luke, your entire problem is that your dividing line is entirely subjective. I'm asking you to draw an objective line. Yes, running is more athletic than Counter-Strike, but how much athelticism do you require? Do you want to go by joules of energy exerted? Do you want to go by number of molecules of ATP burned? Do you want to go by number of meaningful muscle contrations?
I am saying that any amount of physical exertion of any kind whatsoever counts. You are saying there needs to be a certain amount. If you want to say that, you need to objectively define exactly what that amount is.
This is the problem with any argument about what is sport and what is not. The argument I make is a semantic argument about what is the meaning of the word sport. Any competition involving anything athletic at all is sport. The argument other people make is a value argument about what sports are worthy of more respect than others. When someone says NASCAR or video games are not a sport, they are not arguing that these activities do not meet the definition of sport. They are instead making a value judgement that they do not respect those activites, and do not want them in the same category as other sports they do respect.
Being categorized as a sport is not some seal of approval. Just because something is a sport doesn't somehow mean it is respectable or magical in any way. It just means it's a competitive activity with a physical element. Just because I say NASCAR is a sport doesn't mean I think it is a good sport. Just because I argue that video games are a sport doesn't mean I think it is as athletically taxing as track + field. I'm just saying that these activities meet the definition of sport as per the dictionary. If you want to claim that there needs to be a certain level or variety of physical activity for something to be considered sport, then you had better have an objective measure of exactly where that line is.
Also, I'd just like to point out that ESPN (the world leader in sports) and ABC wide world of sports are clearly on my side. They both treat activities such as bowling, billiards, cheerleading, competetive eating, etc. as sports. Heck, ESPN has even treated the spelling bee as a sport, which it is clearly not.
This is the problem with any argument about what is sport and what is not. The argument I make is a semantic argument about what is the meaning of the word sport. Any competition involving anything athletic at all is sport. The argument other people make is a value argument about what sports are worthy of more respect than others. When someone says NASCAR or video games are not a sport, they are not arguing that these activities do not meet the definition of sport. They are instead making a value judgement that they do not respect those activites, and do not want them in the same category as other sports they do respect.
Being categorized as a sport is not some seal of approval. Just because something is a sport doesn't somehow mean it is respectable or magical in any way. It just means it's a competitive activity with a physical element. Just because I say NASCAR is a sport doesn't mean I think it is a good sport.
This is beneath you, Scott, a classic Straw Man.
though an activity might not be something I consider a sport, and even if you are one step removed from the action or if the energy comes from burning fossil fuels, the skill or athleticism involved can be at a higher level.
And I'll end by quoting myself so it doesn't seem as though I'm bashing the skill involved in video game playing:
... though an activity might not be something I consider a sport, and even if you are one step removed from the action or if the energy comes from burning fossil fuels, the skill or athleticism involved can be at a higher level.
It is probably the BEST test of those skills as so little movement and therefor delay is needed to register and utilize the inputs of the player.
I also stated repeatedly that game playing is in no way less valid by not being a sport... I'm not arguing any value judgment.
Happy now that I'm not making a value judgment? Ok, I'll continue.
I am saying that any amount of physical exertion of any kind whatsoever counts. You are saying there needs to be a certain amount. If you want to say that, you need to objectively define exactly what that amount is.
You are missing the point. The definition we are debating is "Sport: A competition between two parties where the athletic abilities determine the winner."
NOT "Sport: A competition between two parties with a physical activity involved."
It comes down to what is athleticism. I took a very clear set of dictionary definitions:
1. physically active and strong; good at athletics or sports: an athletic child. 2. of, like, or befitting an athlete. 3. of or pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina: athletic sports; athletic training. 4. for athletics: an athletic field. 5. Psychology. (of a physical type) having a sturdy build or well-proportioned body structure.
From this we can state categorically that FPS does not require you to be: 1. To be physically active and strong; good at athletics .... (the was "or sport" in there too, but you don't get to define a concept by including the concept you are defining. It is called a vicious circle, a logical fallacy, known best for "The bible is true because it says in the bible that the bible is true". The word athletics can stay as that is a clearly defined set of track and field events, none of which are anything similar to FPS). 2. to be anything like an athlete, meaning, from the wikipedia article, someone who has physical skills such as throwing, running and jumping, and from various dictionaries: strong; muscular; robust; vigorous; gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; such as strength, agility, and endurance; trained to contend in exercises requiring great physical agility and strength; a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc; one who has great activity and strength. 3. FPS do not involve the use of physical skills or capabilities, such as strength, agility, or stamina. You don't get to add things that FPS do involve here, you've got to go with what is stated or find some other definition. You do not need athletic training to play FPS. 4. FPS is not within the field or domain of athletics. 5. I think we can say without any doubt having a sturdy or well-proportioned body structure does not help in FPS playing at all. And not having an athletic body doesn't disadvantage you.
