Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

I will begin with rebuttal: 1. You say it's stripping someone of their liberties to force sports on them. This may be true, but then why is it not violating their freedoms to force them to go to school? It's because it's for the greater good of society. It's because it betters children and leaves in a better standing than before. 2. You say it is impractical. You claim it will cost the taxpayer more money to bring this in. But won't families/the state save on health care because over the long run, less heart disease and heart operation will be performed, saving cash in the thousands. But who says parents can't go splits on it? Sure, some families can't afford it, thats where the state comes in, but most parents are already paying for sport and many other activities for their children out of their own pocket. In our current economic climate I agree we cannot bring it in. But in 10 years when the economic boom comes then surely it is feasable. You say the government must decide who can and can't play sports. But these things are already in place. There are medical tests readily available to check if a child is feasable for sport. Yes, a piano prodigy shoudn't have to play contact sport to risk an arm breakage, but did I say he had to? ? I mention a plethora of sports, ones such as Soccer which require little effort from you're hands (bar the goalkeeper). 3. Why on earth would marbles or TV trivia be considered a sport? ? I feel a local level would be satisfactory, because whereas Alaska would consider Ice hockey its state sport, other parts would consider it Basketball, other American football, etc. It should be what the local authorities feel neccessary, and what local centres and schools can offer kids. Rebuttal on your rebuttal: 1. You say that why not make it compulsory for a student to eat salad at luchtime, or ban formula milk? It's because a majority of people don't have salad for lunch and alot of mothers us infant formula as an alternative. Whereas alot of children participate and play sports. It is not absurd to make sports compulsory for children when alot of children do sports already. However, forcing salads to be eaten or banning baby formula is extremely absurd. 2. I'm not saying it's immoral to not socilalise. People like hermits have lived their lives without contact, but by teenage years, 95%+ students want to socialise and do things with friends and so on, so this is only a huge benefit to kids. 3. Yes, parents have a pivotal role in a students test results, more so than sports in some cases. But, this depends heavily on economic background like my opponent mentioned. If they come from a low-income family, chances are the parents don't get involved as much. In a middle-class family, parents are probably most involved and get their kids the best result possible. In rich families students get tutors and are given professional help. Parents shoudn't be forced to join the PTA or forced to sit down with their kids. Parenting is up to parents, the government shoudn't have control their, but this is on a bigger scale. It concerns future health risks, the security and safety of a nation from disease. Sport has an effect, it increases concentration and can relaxe the mind from just 'school, school,school'. Check out this article for further proof: . http://www.sports-media.org... My opponent claims that all children should be forced to join this website, and forced to read. But most students read books, or at least text books, throughout school. Debating is a skill learned over time. It can't be started from the age of 5. You start basic grammar and rules at the age of 5. Whereas a child of 5 is more than happy to pick up a ball and kick it around, with almost no effort or skills being show nto the child. To give the last part of my rebuttal, I see the implications of implementing this into society. Yes, some wil side with me and say it's for the greater good and has our childrens good at heart. Others will side with my opponent KRFournier and say it is a violation of one's freedom. The implications my opponent states is that the child will lose freedom, as well as the parent, over his/her life. But a child has little freedom in it's life when you think about it. They do about 6-7 hours of school a day, get 2 days off and have homework aswell. Some willl say that it's putting more stress on students by forcing them to in some cases lose a day to doing sport and losing other time to training for sports. but lets step outside the bubble for a minute and look at not facts done by some scientist up in a lab away from civilization, but from the best view you have, your eyes. Going through school, who usually were the most overweight? The children who didn't participate in sport, or neglected it. Those are the people who go on to have bi-pass surgery or a heart attack. Alot of times, it costs the state, which is the taxpayers, thousands of dollars. By making it compulsory for chidren to participate in sports, we are saving in cases huindreds of millions of dollars. It woudn't even take 100 million to upgrade the facilities which are already in place, and would be able to cater for more kids. Now, onto another point. I feel sports is essential in some ways to human development. It gives energy they need, and leaves them able to , as i mentioned earlier, to perform better in school. My opponent will argue that Music, art and debating may be just as essential as sport, and I'm not saying they aren't. But if a kid doesn't do sport, they can sometimes develop slower than someone doing sports, because theyre challenging theyre body and constantly making themselves better. I look forward to your next argument.