The Instigator
play2win
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should sport become comulsory

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 1 vote the winner is...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 69680
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

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 ?
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I accept.

PRO's burden is in arguing that sports should become compulsory, or "having the power of forcing someone to do something," whereas my burden is to argue that they should not.

With that, I yield back and await PRO's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
play2win

Pro

play2win forfeited this round.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

I'll pass to give my adversary a chance to respond.
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, 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.

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 compulsory in this argument.
Is anything compulsory for a baby? Certainly though if sport was under totalitarian policy for infants, they would have an excellent and very consistent record being that crawling is a form of walking. Baby steps, give it a go for all the babies out there :). And if land tax is compulsory - a totalitarian policy, and one were in coma (Not alive), mentally incapable, or even out of action, I would find it hard to believe that feds are going to enforce a legal conviction in such case, so, support would be offered. Just like sport, athletes generally encourage each other by physical mentoring (pacing one another so to say).

With all due respect to your bravery, there has been NO "instance" found in your premise.

We can't make relationships 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 that allows one to be able to self mentor. So many factors could be the reason why people become no longer interested in sport, one should not lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg.

In an ideal world if governments were able to collaborate with compassion and resilience, they could do anything, including remove such misconception of corruptible behavior as you mentioned, because i believe it's at minimal, just because one government is corrupt, it doesn't make them all corrupt. And if such enforcements were to be made upon society, reduced burden of modern health systems would be 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 risk assessment.
If sport were compulsory i think that society (Quality of Life) would be improved.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

Thanks to PRO for finally posting an argument.

"Compulsory - Yes this term does mean to enforce...in order to attempt to win your argument."

PRO is asserting that I've associated "compulsory" with more than just sports, but this just is not the case. I stated clearly last round that his burden is defended the fact that sports ought to be compulsory--not anything else--because that is the resolution we are presently debating.

"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."

How have I done that? This is nothing more than a blanket assertion without any backing at all.

"The worlds largest participating sporting event....participation."

He doesn't at all link this to the resolution--or to why sports ought to be compulsory-but only states that there's a rather large sporting event whose proceedings go to charity. He doesn't source it, so you shouldn't buy it anyay, but even if this were the case, why should we care? How does this fulfill his burden?

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

Not at all, and this is completely disingenuous and wrong. I provided a definition from Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...), but did *not* make the definition up or attempt to redefine a term. Not to mention, where have I created an ultimatum? I did nothing more than state what PRO's burdens are *in light of this resolution.*

"Certainly though if sport was under totalitarian policy for infants, they would have an excellent and very consistent record being that crawling is a form of walking."

So? Why should that be compulsory? Should it be? The resolution does not apply to any particular demographic group.

"Baby steps, give it a go for all the babies out there :). And if land tax is compulsory - a totalitarian policy, and one were in coma (Not alive), mentally incapable, or even out of action, I would find it hard to believe that feds are going to enforce a legal conviction in such case, so, support would be offered."

But sport would still be compulsory for them under your resolution--so are conceding that it ought not to be, and thus conceding this debate?

"Just like sport, athletes generally encourage each other by physical mentoring (pacing one another so to say)."

Who cares? There's no link here.

"With all due respect to your bravery, there has been NO "instance" found in your premise."

What premise? The burden of proof is on you, my friend, not me.

"We can't make relationships 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 that allows one to be able to self mentor."

This is the first actual argument that PRO has raised Nothing else he has written this far can be construed as an argument in favor of his position.

He claims that sports can make a difference in someone's life and helps to improv their self-awareness and their ability to self-monitor? The problem, though, is that you cannot accept this impact because (1) he provides no evidence (2) he doesn't explain why ths criterion ought to be sufficient for linking to the resolution - in other words, he provides us no reason to prefer this benefit, even should it exist, with the fredom of not being compelled to do something (3) there's no link to the resolution; even if sports have X benefit, we need not make them compulsory. Not to mention, who *is* making them compulsory, what are the enforcement methods, how will this actually be implemeneted, etc.? You cannot vote for my adversary unless he explains these very basic elements of his argument.

"So many factors could be the reason why people become no longer interested in sport, one should not lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg.

How would someone "lose their best self if their buddy moves town or breaks his leg" is sports aren't compulsory? This doesn't make any sense.

"In an ideal world if governments were able to collaborate with compassion and resilience, they could do anything, including remove such misconception of corruptible behavior as you mentioned, because i believe it's at minimal, just because one government is corrupt, it doesn't make them all corrupt."

First, this is not an ideal world, and he's claiming that I "mentioned" corruptible behavior--though I did not even make an argument prior to this, but only waived to my adversary, so I'm truly questioning what he's talking about or from where this argument originated.

