physical education should be compulsory

I will offer a brief introduction to my case, pose my case, and then refute Pro's.I will be arguing the side of this debate that rejects the motion to make PE compulsory in state schools until the age of 16 because that is about as specific as Pro is as to what "physical education should be compulsory" means.I clearly don't believe that the youth should "be forced to participate in aerobic exercise," as Pro argues. PE, while a great physical outlet for people, should not be compulsory for the reasons that Pro introduces his case with. When he claims that "every year, more and more parents complain to their children's schools about PE" and believe that "it is not a conductive educational activity or environment." Unlike Pro argues, when PE is forced, it seems that it in fact can lower one's self-esteem. Pro looks at the physically fit, and ignores the skinny debate kids, like myself. I will elaborate on this later in my arguments.Contention 1: Forced To Constantly Be Picked LastPE doesn't exactly sounds like heaven to most kids like myself that believe that it is only damaging to our self-esteem. Being the skinny debate kid, I was always picked last for any game of dodge-ball, kickball, soccer, football, etc. I was always picked last. If it wasn't me, it was one of 5 other people in my gym class. PE essentially divides up a class of students into the fit and muscular and to the skinny and nonathletic. This is modern day gym, and you want to force people to participate in this kind of humiliation? Even when it comes to simpler things, like yoga, or jogging, there are always winners and losers. And although Pro may argue in his own case that the winners get a self-esteem boost, most people with this argument forget about the people like me.Contention 2: Let's Just Punish Them Some More, Shall We? No.PE is a miserable class for most people who just don't want to participate. Do you really think forcing them to participate will make them like or accept it better? If they aren't accepting PE now, and refuse to participate, do you think that forcing this subject on them will lead them to come to participate anymore? Sure, PE could be used as punishment (I'll elaborate when I refute Pro's case), but that's too far from fair to count as legitimate. Many people don't participate because it makes them feel bad, and to make it compulsory would make them feel worse. A person's self image is the most important thing to them. Is someone's self image is bad, whether they be too skinny, or too large, or the like, gym does not help them accomplish a better one.Now, onto my opponents case.Point 1: Promoting A Healthier Life Style or Promoting A Healthier Body Image?A life style and a body image are completely different. "The effect on self-esteem and well-being as a product of sport can only be experienced by certain children if forced by their schools to first participate." I completely agree, but as I have already proven that this is not always a positive effect. PE has never convinced me, or many of my classmates (we'll consider them average), to take up some form of lifelong exercise habit. Besides, even if PE does promote a healthier life style, this is not superior to a healthy career. In a society where the recession has become the main thing on people's mind, we all want (as high schoolers) to know that we can leave here, get to college and into a job that will provide for us. When schools waste their time with required PE courses, they limit the ability they have to improve scores, ensuring a high school student's spot in a good college. If instead of focusing on scores, and forcing students to run around in circles with eachother, we do not ultimately use the time wisely [1].Point 2: Though Pro may be correct that PE essentially has people working together, it is in a competitive nature. Playing games like football or dodgeball does force people to work together on a team, but only for the sole purpose of beating the opposing team. Teaching people to physically beat others and try to prove themselves to be better than another simply because of physical advantages. This goes to show that PE does not forge skills that are invaluable in later life, but forges skills that are dangerous to adapt to every PE period until you're 16 [2]. Learning respect for their teammates may be one lesson in PE, but it is not the greatest one. We are talking about teenagers, not only children. Teenagers are competive, always focused on proving themselves. When they are able to fully express it with their physical abilities, they will, in any mannar they can.Point 3:While national achievement in sports may be important, It does not outweigh the strive to be successful in the business world. You need to be the absolute best of the best to make anything out of a sports career, whereas in another business, you are more likely to be able to hold a job and still learn in the process. The 30% of Olympic athletes that come from private schools are obviously into the sport they compete it. However, this is no where near true for all teenagers. Teenagers that do not expect to make a living out of a sport clearly should not be forced into taking up Gym every year [3]. PE is optional for exactly that reason. While PE is optional, people who wish to go into a professional sport may take the class, and those who wish to slim down can participate as well. However, those who do not plan on this field would be forced into participating just because the state wants everyone to be athletes.Point 4: Encouragement Is The Key Term, HereYes, sports teams do require the support of schools and the encourage of physical education. However, compulsory PE courses are not the way to achieve this. those who wish to play sports can easily go into the PE course with others that have to get a gym credit for one year of high school. This will give everyone the practice they need, and let them decided whether or not a career or future in physical education or sports is right for them. Optional PE courses for anyone who has already taken at least one credit or two credits (the average for High School) solves this problem [4]. Schools can encourage PE and sports and not have to force the students who do not require this kind of course to take it. Pro makes a good point in that is sports players have to do math, why don't mathamatitions have to play sports? However, it's simple. Math is one subject that will help you throughtout your entire life, no matter what job you have. You always need to balance a checkbook, etc. Though we all seem to claim we'll never use it, we always do. However, sports are areas that many people don't have to be able to do in order to succeed [5]. I don't have to know how to play football if I'm programming a CAT Scan machine, do I?Point 5: Yay! Another Form Of Punishment!What Pro doesn't seem to realize is that many schools do not give you extra work if you refuse to do your own. They simply enter in a zero and let your grade take the price. You are not given more work, because it is strictly unfair to be given work that you will not be graded on in the High School level. Making one student do more work than another doesn't seem fair, now does it? Not to say that the student will do this "extra work" either. The fact is, if told you are going to have to run extra laps because you did not run the initial set, what are the chances that you will run them [6]? Failing gym is a constant joke in many High Schools. You fail it one year, then it becomes compulsory to take it the next. This is fair enough in forcing students to take a class. If they fail it, they take it again. But why should they be foreced to take it again if they already have the substantial credit? It's like making a kid take Algebra 1 for 4 years in a row. Besides, when is punishment okay? If a kid is too unconfident to participate in the first place, why is it fair to force him to participate even more the next time?