Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

Defense of my arguments ---------------------------------- Con-1: The resolution violates individual freedom. My opponent rebuts my argument by pointing out that children have already lost their freedoms by compulsory school attendance. Not only is this absolutely true, but I think it's just as much an atrocity as the notion of compulsory sports. For you see, mandatory school is not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of industry. John Gatto, 1990 New York City Teacher of the Year and 1991 New York State Teacher of the Year--indicted the public school system for teaching kids how to conform to a capitalist, industrialist society rather than for the betterment of their lives or the betterment of society. (Much of his book Dumbing us Down can be seen here: . http://books.google.com...). If anything, my opponent's rebuttal only serves to strengthen my argument. His logic is this: since we already take away freedoms for the good of the child, let's take more. My child's freedom to run outside to play or sit inside to watch a movie belongs entirely to her and her parents, not to Uncle Sam. Freedom of choice is of greater value than overall reduced child obesity in society. Con-2: The resolution is impractical. Indeed, families with healthy children have less medical expenditures than families with obese children or children with childhood diabetes. Until Obama institutes his national health care plan, families are taking the lion's share of the burden insofar as unhealthy kids are concerned. This brings us back to the same old argument: should the government step in to "save" parents from themselves, or is responsibility already properly placed in the hands of adults? Con-3: The resolution is too vague. My opponent asks why TV trivia or marbles could be sport, which is precisely my point. My opponent does not specify what constitutes a sport versus a hobby or pastime. My point was that such a classification would have to be decided upon by our legislatures. If they get too broad, then legislation is pointless. If it's too narrow, then the legislation is vulnerable to litigious response. Defense of my rebuttals -------------------------------- 1. It will tackle obesity levels. My opponent says it's less absurd to force kids to play sports than to force them to eat salads, but he does not give any justification to this response. He simply says this is so, and I guess we take it on good faith. I submit that the reasoning behind compulsory salad eating is the very same reasoning behind compulsory sports. The underlying presupposition of my opponent's arguments is that the government should take charge of people's well being, and my arguments aim to show that his presuppositions are not justified. 2. It will help children socialize. My opponent misunderstood my rebuttal, so I will attempt to clarify it. My opponent tells us that one such benefit of sports is that it helps children socialize. That's all he says. He doesn't say why this is important, good, or beneficial. He just says that it is. In other words, he wants us to accept the assumption that children socializing with other children is good. My rebuttal is tantamount to saying, "So what? " I'm asking my opponent to substantiate this argument by showing why socializing children is so important. Furthermore, if he can show this, then he must also answer whether or not sports are essential towards this end. There are many ways to socialize children, and it should be incumbent upon the parents--not the government--to socialize their children… assuming of course that socializing children is indeed as vital as my opponent would like us to believe. 3. It will benefit students in other ways, such as academically. My opponent's rebuttal relies on the benefits of sports for a child's well being, and he offers a good source to back his claim. I have no issue with his assessment of the value of sports in a child's life. What I am concerned with is my opponent's belief that because sports have so many positive attributes, that we must force all children to do them. If it is indeed true that parents play a large role in academic success, then my opponent must explain why sports are mandatory and not parental involvement in study hours, tutoring programs, or the P. T. A. Also, I did not claim that all children should be forced to join this website. Again, my opponent either misuses or misunderstands my argument. I was extending his rational to the extreme. To reword my argument, since sports are beneficial for the body, then why not include mandatory membership of a debate club, chess team, gymnasium, nutrition program, or counselor? In other words, I'm asking my opponent to answer why sports are to be mandatory but not other beneficial regiments. At the core of this entire debate is this: who is responsible for the well being of society's members? My opponent believes the government is responsible and should become a messiah state, saving people from their self destructive ways. I believe the government should protect its citizens from external threats, not internal ones. My opponent's view, while honorable in its end does not justify its means. Compulsory sports impede too much on personal liberty. Therefore, sports should not be compulsory for every child over 5.