Sports should be compulsory for every child over 5.

Once again, I thank I-am-a-panda for positing this interesting resolution and for responding so quickly and thoughtfully. I look forward to debating him again in the future. My opponent has been arguing that children 5 and older should be compelled to enter into sports. His argument is based on the presupposition that the government ought to legislate good health if doing so can possibly create a better society. I called this a messiah state, a government headship that takes on the responsibility of saving its citizens from themselves. In other words, my opponent wants government to take responsibility of our actions--the actions of our parents and our children. My argument has been that the benefits personal liberty outweighs the benefits of fewer obese children. Furthermore, my opponent fails to fully appreciate the doors his resolution opens. I've asked my opponent repeatedly to explain why sports should be mandated and not other self-improvement regiments. His answer to this is that most kids already engage in sports, so forcing the rest is not too much to ask. Who, other than I-am-a-panda, decides when it's too much to ask? Who decides what constitutes a proper "sport?" Who pays for it? What happens when the citizens resist such legislation? My opponent has not answered any of these questions satisfactorily. He wants us to simply accept, on good faith, that these answers are simply and easily handled. I think it's important to note that even my opponent cannot be consistent with his logic. My opponent starts his final round saying, "So, if the government intervenes for the good of the child in seat belt safety to protect their lives, why don't they [sic] government intervene health wise to protect it's [sic] future voters and citizens?" But he contradicts this very ideal later in the same round when he says, "You can't regulate what a person eat [sic]." My opponent's position is totally arbitrary. He wants the government to regulate one area of healthy living, but not another. He cannot have it both ways. My opponent's arguments also rely on the logic that since we take away one freedom, we should take another, so long as it improves the individual. We make people wear seatbelts, so why not make them play baseball? I pointed out the flaw in this thinking when he argued that kids already have to go to school, so let's force them to play sports. I asked my opponent to tell us where this line of thinking ends. After we mandate sports, what's next? This kind of ideology is dangerous and short sighted. People don't always make the right choices, but taking away those choices is the greatest crime of all. Read the Declaration of Independence for a reminder. Advocating that the government force children to participate in sports at any age takes away too many freedoms. It violates the child's freedom of self expression by forcing them to participate in activities they may not enjoy or excel within. It violates the parent's freedom to raise them as they see fit. It is certain that parents and children fail to create healthy habits, but the alternative is a society of healthy mindless drones, whose actions and responsibilities belong to the state. I contend that this is not all a "better" society.