The Instigator
elissa_limo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robert_Santurri
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Children need more time at school in P.E & Sport lessons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Robert_Santurri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,565 times Debate No: 5775
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

elissa_limo

Pro

children need more time with Sport and P.E lessons at school. they do not get supervised to "play" games at play time/ lunch time so they can sit and chat. the only time they HAVE to do physical activity is at sport lessons - this can affect children with weight problem and there is no disadvantage with having more daily intake of sport each day. the daily reccomendation of physical activity in 30 mins a day. Children at most primary schools only get 1.45 HOURS, over a two day period!! that's 85 mins or 1.25 hours below what children should be getting between a 5 day period. this of course is not enough and there is no harm in increasing the children's sport intake.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating such a interesting topic. I wish we can have a fun, joyful debate.

First off, my opponent has no definitions or contentions. This makes it difficult to debate certain points over others and of course figure out what my opponent is exactly talking about. But in the spirit of debate, I digress.

Now to jump into my opponent points:

To refute my opponent first point about they do not get supervised to "play" games at playtime/lunch time so they can sit and chat makes little to no sense.

The kids do not need to be supervised in recess specifically to play games. When I was a child, I played many games ranging from Kickball to Football at recess and we didn't need a gym teacher. However, during recess you do have supervision from other teachers in the area to make sure everything is alright.

I don't get how my opponent has a problem that the kids don't play games at lunch time. The whole point of lunch time is to eat your lunch, and sit/chat with your friends.

Now to refute my opponent second point about the only time they have to do physical activity is at sport lessons is wrong.

There is always after-school where the kids can join a league, go to the park with their parents and or friends among other things.

Also, another way children can not have a weight problem is by healthy eating. Children are taught very early about the food pyramid. Healthy eating also helps lead to no future weight problems along with excerising after school.

There are plenty of disadvantages with children having more time for P.E each day. I'll just list one reasoning:

1.) Less time in the classroom. - What classes will have to be shortened because of this longer P.E class? Will school be longer? What about the bus system, the system is set up on kids getting out of school at a set time.

Now my opponent once again seems to ignore the whole point of least fifteen minutes for recess and of course playing sports along with excerising after school. But in the spirit of debate I will focus on my opponent last point:

The daily recommendation of physical activity is 30 minutes a day.

Now my opponent has stated that children at most schools get a hour and forty five minutes over a two day period. That would be 105 mins.

Then my opponent throws in the whole 85 mins or 1.25 hours below what a child should be getting between a 5 day period. But it isn't a 5 day period, it is a 2 day period.

Over a two day period, a child should be getting 60 mins of P.E according to my opponent. Well a child actually ends up getting 105 mins according to my opponent. This is actually MORE then the daily recommendation of physical activity.

Now if we keep this up over a five day period, a child should be getting 150 minutes of P.E.
Now under my opponent OWN math, a child is getting 210 minutes of P.E in FOUR days alone. Not even counting the fifth day.

So therefore, one of the biggest basis of my opponent argument has crumbled and fallen.

Final Points:
My opponent had no definitions or contentions.

My opponent points were all refuted.

One of my opponent major points was completely wrong.

Thank you for reading this debate and I'd like to once again thank my opponent. And I strongly urge all to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
elissa_limo

Pro

I would like to point out that my opponent had used valuable arguments but he has totally miss cornered my point. My point was that children were NOT getting enough time for P.E / sport at school. I am a P.E teacher and I also said that in a WHOLE week the children only get 1. 45 minutes!! Not 1.14 over two days or whatever my opponent said. But 1.45 minutes in a whole week is well below the standard. My opponent also said that children can join after school sports. This is true but what about the children's parents who don't have time to run around taking their children to sports? Or if they do not have enough money? The option is there but if parents can't afford to or can't take the children to after school circiular why can't they just have it at school? Also my opponent has said that sport is using up valuable time in the classroom. This is true but it's not like the children will die with out 30 minutes without a little maths, English, science etc, but children CAN die without sport because that does and can lead to obesity , high cloestrol , heart problems etc. My opponent has also pointed out that when he was at school, at recess he played games such as kickball and did not get supervised. I would just like to point out and say; that NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU AND WANTS TO PLAY GAMES AT LUNCHTIME!! Some kids do prefer to sit and chat and what I was trying to say before is that there is NO one to tell them that it IS compulsory to play a game at lunch time (which it is not!) where at sport/ P.E time it IS compulsory to join in and play & learn a new strategy or game.
so yes, my opponent has made a mistake and should read more carefully and try to understand what I have said and realise that children SHOULD have more P.E / sport time
Thank-you for reading this debate and I strongly urge you to vote for me.
Robert_Santurri

Con

First off, I would like to once again thank my opponent for such a interesting debate and I'm glad to see her reaction so soon.

My opponent seems to not have read my argument ladies and gentlemen. I debated as to why children don't need anymore time in P.E.

My opponent is also sad to say a liar. How do I know this? She says she is a P.E. Teacher!
http://www.debate.org...

