Should sport become compulsory

Thank you, play2win. My opponent’s arguments are scattered and poorly structured, so I will structure them in order to help you out as a voter. Defending my counter-case (My argument) Premise: The underlying problem with my opponent’s argument Misunderstanding of a premise “There has been NO "instance" found in your premise.” I wrote: “in the event that I show there is an instance where sport should not be compulsory, even for only one person, I win this debate”. This means that I was showing the requirements of my arguments for this debate, not that I was providing any instances here. Incidentally, the instances (under Extreme Examples) come later. (My argument) A1: How to enforce? A Kritik of the resolution Define: Compulsory My opponent begins to play semantics by arguing the definition of compulsory, of which my opponent never provided any definitions for. Hence, as he agrees, “enforce” is a reasonable definition for “compulsory”. Now, considering this context of agreement, my opponent disagrees with my analogies based on me “re-defining the term” in this argument. However, as you can see, my opponent never attempted to define “compulsory” in this debate, yet also agreed with the definition I gave. Therefore: 1) My opponent did not define compulsory 2) My opponent agreed with my definition 3) I used my definition in my analogies C) Therefore, my opponent cannot disagree with my use of “compulsory” in my analogies when he also agrees with it, as this is a clear contradiction. Again, as expressed under my Kritik, how do you make something compulsory? You cannot enforce without some kind of threat. As shown in my analogies, totalitarian enforcement has lead to horrific disasters. My opponent’s refutation of this is nothing more than: they’re not the same; my opponent denies the common elements found within the analogies, without any kind of logical argument. Fanciful ideas “Ideally, collaboration globally within governments can achieve extravagant results for society. Government corruptible behavior as stated in your argument is minimal, If one government is corrupt, that doesn't tally all. Such radical enforcement would reduce the burden of modern health systems, that's the single most benefit.” Ideally, fairies would make everyone happy with pixy dust and rainbows of wealth. However, we live in reality wherein ideals are often not possible, as I am demonstrating with my arguments. Government corruptible behaviour is not “minimal” as it is a totalitarian policy, of which has an appalling track record of getting people killed. Again, how do you make something compulsory without threatening people? Then, my opponent has strawmanned my argument in saying that “if one government is corrupt”, when I clearly have provided several examples [2]. Finally, my opponent provides a bare assertion about reducing the “burden of modern health systems” without providing a shred of evidence to suggest this [3]. (my argument) A2: Extreme Examples Babies in sport “Is anything compulsory for a baby? Certainly though if sport was under totalitarian policy for infants, in proportion, they would have a very consistent record being that crawling is a form of walking. Baby steps for all the babies out there” So my opponent’s suggestion for babies competing is that they have crawling races. Okay, what if the babies do not crawl? What if they do not compete in the spot? How on Earth will this be enforced? Opponent’s implicit concession on my other points “If one were in coma, mentally incapable or simply out of action, would the feds really proceed with conviction?” Yes, the “feds” would because sport would be “compulsory”. My opponent has unwittingly found the crux of the problem in his argument with his rhetoric: his resolution is absolute. Enforcing sport upon everyone quickly runs into problems, as you can see. Miscellaneous Everything else my opponent says is merely rambles about the benefits of sports, rather than addressing my refutations of the resolution. Yes, sport is often very beneficial, but that does not mean that sport should be compulsory for everyone. “On an ending note for this round, I would like to share with you something which I personally have experienced after exceeding the age of 30 years, and I think it begins to most people who enter maturity, financial burdens require a more heuristic approach, the focus for family survival radically shifts and so does the paradigm for a precautionary approach and life risk assessment.” My opponent has provided anecdotal evidence, which when trying to assess the implications of a nation-wide enforcement of sports, appears as a logical fallacy [1]. References [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [2] http://www.nizkor.org... [3] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...