I never asserted that all governments are corrupt. The point, though, is that forcing people to do things they do want to do, against their will, is ipso facto corrupt because it violates people's liberties, and there's no reasonable warrant for us because PRO provids us with no reason why governments ought to obviate freedom in order to require that people--even mentally disabled people, young people, people with nervous disorders, etc.--play sports. It's not everyone's comparative advantage, so it is not only immoral, but economically unsound and inefficient, as well.

"And if such enforcements were to be made upon society, reduced burden of modern health systems would be the single most benefit."

This is only the second time that he has made an actual argument in favor of the resolution, and it suffers the same problem as his last argument: (1) no evidence (2) no link and (3) no way for us to evaluate impacts or reason to weight this over freedom, even should he have evidence for it -- so therefore you discard this point.

"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 risk assessment."

This doesn't at all address the resolution.

"If sport were compulsory i think that society (Quality of Life) would be improved."

This is nothing more than his subjective opinion because he fails to tell us how or to provide any evidence that, on bet, lives would be improved and this would outweigh the harms--making people who are elderly or with disabilities or who simply are better at other things and want to contribute society in other ways, along with people who are likely to be injured due to lack of athleticism--or that we ought to weight this over freedom.

Therfore, you vote CON, because PRO has no fulfilled any portion of his BOP.
Debate Round No. 3
play2win

Pro

ResponsiblyIrresponsible - As you can see that my argument was not intended for you, it was intended for another opposition in a different debate (same topic though) I did report and request for it to be deleted, and I also did re-post the debate to the appropriate contender. )

I request that you ignore my previous post and re-submit your case. Thank you
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

PRO says that his argument was intended for a different debate and asks that I re-submit my case. But this isn't at all fair to me. He. not I. has made a mistake, and he's asking for me to post my case before he posts his whn we both have an equal burden. This simply is not fair in the east bit, especially when he forfeited Round 2. And that he claims he wants me to "resubmit" my case sounds almost robotic, because I never submitted a constructive.

All in all, I refuse to succumb to PRO"s highly deceptive game. He had every opportunity to post a case this round, as he did in Rounds 2 and 3, and this ploy to have me post first is simply unfair and disengenuous.

Debate Round No. 4
play2win

Pro

Topic: Should sport become compulsory. The topic is not about "What Pro has done wrong."

On the contrary, my opponent has gone off the topic, thus I have no choice but to use my opponents argument to give a clear demonstration why sport should become compulsory.

My opponent has failed to realise that the intended argument was not for this particular debate, and has failed to acknowledge that the opponents posted argument was in relation to another, further more it's quite obvious that this was an error, as the incorrectly posted argument had absolutely no relation to the opponents argument. - Physical and active play develops social skills, intellectual capacities, concepts and with a significant increase of awareness.

The Con, (my opponent), has with placed an argument with an emphasis on fairness. My opponent failed to empathise for the pro who's membership at debate.org was less than 1 hour old from the posted debate and is clearly shown on the members profile, yet has pursued brute force attack directly on the opponent, when the posted argument was merely in the nature of human error.

The benefits of sport lead to Increased ability to deal with stress, Greater social contact and interaction. My opponent has failed to demonstrate the ability to deal with stress, as there has been spilt milk, yet my opponent is still crying when the real world objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Con

"Topic: Should sport become compulsory. The topic is not about "What Pro has done wrong."

I never suggesed it was, but PRO instigated this topic and refused to provide a case. He forfeited and then copy and pasted the wrong argument, and that had the gall to assert that I post my argument first, even thouhgh I did make arguments in rebutting the initial case he put forward. The fact is, I have made arguments while he hasn't, so you're voting Con.

"On the contrary, my opponent has gone off the topic, thus I have no choice but to use my opponents argument to give a clear demonstration why sport should become compulsory."

What's hilarious is that he claims I've gone off-topic, but then claims I've made an argument. Which is it? It's the last round and PRO, the instigator, hasn't provided a single affirmative argument.

"My opponent has failed to realise that the intended argument was not for this particular debate, and has failed to acknowledge that the opponents posted argument was in relation to another,"

No, PRO is incorrect. I acknowledge that, because I was able to read what he wrote and then go over to his other debate, and see that the statements her did not match up. The problem is, and this is what PRO fails to understand, that does not justify what he said earlier about him not being able to go without having posted an actual case when he instigated this debate--or to be able to go without rebutting the arguments I made in rebutting his other speech.

"further more it's quite obvious that this was an error, as the incorrectly posted argument had absolutely no relation to the opponents argument. - Physical and active play develops social skills, intellectual capacities, concepts and with a significant increase of awareness."

