Its acceptable to require students to participate in P.E.

Since he took the time to sort his rebuttal by points, I will reply in the same manner.1) My opponent, unfortunately, seems to have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Everyone can indeed grasp the rules of any sport. What I meant to say was that, for example, an extremely short child will never be good at basketball, no matter how hard he tries. Furthermore, some children are simply scared of doing certain activities. Indeed, many children are afraid to play football, handball, basketball, etc. , as well as doing certain exercises. Certain very much irrelevant activities. What does one accomplish except causing children distress? How exactly will the children profit? They will only have lower grades based on an irrelevant and unimportant subject - please, convince me how this fulfills the goals of edcation.2) One's mental capabilities are indeed based on genetics and inborn traits. Because of this, some possess more talents for certain subjects. However, this doesn't mean they cannot learn other subjects. A person with a talent for mathematics will most likely have a job based on mathematics, but he can still have perfectly good grades in other subjects. In P. E. this is not the case, as I've explained with the example concerning basketball in the first paragraph. Furthermore, there is also another type of discrimination. I have yet to see bullying and ridicule based on someone not understanding calculus and algebra. However, ridicule based on physical capabilities and interest in sports is common - nay, endemic - in schools. We are talking about a problem that we tried so hard to solve. We are talking about emotional distress.3) There is a reason why schooling has been compulsory for hundreds of years, while going to the gym has never been. This is because the matter of handling one's body is not the job of the school, the city, or the state. It is the job of the individual. Learning is necessary because one must be taught the understanding of the world that the human race currently possesses to be able to keep up with modern society. Also, schools, as per their role, should indeed offer an opportunity for children to do exercise. They should not, however, force it to be compulsory and stick their noses in someone else's privacy considering the managment of one's body.4 It is true that education is not the sole purpose of schools. Schools also serve to teach children good behavior, respect for their elders, etc. - social skills. That much is true. The role of schools is also, as I've mentioned in the previous paragraph, to offer an opportunity to exercise. This is, however, where the role, and responsibility, of schools ends. School indeed should prepare students for their future lives - this is why they offer a wide scope of learning. But, even in the jobs my oppoent mentions, physical strength is not primary. Even in the job of a construction worker, it is primary to understand the materials one works with, their properties, the risks of the job etc. Strength would come in handy, sure, but it is not a necessary prerequisite. It is up to the person to change their life habits if they want to have a greater muscular mass and work more easily, but it is not a necessity. As for health and a healthy lifestyle - this requires much more than just P. E. , and it is also questionable whether P. E. helps even one bit, as I will explain in the answer to my opponent's last point. My opponent raises the point of health of USA citizens, so I shall deal with it as well. To begin with, P. E. is a high school graduation requirement. Doesn't seem to have helped them much. Furthermore, P. E. isn't efficient. There are kids who are good at physical activities, and kids who are not and generally sit on the sidelines or are forced to attempt exercises they will most likely never succeed at. The fit kids stay fit, the unfit ones stay unfit. Nothing really changes, except minutes wasted on the subject. To summarize, my opponent wants to make compulsory a subject that enforces lifestyle, causes distress and bullying, and more; while at the same time being irrelevant and unimportant. The cons outweigh the pros. An opportunity to participate in such a subject should be offered, but nothing more. Why make compulsory (causing many side effects in the process) a subject that has no real use? My opponent must show why, exactly, P. E. is important, to even be able to argue why it should be compulsory. Otherwise, as I've said, the pros outweigh the cons. Back to my opponent.