Color guard is not a sport.

The Dictionary.com definition of a sport goes as follows: competitive physical activity: an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally. That is undeniable. But it is also undeniable that for an activity to be LEGALLY classified as a sport, the sport must meet the qualifications for Title IX, which has been supported over and over again, especially in the 2009 lawsuits. Title IX goes: "...[For the activity to be a sport, it] must have coaches, practices, competitions during a defined season, a governing organization, a clearly defined scoring system, as well as a high degree of athleticism. The activity also must have competition as its primary goal -- not merely the support of other athletic teams..." I feel when debating the legality of whether or not something is a sport, this should be the definition on which we argue, not a wishy-washy definition from Dictionary.com. Color guard is notorious to be those "flag twirlers" that play with the marching band during half time shows, much like cheerleaders. Just because an activity "competes through districts" and some parts of it are similar to a sport does NOT make the activity a sport. Until Title IX is repealed by the Supreme Court or an Appeals Circuit, color guard will not be accepted as a sport. Now I would like to go into my rather short rebuttals, owing to the fact that the Pro had a pathetic excuse for a constructive case. A. Competitive physical activity The opponent believes that because color guard has competitions and if they win, they get similar prestige to that of a Super Bowl winner, it defines guard as a sport. This is far from true-- I even daresay color guard is closer to a circus than to a football team. Color guard is more about simple flourishes and mildly difficult gymnastics that are coordinated and staggered to make a play or a show. I say this with personal experience, experience my opponent doesn't seem to have. Guard is not even COMPARABLE to the amount of skill and effort an average professional soccer player or a football player puts in. Let's not avoid the obvious; it's much easier to learn how to do a backflip and a quad than to make a goal in soccer (you'll be lucky to find a total of 4 goals in a soccer game) or a touchdown. I hope this proves my point. It's time for some extensions. 1. Counter to: "It is not recognized by the Olympics" As I have mentioned in my third argument, although the Olympics does not allow all sorts of sports to be played on the Olympics, they still recognize sports that are sports. For example, even though tug-of-war is clearly not something we see in the Olympics today, the International Olympics Committee did however give official recognition declaring "tug-of-war" a sport in 1920. The same holds true for American football, baseball, golf, etc., but not for color guard. 2. Counter to: "Not all competitions need a definitive scoring system" I'm going to go out on a limb here and be a kid-- I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU TO FIND A SPORT WITHOUT A DEFINITIVE SCORING SYSTEM. A relationship between all sports is that definitive points are earned for certain actions, like scoring a goal, and that the points earned by each team is a relative indicator of skill over the other. If my opponent is unable to find a solid example of a sport without a definitive scoring system-- something color guard doesn't have (of course, when they're not too busy spinning rifles for the football team)-- my definition of a sport needing a scoring system holds true and steady. 3. Counter to: "there is no clear interaction" Yes, some may see how my definition is a tad biased. But as I have proven (above), my definition is solid, supported by evidence, and shows a clear relationship between all sports--to requote-- they MUST have coaches, practices, competitions during a defined season, a governing organization, a clearly defined scoring system, as well as a high degree of athleticism. The activity also must have competition as its primary goal -- not merely the support of other athletic teams. This is undoubtedly better that a ripped off definition from an online dictionary, which ironically is the closest thing the Proposition has to evidence. Overall, the CON side provided you with a logical definition of a "sport" backed by the Supreme Court, three clear arguments, a strong rebuttal to PRO's poorly scrambled constructive case, and three hard extensions to our arguments in counter to three casual rebuttals. Whether they like it or not, we are winning this debate. Thank you.