The Instigator
play2win
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should sport become compulsory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,031 times Debate No: 69681
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

play2win

Pro

There is allot of controversy about sport and it's benefits.
Do you think sport should be accessible to the wider community, and should sport be compulsory for everybody ?
Zarroette

Con

I accept. My opponent will be affirming that "sport [should] be compulsory for everybody", as made clear in his opening round. I await my opponent's opening round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
play2win

Pro

Some of the biggest challenges within cross culture societies is establishment of social relation based on common interests. Other major challenges include maintaining and leading a healthy and active lifestyle.

Sport - It is the least disputed lifestyle for humans and always has been, because there is one for everybody.

So why do people stop playing sport ?
Physical education (PE) is compulsory while at school, the consistent repetition of physical activity during youth doesn't always follow through / re apply during ones work career.
Additional study commitments accumulate, starting a family further lowers the paradigm sport. Ones active lifestyle all together reduces and begins to become a paradigm of low priority.

And when sport is low priority, several other relatied active elements become a lower prioroty too, the longer one doesn't keep active, the harder it can be to return to the field of play, not to mention the loss of self-worth and disappointment that attaches to people who fall short of their ideal self.

Often people stop playing sport due to work and study commitments.
Injury, self neglect or failing to prepare / warmup before play, Other reasons may be re-location or with partner etc..

The benefits of sport equal to more stable and generally healthier society:

Greater confidence and self-awareness
Improved health, fitness and overall well-being
Greater social contact and interaction
Less isolation and loneliness
Increased ability to deal with stress
Greater sense of relaxation and well-being
Reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression
Improved self-esteem and self-image

Ref# http://www.onlinesportscommunity.com... [Benefits of sport]
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, play2win.



Negative Case


Premise: The underlying problem with my opponent's argument

There is no doubt that there are benefits to playing sport. However, the fault with my opponent's resolution is that it is an absolute, wherein "sport should be compulsory", meaning that Pro argues "sport [should] be compulsory for everybody". If you do not agree with my Kritik, 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.


A1: How to enforce? A Kritik of the resolution


Violation


Forcing people by gun-point ("compulsory", in this instance, meaning enforced [by the state] [2]) is ethically questionable, especially since it is a totalitarian policy.


Link

The resolution precipitates the questionable ethics of having a state enforce something relatively benign, like participation in sport. In this debate, there is this implication of enforcement that is apriori which needs first be addressed before we can decide whether anything should be "compulsory".



Impact

The major impact of enforcing people to partake in sport is that this is a totalitarian policy. The problem with this totalitarian policy is that there is not immediate danger that is prevented by forcing people to partake in sport (unlike say forcing a delusional, dehydrated person to drink water). Furthermore, as I will eloborate later under this heading, totalitarian policies are essentially unchecked. As documented throughout history, totalitarian line of thought is drenched in blood. Examples include, but are not limited to:


- Hitler's regime, particularly involving the mass genocide of Jews in the Holocaust (10s of Millions dead [3])

- Stalin's regime, which included 20-60 million deaths of his own people in an attempt to meet impossible 5-year-plans and maintain a level of fear [4]

- Mao Zedong's Great Leap forward, which involved inhumane work ethics that killed anywhere between 18 to 45 million [5]


The problem is that there is no accountability since there is only the state's way or punishment. A society wherein people are held at gunpoint or thrown in jail (how else is something "compulsory?") for not partaking in something relatively trivial like sport condones totalitarian tactics, of which have decimated the lives of 100s of millions of people throughout recent history. Just because a government is in power to do something does not mean that they will do it. Just because a government says it will not abuse power does not mean that the government is telling the truth. There is a need for checks in place to prevent corruption and abuses of power. A government cannot be allowed such absolute power, in regards to making sport "compulsory".


Alternative

Allow people to choose whether they will play sport, as it is not a requirment of life. If the benefits are so compelling, inform people and let the benefits sway them.


Voter

There is serious ethical and/or real danger in forcing people to partake in sport, at the threat of jail-time or being shot (again, how else do you make something compulsory?). Just imagine someone skipping sports training during the week and having the Feds come to his/her house and arrest him/her!! That is what my opponent's idea would require in order to keep it "compulsory".