I've stated other examples too. "Athleticism is the standard of bodily ability, of the movement of the limbs." Each time you have come back with a non-argument and out of context quoting. ESPN agrees with me here too. Bowling - tests bodily activity using the limbs. Billiards - tests bodily activity using the limbs. Cheerleading - tests bodily activity using the limbs. Competitive eating - tests bodily activity using the limbs. Spelling Bee - clearly not.
Let me put it this way: The label of "athleticism" is a value judgment in itself. It isn't being able to do a physical activity, it is being able to do an athletic activity. Again, under no definition you have given from any other source except your own brain have you demonstrated that FPS is an athletic ability. Moving a single muscle is not good enough.
There is a scale between "non-athletic" and "athletic" activity. The same that "intelligent" is a scale between "not intelligent" and "intelligent". You don't hold up a single transistor and say "intelligent" because it falls short of every definition of intelligence anyone can find, no matter that it can help process a single bit of data. You also don't hold up a single muscle movement and say "athleticism" because it falls short. Way short. All the way short. There is no further way to go before no activity exists at all. Therefor, for there to be line of separation between two things, something must fall on both sides of the line. If you have a set of 100, and you want to split them into two groups, no matter how unequal, you can't put the split below 1. You no longer HAVE a split.
There has to be an activity that ISN'T athletic for the concept of athletic to have any definition at all. However, all definitions of athleticism I've shown set the bar way, way, way higher than yours. Every single one.
Not all concepts are binary, one or zero. Hot is not a single state. Some physicists who work with Bose–Einstein condensate will call 1 kelvin "hot". They won't however, call it "boiling hot" because the 1K is below the boiling point of hydrogen, or it falls below every definition of the word "boiling". Same with "athleticism", there is no hard cutoff point, but every definition so far puts that cutoff point at about the level of bodily activity and the movement of the limbs.
I think the best argument was given by yourself though. FPS could be played without a body, just a brain and some eyes connected to a computer. Name any other athletic activity that involves actual testing of body strength or the use of the limbs that could also be carried out with a brain and eyes connected to a computer.
I think the best argument was given by yourself though. FPS could be played without a body, just a brain and some eyes connected to a computer. Name any other athletic that involves actual testing of body strength or the use of the limbs that could also be carried out with a brain and eyes connected to a computer.
I was waiting for this.
Robots.
We have robots that play soccer. A bowling robot would be trivial to make, and would probably always win with its consistency. We can easily build a robot that would be the greatest pitcher baseball has ever seen, just don't expect it to cover first base. A robot hockey goalie could block every shot, just don't expect it to go behind the net. Many of these limitations are simply limitations of our present technology. At some point in the future we will be able to make a baseball pitching robot that can cover first. Will you then no longer consider Baseball a sport?
As for the FPSes, which I still must defend, they require the movement of limbs, agility, and stamina. Do you consider archery and or marksmanship to to be sports? They're both in the Olympics, you know. In fact, I think that playing an FPS requires more agility than archery.
So controlling a robot with your mind is an athletic ability? Is this what you are saying?
I won't pursue the discussion further until you can find me a definition of "athlete", "athleticism" or "athletic" that clearly states agility means agility of the fingers, rather than referring to the body. This is the crux of the matter. Stamina is not needed to play a single FPS game, nor is the skill being tested how long you can play.
The burden of evidence now rests with you, my case is overwhelming. Stop picking at single lines and address the issue at hand. Find a definition of "athlete" that describes the activities involved in playing a single FPS game, and which skills are being tested.
There's no way I can move a mouse as quickly or as accurately as you professional gamer. I consider that a test of reflexes, specifically of the arms.
I've already pointed out that "reflexes" is not mentioned in any dictionary definition I can find so far of "athlete" or derived words. Scott added that himself. I've never said FPS do not test reflexes, instead I said they are probably the BEST test for reflexes.
Using the limbs? Isn't the point to eat?
You got me on that point. I guess you can eat without using your arms.
So controlling a robot with your mind is an athletic ability? Is this what you are saying?
I hate to intervene, but you obviously didn't read what Scott wrote. He was responding to this statement:
Name any other athletic activity that involves actual testing of body strength or the use of the limbs that could also be carried out with a brain and eyes connected to a computer.
A brain and eyes connected to a computer could play ANY physical sport.
No, a brain and eyes connected to a computer could reproduce any physical activity. However, the complete recreation of human physical activity logically implies there is no longer any athletic activity. Again, "athletic", by every definition so far provided, explicitly states "person". And this whole debate started with the implication that "athletic" activity entails the use of the human body.
By definition, and not mine, any activity that doesn't test a human body (not a mind nor human controlled machine) is not an athletic ability.
