?

I havent changed my point or argument one time since I've posted in this thread. Fact. You keep responding that i've changed my talking points or argument in every one of your posts. Fact.

This is intentional Misinterpretation. Why? to fufill your agenda of trolling

In your previous post you said, "this isn 't my personal argument."

Is that the one you are now claiming is your own that you haven't changed?