"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" ~ Lord Acton



A2: Extreme examples

Firstly, let me show you a reasonable definition of sport [6]:

"An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively."

Take for example quadriplegia [1]. How will a person who is largely incapacitated able to play sport? Please tell me which sport this type of person can play? How about someone in a critical condition in hospital? Are they meant to play sport whilst in a coma, since sport is "compulsory" for "everybody?" How about babies, who are incapable of the conception of sport, be required to play? How about really old people who can barely walk around, say 110 year olds who are in nursing homes?

My opponent's faulty resolution would require that all these people, plus the many more extreme examples I could mention, to play sport. These people are physically and/or mentally incapable of playing sport, yet my opponent has to argue that sport will be compulsory for them. If someone has no capacity to do something, then why should they be forced to do it?


References:

[1] http://www.spinal-injury.net...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.holocaustchronicle.org...
[4] http://www.ibtimes.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
play2win

Pro

Compulsory - Yes this term does mean to enforce, however, the term "compulsory" in this argument is in relation to sport and no other, regime, war, guns, delinquency or babies as you have acquired for examples within the structure in order to attempt to win your argument.

In-fact it would have been better if you didn't associate historical regime with sport, sport is already on a decline due to "Increased work and study commitments". You have also associated this topic engaging destructive and primitive behavior in very large populations. The worlds largest participating sporting event has no more than 210,000 participants as of this date, and is held for no longer than one week, proceedings generally go to a charitable cause, the average number of participants in any given sporting event by all means is under one hundred and is not limited to solace participation.

You as my opponent have created an ultimatum by re-defining the term in this argument.
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 :).

land tax - a totalitarian policy. If one were in coma, mentally incapable or simply out of action, would the feds really proceed with conviction?

There has been NO "instance" found in your premise.

Relationships can't be made compulsory, but sport is something which really can make a difference in one's life, when one is physically active, the effect helps improve one's self awareness, and that is a crucial element which allows the ability of self mentoring. So many factors reason the recent decline of sport, one should not lose their best self, if their sport kin moves town or breaks his/her leg.

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.

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.
If sport were compulsory, society (Quality of Life) would better.
Zarroette

Con

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...

Debate Round No. 3
play2win

Pro

My opponent yet again is creating an illusion of argument justification.
Simply there has been no logical instance found in my opponents examples.

My opponent was painting the picture that someone in Coma (Not alive or Active) is to be considered as "Part of the term Everybody"

My opponent is suggesting that an infant who is yet to: teethe, walk, read or write, has the coordination skills to be playing sport otherwise will be imposed eviction by the federal police.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, play2win.


My opponent has elected, perhaps strategically, to write 4 sentences in response to my slightly longer response. In doing so, my opponent has missed quite a few of the contentions, so everything that my opponent has not responded to is to be extended.


Counter-arguments


"My opponent yet again is creating an illusion of argument justification.
Simply there has been no logical instance found in my opponents examples."

Where does this "illusion of argument justification" occur? How has there been "no logical instance found in my opponent[']s examples?" My opponent, once again, commits the bare assertion fallacy in failing to provide evidence and/or argument for his claims [1].



"My opponent was painting the picture that someone in Coma (Not alive or Active) is to be considered as "Part of the term Everybody""

On the contrary, it is my opponent who has to argue that this is the case, given his first round resolution clarification: "Do you think sport should be accessible to the wider community, and should sport be compulsory for everybody ?" In light of this, the fact that my opponent is attempting to blame me, as if there is fault for arguing against a position that he/she has elected to take, is nonsensical.



"My opponent is suggesting that an infant who is yet to: teethe, walk, read or write, has the coordination skills to be playing sport otherwise will be imposed eviction by the federal police."

Again, my opponent's position dictates that he/she argues this; it is not my mere suggestions alone that dictate my opponent argues this. The term "everybody" was used as a resolution clarifier in the first round: Do you think sport should be accessible to the wider community, and should sport be compulsory for everybody ?


Please remember to extend my other, uncontested arguments, too.


