Should sport become compulsory

Thank you, play2win.Negative CasePremise: The underlying problem with my opponent's argumentThere is no doubt that there are benefits to playing sport. However, the fault with my opponent's resolution is that it is an absolute, wherein "sport should be compulsory", meaning that Pro argues "sport [should] be compulsory for everybody". If you do not agree with my Kritik, in the event that I show there is an instance where sport should not be compulsory, even for only one person, I win this debate.A1: How to enforce? A Kritik of the resolutionViolationForcing people by gun-point ("compulsory", in this instance, meaning enforced [by the state] [2]) is ethically questionable, especially since it is a totalitarian policy.LinkThe resolution precipitates the questionable ethics of having a state enforce something relatively benign, like participation in sport. In this debate, there is this implication of enforcement that is apriori which needs first be addressed before we can decide whether anything should be "compulsory".ImpactThe major impact of enforcing people to partake in sport is that this is a totalitarian policy. The problem with this totalitarian policy is that there is not immediate danger that is prevented by forcing people to partake in sport (unlike say forcing a delusional, dehydrated person to drink water). Furthermore, as I will eloborate later under this heading, totalitarian policies are essentially unchecked. As documented throughout history, totalitarian line of thought is drenched in blood. Examples include, but are not limited to:- Hitler's regime, particularly involving the mass genocide of Jews in the Holocaust (10s of Millions dead [3])- Stalin's regime, which included 20-60 million deaths of his own people in an attempt to meet impossible 5-year-plans and maintain a level of fear [4]- Mao Zedong's Great Leap forward, which involved inhumane work ethics that killed anywhere between 18 to 45 million [5]The problem is that there is no accountability since there is only the state's way or punishment. A society wherein people are held at gunpoint or thrown in jail (how else is something "compulsory?") for not partaking in something relatively trivial like sport condones totalitarian tactics, of which have decimated the lives of 100s of millions of people throughout recent history. Just because a government is in power to do something does not mean that they will do it. Just because a government says it will not abuse power does not mean that the government is telling the truth. There is a need for checks in place to prevent corruption and abuses of power. A government cannot be allowed such absolute power, in regards to making sport "compulsory".AlternativeAllow people to choose whether they will play sport, as it is not a requirment of life. If the benefits are so compelling, inform people and let the benefits sway them.VoterThere is serious ethical and/or real danger in forcing people to partake in sport, at the threat of jail-time or being shot (again, how else do you make something compulsory?). Just imagine someone skipping sports training during the week and having the Feds come to his/her house and arrest him/her!! That is what my opponent's idea would require in order to keep it "compulsory". "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord ActonA2: Extreme examplesFirstly, let me show you a reasonable definition of sport [6]:"An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively."Take for example quadriplegia [1]. How will a person who is largely incapacitated able to play sport? Please tell me which sport this type of person can play? How about someone in a critical condition in hospital? Are they meant to play sport whilst in a coma, since sport is "compulsory" for "everybody?" How about babies, who are incapable of the conception of sport, be required to play? How about really old people who can barely walk around, say 110 year olds who are in nursing homes?My opponent's faulty resolution would require that all these people, plus the many more extreme examples I could mention, to play sport. These people are physically and/or mentally incapable of playing sport, yet my opponent has to argue that sport will be compulsory for them. If someone has no capacity to do something, then why should they be forced to do it?References:[1] http://www.spinal-injury.net...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.holocaustchronicle.org...[4] http://www.ibtimes.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...