The Instigator
JuneW
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ConserativeDemocrat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2017 Category: Fashion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 211 times Debate No: 104565
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

JuneW

Pro

A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion. She should not pick uncomfortable high heels or thin flip flops. Her foot health is important.
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

My argument is simple: Freedom

According to the US Declaration of Independence, all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The most important of these is liberty.

Liberty is definined as:

"The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views"

Although it may sound silly to compare the freedom of wearing shoes to important civil rights, the basic principle behind giving black Americans the same rights as White Americans is the same as allowing people to choose the type of shoes they want to wear.

Now while you may personally value utility over style, some women may not feel the same as you. Thus, they have the right to choose whatever they want to wear.

Next, the shoe industry is a 52 billion dollar industry, employing 164,000 people. Women's dress shoes make up 13% of that market, meaning it is a 7 billion dollar industry, employing 21,000 people. Can you justify destroying this just because you personally dislike dress shoes?

Finally, you state:

"Her foot health is important"


This implies you believe dress shoes or flip flops negatively affect women's health. I would like you to provide a source for this claim.


Debate Round No. 1
JuneW

Pro

CON is making several unwarranted assumptions. When I say "A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion. She should not pick uncomfortable high heels or thin flip flops." I am using "should" in a qualitative manner, not as the command "must". Here is a citation " "Should" is used to denote recommendations, advice, or to talk about what is generally right or wrong within the permissible limits of society." (1)

"Must" is used to talk about an obligation or a necessity. It is used when people are compelled to do something. "(2)

PRO is simply stating that in considering the purchase of a shoe, she SHOULD consider its utility before its fashion. Other women might take fashion first, and that is their right. However I have seen shoes that are outright ridiculous and some women buy them anyway.

"We"re well aware that, in terms of being "The most ridiculous shoes ever made," these are up against some pretty stiff competition. Still, did you ever? They"re Armand Bassi"s pom pom shoes, and if it was April right now we"d have completely ignored them, assuming them to be a practical joke: as it is, we"re going to have to assume the shoe stood on one of the lesser-seen Sesame Street "actors" and this was the result.
Still, at least you"d have really clean floors"(3)

images at https://results.searchlock.com...

As for health .."STILETTOS

Wearing heels shifts your weight to the balls of your feet, which puts pressure on your foot. This also creates a balance problem: It forces your knees and hips forward, hurting your back and legs. Wearing these shoes can cause: hyperextension, ankle sprains, midfoot fractures, neuromas (benign nerve tumors), pinched nerves, bunions and hammertoes." (4)

PLATFORM WEDGES

Wedges also have heels, which puts pressure on your foot and juts your body forward. But the heels tend to have more cushion, plus they often have platforms which protect the ball of your foot and reduce the incline. This helps with balancing. Wearing these shoes can cause: Hyperextension, ankle sprains, midfoot fractures, neuromas (benign nerve tumors), pinched nerves, bunions and hammertoes. (5)

HIGH-HEEL BOOTIES

Depending on the heel height, these can cause similar issues to stilettos. Keeping heels to two inches or below is best " as Dr. Blitz explains, "There"s a rule of thumb: 25% of your body weight gets increased for every inch that you go, in terms of your body weight on the front of the foot." But in booties, the material around the ankle helps hold the foot steady, putting you at less risk for injuries. "When you incorporate the ankle into the shoe, you add stability," Dr. Blitz says. Wearing these shoes can cause: hyperextension, bunions and hammertoes. (6)

THIGH-HIGH BOOTS

If the heels are high, you"re going to have the same issues as with stilettos " hyperextension of the back, pressure on the balls of your feet and lack of balance. But the casing around the leg creates more awareness of the leg in general, says Dr Blitz, which can help with stability. Wearing these shoes can cause: hyperextension, midfoot fractures, neuromas (benign nerve tumors), pinched nerves, bunions and hammertoes.(7)

BALLET FLATS

"There is such a thing as too flat," says Dr. Sutera. Shoes that are too flat don"t provide adequate arch support, cushioning or shock absorption, which those with flat feet need. However, as Dr. Blitz notes, flats are flexible and cause the muscles to work harder, making them stronger " that"s a good thing. Another problem: There"s a higher risk of the sole being pierced by a foreign object. Wearing these shoes can cause: inflammation, tendonitis, heel pain, strains, stress fractures and external injuries (e.g. stepping on a nail).(8)

CONVERSE-STYLE SNEAKERS

These sneakers have a thicker sole than flats, so they do provide shock absorption and cushioning. For those who do need extra cushioning or arch support, Converse-style sneakers allow you to add extra support internally (e.g. Dr. Scholl"s). They"re also very flexible " the soft canvas exterior can be more comfortable for those suffering from bunions and hammertoes. The material also protects your foot from the environment. Wearing these shoes can cause: inflammation, tendonitis, heel pain, strains and stress fractures.(9)

RUNNING SNEAKERS

"Too much cushion is not the best thing, either," says Dr. Blitz, "When you have a lot of cushion, you"re not getting the foot-brain feedback" that allows you to sense the ground. These shoes are ideal for forward motion, i.e. running, walking, jogging (not hiking, dancing, cycling, etc). Wearing these shoes can cause: chronic stress injuries, particularly to the heel.(10)

FLIP-FLOPS

"Most flip-flops are too flat, too thin and too open," says Dr. Sutera. This exposes the foot to the environment and doesn"t provide arch support or cushioning. The thong that sits between your toes is also dangerous as it forces your toe muscles to over-grip. Plus, when your big toe hangs off the flip-flop, which Dr. Blitz calls "muffin toe," you increase your risk for toe fractures. Wearing these shoes can cause: inflammation, tendonitis, heel pain, strains, fractures and external injuries (e.g. stepping on a nail).(11)

