Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

Well, were at the end of the debate. I would like to thank KRFournier for debating this with me. 1.The resolution violates individual freedom. My opponent claims it is a violation of personal freedom, but do most parents know what's best for their children?? Alot of parent's spoil their children, because they love them. But this can lead to obesity levels that they can become unaware of. It's the governments job to make sure that parent's give their child a seat belt and a child seat if needed. Why? Because a parent could forget to put a child's seat belt on or because they're crying that they have it on, and all parents want a quiet car ride. When a car crash would happen, the child would have the highest chance of dying. because of a parent's ignorance. Thankfully, most parent's are smart enough to put a seat belt on a child. I'm not questioning you're parenting skills, my parent's or any parents who may read this, but the knowledge of the parent. If the parent spoils the child uneededly, the child can develop diabetes or become obese for life. In alot of cases the parent stands idly by until they're older years. So, if the government intervenes for the good of the child in seat belt safety to protect their lives, why don't they government intervene health wise to protect it's future voters and citizens? 2. The resolution is impractical. You go to a but too far in you're wording of this argument 'should the government step in to "save" parents from themselves'. it's not saving parents from themselves. Forcing the parent to work 9-5 Monday - Saturday. Whilst their child sits in a government run school/crï¿½che is the idea you put forward of 'saving' parents from themselves. It's not saving parent's if they're kids go to sports 3 days a week at most. Let's also remember that this in some cases can give parents a well deserved break from their child 3 days a week in some cases. 3. The resolution is too vague. My opponent's point is what do we call a sport and what we don't call a sport. Obvious contenders are American football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, etc. It should depend on what the local area can provide a child. We shouldn't need legislation saying that x is a sport and y isn't. Online dicitionary.com says that sports is 'an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature'. If a community centre can offer a child a choice of Basketball, Dancing or ice hockey, those are his and his parents options. This eliminates you're example of TV trivia which isn't an 'athletic activity' nor is marbles, whilst 'it is of a competitive nature' and 'requires skill', it isn't athletic. Local jurisdiction should apply. to your area, to my opponent's area and to my area. Defense of my arguments: 1. It will tackle obesity levels. My opponent submits that if the reasoning of sports is applied, so should eating salad. But, my opponent obviously skipped my justification. Alot of children play sports. Introducing this will make little change to the normal life of a child. But I would say only a minority of children choose to eat salad at lunch or choose to it it outside of meals. You can't regulate what a person eat. Sports can tackle an obesity rate effectively. But will salad. Salad can be more harmful than good in some cases. Pre-made salad can often be filled with salt and sugar. As well, kids are going to want meat with salad, and the dressing . And the dressing would defeat the purpose of eating the salad in the first place. I'll give you an example of thousand island salad dressing http://caloriecount.about.com.... On the website it gives you nutrional information on the dressing. As you can see it's high in sugar and calories, which would add to the problem, not fix it. But sports does nothing but good to one health, apart from breaking or spraining body parts, which doesn't happen in every game, or even every year. 2. It will help children socialise. There are benefits to children socialising. firstly, I have yet another health benefit. Children who socialise are normally healthier as they catch illness' like Flu and colds, which make their immune system more resilient - http://en.wikinews.org.... As well, chicken pox is best caught at an early age as it is more severe amongst adults and deadly amongst pregnant women - http://en.wikipedia.org... It can also leave children in a better state of mind. Think about it. Young children, who don't have much interaction with a friend, usually just parents, siblings and the occasional cousins. because of this they develop imaginary friends. This is harmless and common amongst young children. But it can have severe affects amongst teenagers and adults, which can lead them to do bad things and think they're bad people. As my opponent requested, that is my justification. 3. It will benefit students in other ways, such as academically. My opponent asks, 'why sports are mandatory and not parental involvement in study hours, tutoring programs, or the P.T.A.' It's for a simple reason. When students go to school, they have teachers who teach them. When they're assigned homework, they have been given it assuming that they can be left to their own devices and find the answers with the help of a textbook. I'm not denying that a parental role makes a huge difference. Yes, in languages a textbook won't teach you everything, it is sometimes critical for a parent to help. But parents have to work a 9-5 job and some don't get home 'till as late as 6.00. And students can't be denied a social life,and you can only agree with me on that. So if a teen finishes their homework at 5.30 before the parent comes home, the parent can't help their child. Whereas sports are usually run locally so the child can get their independently in most cases. My justification is that not all parents can help a student academically on their schedule, but can support them in a sport. My opponent also raise the question 'why sports are to be mandatory but not other beneficial regiments'. Well why not? Debating vastly improves one's English and Chess stimulates one's brain. But these are learnt skills. Sports can be started from a young age because its easily learnt. Whereas debating and chess take time to learn and perfect. Yes, it's not easy to get good at a sport. Some are more naturally gifted than other, but it can be started from a young age giving everyone a fair shot. Whereas debating and chess can depend on your background and education. My opponent advocates that the government should protect it's citizens from external threats only, not internal ones. But where's the limit. If you're forced to wear a seat belt, are you being protected from internal or external threats? The answer is both. It protects you from you're/ someone else's careless driving. Implementing compulsory sport not only saves yourself from disease and gives you a somewhat better lifestyle, it also protects others from you by making sure they don't have to keep paying you're hospital bills every time your heart fails on you because you 'can't' quit McDonald's. To conclude, I'll say this. The idea is for the greater good of society. I have shown you that it has more benefits than just tackling obesity. It can reduce disease amongst children, bring out the best in their studies and it is justifiable by these points, and that it can reduce health care costs. The only argument against this is that it violates personal freedoms and liberties, but so many children already do sports, and like wearing seat belts, it is for a greater cause over time and at the loss of a few hours a week to a child, will give them a better life, physically, mentally and academically.