Reference

[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Debate Round No. 4
play2win

Pro

It's quite obvious that life on earth hasn't turned out the way of intention, yet its so difficult to change. Many of us don't have the courage to take action and decide. Every Tom dick and harry says "what I am doing is working, and I was taught that if it's working, don't change it" Sport teaches us to step towards a different way of thinking.

Take surfing for example, a surfer comes to meet his wave, its a larger than normal wave, the surfer is aware that he is not in control, the surfer uses his/her knowledge base in order to coordinate the right movements to avoid being pounded by the crest of the wave, and the win is by escaping the blow from a barrel all this, all this while knowing the hour of death could be at any given moment, and yet still be OK with committing the drop. Life is like a wave, the levels of cause and effect can be so deep, that we can underestimate what is at hand, and everything seems to be random.

What if the alarms were real, that we "planet earth" is at a turning point, and "Global warming is real" would we continue to build big machinery to replace our lazy bones? Bigger, Stronger, Faster we can dig deeper into the earth at what point are we able to decide that we have chosen the wrong path, and where rapid change is crucial, would we have the physical and mental capability to revert?
Do we still have the physical capability to work the lands via traditional methods of farming and agriculture? And are we able to walk a even merely fraction of the distance that we once could without exhaustion?

We need not only be prepared to deal with the rapid changes in such a volatile world, but we need to consider ways of improving ourselves through continual revision, and following the path of progression.

Instead we choose to sit in front of the computer, and pray for a revolution, when we should be sharing our screens to spread the message. The message that everybody who is able to keep physically active is should be keeping active, in the sense that we are obligated to have our best body because every move we make has a chain reaction of cause and effect and we are all part of something big. Sport and recreation can reduce self-destructive and delinquent behavior in young people, and contribute to a more disciplined attitude, if our children are the future, who is old and brave enough to make the change and lead by example? Our kids are looking at the man in the mirror.

Now let's take a look at the bigger picture, we have become disconnected, analysing people and comparing, when we should be comparing ourselves with out true potential that we have yet to discover, we need leaders, we need people who will win to change the change we all need or want to see, not because we are the fastest or strongest but because we can work amazingly well together. Should sport become compulsory for everybody? I say yes.

We can simply choose to ignore what we are reading and continue to make society work for us, so that our needs to keep up with the pace are met, or can choose to make a slight shift towards a change for the better, by dedicating ourselves to something and sticking with it until we like it, that is the key to stimulation of our intellectual, so if we can engage in regular physical activity, it would mean that we simply take a small risk by dedicating a small proportion of time; perhaps thirty five minutes, twice a week to focus on trying to make ourselves, not the best, but better than we were yesterday, by engaging in some form of physical activity, even if it means by at the end of this argument that you decide to start by putting on your walling shoes, and stroll around the block.

My argument suggests nothing more than merely that we are obligated to reclaim our best body if we haven't already, so that if we arrive to a point where radical change is required that we all ability to swiftly make change for a positive impact.

Ladies, gentlemen, friends and enemies, sport is the answer to an better quality of life, who could possibly argue that we don't deserve a better quality of life? Our Guardians who raised us surely would have intended that we have the best quality of life possible, We need to take the smart right out of our phones, cars and devices, we need to come to realise that technology is no longer the evidence that suggests our intelligence. Our intelligence is measured upon how well we can work, live and co-ordinate together, and our success could be measured upon how well we can keep relationships together. Sport contributes to Greater social contact and interaction.

Reference#
Note: while the reference link contains outlining information used in order to construct this arguement, it also promotes collaborative service.
http://www.sportkin.com...
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, play2win.

I will now summarise based upon the major points of this debate.


Counter-Case/ Negative Case


A1: How to enforce? A Kritik of the resolution


My Kritik was never directly addressed, but was rather responded to indirectly with objections to the definition and the way in which anything less than ideal is not desirable.

For the first objection, I addressed my opponent's concerns wih the definition, of which my re-rebuttal here was thereafter dropped (in the 4th round), meaning that my opponent concedes the definition both he/she and I used was appropriate.

For the second objection, I explained how it is unreasonable to expect governments to remain completely free of corruption, to which my opponent dropped in the 4th round.


