The Instigator
Cloudy.dream
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zombiesamg
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Should sports be in the school curriculum?

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...
zombiesamg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 71966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Cloudy.dream

Con

Schools are fore academic uses. Sports are definitely a waste of time during school. I'm not trying to say that there should be no sports, it's just there should be no sports in school. Most schools have two sport lessons each week. There are approximately 2 Sport lessons in school each week, which is about two hours each week. There are 40 weeks of school each year, which means that you waste 80 hours just on sport each year, which haven't include the sport you do privately. Think about it, how much time do you use in sports each year?
zombiesamg

Pro

Sports should absolutely be in schools, along with art and music. In general, there are many benefits of them being, not in the curriculum, but being offered to those who wish to join. First, it will help their academic standing. It has been proven by studies that sports help keep grades up! Even without the studies, most sports require that the student be passing all classes by a high margin, nearly making them pay attention in fear of not being able to play in the next game.
(More reasons to be posted in R2.)
- Kitten
Debate Round No. 1
Cloudy.dream

Con

People always say that sports could improve cooperation between students, but what happens when cooperation doesn't exist? Students could get mentally hurt. This is a really serious issue in sports, and it happens all around the world. It often happens when students been left out because they can't do certain things or just simply because you are not good at it. This could cause negative thoughts and lead to extreme emotional reactions. Also, students who can't do certain things may not want to do it, would you like to show you bad side in front of every one? Of course not. Imagine people make you do things you don't want to do, it's not a good feeling, is it?
zombiesamg

Pro

There are other activities available to students who do not wish to participate in sports, or are not "good at them". Usually, when you aren't "good" enough to be on a team, the coach will say so, and you'll no longer be on that team. Yes, it could mentally hurt them and their self esteem, but it may lead to other breakthroughs in other areas of the school, such as art or theater. When you are left out when in a sport, that may be telling that student something. Maybe that, that sport isn't their strong suit and you need to find a different thing to do. There are many disappointments in life, such as not getting the job, or not being able to afford the house or car you wish to have. School is no different, you will get bad grades, and not make the team. As for cooperation, that is up to the students who choose to join the sport, and the coach. If a student is unwilling to be sportsmanlike, it is up to the coach to single them out and fix the problem. If the entire team is not working together, the coach needs to do something and it should be on him. But in the end, all the students that joined that sport, made the commitment to be there, and keep their grades up so they can participate, which is one of the biggest points of having sports in school. There are sports outside of school, and what is to say that they are any better than school sports? They all join and need to cooperate with each other, and the coach also needs to keep the reins on them. School sports provide transportation and just being on the team is free, which saves the parents money. The out-of-school sport participant spends $2,266 annually to be in that sport. ( http://tinyurl.com... for cost number. )
Debate Round No. 2
Cloudy.dream

Con

Children get higher chances to get hurt. 3.5 million children under 14 get hurt each year, and its just in U.S! Imagine how many children get hurt each year in the world get hurt each year, just by doing sport activities. About 2 children die each year from cricket, although it is rare. I know there are some sports that are safe, but you can always fall over, right? This is a important thing, student's safety. That 3.5 million children get hurt each year is only 14 years old and under, if we count all children get hurt, how much is it? A lot.
zombiesamg

Pro

Children today are in school for 7 or more hours a day, go home, do homework, shower, eat, study and go to bed. How would a child, or teenager, go about exercising at a gym or track when there's a hectic schedule like this? You add a school sport. School sports give a good workout as going to the gym would, for just an extra hour a day. Again, this has provided transportation and is cheaper than an out-of-school sport, and is fun! Otherwise, you are transporting them to a gym and back home, and risk them not being active at all by sitting on the couch all day and doing nothing, because going outside and just running around the yard is boring, and even with friends it can become boring and they can just come inside and play video games.
As for being hurt, you can get hurt anywhere at any time, even if a sport makes the risk greater, we have doctors for a reason.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
Cloudy.dreamzombiesamgTied
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: REV: Conduct is tied because neither side overwhelmingly acted worse then the other. S&G is tied as neither side was particularly bad with that. Source go to Pro as only she presented any. Arguments is a bit more confusing. Both sides dropped almost every argument the opponent made. Ultimately Pro made more arguments, but many were rebuttals against "Ghost" arguments which Con never made. And many were in Final Round, and so will be treated as non-existent as no new arguments may be made in final round. But in the end, Con largely had only one argument of any merit, which is threat of harm, physical and mental (citing an unsourced {and thus unmerited} number), and Pro did bring counters to them. Even if that counter wasn't particularly detailed, the fact that Con didn't refute the first counter means Con dropped his case. In a debate of dropped arguments and tid-bit information, it leaves Pro with many uncounterred cases, and Con with little real merit in his case. Close, but Pro wins