Quote from hahhah42
Sport obviously had a definition prior to the existence of SportAccord.
Your point being...?
Quote
I see no reason to cede control over that definition to a party that stands to profit by widening it.
Stand to profit? How?
Quote
So dictionaries can't define what's a sport, nor can popular usage, only bureaucracies receiving money based on their member organizations get to determine what fits. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
Yeah, 'cause those are the only possible options...
...and thus we add
False Dichotomy, to the fallacies, you use.
...
Besides, if we accept popular usage, you're losing the argument.
Quote
How does computers playing chess fail SportAccord's definition? There's nothing in their definition that requires the participation of humans.
Again: It's too for anyone to bother to mention it.
Besides, if the participants have no concept of what they are doing, then they are not competing.
...and a computer AI does not.
It just carries out calculations.
Once you have sentient AIs, that'd be different, but for now...
Quote
There are various companies that supply buzzers and questions to academic quiz game competitions
There are academic quiz competitions?
Quote
Plenty of sports have different rules depending on which organization runs the competition
Slight variations. The basics are still the same ...and you have
Quote
There's nothing in the SA definition requiring that a sport be a recreational activity.
...because that is such an obvious part, that they don't need to mention it.
Quote
Besides, I gave the Putnam as an example of an academic exam competition that is essentially recreational and has no qualifying aspect to it, aside from having a scholarship as one of its possible prizes.
Regardless of any other aspect: The existence of one, single, competition does not make an activity a sport.
Quote
Tell that to SportAccord, then. They don't include it as a sport.
Oh? Have they stated that it isn't a sport?
I did a quick search and found no such statement.