By definition, and not mine, any activity that doesn't test a human body (not a mind nor human controlled machine) is not an athletic ability.
So then, what is the line between testing a human body and not testing? How much must a muscle move? Do neurons count? What about the digestive system? Lymph nodes? Fingernail growing contests?
Rym, read back up and you'll see I've answered that point many times. The point is that robots test human physical or athletic abilities a zero amount.
Rym, read back up and you'll see I've answered that point many times.
If you refuse to agree to an objective line, then the term "athletic" becomes meaningless in debate. By insisting that there is no line between athletic and non-athletic, you remove the possibility of debating the point entirely.
Either there is a line, or there isn't. If there is, then we can argue about where it lies. If there isn't, then ANYONE ELSE'S ASSERTION as to what constitutes athletic is equally valid to yours.
If you refuse to agree to an objective line, then the term "athletic" becomes meaningless in debate. By insisting that there is no line between athletic and non-athletic, you remove the possibility of debating the point entirely.
Either there is a line, or there isn't. If there is, then we can argue about where it lies. If there isn't, then ANYONE ELSE'S ASSERTION as to what constitutes athletic is equally valid to yours.
Your assertion that ANY physical activity can be called "athletic" has the same negating effect. It renders the term worthless, any and all actions fit in that category, and no actions fall outside it.
I've already stated that the term "athletic" is not a false dichotomy, that something is either athletic or not. There is a blurry line between the two. However, I have stated that FPS playing clearly falls outside of EVERY dictionary definition of the term athletic, and neither Scott nor anyone else has shown ANY dictionary definition that clearly shows it falls within. All the arguments, expecialy the one about controlling technology with the mind, show that playing FPS as an example of a clearly non-athletic ability.
Again, if you don't think the word "Athletic" has any place in the definition of sport, and you think FPS playing should be considered a sport regardless, whey do you keep trying to insist that FPS playing is athletic when it clearly isn't?
I've already stated that the term "athletic" is not a false dichotomy, that something is either athletic or not. There is a blurry line between the two. However, I have stated that FPS playing clearly falls outside of EVERY dictionary definition of the term athletic, and neither Scott nor anyone else has shown ANY dictionary definition that clearly shows it falls within.
Just curious, but can you give a quantifiable measurement of what you would consider the threshold for what is considered an athletic activity and what is not? It doesn't have to be precise, just a rough estimate.
Since you're just repeating yourself instead of actually rebutting any of our points, let me try to reiterate our point in a new way that you might understand.
Clearly you must agree that weightlifting is a sport. It's pretty much just a pure test of strength.
Well, what if we have a weightlifting competition, but we only use tiny ten pound weights? Is this not athletic? What if we use one pound weights? One gram weights? What if we use feathers instead of weights? It's a competition, involving a test of strength. Strength is an athletic ability. We are just testing a very small amount of strength.
There are only three tenable and logical arguments that can be made.
1) All weightlifting is athletic, and therefore any weightlifting competition is a sport. 2) Weightlifting is not athletic, and therefore a weightlifting competition is not a sport. 3) The amount of weight used in a weightlifting competition matters in determining whether or not it is athletic.
If you take position 1, you agree with me. If you take position 2, the dictionary defeats you.
Position 3 seems to be the position you are taking. However, if you take this position we must ask you. How much weight? How do you measure, objectively, when it becomes sport? We're looking for a scientific measurement here. It can be simple, like number of pounds. It can be complex, such as something that involves body chemistry and number of calories burned per muscle contraction.
I warn you though, in advance, this argument is a trap. Yes it is a trap. If you come up with a measurement that applies only to weightlifting, we will ask you to supply measurements that are applicable to other sports. You need to come up with a measurement that can be applied equally across all athletic activity. When you do come up with such a measurement, we will apply it ourselves, and provide examples of things which you believe are athletic, but are not athletic according to your measurement. We will also provide examples of things which you think are not athletic, but by your measurement are indeed athletic. You had better come up with an objective measurement that matches your value system, or you are going to fall in the trap and argue yourself into a corner.
As for your latest argument about controlling technology with the mind, it is untenable. Any sport can be accomplished by controlling technology with the mind. By that measurement, nothing is athletic. It is trivial to have a single microchip or robot get a perfect score at Dance Dance Revolution, yet humans playing it must exhibit an extreme amount of athletic ability to succeed. Also, a mind controlling technology can trivially destroy the world record for weightlifting. If you still want to argue that somehow the capabilities of technology somehow play into testing whether or not something is athletic, you must be more specific. The qualification that the activity can not be performed using a combination of technology and mind is untenable because that combination can perform any activity. In fact that combination can perform a greater range of activities than humans can perform without technology.
Since you're just repeating yourself instead of actually rebutting any of our points, let me try to reiterate our point in a new way that you might understand.
