Alright
From what i've gathered the main point of RAMNED has boiled down to, cheater not citing information before, which he has no corrected, and that women just don't play the game as often.
ALSO, cheater has only tried to argue points that he can attempt to argue against, completely ignoring other statements that other people have said, be it simply because there is a lack of quoting from other sties since it is a simple matter of common sense, such as the matter of culture, as well as the fact that women simply don't spend as much time.
Of course, to be fair, I'm going to assume that cheater simply forgot about these topics and didn't mean to brush them aside as if they were nothing so let me reitterate them and hopefully we can call for the great debater to refute them so that his arguement is laid plain without any possible arguement against them
also note that though these arguements were originally other people's, in this post i've altered them a bit to suit what i think the arguement should follow.
1) The whole matter of evolution, or as you constantly repeat micro and/or macroevolution, is irrevelant because this is something outside of evolution. Assuming evolution is true, which i believe might i add (atheists FTW), the killing instinct which you have placed inside man has disappeared. from what i see, our instincts should change as time progresses, that is evolution, in order to suit our needs at the present time. we no longer need the killing instinct, thus by evolution we should've lost it, and even if you don't believe that, it is still true that this killing intent is somewhat wasted in the world of chess. if the game was changed so that we were using real people instead of plastic, then of course your statement that males basic instinct to kill is higher than that of a woman's etc etc, however, this is not real people. this is plastic. we are not afraid to do anything with this plastic since we know firstly, plastic has no feelings and secondly, even if it did, we are doing nothing more than moving it off the board.
2) The second point is that there are more males who play chess. now this alone is not a point, because as you state the best man still beats the best woman, however, this doesn't stop the fact that more males study and analyse the game. this is the key factor. because more males analyse the game, that means that there are more males who are more capable at the game. changing the scene, it is like saying that men are better then women at a certain activity, simply because they repeat the activitiy more and understand the activity. replace activity with chess.
also you haven't really explained why women are "genetically discriminated" in chess. unless of course that is simply a reference to your arguement that killing instinct comes into this (refer to above)
3) Now for this point, i would prefer to dedicate this simply to arguing your point that genetics is the reason why a person is good or bad at chess. i find this arguement completely untrue. hear me out. your point about atheletes is true, that is they are advantaged because their bodies have been built that way. chess however, is not as, a majority, an atheletic sport. it is a mental sport. and we know that mental capabilities are not simply passed down through genetics, in the same way that a genius may not give birth to a genius. this is where your logic is flawed. genetics mainly, and i say MAINLY, dictates the physical state that a person will be in and not the mental state. examples of this are things such as how an accountant's son or daughter may not be an accountant. it is a different mindframe and this different mindframe makes a difference in chess. going back to Ramned's arguement that a nervous player MAY lose to a weaker but confident player, that is a difference of mindframe and proof of this are shown in not only chess but also in other sports.
4) finally we come to the matter of culture. to be honest, the culture part is simple. we are best doing what we are used to doing. Black, pardon me if that's politically incorrect now but the term seems to have been used by you cheater, people are better at sprints because it's genetic. it's genetic because they have been doing it for a long time. just like woman have NOT been playing chess for a long time, it goes to say that by tradition, they will not be good at it, in comparison, whereas males who have been playing for centuries will be better, because of tradition.
I'm sorry if you read this and think it's a load of bs. i've done the best i can to satisfy my own curiosity since this is a bit of a strange topic and i am by your side when you say that others who simply refer to name-calling and the such have no real arguement. here is my arguement, or should i say the collection of arguements that i have gathered, and i hope that you take it into consideration and, for my sake, reply.
also note that i'm a yr 11 student so if my arguements are shallow then blame my lack of knowledge and inexperience in the real world 😛
Yet another RAMMIN' REFUTATION to cheater_1
15 Mar '09 16:43
Back to Top