But her profile clearly says she is 14 years old! Now I don't live in Australia but I'm pretty sure they don't have 14 year olds teaching P.E.

I would also like to point out my opponent did say 1.45 hours over a two day period. Then she added that is below whatever X amount over a five day period. Now my opponent is assuming that all schools across the country have P.E. only two times a week which is simply untrue. My opponent has also failed to cite any sort of evidence to back up her claims that children should be getting 85 minutes more of P.E over a 5 day period. As of now, it is simply her opinion and since she is a liar then her opinion should be worth not much.

My opponent now brings up the whole point about school sports after school about how parents may not have the time to run around taking their children to sport games. Or the parent/parents may not be able to afford the after school sport according to my opponent.

My opponent also fails to point out that the child could join a after school team which costs nothing. My opponent also fails to point out to you the reader that the child could something called friends. This child could then hang out with said friends after school with perhaps that other child's parent watching them. So you don't need money or a parent to drive you around as long as you look at all your options.

PLEASE NOTE: My opponent has CONCEDED one of the major points of this debate which is more time for P.E takes out valuable time from the classroom.

Now, following my opponent "85 minutes below what they should be getting a week." We will quickly do some math here. 180 school days divided by 5 days a week equals 36 weeks. 36 weeks multiplied by 85 minutes is 3,060 minutes. 3,060 minutes divided by 60 minutes which is a hour equals FIFTY ONE (51) hours out of the classroom for more P.E. That is certainly a lot of time taken out of the classroom simply for P.E. Imagine what a student could learn in fifty one hours? For one class, that'd be an entire quarter if you go by 45 days in a quarter!

My opponent also makes the insane point that if you don't have an extra eighty five minutes a week of P.E. that these CHILDREN will eventually get obesity, high Cholesterol, and heart problems. Here, my opponent is completely incorrect. What leads to all these things is not exercising but rather unhealthy eating. I know personally that if you don't exercise much of the time but at the same time if you don't eat all this fast food junk among many other unhealthy foods then you won't get these problems later in life.

Do not be fooled by my opponent outlandish lies dear reader.

Next my opponent says, "NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU AND WANTS TO PLAY GAMES AT LUNCHTIME."
Uhh, lets take a look at what I said why don't we?
"I don't get how my opponent has a problem that the kids don't play games at lunch time. The whole point of lunch time is to eat your lunch, and sit/chat with your friends."

I think my opponent is the one who has problems reading what I stated dear reader. I specifically said that kids don't play at lunch time and the whole point of lunch time is to eat your lunch while sitting with your friends. In fact, it is by law that kids need to have a certain amount of minutes daily for lunch.

My opponent then seems to go off on her next point saying "Some kids do prefer to sit and chat and what I was trying to say before is that there is NO one to tell them that it IS compulsory to play a game at lunch time (which it is not!)"
My opponent tried to say nothing of such and is once again LYING to you. There are always teachers in the lunch room in the first place and look to my point above about lunch time and eating.

"where at sport/ P.E time it IS compulsory to join in and play & learn a new strategy or game."
Above, that was my opponent next point. This does not mean every kid does join in or wants to. Besides, by the 4th or 5th grade most kids have learned about all the sports they will be playing. So there are no new strategies or games to learn.

My opponent next point:
"so yes, my opponent has made a mistake and should read more carefully and try to understand what I have said and realise that children SHOULD have more P.E / sport time"

Dear reader, I have made it quite clear what my side is and what my points are. My opponent has made many jumbled points, jumping all over the place, lying to you among other things,etc. It is she who needs to read more carefully and realize she made a mistake.

Final Points:
Any points my opponent did not address in her second argument which I made in my first round argument I assume she concedes.

My opponent continued to not to define any of her terms.

My opponent offered no evidence to back up her points that kids need more time for P.E a week. She continues to throw out this number but nothing to back it up.

My opponent conceded one of the major points of the debate.

My opponent lied at least three times throughout the debate to you the reader and myself including her trying to say she is a "P.E. Teacher" in order to try and bolster her points.

My opponent has made her arguments quite difficult to read with poor grammar and sentence structure. It also did not help to make it one giant paragraph and spell words like Cholesterol wrong.

My opponent continues to make outlandish statements which are simply untrue.

So therefore dear reader, when you go to vote with your ballot I ask for you to remember all this. Finally, I would like to thank you once again for reading this debate, my opponent for creating such a interesting debate, and of course strongly urge you to vote for CON.
Debate Round No. 2
elissa_limo

Pro

Thank-you to my opponent for posting his/ her comments.
I see that you have brought up that I am 14 years old and that I can not be a P.E teacher. In fact I am it's just that I have put that I am younger than I actually am because I do not like to give out such personal information on the Internet because anyone such as yourself can access it. (as you have done already) I do not know who you are what age you are and quite frankly you could be something that is very bad.

My opponent has put out very good arguments. As I have already said children DO need more exercise. my opponent complains and says that I am assuming but I am not assuming that children only get 1.45 hours of sport a week.

