Should sport become comulsory

"Topic: Should sport become compulsory. The topic is not about "What Pro has done wrong."I never suggesed it was, but PRO instigated this topic and refused to provide a case. He forfeited and then copy and pasted the wrong argument, and that had the gall to assert that I post my argument first, even thouhgh I did make arguments in rebutting the initial case he put forward. The fact is, I have made arguments while he hasn't, so you're voting Con. "On the contrary, my opponent has gone off the topic, thus I have no choice but to use my opponents argument to give a clear demonstration why sport should become compulsory."What's hilarious is that he claims I've gone off-topic, but then claims I've made an argument. Which is it? It's the last round and PRO, the instigator, hasn't provided a single affirmative argument."My opponent has failed to realise that the intended argument was not for this particular debate, and has failed to acknowledge that the opponents posted argument was in relation to another,"No, PRO is incorrect. I acknowledge that, because I was able to read what he wrote and then go over to his other debate, and see that the statements her did not match up. The problem is, and this is what PRO fails to understand, that does not justify what he said earlier about him not being able to go without having posted an actual case when he instigated this debate--or to be able to go without rebutting the arguments I made in rebutting his other speech."further more it's quite obvious that this was an error, as the incorrectly posted argument had absolutely no relation to the opponents argument. - Physical and active play develops social skills, intellectual capacities, concepts and with a significant increase of awareness."Now PRO is doing nothing more than viciously attacking my intelligence and claiming that I'm in some way unaware of what I've acknowledged in earlier rounds. He's completely obfuscating the points that I've made in the last round and insinuating that I'm at fault for his forfeit or his failure to post the "correct" argument--or his assertion in the comment section that I ought to give up. For this reason, I urge you to vote CON on conduct."The Con, (my opponent), has with placed an argument with an emphasis on fairness."This is not proper English. How can I respond in something that is incoherent--that I'm not able to understand?"My opponent failed to empathise for the pro who's membership at debate.org was less than 1 hour old from the posted debate and is clearly shown on the members profile, yet has pursued brute force attack directly on the opponent, when the posted argument was merely in the nature of human error."Now PRO is making an utterly futile emotional appeal, though he fails to understand that this hasn't the slightest to do with whether or not I "empathise" with him because there's nothing to empathise with him over. He forfeited, which was a mistake, and then failed to post the correct argument, which was a mistake, and then asked me to post my case first--which was deliberate, and nevertheless a mistake. Nothing that I have said here was brute force, though PRO's insinuation that I ought to forfeit or that I post first--while he refuses to respond to the arguments I already put forward--is closer to "force" than anything I have ever said. What he did took time. It extended over a period of time. It wasn't simply "human error"; it was surely deliberate. "The benefits of sport lead to Increased ability to deal with stress, Greater social contact and interaction."He provides no evidence for this assertion at all, no link to the resolution or standard by which to evaluate, and does not respond to my contention that this does not outweigh the loss of freedom. Therefore, we have no way of assessing his impacts and you sould prefer mine."My opponent has failed to demonstrate the ability to deal with stress, as there has been spilt milk, yet my opponent is still crying when the real world objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified." This is another personal attack. Either he is claiming that I personally cannot deal with stress, which he couldn't possibly glean from this debate, or claiming that I didn't address the argument of stress--which is a bit hard to have done because PRO didn't provide a single positive argument until just now. He claims that I'm "crying" when the "objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified." First of all, we're debating this on DDO. This isn't exactly a topic which would garner a great deal of public attention, so "real world" arguments are truly irrelevant.Next, I brought up a core argument of loss of freedom already, which is a clear and verifiable impact because if I--or we could even take it further and say an elderly person or a person with disabilities, as I already mentioned--we're being deprived of the ability to do otherwise and being forced to play sports, lest we go to jail. PRO completely fails to respond that. Had he not been so busy conjuring up personal attacks and strawmanning me--claiming I've said and done things that I have not--he may have had the time to respond to that argument. But because he has not, I highly urge you, because this is by far the strongest impact in this debate, to vote CON. Thank you.