DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools

I must thank DDD for his patience with me and my procrastination throughout the debate. Hopefully I can make up for it all with this round ^_^ Based on the utility-centered framework of the debate, all I have to do in order to negate the resolution is show that PE classes does not cause enough benefit to society to warrant making PE classes mandatory. == AFF CASE == A1: Obesity Pro argues that because some children are obese, and PE could theoretically help reduce the number of children that are obese, PE should be mandatory in schools. Firstly, I can cross-apply my C1 to show that PE classes do absolutely nothing to reduce obesity rates; most PE classes miss (by quite a large margin) the daily requirement for simply *maintaining* the health of a person of average health, so there is basically no chance that such minimal levels of physical activity would make a significant impact on the health of an already-obese child. Secondly, this argument only supports making PE mandatory for students who are already obese or at risk for being obese, which is less than half of America's child population (. http://www.cdc.gov...). In other words, this argument doesn't show why PE should be mandatory for *all* students, as the resolution being debated supports. A2: Academics Pro argues that because physical activity stimulates students' brains and thus improves their academic performance, PE should be made mandatory. First of all, there are *many* things which which would significantly improve students' academics, such as better nutrition, doing extra practice outside of school, and attending tutorial sessions, but none of them are mandatory; having state enforcement of all of those would be nigh-impossible! Simply put, it is unfeasible to hold the state responsible for ensuring high levels of academic performance, and as such, this contention fails. This contention also fails because the vast majority of elementary schools recess periods, as shown by a survey by the National Association of Elementary School Principals revealing that "schools in 90% of school districts had at least one recess period during the day" (. http://www.isbe.net...). These recess periods easily provide the students with '20 minutes of walking' (which Pro's first study describes as being all that is required to stimulate the brain), and since the majority of grade schools already have them, there is absolutely no reason to implement mandatory physical education classes on top of that. A3: Stress Reduction This is more or less a repetition of Pro's second point, except it substitutes academic performance in general with student stress levels. The same rebuttals apply: 1) it is unfeasible to hold the government responsible for student stress levels, as there are far too many other things the government would be obligated to do as well if that were the case, and 2) recess periods also involve physical activity and thus bring many of the same benefits, thus rendering mandatory PE to be unnecessary. Pro's attempt at drawing a connection between childhood stress and drug use is a blatant slippery slope fallacy; even according to Pro's own articles, exercise is a short term relief for stress-- engaging in daily physical activity activity is important because it continually releases stress acquired on a day-to-day basis. In other words, having PE classes in grade school will in no way prevent a child from being stressed at a later age and start doing drugs. .. A4: Social Benefits Pro argues that PE classes improve social skills. Again, the rebuttal about the non-feasibility of holding the government responsible for such issues applies, as well as the rebuttal about perfectly viable alternatives already existing, such as recess periods, general classroom activities, and socialization outside of school. Pro claims that "all the people who did not go to gym would not be a great social and group person", but that is simply fallacious; the fact that PE may help aid in social development does not even come close to implying that social development cannot occur without PE classes. .. A6: Lower-Income Families Pro argues that children from lower-income families cannot engage in physical activity outside of school due to their living conditions. The biggest problem with this is that children at that level of impoverishment are far from being the majority, and so their predicament does not warrant making physical education mandatory for *all* students. At most, it makes it justifiable for the government to provide incentives to schools to make optional PE programs available. Besides that, a few of the rebuttals I've already made can be extended to even further refute this. .. 1) recess periods provide adequate physical activity for practical purposes, and 2) PE classes don't really help with 'curing' obesity or making any sort of significant impact on physical fitness. A7: Fun Pro has got to be kidding me with this argument. First and foremost, what is "fun" and what is "not fun" is entirely subjective, and thus does not serve as an objective reason to make PE mandatory. I personally hated gym class for the most part. .. furthermore, previous rebuttals can be extended, such as government responsibility and recess as an alternative. *Pro's A5 and A8 have been skipped because they are virtually re-iterations of earlier arguments. * == NEG CASE == A1: Ineffectiveness Pro gives two rebuttals. His first one basically objects that 16 minutes of physical activity is better than no physical activity ("look, a couple of calories got burnt! "). This may be true, but it is irrelevant; I am merely showing with this contention that the positive utility of PE classes is minimal, thus rendering the effort necessary to enforce mandatory PE to be not be worth it. If there is a certain minimum amount of physical activity needed to make an actual difference in students' health, and PE classes do not meet than minimum, then PE classes are ineffective-- Pro has essentially conceded this with his failed attempt at dodging the main point of the argument. Pro's second rebuttal is non-topical, as it randomly brings in statistics from other countries when literally the entirety of his own case is USA-specific. The resolution is implicitly USA-specific as a result of the stats used by both debaters; what Pro attempts to do here is both non-topical and unfair. Pro has failed to refute the fact that PE classes ultimately have no significant impact on a child's health, and it is thus not worth making them mandatory, especially given the costs of implementing a successful PE program. A2: Cost Pro objects to the notion that a school's primary function should be education by stating that "the well-being a of a child's bodily health is also important". This is a red herring which has nothing to do with the substance of my argument. Sure, a child's physical health is important, but so is their spiritual/religious development, their economic well-being, and their social life , None of those are the school's responsibility! The child's family and community is responsible for such things; Pro has not actually directly contested that a school's primary function is to educate, so we can safely arrive at the conclusion that academic concerns should take precedence over all else, as far as a school's budget is concerned. As for Pro's response to my cost argument, he claims that all one really needs to start a PE class is a soccer ball. That is absurd; throwing a bunch of kids a soccer ball is called recess time. All of Pro's other arguments rely on the common conception of a PE class, and at the very least, that requires a well-maintained gymnasium and/or outdoor field as well as at least one full-time employed coach. Forcing a school without a PE program to adopt one is not nearly as inexpensive as Pro would lead us to believe; and since a school's primary purpose is academics. A3: Alternative Pro has missed the point of my argument. PE classes do nothing more than force a child to engage in physical activity for several minutes a day, which does nothing for the child's long-term health. Pro attempts to conflate my alternative with PE classes in order to benefit his case; however my alternative is significantly distinct in that it motivates children to continue exercising outside of class and keep up good health habits throughout their lives through actual classroom instruction. In a gym class, a student simply learns to jog laps and play sports; in a health education class, a student learns how to maintain a healthy lifestyle in all its aspects, be it physical fitness, balanced nutrition, or mental/emotion well-being. In addition to much greater utility, it is also much cheaper since it can be carried out in a traditional classroom setting just like any other class. A mandatory health education program would clearly be preferable to a mandatory PE program. ============ CONCLUSION ============ 1) PE classes barely give any actual benefit to students, so making them mandatory is a waste of time and effort. 2) Considering that the vast majority of a school's budget must be reserved for academic concerns, PE classes are far too expensive to feasibly be made mandatory. 3) A mandatory Health Education program would be preferable to a mandatory PE program anyways, which, again, renders the latter to be useless. Any one of those three arguments are enough to hold up the resolution, and I have affirmed all three. Moreover, none of Pro's arguments actually hold up; they all ignore the fact that the government cannot feasibly be held responsible for ensuring success in every aspect of a student's life, and that PE classes are not the best solution to any of his presented dilemmas. The resolution is negated.