Scott, you haven't made any points. You've reduced the concept of "athlete" to the point where any activity is an athletic activity. It logically follows then that there is no such thing as a non-athletic activity. This is your reasoning. Fair enough, we'll just leave the debate here, you saying that a concept has no value, and me saying that it does have value.
Also, give me some credit here. I know the trap you were trying to set, and I continually steered clear of stepping into it. The paradox of the heap or haystack. It's basic stuff. At the same time brought up analogous concepts to demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and the reasons behind my differing opinion.
Anyway, it's been a fun discussion. Not sure it will go anywhere now unless you at least admit that your way of defining any concept which isn't completely dichotomous reduces all them all to worthlessness. Some fuzziness exists in most cases, even though, as I believe is in this case, some activities clearly (by dictionary definitions) fall one side of the fuzzy line or the other.
Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)
The key being sole or primary.
I'd say that definition is a manageable one.
Consequently, if we're talking about Counter-Strike, if this definition is satisfactory then the argument is:- "Is mental capability or physical capability the primary determiner of the outcome?"
In motor sports, we then ask "Is the engine or the driver the primary determiner of the outcome?"
Oh, one last thing. The controlling machines or computers with the mind wasn't my argument, I just included the idea at the end of one of my posts. But I'll answer it anyway, because it is fun to think about.
If a robot body is being judged and only the mind of the person is involved in the controlling, it is no longer a sport. Yes it is possible to do all the things you posted with robots, but for me it becomes a competition of technology and intellect. It becomes a game. It stops being sport. That is, it stops being a sport if the concept of "athleticism" is included somewhere in the definition of sport, and I think I've made it clear where I stand on that.
And before you get in another straw man attack, I think they would be really, really cool games and competitions. I'd love to see a robot team beat the world cup winners at football. I'd love to see (almost) rule-less pitched battles between robots in the desert. Bring it on!
Commonly? How common? Common as in every time but one? Common as in 51% of the time? How can we define what is or not common when there is no set percentage of exactly how often something has to happen as opposed to not happen for the word common to have any meaning here.
Scott, you haven't made any points. You've reduced the concept of "athlete" to the point where any activity is an athletic activity. It logically follows then that there is no such thing as a non-athletic activity. This is your reasoning. Fair enough, we'll just leave the debate here, you saying that a concept has no value, and me saying that it does have value.Not every activity is an athletic activity. Only physical activities are athletic. Mental activities are not athletic. Chess is not athletic. Writing is not athletic. Reading is not athletic.
Anyway, it's been a fun discussion. Not sure it will go anywhere now unless you at least admit that your way of defining any concept which isn't completely dichotomous reduces all them all to worthlessness. Some fuzziness exists in most cases, even though, as I believe is in this case, some activities clearly (by dictionary definitions) fall one side of the fuzzy line or the other.
Yes, there is a dichotomy here, but it is not a false dichotomy. There really are no other possibilities. The label of athletic is either an objective label, or a subjective one. By saying it is fuzzy, you are arguing now that it is a subjective label. If it's subjective, then it's a matter of opinion what is a sport, and what is not. You can't argue opinion. Only if sport is an objective term can we have a discussion about what is sport and what is not. If it is objective, and somethings are sports, and some things are not, there absolutely must be a non-fuzzy way to determine what is sport, and what is not. If you refuse to supply us with such an objective measure, then you are now arguing that sport is subjective. If it is subjective, then I am entitled to my opinion that Counter-Strike is a sport, and there's no arguing it.
This is not a false dichotomy. There is objectivity and subjectivity, no other options. When categorizing things objectively, there is no fuzziness. Something is either green or not green. Soemthing is either a game, or not a game. Something is either tall or not tall. If you want to have a categorization discussion the definitions of the categories must be defined objectively and absolutely. If the categories are subjective, then you are no longer debating semantics, but expressing opinions. Opinions have no place in semantics.
I'd argue that it is. In the sense of inscription, writing is certainly athletic.
Also, the definition I mentioned before is not subjective:-
activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)
Consequently, this may disqualify some things like Counter-Strike since it's arguable that mental capability is more critical than physical capability for CS.
Are you willing to agree with the above, luke? If so, it's just a question of whether Scott is.
Ok, seriously now. In this case I disagree with the more generic term "physical capabilities". For me the capability of the eye to detect a signal, transmit that to the brain, the brain to process that, then the brain to transmit another signal to the correct muscle... all of that is a physical capability. It is a capability that a blind person doesn't have, and it is a capability that someone like my father, who suffers from a disease of the motor nerves, doesn't have. But even before any muscle is moved in any way, things happen on a physical level.
I wanted to put the fuzzy line somewhere above this level. That is why I wanted another concept (that being athletic capabilities) which differentiates between all capabilities of a human (that are all at some level physical) and those which rely on the controlled movement of the limbs or the body itself (eg. roughly muscles above the elbows and below the jaw).
