Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
2 - Education is competitive, but the competition is not the end goal of education. This differs from sports. Also rock climbing is not a sport unless in the format of a competition, such as times and speed. Rock climbing without competition is a hobby or pastime.
|
I really really disagree with this I'm afraid. For a start, "rock climbing is not a sport unless in the format of a competition"...
Here are a few sources which disagree with you, in order of reliability:
Start Climbing - Part 1 : Introduction & Overview | Rock Climbing Articles | Rockclimbing.com Read: "Climbing is both an individualistic and social sport: when you're on the rock you can only count on your skills to get to the top."
Home Page
Now this is a perfectly legitimate sport and never hints at being competitive.
Rock climbing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secondly: "Education is competitive, but the competition is not the end goal of education." This is not only a statement I disagree with, but also one which I think is irrelevant. End goal different to sport? Why should the end goal be important at all? The nature of it is what I'm using here - and the fact that you are in competition for university places and subsequently the best jobs means that it is competitive.
If you take issue with this, it's going to be a question of semantics.
Quote:
|
3 - Simply because they contain all the necessary criteria to be sports, and because having them defined properly would reduce the stigma attached to them.
|
Sounds deceptive to me, actually.
Quote:
|
4 - You repeatedly mention, as have others, that eSports are people trying to "justify" games as a replacement for physical exercise. This is something I have NOT ONCE argued, never WILL argue. I also am not making ANY case for eSports to be considered a viable substitute for EXERCISE.
|
I never accused you of saying that you wanted it as a substitute.
Quote:
Sports is not defined by exercise. Exercise is defined by exercise. It is possible to exercise without playing a sport, it is possible to engage in sportsmanship or sporting activities without exercising, as has been evidenced by Snooker, Darts, Curling, Target Shooting, Archery, ALL forms of Motorsport, and probably hundreds of other things all of which are generally recognised as sports.
I think your argument hinges on a lot of assumptions that simply aren't true, like as mentioned before, this insistence that sports must be physical. We have spent some great amount of time considering why they must be physical, and nobody has, as of now, actually presented, or even TRIED to present an argument as to why physical activity is actually a pre-requisite, despite the fact everyone so far seems to have claimed that it is.
|
Once again, please explain why even a simple definition here:
Quote:
|
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature
|
as Pedestrian quoted earlier, is insufficient.
I really don't see how sport which is DEFINED as ATHLETIC can possibly be denied, but fair enough.
Perhaps could you explain if this is a definition you have a problem with?
Quote:
|
I made, and others made, counter-arguments to the sole importance of exercise within sport, within the first half of this entire thread, and nobody has provided any evidence to the opposite.
|
OK, I'm not bothering to read it again I'm afraid, so feel free to requote it.
Quote:
|
Sports is organised competitive frameworks within which exercise and physically strenuous sports have traditionally been predominant. The argument that exercise and physicality are a pre-requisite to the classification however, isn't inherent, and at best is Appeal To Tradition, which is a logical fallacy.
|
It isn't an appeal to tradition. If "athletic" is an integral part of the DEFINITION, then it isn't a false appeal of any kind whatsoever.