Should sport become comulsory

Thanks to PRO for finally posting an argument. "Compulsory - Yes this term does mean to enforce. .. in order to attempt to win your argument. " PRO is asserting that I've associated "compulsory" with more than just sports, but this just is not the case. I stated clearly last round that his burden is defended the fact that sports ought to be compulsory--not anything else--because that is the resolution we are presently debating. "In-fact it would have been better if you didn't associate historical regime with sport, sport is already on a decline due to "Increased work and study commitments". You have also associated this topic engaging destructive and primitive behavior in very large populations. "How have I done that? This is nothing more than a blanket assertion without any backing at all. "The worlds largest participating sporting event. .. .participation. "He doesn't at all link this to the resolution--or to why sports ought to be compulsory-but only states that there's a rather large sporting event whose proceedings go to charity. He doesn't source it, so you shouldn't buy it anyay, but even if this were the case, why should we care? How does this fulfill his burden? "You as my opponent have created an ultimatum by re-defining the term compulsory in this argument. " Not at all, and this is completely disingenuous and wrong. I provided a definition from Merriam-Webster (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...), but did *not* make the definition up or attempt to redefine a term. Not to mention, where have I created an ultimatum? I did nothing more than state what PRO's burdens are *in light of this resolution. *"Certainly though if sport was under totalitarian policy for infants, they would have an excellent and very consistent record being that crawling is a form of walking. "So? Why should that be compulsory? Should it be? The resolution does not apply to any particular demographic group. "Baby steps, give it a go for all the babies out there :). And if land tax is compulsory - a totalitarian policy, and one were in coma (Not alive), mentally incapable, or even out of action, I would find it hard to believe that feds are going to enforce a legal conviction in such case, so, support would be offered. "But sport would still be compulsory for them under your resolution--so are conceding that it ought not to be, and thus conceding this debate? "Just like sport, athletes generally encourage each other by physical mentoring (pacing one another so to say). "Who cares? There's no link here. "With all due respect to your bravery, there has been NO "instance" found in your premise. "What premise? The burden of proof is on you, my friend, not me. "We can't make relationships compulsory, but sport is something which really can make a difference in one's life, when one is physically active, the effect helps improve one's self awareness, and that is a crucial element that allows one to be able to self mentor. "This is the first actual argument that PRO has raised Nothing else he has written this far can be construed as an argument in favor of his position. He claims that sports can make a difference in someone's life and helps to improv their self-awareness and their ability to self-monitor? The problem, though, is that you cannot accept this impact because (1) he provides no evidence (2) he doesn't explain why ths criterion ought to be sufficient for linking to the resolution - in other words, he provides us no reason to prefer this benefit, even should it exist, with the fredom of not being compelled to do something (3) there's no link to the resolution; even if sports have X benefit, we need not make them compulsory. Not to mention, who *is* making them compulsory, what are the enforcement methods, how will this actually be implemeneted, etc. ? You cannot vote for my adversary unless he explains these very basic elements of his argument. "So many factors could be the reason why people become no longer interested in sport, one should not lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg. How would someone "lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg" is sports aren't compulsory? This doesn't make any sense. "In an ideal world if governments were able to collaborate with compassion and resilience, they could do anything, including remove such misconception of corruptible behavior as you mentioned, because i believe it's at minimal, just because one government is corrupt, it doesn't make them all corrupt. "First, this is not an ideal world, and he's claiming that I "mentioned" corruptible behavior--though I did not even make an argument prior to this, but only waived to my adversary, so I'm truly questioning what he's talking about or from where this argument originated. I never asserted that all governments are corrupt. The point, though, is that forcing people to do things they do want to do, against their will, is ipso facto corrupt because it violates people's liberties, and there's no reasonable warrant for us because PRO provids us with no reason why governments ought to obviate freedom in order to require that people--even mentally disabled people, young people, people with nervous disorders, etc. --play sports. It's not everyone's comparative advantage, so it is not only immoral, but economically unsound and inefficient, as well. "And if such enforcements were to be made upon society, reduced burden of modern health systems would be the single most benefit. " This is only the second time that he has made an actual argument in favor of the resolution, and it suffers the same problem as his last argument: (1) no evidence (2) no link and (3) no way for us to evaluate impacts or reason to weight this over freedom, even should he have evidence for it -- so therefore you discard this point. "On an ending note for this round, I would like to share with you something which i personally have experienced after exceeding the age of 30 years, and i think it begins to most people who enter maturity, financial burdens require a more heuristic approach, the focus for family survival radically shifts and so does the paradigm for a precautionary approach and risk assessment. "This doesn't at all address the resolution. "If sport were compulsory i think that society (Quality of Life) would be improved. "This is nothing more than his subjective opinion because he fails to tell us how or to provide any evidence that, on bet, lives would be improved and this would outweigh the harms--making people who are elderly or with disabilities or who simply are better at other things and want to contribute society in other ways, along with people who are likely to be injured due to lack of athleticism--or that we ought to weight this over freedom.