Ah, sole or primary determiner you say? That opens up an entirely new path. In many of the cases we are discussing, it is very difficult to figure out what the primary or sole determiner is. Take for example, the baseball pitcher. How much of pitching is a mental game, and how much is physical? Someone with a perfect arm, but no brain will completely fail. Someone with all the brains of knowing exactly which pitch to throw, but no arm, will also utterly fail. The same goes for F1. A perfect car, but a shitty driver will result in failure. A shitty car with a perfect driver will also fail. Counter-Strike is also the same. Perfect strategy with no reflexes will fail. Perfect reflexes with no strategy will fail.
How can you possibly figure out exactly what percentage of the skills involved are athletic and which are not? It is impossible. What kind of measurement will you use?
I think a much better way to go is this. Instead of saying a sport is a game where athleticism is the primary or sole determine, say that a sport is a game where athleticism is an essential determiner. In other words, take a look at the competition. Now assume that the competitor has maximum mental ability and zero physical ability. If that will result in guaranteed failure at the game, then it is a sport.
In this case I disagree with the more generic term "physical capabilities". For me the capability of the eye to detect a signal, transmit that to the brain, the brain to process that, then the brain to transmit another signal to the correct muscle... all of that is a physical capability. It is a capability that a blind person doesn't have, and it is a capability that someone like my father, who suffers from a disease of the motor nerves, doesn't have. But even before any muscle is moved in any way, things happen on a physical level.
Hmm. True enough, it could be said that everything is physical. However, in general speech, and in definition, it is generally used as "of the body but not of the mind".
I wanted to put the fuzzy line somewhere above this level. That is why I wanted another concept (that being athletic capabilities) which differentiates between all capabilities of a human (that are all at some level physical) and those which rely on the controlled movement of the limbs or the body itself (eg. roughly muscles above the elbows and below the jaw).
So thumb wrestling isn't a sport? What if we have a competition of who can hold themselves up in the air the longest by biting into a hanging rope? What if we have a contest of who has the strongest grip? Grip is almost entirely dependent on muscles below the elbow. What about cup stacking? I'm sure you don't consider cup stacking a sport, but it involves many muscles above the elbow. The same can be said for yo-yo.
One grain of rice is not a heap. A hundred grains of rice is a heap. Two grains of rice is still not a heap. Three grains of rice is still not a heap.
In the center there can be an area of uncertainty, but at either end there can be objective certainty. Before we get to the area of uncertainty, there is objective certainty. After we pass that area of uncertainty there is objective certainty.
Things that fall at the extreme opposite ends, the furthest you can possible get, it is impossible for uncertainty to exist, and only objective reality remains.
By all definitions so far put forward, in every case and with no exception, playing a FPS falls well, well below the level of uncertainty on the scale of "athleticism".
Ah, sole or primary determiner you say? That opens up an entirely new path. In many of the cases we are discussing, it is very difficult to figure out what the primary or sole determiner is. Take for example, the baseball pitcher. How much of pitching is a mental game, and how much is physical? Someone with a perfect arm, but no brain will completely fail. Someone with all the brains of knowing exactly which pitch to throw, but no arm, will also utterly fail. The same goes for F1. A perfect car, but a shitty driver will result in failure. A shitty car with a perfect driver will also fail. Counter-Strike is also the same. Perfect strategy with no reflexes will fail. Perfect reflexes with no strategy will fail.
Obviously, you can't take measurements by looking only at the extremes. The primary or sole determiner is dependent upon one's capability relative to others; absolute (zero / perfect) capability does not make sense.
How can you possibly figure out exactly what percentage of the skills involved are athletic and which are not? It is impossible. What kind of measurement will you use?
As the most primitive approach, you could take measurements of the capabilities of successful athletes in that sport. Comparing these capabilities to average human beings or to less successful athletes will reveal what made them successful, hence revealing the primary/sole determiner.
Here's an interesting one:- You could study the behaviour of the brain and compare the levels of activity in different parts of the brain during participation in that sport. As technology develops, and we gain a better understanding of the brain, you could do more in-depth studies.
Now assume that the competitor has maximum mental ability and zero physical ability. If that will result in guaranteed failure at the game, then it is a sport.
You'd have to say "minimum" or "baseline" physical ability. Someone with "zero" physical ability is dead.
One grain of rice is not a heap. A hundred grains of rice is a heap. Two grains of rice is still not a heap. Three grains of rice is still not a heap.
In the center there can be an area of uncertainty, but at either end there can be objective certainty. Before we get to the area of uncertainty, there is objective certainty. After we pass that area of uncertainty there is objective certainty.
Things that fall at the extreme opposite ends, the furthest you can possible get, it is impossible for uncertainty to exist, and only objective reality remains.
