Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

My thanks go to I-am-a-panda for this interesting topic. I am accepting the Con position that sports should not be compulsory for every child over 5 years old. My Argument ----------- (I will prefix my arguments with "Con" to make them distinct from my opponent's points.) Con-1. The resolution violates individual freedom. While exercise is found to be beneficial in many ways, compelling children to play them violates the personal freedoms of both child and parent. Unless it can be shown that not bettering oneself threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others, then we cannot in good conscience strip away such liberties simply because it would be nice if everyone were healthier. Con-2. The resolution is impractical. Enforcing the resolution would be costly to taxpayers. Public schools would need additional funding for their athletic/competition programs. More money would also be needed to regulate and enforce the new legislation. The tax burden of citizens will have to be increased to underwrite these additional costs, or other social programs will have to be cut. Furthermore, the government would have to establish complex codes involving wavers and exceptions. It must decide what constitutes being too sick, too disabled, too dysfunctional, too talented in other areas, etc. Should a piano prodigy be compelled to risk injury to his valuable hands playing contact sports? Con-3. The resolution is too vague. As my opponent says, there are many kinds of sports. The government would have to define acceptable sports. On the one hand, the government could be very broad and allow all kinds of sports such as sumo-wrestling, chess, marbles, video game competitions, knitting, drama, TV trivia, math competitions, and so on. In this case, why bother legislating it at all? On the other hand, the government could be very selective and limit it to only football, soccer, basketball, or baseball. Surely in this case we could expect lawsuits from citizens complaining that their favored sport was excluded. My Rebuttal ----------- 1. It will tackle obesity levels. There are many ways to tackle obesity. A healthy diet is one way, so why not make it compulsory to eat salads every day for lunch? Not smoking is an excellent way to prevent heart disease, so perhaps we should make smoking illegal. Even breast feeding infants can help reduce heart disease later in life (http://www.webmd.com...), so we should ban formula feeding while we're at it. By applying my opponent's logic to other areas of health, I am showing the absurdity of it. There are many ways to be healthy and avoid obesity. So if we make one way compulsory, why not all ways? 2. It will help children socialize. Sports do help children socialize. However, I'd like to see justification for the moral position that children ought to socialize. It may be healthy. It may be beneficial. But is it immoral not to socialize? If not, then why should the government legislate it? 3. It will benefit students in other ways, such as academically. My rebuttal here is similar to my rebuttal of the proponent's first point. Studies show that parents have a large role in academic success (http://www.usatoday.com...), so should we compel parents to sit down and do school work with children or force them to join the P.T.A.? A family's economic standing also plays a significant role in a child's academic success, so perhaps the government should guarantee a minimum income to boot. My opponent says sports provide other benefits, such as the development of a child's talents, stamina, dexterity, and so forth. Indeed, sports do all these things. But reading books improves language and critical thinking skills, so let's make reading mandatory. Debating on www.debate.org improves logical analysis and typing skills, so the government should force all young people to join the site right now. My opponent, you see, does not consider the implications of this thinking. There are so many ways for an individual to improve, be it physically, mentally, spiritually, or what have you. It is not the government's role to decide which way is most ideal, nor is it the role of government to force people to be better. Unfortunately, we must leave self betterment in the hands to which it belongs, the person. This brings me to my opponent's larger argument. My opponent says that the resolution will benefit society, but does so without qualification. What makes a society replete with thinner, more social, talented people better? Furthermore, what justifies such a pursuit? Is it a moral requisite to desire such a society, or are we simply discussing a society my opponent prefers? My opponent has, without a doubt, good intentions. I completely agree that sports are a great way to improve one's lifestyle and chances of success. But I have shown how compelling children to play sports at the expense of our personal freedom comes at too great a cost. I have shown that such an idea is impractical for the government to sponsor. I have shown that "sports" is too vague a notion to properly legislate. Finally, I have shown how my opponent's arguments fail to take into account their logical implications.