Students not passing all classes should be ineligible to play high school sports

I hereby negate that "Students not passing all classes should be ineligible to play high school sports" It really would not matter if this policy where enforced or not; the problem in students not passing classes is in general apathy for the classes; my opponent proposes that by simply enforcing this "no-pass no-play" policy that students will legitimately learn more. This is a logical fallacy. Contention 1: Education needs major reform. I propose that students in aesthetics, will not put forth any more of an effort to learn in order to be able to play sports. They will instead cheat to meet the bare minimum and they will be able to play their sport. Where is my warrant? My opponent said, "Texas and Los Angeles school districts are among the many who realize that the United States needs to focus on improving the grades of our students. They have both enacted rules such as No Pass No Play. Previously, these districts had held less demanding eligibility rules. When the No Pass No Play policies were initially implemented, a large number of students were unable to participate in high school sports. However, after two years of enforcing this rule, the number of ineligible students had decreased to the number of students ineligible before the policy was enacted" For face value it would appear that the no-pass no-play policies had worked; until we look at standardized tests scores. Up until the end of this last school year, Texas students where trained all year long to take the "Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skill" or TAKS. starting at the beginning of the next school year, students will instead be taking the "End Of Course exam" or EOC. The reason why? because test scores over-all for the TAKS where awful, students weren't learning anything. [1] The simply fact is that education need a major reform; and simply stripping students of their extracurricular activities isn't going to make them learn any more. All it will do is take away student's only reason to want to do well in the first place; it will take away what inspires the students. Contention 2: Education isn't everything- No-pass no-play isn't specific to just sports; it includes all other school related activities. for the future mechanic, that mean Ag Mech; for the future farmer, that mean Ag Shows; for the future lawyer, that means no forensics; for the future thespian, that means no theater. Some subjects simply aren't relevant to every-one; and every walk of life. An actor doesn't need to know quantum physics to know how to convey emotion; an engineer doesn't need to know British literature to understand how to calibrate an engine; a Writer doesn't need Pre-Cal to be able t write a captivating novel So now let's look at it in the log run; by enforcing no-pass no-play, we limit and even hurt the futures of many children because they're struggling with a certain subject. Which leads me onto my next point Contention 3: Student's shouldn't be punished for not understanding. People are naturally proud, this is especially true for any-one outgoing enough to actually join a sports team; they're competitive and don't want to be seen as a lesser person. And so of course, they don't want to fail a class, they don't choose to make bad grades. And while I admit that this isn't an all-inclusive argument, and that some students legitimately don't care; there are still going to be those students whom are being punished for not understanding something. Conclusion- Anything can look good on paper, any doctor can give an opinion or statement regarding something; but until it is seen in practical application, nothing can be known for sure. My opponent give you no hands-one proof that affirming this resolution will actually lead to students getting a better education; and beyond that they never prove that a better education is necessarily a good thing. Therefore I urge you all to Vote Con! =Sources= [1] http://www.kxan.com...