By all definitions so far put forward, in every case and with no exception, playing a FPS falls well, well below the level of uncertainty on the scale of "athleticism".
Sorry to say this so simply, but you are wrong. Terms like "heap", "plenty", or "ginormous" are 100% relative and subjective. You can not argue whether something is ginormous or not, because the answer is in the eye of the beholder. What is a heap of rice to a starving person, might be a small pile to you. What is a gigantic mountain to someone who lives in the great plains might be a small hill to someone who has seen Everest. Arguing whether or not something is a heap is no different than arguing whether or not something is beautiful or ugly. It is entirely a value judgement, and there's no point debating it.
If you want to say that sport or athletic are subjective terms like this, feel free to do so.
lackofcheese is on the right path. Measuring a certain amount of activity in certain parts of the brain might allow a good measure of how athletic something is. However, variations in brains might make that difficult. I'm sure a neuroscientist could offer more insight.
You'd have to say "minimum" or "baseline" physical ability. Someone with "zero" physical ability is dead.
Yeah, we can go with that. But where is your baseline?
Comments
I am saying that any amount of physical exertion of any kind whatsoever counts. You are saying there needs to be a certain amount. If you want to say that, you need to objectively define exactly what that amount is.
This is the problem with any argument about what is sport and what is not. The argument I make is a semantic argument about what is the meaning of the word sport. Any competition involving anything athletic at all is sport. The argument other people make is a value argument about what sports are worthy of more respect than others. When someone says NASCAR or video games are not a sport, they are not arguing that these activities do not meet the definition of sport. They are instead making a value judgement that they do not respect those activites, and do not want them in the same category as other sports they do respect.
Being categorized as a sport is not some seal of approval. Just because something is a sport doesn't somehow mean it is respectable or magical in any way. It just means it's a competitive activity with a physical element. Just because I say NASCAR is a sport doesn't mean I think it is a good sport. Just because I argue that video games are a sport doesn't mean I think it is as athletically taxing as track + field. I'm just saying that these activities meet the definition of sport as per the dictionary. If you want to claim that there needs to be a certain level or variety of physical activity for something to be considered sport, then you had better have an objective measure of exactly where that line is.
Also, I'd just like to point out that ESPN (the world leader in sports) and ABC wide world of sports are clearly on my side. They both treat activities such as bowling, billiards, cheerleading, competetive eating, etc. as sports. Heck, ESPN has even treated the spelling bee as a sport, which it is clearly not.
NOT "Sport: A competition between two parties with a physical activity involved."
It comes down to what is athleticism. I took a very clear set of dictionary definitions: From this we can state categorically that FPS does not require you to be:
1. To be physically active and strong; good at athletics .... (the was "or sport" in there too, but you don't get to define a concept by including the concept you are defining. It is called a vicious circle, a logical fallacy, known best for "The bible is true because it says in the bible that the bible is true". The word athletics can stay as that is a clearly defined set of track and field events, none of which are anything similar to FPS).
2. to be anything like an athlete, meaning, from the wikipedia article, someone who has physical skills such as throwing, running and jumping, and from various dictionaries: strong; muscular; robust; vigorous; gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; such as strength, agility, and endurance; trained to contend in exercises requiring great physical agility and strength; a person who is good at sport, especially running, jumping etc; one who has great activity and strength.
3. FPS do not involve the use of physical skills or capabilities, such as strength, agility, or stamina. You don't get to add things that FPS do involve here, you've got to go with what is stated or find some other definition. You do not need athletic training to play FPS.
4. FPS is not within the field or domain of athletics.
5. I think we can say without any doubt having a sturdy or well-proportioned body structure does not help in FPS playing at all. And not having an athletic body doesn't disadvantage you.
I've stated other examples too. "Athleticism is the standard of bodily ability, of the movement of the limbs." Each time you have come back with a non-argument and out of context quoting. ESPN agrees with me here too.
Bowling - tests bodily activity using the limbs.
Billiards - tests bodily activity using the limbs.
Cheerleading - tests bodily activity using the limbs.
Competitive eating - tests bodily activity using the limbs.
Spelling Bee - clearly not.
Let me put it this way: The label of "athleticism" is a value judgment in itself. It isn't being able to do a physical activity, it is being able to do an athletic activity. Again, under no definition you have given from any other source except your own brain have you demonstrated that FPS is an athletic ability. Moving a single muscle is not good enough.
There is a scale between "non-athletic" and "athletic" activity. The same that "intelligent" is a scale between "not intelligent" and "intelligent". You don't hold up a single transistor and say "intelligent" because it falls short of every definition of intelligence anyone can find, no matter that it can help process a single bit of data. You also don't hold up a single muscle movement and say "athleticism" because it falls short. Way short. All the way short. There is no further way to go before no activity exists at all. Therefor, for there to be line of separation between two things, something must fall on both sides of the line. If you have a set of 100, and you want to split them into two groups, no matter how unequal, you can't put the split below 1. You no longer HAVE a split.
