The Instigator
SkeletonInCloset
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

High heels should be illegal and destroyed as well as halting production of high heels.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,196 times Debate No: 76108
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

SkeletonInCloset

Pro

Here's why: they serve no purpose other than making men and women look ridiculous as whenever they walk in high heels, they appeared to be squeezing their butt cheeks to prevent body waste from exiting. Or need to use bathroom badly.

Why people would wear those silly 'footwear'? To look stylish? To appear as confident? To have good posture? There are many different ways to achieve any of them without suffering back pain, foot pain, leg pain, and difficulty in walking.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating the debate. I am going to argue devil's advocate against the position that high heels be banned. As my opponent has not presented a debates structure, I will proceed by offering both my opening argument and rebuttals this round.

Constructive case

C1) Self-esteem

According to studies, short height leads to a feeling of inferiority, paranoia about people around you, and lack of confidence. Taller people are also more likely to be able to find a romantic partner, succeed in their careers and go on to higher education. It is clear that height is an important part of self-image and higher height will lead to higher self-esteem and better social connections. High heels increase your height, and thus is capable of boosting your self-esteem. (1)

In fact, attractiveness to men of women has been directly linked to high heels. (3)

C2) Pragmatic uses

High heels allow shorter people to be able to reach books on higher shelves in libraries, on cupboards in kitchens, and so on, without the use of stools or other aids that may pose a stability risk. People with short legs can also have their feet touch the floor when they sit down if they have high heels.

C3) Freedom of expression

Fashion is a means of personal expression. (2) As high heels is a form of fashion, high heels are therefore a means of personal expression. A person might wear high heels as a symbol of power and status, for example. To ban high heels is to limit expression.

C4) Cultural implications

High heels are an important part of human culture. As said above, they are a symbol of power and status. Many professions also require it as business attire. For example, a law firm has advised female lawyers to use high heels to maintain a professional image and thereby boost their chances of success. (4) A ban on all high heels will render this impossible.

C5) Economic benefits

High heels offer economic benefits to seller and buyer alike. As I have explained above, high heels can boost your chances of professional success because of improved self-image. Moreover, high heels generate $40 billion in revenue annually. (5) A halt in the production of high heels will doubtless lead to undesirable economic impacts such as unemployment (and by extension social unrest), a drop in share prices in the shoe industry, and heavy resistance from business and labour unions alike.

C6) Feasibility

There will inevitable be difficulties in implementation. For example, how are high heels defined? There will have to be a line drawn: at what height is a heel considered a high heel?

Moreover, my opponent suggested destroying high heels, which is even less feasible. How can you make sure people destroy their high heels? Should police enter people's homes and remove their high heels for destruction? That is very hard, not to mention invasive to carry out.

Finally, a black market will be created if high heels are banned. The consumers do not enjoy the same consumer rights protection as they do in legal markets. They cannot complain about the low quality or negative health impacts of their shoes. This will only make the industry harder to regulate and disincentivise healthy high-heel designs.

Rebuttals

R1) Appearance

My opponent claims that high heels are not aesthetically appealing. However, this is entirely subjective, and laws should have an objective basis to them, rather than being judged by subjective value judgements. Moreover, ugliness alone cannot justify bans, or there would be a lot of objects we need to ban.

R2) Alternatives

My opponent claims that there are viable alternatives to wearing high heels that brings the benefits without compromising health. However, he or she has not told us what these alternatives are, nor demonstrated how they are, all things considered (including health, confidence and others), more beneficial than high heels. Moreover, there can be methods to lessen the impact of high heels, such as only wearing them on occasions which necessitate their use, using heels of shorter height, and so on. Some people are even working to improve the design of high-heeled shoes using physics. (5) Moreover, it has been found that high heels have positive impacts on pelvic muscles, and may therefore benefit health. (6)

(1) http://www.theguardian.com...
(2) http://www.pbs.org...
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(4) http://blogs.wsj.com...
(5) http://www.businessinsider.com...
(6) http://www.europeanurology.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SkeletonInCloset

Pro

SkeletonInCloset forfeited this round.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

My opponent has, unfortunately, appeared to have forfeited, and thus I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
SkeletonInCloset

Pro

SkeletonInCloset forfeited this round.
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited another round. I have successfully negated the resolution by refuting my opponent's points and presenting six strong arguments against it. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Thanks Tej :) and lol about the Oxford comma!
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Thanks cookie :)
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Lest people should point out my inconsistency, I don't actually believe in my C3.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
SkeletonInClosetDiqiucun_CunminTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
SkeletonInClosetDiqiucun_CunminTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments - Con presented a strong constructive case for the production of high-heels, demonstrating that short-heeled shoes lead to paranoia, inferiority, and lack of confidence (and I deliberately used that Oxford Comma). Con showed that fashion is a means of personal expression, and illegalization of high heels would result in violating freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right. He showed that high heel production generates $40 billion in revenue annually, and completely refuted Pro's constructive case. Pro forfeited all following rounds; thus, Pro failed to rebut Con's constructive or defend their own. Conduct - Con gains conduct since Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct and arguments to Con. And, as always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
CookieMonster9
SkeletonInClosetDiqiucun_CunminTied
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: Con is awarded conduct points because Pro forfeited. Con also is awarded argument points because Pro made his argument and Con rebut but then Pro forfeited the rest of his/her rounds. Con got source points because Pro has 0 sources.