Otherwise, my Kritik was untouched. The fundamental problem with my opponent's argument is that making something compulsory requires threatening people. Again, as unanswered by my opponent: would it be ethical to kill or jail people if they refused to partake in compulsory sport? If someone could not attend a compulsory game during the week due to work commitments, would that then mean that this person is jailed or killed? The fact is that totalitarian policy has a terrible record of killing people on mass. How else do you make a policy compulsory? My opponent never answers these serious questions.



A2: Extreme Examples

In case, for whatever reason, you do not agree with my Kritik, then this contention, whilst addressed more thoroughly by my opponent, was dropped in many places. The fact is that arguing "everybody" (the term used by my opponent in the first round) should be forced to do compulsory sport means EVERYBODY. That includes quadriplegics. That includes people in comas. That includes babies, who, as my opponent ended up dropping, are not capable of understanding the rules for sport. But even if you do not agree with the baby counter-argument, my opponent completely drops all the other extreme examples I gave.

In fact, by the 4th round, my opponent begins to implictly concede that forcing "everybody" to play sport is ridiculous, as seen by his/her attempt to change the definition of "everybody" to not include people in a coma, and also by trying to flip his argument so that it appears that I was arguing children should be evicted by the federal police if they fail to play sport.

In short, not everybody is even capable of playing sport, so to make sport compulsory for everyone is insanity.


A Summary of My Opponent's Case


My opponent has, numerous times, given a detailed argument as to why sport is beneficial for most people (not that it was referenced properly, but still, it appears to be legitimate). Unfortunately for my opponent, I can concede all of it without conceding the debate. This is due to the distinction between:


A) Sport being beneficial
B) Sport should be compulsory for everybody


My opponent, at no point in this debate, has actually linked these two, thus he/she never actually affirms the resolution. Alternatively, as was one of the uncontested points in my Kritik, a far more sane policy would be to strongly encouraged people to play sport and offer information about the benefits of playing sport. Yes, sport is beneficial for most people, but holding a metaphorical gun to someone's head and saying "play this or die" is insanity, and is the fundamental problem with the resolution.


tl;dr: All of my case was either dropped or had my re-buttals dropped. Also, my opponent never affirms the resolution, instead merely states the benefits of sport, rather than arguing why sport should be compulsory.


Thank you, play2win for this debate, and thank you for reading this debate =)
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by play2win 2 years ago
play2win
No matter what the score is in this debate, I still think sport should become compulsory, when you look at the bigger.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
RFD Part 3:

Con has little to do in R4.

R5 ends Pro's chances... His whole round seems to be an appeal to our emotions... Sweet talking an ideal world... It's not an argument or a refutation. Pro dropped the whole debate here and began with a speech... He never meets his BOP. He had to prove not just that it was beneficial, but that it is required for everyone, of all types and conditions.

I feel Con should have mentioned people who are paralyzed, or medically incapable of sports. She didn't aside from coma patients, but Pro dropped coma patients, and babies as well... Con's examples stand, thus proving that there are instances where sports should not be compulsory.

Con wins via dropped arguments and instances left to stand, and 2 very weak last rounds for Pro.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
RFD Part 2:

Con stats that Pro strawmanned her. I can see this half and half... Depending on if I take the meaning of what he said literally or not. Con is right to state that Pro does not support his case on Healthcare. This doesn't negate the case, which does make sense, however it does slightly grant it less credit. What Con should have done was mention the increase in costs enforcing something expansive like sports on 150+million people would outweigh healthcare costs. God knows how much Football gear alone costs... But she didn't state this. I should mention that Pro may have had a counter, anyways.

Con brings up that you can't enforce sports on babies. As prior said, I don't know if I'd accept that example, however if was Pro that brought Babies up. Pro has a lot of power to change that resolution, broadening it, by what he says... By saying "babies" he states that babies would be including in "everyone." This was a poor move on Pro's behalf. Con than brings up how they will also force sports onto coma patients... I don't know how well I take this argument... I don't see that implication in Pro's definition. Being enforced doesn't necessarily mean punishing people who are in a permanent sleep...

