How do i weigh arguments against eachother?

Arg1 : Of course kids should have PE, it activates their bodies and helps them find physically demanding and healthy hobbies.

I would urgue that the use of 'should' falls into Hume's problem of 'is vs ought'. It also falls into a slippery slope fallacy assuming that without PE, children will become unhealthy and be incapable of finding physically demanding and healthy hobbies (which we are assuming is a necessary component to living a good life).

Arg2 :PE can be a big point of anxiousness for kids, especially ones that are not as fit as their classmates and also for the ones who are insecure about their bodies.

This argument appears worse however meaning the former should take precedent unless further instigation was done.

I would argue that by allowing kids anxieties rule them we are teaching them to live in accordance with anxieties, and not peruse any further than which they allow us. Nietzsche would accord this as not an argument against but an argument for. By allowing (in this case forcing) kids to overcome the anxiety of PE (bodily shame, etc) we are teaching them thought patters to allow them to better over come these problems in the future.

"Truly, I have gone my way through a hundred souls and a hundred cradles and birth-pangs. I have taken many departures, I know the heart breaking last hours. But my creative will, my destiny, wants it so." - On the blissful islands (Thus spoke Zarathustra)

This is in reference to the journey of the superman, and each individual barrier passed make it easier for the next. By tackling these 'smaller' problems, when they reach 15-16 they can hit the ground running with a much greater sword than their peers who may have been treated with sympathy (in this case manifesting as something damaging) from a young age.

It is a matter of analysis, and understanding the implications of the arguments. If it is not worth 10 minutes of discussion, it is not worth finding an answer.

/r/askphilosophy Thread