Now PRO is doing nothing more than viciously attacking my intelligence and claiming that I'm in some way unaware of what I've acknowledged in earlier rounds. He's completely obfuscating the points that I've made in the last round and insinuating that I'm at fault for his forfeit or his failure to post the "correct" argument--or his assertion in the comment section that I ought to give up. For this reason, I urge you to vote CON on conduct.

"The Con, (my opponent), has with placed an argument with an emphasis on fairness."

This is not proper English. How can I respond in something that is incoherent--that I'm not able to understand?

"My opponent failed to empathise for the pro who's membership at debate.org was less than 1 hour old from the posted debate and is clearly shown on the members profile, yet has pursued brute force attack directly on the opponent, when the posted argument was merely in the nature of human error."

Now PRO is making an utterly futile emotional appeal, though he fails to understand that this hasn't the slightest to do with whether or not I "empathise" with him because there's nothing to empathise with him over. He forfeited, which was a mistake, and then failed to post the correct argument, which was a mistake, and then asked me to post my case first--which was deliberate, and nevertheless a mistake. Nothing that I have said here was brute force, though PRO's insinuation that I ought to forfeit or that I post first--while he refuses to respond to the arguments I already put forward--is closer to "force" than anything I have ever said. What he did took time. It extended over a period of time. It wasn't simply "human error"; it was surely deliberate.

"The benefits of sport lead to Increased ability to deal with stress, Greater social contact and interaction."

He provides no evidence for this assertion at all, no link to the resolution or standard by which to evaluate, and does not respond to my contention that this does not outweigh the loss of freedom. Therefore, we have no way of assessing his impacts and you sould prefer mine.

"My opponent has failed to demonstrate the ability to deal with stress, as there has been spilt milk, yet my opponent is still crying when the real world objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified."

This is another personal attack. Either he is claiming that I personally cannot deal with stress, which he couldn't possibly glean from this debate, or claiming that I didn't address the argument of stress--which is a bit hard to have done because PRO didn't provide a single positive argument until just now.

He claims that I'm "crying" when the "objectives/challenges with making sport to become compulsory have not yet been identified." First of all, we're debating this on DDO. This isn't exactly a topic which would garner a great deal of public attention, so "real world" arguments are truly irrelevant.

Next, I brought up a core argument of loss of freedom already, which is a clear and verifiable impact because if I--or we could even take it further and say an elderly person or a person with disabilities, as I already mentioned--we're being deprived of the ability to do otherwise and being forced to play sports, lest we go to jail. PRO completely fails to respond that. Had he not been so busy conjuring up personal attacks and strawmanning me--claiming I've said and done things that I have not--he may have had the time to respond to that argument. But because he has not, I highly urge you, because this is by far the strongest impact in this debate, to vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
@Zarroette: Lol, will do! That's a nice way to earn some free-lo, I guess, lol.
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"So you can give up now and come and watch the debate at the link above. Thanks!"

No, that won't be happening.
Posted by play2win 2 years ago
play2win
Sorry I have been on this site for no more than 96 hours, And i wasn't aware that More than one debate can be open at one single time, AND that This system works on a Sunday.

This argument is LIVE at the following link.
http://www.debate.org...

So you can give up now and come and watch the debate at the link above. Thanks!
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Even in my debate with him, he's still slightly off-topic (at least not addressing the resolution), lol.

Aww thank you. It is fun to try them for the first time, but I'd recommend running them with a backup argument, if possible (like my Extreme examples in my debate with him). I just copy Whiteflame's structure for them (the five points: violation, link, impact, alternative and voter). Imo, give it a go against a noob first, just so you get an idea for the angle Kritik's take (arguing against resolutions ruins your Kritiks).
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 2 years ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Hahahahahaha, I was wondering why his response sounded so unbelievably peculiar and off-topic.

They're certainly risky, but I've always wanted to run one, if only for the experience of having done so. I thought you did a did a great job with yours, though.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@ResponsiblyIrresponsible

Even though you didn't run a Kritik, he still responded to your imaginary Kritik since he copy-pasted his response to me and posted it here, lol.

Besides, Kritiks are risky to run, so don't be too envious =)
Posted by whatzupnow 2 years ago
whatzupnow
Sport should be compulsory, because there is a sport for everyone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
play2winResponsiblyIrresponsibleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeiture. Sources to Con considering that he is the only one to have posted sources in this debate. Arguments also to Con due to Pro dropping several of Con's arguments and Con's case wasn't completely refuted and thus the resolution is negated and Con wins this debate.