Schools should have after-school/extracurricular clubs and activities.

In my opponents first attempted refutation, he states two things. First, that clubs are free of charge. However, he has never provided sufficient reasoning or evidence as to WHY or HOW clubs could indeed be 'free', while I have, so his point is thus invalid. I'd also like to point out that in this world, nothing is free. Money buys everything, and you honestly can't just think something could be free. His second affirmation was that this will come from 'fundraisers' and 'school budgets'. However, the money from fundraisers always go to education first, not extracurriculars. In the priority list, education is always first. Also, school budgets are so low that they won't be able to afford extracurriculars, which is literally stated in the topic itself. So, his second claim is also null and void. Also, I'd like to state that this is either money taken from the school's funding for textbooks and teachers salary, or money that comes from a family that can actually afford it. According to USA Today, 78% of all schools have already had to cut extracurricular activities because it was too costly and that it takes away from a students actual education, such as it causes the inability to buy textbooks. Put it this way: would you rather take money from a poor person, or a rich person? In this case, the poor person is the school budget, and the rich person is the family that can afford to send their children to school. Now, I'd like to address his second refutation, which was that students would get distracted even with classes over the weekend. This is actually supporting my side, because he is actually acknowledging that extracurriculars are malefactors to a students education as it will 'distract them'. So, his point is thus not only invalid it's supporting the opposition's case. Just as a side note, I'd like to state that according to a survey done by CNN, 86% of all students are distracted by their extracurricular activities, so this also proves my point in saying that children find this as a distraction. In his third rebuttal, he talks about the fact that families with financial concerns doesn't lose the right to a proper education. First of all, I never said it did take away the right to an education. Second of all, all I stated was that if a family had financial concerns, they wouldn't be able to send their children to school in the FIRST place because they can't afford it! So, not only is this point irrelevant to the topic at hand, my opponents failed attempt to bring this up is invalid. Finally, I'd like to address is final point. In this rebuttal, he refutes that some families won't have the financial or physical capability to solve their 'obesity'. However, I'd first like to state that obesity at hand doesn't have anything to do with extracurriculars. Also, as I already addressed before, if a student has financial concerns he wouldn't have the money to pay for school IN THE FIRST PLACE. So, this debate doesn't actually apply to them whatsoever. bringing up the issue of obesity in the United States. If a child is obese, it is not the schools concern or responsibility to solve it, it is actually the student's parents. Obesity has nothing to do with extracurriculars OR after-school activities. Now, I'd like to state why I think the opposition has won. We have stronger logic and reasoning, we have valid sources and evidence while my opponent has actually provided none whatsoever, and we have refuted all of my opponents points. So, cast your vote for the opposition!