Just because children have friends that do not mean that they have to play sport at lunchtime! I have said numerous amounts of times that children can and do sit and talk. Remember I have gone to school and I have see this, alot and it was not that long ago!

Also you say that children could go to a friends place after school. This is true but what about if parents can't take them and as it comes up again just like the lunchtime argument children may not always play games. To most kids, T.V, computer and electronic games are much more fun and may very well play with those things instead of going outside. Also you could say that parents can make sure the children are outside but it is not like u can't take a laptop, a game boy or even a portable D.V.D player outside.

My opponent has also said that not enough sport DOESN'T LEAD TO OBESITY! and that it is un healthy eating that causes it. That is one of the stupidest things I have heard! Of course it does. Even if you eat healthy, you might have a slow metabolism which makes it alt harder to loose weight! Even healthy food contains extra fat, sugar etc. that turns into fat. Without exercise you would never burn off anything and I have to say that Yes, most children do eat junk food, whether it's every once and a while or if it's everyday. The fact is that children do.

I also have evidence that children should be getting 85 extra minutes a week of sport. Let's do some maths here. if children should be getting 30 minutes of sport everyday, over a five day period children should be getting 2.30 hours. At this rate most children are only getting 1.45 minutes over a five day period. So yes they should be getting 85 minutes extra a week (or simply 30 minutes per day) because that is what is reccomended every day

I still do stick with all of my points and I would like to say to my opponent that by what you have said it sounds like you are against having sport lessons altogether and that you should only have it at play time and lunchtimes! but that is my opinion and you have yours

So please I urge you to vote for me because if we do not act fast the future of children's weight will become worse than it already is and extra time for sport can help just that little bit.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to once again thank my opponent for creating such an interesting debate and I am happy she ended up debating all three rounds.

I will now jump into my opponent's final points due to the amount of characters allowed each round.

My opponent tries to defend her lying by saying she is a P.E teacher but is only hiding her information because "people like me" can and already have accessed it. My opponent fails to point out that she has not said she lied about where she lives, so obviously she doesn't care too much about personal information.

Her profile also states this:
About me: I love to debate I won a debating championship at school
Activities: sports and debating homework.
So obviously, my opponent is fourteen and is continuing to lie to you dear reader. How can you trust her points in this case if she won't admit the truth about herself?

Now my opponent has conceded that I make good arguments. My opponent is assuming children only get 1.45 hours of sports a week as that is the basis of her whole case. Otherwise, if children are getting more then her entire case is pointless and void.

My opponent has once again misread for reasons unknown to myself. I have made it clear that children should not be playing sports at lunch time because that is when they are suppose to be eating. By law, schools are required to have a certain amount of time for lunch each day.

Once again, my opponent assumes children are playing only computer games, video games, or watching TV instead of going outside. My opponent has made more assumptions then anything in this case. My opponent fails to see how the parent of one child could pick up both children after school, they are called play dates. Besides, this case is not about children choosing TV over exercising supposedly.

Not exercising does not lead to obesity. I am a great example of this. I have rarely to never work out, and I am skinny. Why? Because I do not stuff myself with fast food and other unhealthy foods. I have a balanced diet. A slow metabolism does not matter if the child is not overly eating unhealthy foods. And of course these children are obviously already exercising. My opponent is only suggesting for them to exercise MORE not in general. Remember this dear reader.

Here, my opponent contradicts herself once AGAIN. Her evidence is simply non-existent as to WHY children should get 85 minutes out of class time that my opponent has conceded as more important then P.E. Once again, my opponent states children need to get 2.30 hours a week but have NO EVIDENCE to back this up. Then my opponent states children are only getting 1.45 minutes over a five day period, which is so VERY wrong. And once again, recommended by whom? My opponent never stated whom.

If my opponent sticks with all her points, she has therefore stuck with points that contradict her case, points she has conceded to me, etc.

For the record: I am not against P.E and I never stated that it should be at lunchtime. I do not believe however that all this time should be taken out of class for P.E.

Final Points:
Any points of mine my opponent failed to refute, I assume she has conceded and should be treated as such.

My opponent had no organization such as contentions, no definitions of any of her words, and had horrible grammar and spelling.

My opponent had no health evidence at all to back up what she continued to claim throughout her case despite my questioning for such evidence.

My opponent conceded that P.E takes up valuable time in the classroom which therefore makes time in the classroom more important then P.E.

My opponent points have all been refuted, while mine stand strong.

My opponent has lied to the reader about not only her age but profession along with outlandish statements throughout her case which I previously pointed out.

So therefore, I strongly urge you to vote justly and vote CON.
Thank you for reading this debate and I like to once again thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
Totally!!!
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
Yeah!!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Maybe!!!
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
"Yes!!!"?
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Yes!!!
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"there is no harm in increasing the children's sport intake."

For a moment thar I thought "children" was a type of car and "sport intake" was referring to "air intake".
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InvisibleMan 8 years ago
InvisibleMan
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
elissa_limoRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07