system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: eSports are legitimate sports

In my view, a sport must:

1. Have a physical component
2. Be competitive and have an objective win\-lose condition
3. Require skill

I'll assume most of my opponents disagree that eSports are sufficiently physical.  I'd like to draw a distinction between something being **physical** and something requiring extreme **physical exertion**.  Football requires a lot of physical exertion.  Your heart rate is high.  You're sweating.  You're burning lots of calories.  At times you're running as fast as you can, pushing as hard as you can, and jumping as high as you can.

But is that the only type of physical component to a sport?  I don't think so.  Darts, curling, bowling, fishing, and billiards all require physical mastery, but don't \(necessarily\) require you to be strong, fast, or sweating.  

eSports are the same way.  It certainly depends on the game, but for this discussion I'll focus on **first person shooters** like Overwatch and Counterstrike.  Aiming your weapon is one example of a skill that requires physical coordination.  The skill is focused on your hands and doesn't require the rest of your body, but I see no reason that makes the game less of a sport.  Many sports require extremely specific muscles and mechanics, but are nonetheless still considered legitimate.  Not every sport is a full\-body sport.  By my definition, you need some physical component, and aiming a weapon in grandmaster level eSports is extremely physically challenging.

I'd like to point out that **I don't think any trivial physical action makes something a sport.**  You have to move your piece in chess, but you're not going to gain a meaningful advantage by physically moving faster.  It's about thinking faster.  Similar deal with poker.  Pushing your chips in with your hands is not a meaningful physical differentiator in the game.

I'd also like to briefly touch on 2 and 3 in case they come up:

I mentioned 2 because something like a battle of the bands, while physically demanding and certainly requiring skill, doesn't have an objective win\-lose condition.  The judges may pick a winner, but I don't believe that's sufficiently objective.  If a sport's win\-lose condition is based on judging \(e.g., boxing, figure skating\), the parameters must be very well defined and can't be based on something peripheral like art.  With eSports, there are very clear win\-lose conditions.

I mentioned 3 because I don't believe anything that is entirely based on luck \(e.g., competitive scratch off scratching\) is a sport, no matter how physically demanding it is to scratch that quarter.  There is some luck involved in every sport, but this isn't an issue with games like Overwatch and Counterstrike any more than it is with baseball.

tldr: eSports meet the core definition of sport, even if you're not sweating.  CMV.

*note to mods:  I've seen this CMV before, but with the opposite stance, and I think a CMV with the starting view flipped will lead to a new discussion.*
gpt
Generally in English, we distinguish games \(in the game\-theoric sense\) of pure physicality from those that are significantly assisted through technology \(such that most of the physical action is indirect\) .

A perfect example are **motor sports** such as NASCAR or Formula\-1 racing.  These include far more physical action and physical risk than eSports, yet they are not considered "pure" sports because most of the physical action is indirect.