There has to be an activity that ISN'T athletic for the concept of athletic to have any definition at all. However, all definitions of athleticism I've shown set the bar way, way, way higher than yours. Every single one.
Not all concepts are binary, one or zero. Hot is not a single state. Some physicists who work with Bose–Einstein condensate will call 1 kelvin "hot". They won't however, call it "boiling hot" because the 1K is below the boiling point of hydrogen, or it falls below every definition of the word "boiling". Same with "athleticism", there is no hard cutoff point, but every definition so far puts that cutoff point at about the level of bodily activity and the movement of the limbs.
I think the best argument was given by yourself though. FPS could be played without a body, just a brain and some eyes connected to a computer. Name any other athletic activity that involves actual testing of body strength or the use of the limbs that could also be carried out with a brain and eyes connected to a computer.
Robots.
We have robots that play soccer. A bowling robot would be trivial to make, and would probably always win with its consistency. We can easily build a robot that would be the greatest pitcher baseball has ever seen, just don't expect it to cover first base. A robot hockey goalie could block every shot, just don't expect it to go behind the net. Many of these limitations are simply limitations of our present technology. At some point in the future we will be able to make a baseball pitching robot that can cover first. Will you then no longer consider Baseball a sport?
As for the FPSes, which I still must defend, they require the movement of limbs, agility, and stamina. Do you consider archery and or marksmanship to to be sports? They're both in the Olympics, you know. In fact, I think that playing an FPS requires more agility than archery.
I won't pursue the discussion further until you can find me a definition of "athlete", "athleticism" or "athletic" that clearly states agility means agility of the fingers, rather than referring to the body. This is the crux of the matter. Stamina is not needed to play a single FPS game, nor is the skill being tested how long you can play.
The burden of evidence now rests with you, my case is overwhelming. Stop picking at single lines and address the issue at hand. Find a definition of "athlete" that describes the activities involved in playing a single FPS game, and which skills are being tested.
EDIT: You can't use this "3. One fitted for, or skilled in, intellectual contests; as, athletes of debate. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc." as FPS is not an intellectual contest such as a debate. It is a test of speed, reflexes, tactics and precision. I've already pointed out that "reflexes" is not mentioned in any dictionary definition I can find so far of "athlete" or derived words. Scott added that himself. I've never said FPS do not test reflexes, instead I said they are probably the BEST test for reflexes. You got me on that point. I guess you can eat without using your arms.
By definition, and not mine, any activity that doesn't test a human body (not a mind nor human controlled machine) is not an athletic ability.
Either there is a line, or there isn't. If there is, then we can argue about where it lies. If there isn't, then ANYONE ELSE'S ASSERTION as to what constitutes athletic is equally valid to yours.
I've already stated that the term "athletic" is not a false dichotomy, that something is either athletic or not. There is a blurry line between the two. However, I have stated that FPS playing clearly falls outside of EVERY dictionary definition of the term athletic, and neither Scott nor anyone else has shown ANY dictionary definition that clearly shows it falls within. All the arguments, expecialy the one about controlling technology with the mind, show that playing FPS as an example of a clearly non-athletic ability.
Again, if you don't think the word "Athletic" has any place in the definition of sport, and you think FPS playing should be considered a sport regardless, whey do you keep trying to insist that FPS playing is athletic when it clearly isn't?
Clearly you must agree that weightlifting is a sport. It's pretty much just a pure test of strength.
Well, what if we have a weightlifting competition, but we only use tiny ten pound weights? Is this not athletic? What if we use one pound weights? One gram weights? What if we use feathers instead of weights? It's a competition, involving a test of strength. Strength is an athletic ability. We are just testing a very small amount of strength.
There are only three tenable and logical arguments that can be made.
1) All weightlifting is athletic, and therefore any weightlifting competition is a sport.
2) Weightlifting is not athletic, and therefore a weightlifting competition is not a sport.
3) The amount of weight used in a weightlifting competition matters in determining whether or not it is athletic.
If you take position 1, you agree with me. If you take position 2, the dictionary defeats you.
Position 3 seems to be the position you are taking. However, if you take this position we must ask you. How much weight? How do you measure, objectively, when it becomes sport? We're looking for a scientific measurement here. It can be simple, like number of pounds. It can be complex, such as something that involves body chemistry and number of calories burned per muscle contraction.
I warn you though, in advance, this argument is a trap. Yes it is a trap. If you come up with a measurement that applies only to weightlifting, we will ask you to supply measurements that are applicable to other sports. You need to come up with a measurement that can be applied equally across all athletic activity. When you do come up with such a measurement, we will apply it ourselves, and provide examples of things which you believe are athletic, but are not athletic according to your measurement. We will also provide examples of things which you think are not athletic, but by your measurement are indeed athletic. You had better come up with an objective measurement that matches your value system, or you are going to fall in the trap and argue yourself into a corner.