RAINBOOTS

Rain can cause a moist environment, plus rainboots tend to be made of Latex or other thick, non-breathable materials. "You sort of walk more like a Stormtrooper, so you just might get more fatigue from walking in them," says Dr. Blitz. The top of the boot can also rub uncomfortably against your calf. Wearing these shoes can cause: mold, fungus, bacteria, wart viruses and blisters.(12)"

(1) http://www.differencebetween.net...
(2) ditto
(3)http://www.thefashionpolice.net...
(4) https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(5) ditto
(6) Ditto
(7) ditto
(8) ditto
(9) ditto
(10) ditto
(11) ditto
(12) ditto
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

This is basically Pro's entire argument:

"PRO is simply stating that in considering the purchase of a shoe, she SHOULD consider its utility before its fashion. Other women might take fashion first, and that is their right. However I have seen shoes that are outright ridiculous and some women buy them anyway."

Notice this part: "otheir women might take fashion first, and that is their right."

Pro essentially conceded the debate right here. While some women might choose utility over style, others don't. Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should their opinion be forced on all women? Maybe to you, women should choose utility, but for others, they want to choose style, and are ok with a little discomfort.

But let's assume Pro does speak for all women. Their point is that some shoes are bad for health, therefore women shouldn't wear them. I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet, but like most things, in moderation, they are ok. No one wears stilettos all the time. Even at formal events, people often take them off. As a high school sophomore, I recently attended homecoming for the second time. Keep in mind that as sophomores, this is the only dance we can go to. One of the tables was set aside just for the girls' shoes. The entire table was covered in them. And every girl in my group took off their high heels at the dance. Or, take offices, the other place where high heels and other "uncomfortable" shoes may be worn. No one stands up at offices; everyone sits.

The point of the above paragraph is to show no one actually wears high heels and other similar shoes regularly, and even when women do wear heels, they rarely actually stand on them.



Debate Round No. 2
JuneW

Pro

CON is again making several unwarranted assumptions.

Con assumes that PRO's advising rather than commanding is a concession. WRONG.

Con is erring in not understanding the difference between "should" and "must". PRO is essentially saying that one SHOULD look both ways before crossing a street. PRO is advising and with good foundation. PRO is not commanding vigilance in neither street crossing nor footwear.

Con says "Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should their opinion be forced on all women? Maybe to you, women should choose utility, but for others, they want to choose style, and are ok with a little discomfort. "

PRO then takes this statement and substitutes " safety" for "their opinion" and " caution" for utility" and "recklessness" for "style" and "death" for "discomfort"

Con is then saying...."Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should safety be forced on all women ( in crossing the street) ? Maybe to you, women should choose caution ( in crossing the street) , but for others, they want to choose recklessness ( in crossing the street) , and are ok with a little death. "

Con then essentially concedes the debate by stating " I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet," which is why PRO ADVISES women to consider utility.

Con then states "Even at formal events, people often take them off." which supports PRO's position

Con then says " Or, take offices, the other place where high heels and other "uncomfortable" shoes may be worn. No one stands up at offices; everyone sits. " Con's assertion that these shoes are "uncomfortable" supports PRO's argument. Also in many offices there is much standing. Along those same lines, nurses and waitresses certainly have already taken PRO's advise.

Here is further source material to support PRO....

"A new study by researchers in the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, published last month in The Journal Of Foot And Ankle Surgery, shows that injuries from high heels doubled over a period of 11 years " from an estimated 7,097 injuries in 2002 to an estimated 14,140 injuries in 2012. The researchers projected the number of total injuries based on how many were treated in emergency rooms each year.

One might guess that such injuries would happen most often at a party, or, say, walking down a cobblestone street. But as Mashable reports, the study reveals that almost half of high heel injuries happen inside the home. In other words, you now have yet another excuse to be as comfortable as possible when you"re hanging out at home."(1)

(1)https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
ConserativeDemocrat

Con

Rebuttals:


"PRO then takes this statement and substitutes " safety" for "their opinion" and " caution" for utility" and "recklessness" for "style" and "death" for "discomfort"

Con is then saying...."Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should safety be forced on all women ( in crossing the street) ? Maybe to you, women should choose caution ( in crossing the street) , but for others, they want to choose recklessness ( in crossing the street) , and are ok with a little death."

This is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing wearing high heels to doing an extremely dangerous activity likely to result in death or serious injuries. Wearing heels a few times a month won't do any harm, much like a cigar every once in a while or a few beers a week won't do damage. But walking across the street once, even once, will likely result in you being in the hospital or morgue.

"Con then essentially concedes the debate by stating " I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet," which is why PRO ADVISES women to consider utility."

In extended periods of time, sure.

"Con then states "Even at formal events, people often take them off." which supports PRO's position"

No, it really doesn't. Your argument is that high heels hurt women's health, so they shouldn't wear them, but these effects only show if women wear heels for extended periods of time. If they don't, there are no negatives. The positives, looking pretty, formal, and elegant, outweigh the nonexistent downsides.

Conclusion

I hope that all voters vote Con. Pro's argument is that wearing this type of footwear will hurt women's health, therefore they shouldn't wear this type of footwear. Con counters this by stating negative health effects only show after extended and frequent periods of time on high heels.

Few people actually wear heels for periods of time long enough to do damage to their feet, making Pro's argument mute.

Furthermore, Con contends that since there are no downsides to wearing heels for short periods of time, women should wear them if they want to. If a lady looks good in heels, why should she not wear them? Heels are elegant, formal, and can be good for self esteem. Why not wear them to formal events?

Finally, why should Pro's personal objection to wearing heels be forced on women? They should have the right to choose what they want to wear.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.