Should sport become compulsory

Thank you, play2win. I will now summarise based upon the major points of this debate. Counter-Case/ Negative CaseA1: How to enforce? A Kritik of the resolutionMy Kritik was never directly addressed, but was rather responded to indirectly with objections to the definition and the way in which anything less than ideal is not desirable. For the first objection, I addressed my opponent's concerns wih the definition, of which my re-rebuttal here was thereafter dropped (in the 4th round), meaning that my opponent concedes the definition both he/she and I used was appropriate. For the second objection, I explained how it is unreasonable to expect governments to remain completely free of corruption, to which my opponent dropped in the 4th round. Otherwise, my Kritik was untouched. The fundamental problem with my opponent's argument is that making something compulsory requires threatening people. Again, as unanswered by my opponent: would it be ethical to kill or jail people if they refused to partake in compulsory sport? If someone could not attend a compulsory game during the week due to work commitments, would that then mean that this person is jailed or killed? The fact is that totalitarian policy has a terrible record of killing people on mass. How else do you make a policy compulsory? My opponent never answers these serious questions. A2: Extreme ExamplesIn case, for whatever reason, you do not agree with my Kritik, then this contention, whilst addressed more thoroughly by my opponent, was dropped in many places. The fact is that arguing "everybody" (the term used by my opponent in the first round) should be forced to do compulsory sport means EVERYBODY. That includes quadriplegics. That includes people in comas. That includes babies, who, as my opponent ended up dropping, are not capable of understanding the rules for sport. But even if you do not agree with the baby counter-argument, my opponent completely drops all the other extreme examples I gave. In fact, by the 4th round, my opponent begins to implictly concede that forcing "everybody" to play sport is ridiculous, as seen by his/her attempt to change the definition of "everybody" to not include people in a coma, and also by trying to flip his argument so that it appears that I was arguing children should be evicted by the federal police if they fail to play sport. In short, not everybody is even capable of playing sport, so to make sport compulsory for everyone is insanity. A Summary of My Opponent's CaseMy opponent has, numerous times, given a detailed argument as to why sport is beneficial for most people (not that it was referenced properly, but still, it appears to be legitimate). Unfortunately for my opponent, I can concede all of it without conceding the debate. This is due to the distinction between:A) Sport being beneficialB) Sport should be compulsory for everybodyMy opponent, at no point in this debate, has actually linked these two, thus he/she never actually affirms the resolution. Alternatively, as was one of the uncontested points in my Kritik, a far more sane policy would be to strongly encouraged people to play sport and offer information about the benefits of playing sport. Yes, sport is beneficial for most people, but holding a metaphorical gun to someone's head and saying "play this or die" is insanity, and is the fundamental problem with the resolution. tl;dr: All of my case was either dropped or had my re-buttals dropped. Also, my opponent never affirms the resolution, instead merely states the benefits of sport, rather than arguing why sport should be compulsory.