As for your latest argument about controlling technology with the mind, it is untenable. Any sport can be accomplished by controlling technology with the mind. By that measurement, nothing is athletic. It is trivial to have a single microchip or robot get a perfect score at Dance Dance Revolution, yet humans playing it must exhibit an extreme amount of athletic ability to succeed. Also, a mind controlling technology can trivially destroy the world record for weightlifting. If you still want to argue that somehow the capabilities of technology somehow play into testing whether or not something is athletic, you must be more specific. The qualification that the activity can not be performed using a combination of technology and mind is untenable because that combination can perform any activity. In fact that combination can perform a greater range of activities than humans can perform without technology.
Also, give me some credit here. I know the trap you were trying to set, and I continually steered clear of stepping into it. The paradox of the heap or haystack. It's basic stuff. At the same time brought up analogous concepts to demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and the reasons behind my differing opinion.
Anyway, it's been a fun discussion. Not sure it will go anywhere now unless you at least admit that your way of defining any concept which isn't completely dichotomous reduces all them all to worthlessness. Some fuzziness exists in most cases, even though, as I believe is in this case, some activities clearly (by dictionary definitions) fall one side of the fuzzy line or the other.
I'd say that definition is a manageable one.
Consequently, if we're talking about Counter-Strike, if this definition is satisfactory then the argument is:-
"Is mental capability or physical capability the primary determiner of the outcome?"
In motor sports, we then ask
"Is the engine or the driver the primary determiner of the outcome?"
If a robot body is being judged and only the mind of the person is involved in the controlling, it is no longer a sport. Yes it is possible to do all the things you posted with robots, but for me it becomes a competition of technology and intellect. It becomes a game. It stops being sport. That is, it stops being a sport if the concept of "athleticism" is included somewhere in the definition of sport, and I think I've made it clear where I stand on that.
And before you get in another straw man attack, I think they would be really, really cool games and competitions. I'd love to see a robot team beat the world cup winners at football. I'd love to see (almost) rule-less pitched battles between robots in the desert. Bring it on!
If so, it's just a question of whether Scott is.
This is fun!
This is not a false dichotomy. There is objectivity and subjectivity, no other options. When categorizing things objectively, there is no fuzziness. Something is either green or not green. Soemthing is either a game, or not a game. Something is either tall or not tall. If you want to have a categorization discussion the definitions of the categories must be defined objectively and absolutely. If the categories are subjective, then you are no longer debating semantics, but expressing opinions. Opinions have no place in semantics.
Also, the definition I mentioned before is not subjective:- Consequently, this may disqualify some things like Counter-Strike since it's arguable that mental capability is more critical than physical capability for CS.
I wanted to put the fuzzy line somewhere above this level. That is why I wanted another concept (that being athletic capabilities) which differentiates between all capabilities of a human (that are all at some level physical) and those which rely on the controlled movement of the limbs or the body itself (eg. roughly muscles above the elbows and below the jaw).
How can you possibly figure out exactly what percentage of the skills involved are athletic and which are not? It is impossible. What kind of measurement will you use?
I think a much better way to go is this. Instead of saying a sport is a game where athleticism is the primary or sole determine, say that a sport is a game where athleticism is an essential determiner. In other words, take a look at the competition. Now assume that the competitor has maximum mental ability and zero physical ability. If that will result in guaranteed failure at the game, then it is a sport.
True enough, it could be said that everything is physical.
However, in general speech, and in definition, it is generally used as "of the body but not of the mind".
In the center there can be an area of uncertainty, but at either end there can be objective certainty. Before we get to the area of uncertainty, there is objective certainty. After we pass that area of uncertainty there is objective certainty.
Things that fall at the extreme opposite ends, the furthest you can possible get, it is impossible for uncertainty to exist, and only objective reality remains.
By all definitions so far put forward, in every case and with no exception, playing a FPS falls well, well below the level of uncertainty on the scale of "athleticism".
Here's an interesting one:-
You could study the behaviour of the brain and compare the levels of activity in different parts of the brain during participation in that sport.
As technology develops, and we gain a better understanding of the brain, you could do more in-depth studies. You'd have to say "minimum" or "baseline" physical ability. Someone with "zero" physical ability is dead.
If you want to say that sport or athletic are subjective terms like this, feel free to do so.
lackofcheese is on the right path. Measuring a certain amount of activity in certain parts of the brain might allow a good measure of how athletic something is. However, variations in brains might make that difficult. I'm sure a neuroscientist could offer more insight. Yeah, we can go with that. But where is your baseline?