Overall, Pro does nothing to attack this position... Therefore it goes. Pro only mentions that she said it, but not why it's bad... Pro gives up practically every case here. I find none of his R4 to be a rebuttal... This will hurt him a lot.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
RFD Part 1:

Conduct is even.
Spelling and Grammar are not important.
Sources: Pro had 2. This supported only his R2 and part of his R5, leaving his Arguments almost entirely unsupported. Pro's lack of sourcing greatly weakens his side, while Con's sourcing give credit to the vast majority of her cases. Con gets Sourcing.

Arguments:
Pro brings up a case of benefit. This is a good start, although I feel it'll take more than just showing it's good before Pro's BOP can be met... Being good doesn't necessarily mean it must be enforced. Con hits on this by explaining the ethics of forcing people to do something just because it's better... She brought up an alternative that seems more appropriate... Informing people.

Con then explains that she need only show that one person should not be forced into sports. This is true, although I feel it's also limited. Compulsory typically does not include children, for example, so I doubt listing off a kid would really work. I still have several rounds to go through, though.

In R3, Pro comes back by arguing the semantics of "Compulsory." The problem is that he never gave a definition, so Con had the right to give one. This is the official definition now, and Pro does for the most part agree to it meaning "enforced." Pro's big problem here starts when he explain that relationships can't be enforced, but that sports has many benefits... So do relationships, so this point felt kind of short ... Then Pro carries on repeating his R2 with more detail. I just don't see that as helping his case, since Con already stated that making something compulsory might be unethical despite that something being good... Pro stats that there is no "instance" in the resolution.

Con states that Pro was playing semantics with the definition. I can see that being true. Con also states that the idea of having to provide just one instance was a requirement for her. If she shows once instance, she wins. This is true,, since Pro's resolution IS a
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Lol, I'm debating him on this same resolution, but I didn't think to use a kritik!

Wow, now I'm totally envious haha.
Posted by play2win 2 years ago
play2win
In-fact it would have been better if you didn't associate historical regime with sport, sport is already on a decline due to "Increased work and study commitments". You have also associated this topic engaging destructive and primitive behavior in very large populations. The worlds largest participating sporting event has no more than 210,000 participants as of this date, and is held for no longer than one week, proceedings generally go to a charitable cause, the average number of participants in any given sporting event by all means is under one hundred and is not limited to solace participation.
Posted by play2win 2 years ago
play2win
Compulsory - Yes this term does mean to enforce, however, the term "compulsory" in this argument is in relation to sport and no other, nor any regime, war, guns, delinquency or babies as you have acquired for examples within the structure in order to attempt to win your argument.

You as my opponent have created an ultimatum by re-defining the term in this argument.
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 :).

land tax - a totalitarian policy. If one were in coma, mentally incapable, would the feds really proceed with conviction?

There has been NO "instance" found in your premise.

Relationships can't be made compulsory, but sport is something which really can make a difference in one's life, when one is physically active, the effect helps improve one's self awareness, and that is a crucial element which allows the ability of self mentoring. So many factors reason the recent decline of sport, one should not lose their best self if their sportkin moves town or breaks his leg.

Ideally, collaboration globally within governments can achieve extravagant results for society. Government corruptive 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.

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.
If sport were compulsory i think that society (Quality of Life) would better
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
No fair...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by phiLockeraptor 2 years ago
phiLockeraptor
play2winZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con structured their case better and had better sources. The actual argumentation didn't sway me one way or another though.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
play2winZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout the debate. Arguments - Con. Pro needed to affirm that sports should become compulsory. Instead, Pro relied strongly on showing that sports are beneficial. Unfortunately, and as Con pointed out, those two are different topics entirely. Perhaps showing the benefits could serve to strengthen Pro's position, but using it as a main argument served no real purpose in this debate. Pro also managed to either drop or poorly rebut Con's arguments, which harmed his overall impact as it his burden to negate each point raised by Con. On the flip side, Con was able to rebut each point raised by Pro, as well as Kritik the resolution, which Pro never fully responded to. Due to Pro's failure to meet the BOP, and Con's unchallenged contentions, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. While both utilized sources, Con's were higher in both quality and quantity. Ultimately, Con wins.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
play2winZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments. Pro lost a deal of ground in R4