The Instigator
danger93
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Should we have bare feet and no socks throughout the whole word?

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 8 votes the winner is...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,838 times Debate No: 19077
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

danger93

Pro

I think yes because we would want the world to be cleaner and we can play outside or inside. If the world was cleaner, we wouldn't have to worry about or stuff falling and being covered in dirt or we wouldn't have to worry washing our hands.
jm_notguilty

Con



I thank my opponent for making this debate.

His position in this debate is to argue that having bare feet will benefit us, he says it would make planet Earth a cleaner place, having no socks or shoes, children would play outide and inside without being dirty, and we wouldn't worry about dirt and bacteria.

I'm here to negate his statements and argue that having socks has its benefits and wearing bare feet is more risky than wearing feet-gear.

But for now, I'll let my opponent expand his contentions in the next round.

Good luck! ◕‿◕


Debate Round No. 1
danger93

Pro

Well,

what I meant is that bare feet with the ground like a carpet. Socks won't have any benefit on carpets or would they?

I would stop here. If my opponent rebuttals on this and I can't rebuttal on him, I will add more points.

I thank my opponent for responding.

Good luck con
jm_notguilty

Con

Thanks for your response.

Arguments/Rebuttal:

My opponent didn't kind of strengthen his contentions on the positives of being barefoot, which is unfortunate.


His 1st argument is that being barefoot will make the world a cleaner place, how? Are you saying that because shoes are dirty? But if you think logically, where do shoes get their dirt? From outside, from the streets, from Mother Nature, the Earth is 'technically' dirty, and being barefoot won't change that, in fact, it might worsen people's health - I'll address this contention later.

His 2nd argument, similar to his 1st, is that we wouldn't worry about dirt and washing our hands, again, that doesn't change anything if we become barefoot, and we get dirt from the outside, not from footwear.

And his 3rd one, I didn't quite understand, but it's about the ground being like a carpet, and socks don't benefit on it. I don't get it, but it's been rebutted.

Moving on with mine arguments:

I. Infeasibility

If all countries implemented a 'barefoot law' and abolish all footwear, obviously, it would be impossible to enforce it, since there are billions of shoes out there, and almost all people are wearing shoes, what do you propose we do to those shoes, and what happens to the offenders caught? Prisons would be overcrowded, rallies may rise, economy loss, WWIII!


And do you really want to disappoint and let this cutie pie cry?



II. Economic Loss

Obviously, if such law is implemented, we would abolish all shoe and footwear businesses. This including big corporations like Nike, Addidas, Vans, Converse, etc. This would ruin entrepreneur's lives, not to mention that millions of people will lose their jobs.

III. Banishing Sports

Of course, implement such law, it's like we're abolishing all sports, no more FIFA, NBA, NFL, etc. We would be disappointing many fans and athletes would lose fame, and of course, people will lose jobs.

IV. Health Risks

Being barefoot can hurt your precious feet, and since pictures are worth a thousand words characters, I'll explain it with photos,

WARNING: please stop what you're eating, drinking, fantasizing, the pictures below may disgust you, also not for the faint of heart.

-
-
-
-
-

Exhibit A


Exhibit B


Exhibit C


These feet are caused by bacteria and parasitic infections, icky worms we get outside, especially in the wild outdoors (jungle, etc), just think of what may happen to the people living in the rural areas of 3rd world countries wearing nothing.

There are also lots of foot diseases, like diabetic ulcer foot, athlete's foot, that may be caused by bacterious infection.

{http://en.wikipedia.org...}
{http://en.wikipedia.org...}

In conclusion, letting people go barefoot (without socks/footwear) in the whole world would be a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea,

Debate Round No. 2
danger93

Pro

I have been utterly defeated. I can not rebut on my opponent therefore I will forfeit.

Also I have not seen the pictures. :p
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank my opponent for his courageous accept of defeat and noble effort of argumentation.

I hope the readers can see the pics, otherwise it would be a waste and boring.

But nevertheless, thanks to the readers and to my opponent again,

Voters, I urge you to vote CON.

:))
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by danger93 5 years ago
danger93
Blame jm not me. Tell him to clean it up!!! :)
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
Thanks for making my table dirty, now I have to clean it up :)
Posted by danger93 5 years ago
danger93
Im utterly defeated :p. f**k it
Posted by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Damn, forgot that 'cutie pie' pic.
Posted by danger93 5 years ago
danger93
Yea the world should be a cleaner place and stuff.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
What do you mean?
Should the world be a cleaner place?
Should people go bare feet and no socks throughout the whole world?
If you answered all these questions I would seriously consider to accept
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: ewwwwwwwwwwwwww the pictures ewwwwwwwwwww :( :P ew. But he gets arguments, once again ew
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 is tied, everything else goes to Con.
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
curious18
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ewww... that's nasty. I think the pictures were the only argument con needed.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: This was actually a funny debate to read. I'm still not sure if Pro is absolutely serious or just a dead pan humorist.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Just because Con used a how I met your mother pic. but the feet were disgusting
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: JM is hardcore.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Those pics look like something you'd find on the Encyclopedia Dramatica's Offended page.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
danger93jm_notguiltyTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Conduct to Pro because Con's pics were EWW