The Instigator
frenchmoose
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 5 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,792 times Debate No: 10547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (5)

 

frenchmoose

Pro

Sloths hang onto trees too much for there own good... if we had given them shoes they would have to stay on the floor for extended periodsa of time...

A way to do this would be to teach every single sloth how to:
1, put on shoes
2, tie said shoes
3, take off their shoes

This would therefore make the sloths have to stay on the floor... they need to wear shoes.

Need proof? http://www.htzfm.com...
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this unique challenge.

My opponent claims that sloths live in trees "too much for their own good." However, sloths are actually very adapted to living in trees [1]. Natural selection has already determined how much time sloths should spend in trees, and sloths follow those rules instictively.

My opponent wishes to force sloths to wear shoes to keep them on the ground. However, that would merely make them easy targets for predators, as sloths are not designed to wear shoes.

My opponent claims that sloths can be taught how to use shoes. However, this would be an extreme waste of manpower, and it's quite likely that sloths cannot put on shoes, tie said shoes, or take off shoes. If they could take off their own shoes, then to force sloths to wear shoes, we'd have to have people watching the sloths, and punishing those that wear shoes. This would be an even larger waste of manpower.

Finally, I'd like to know who's going to fund shoes for the sloths. This would be rather expenisve, and would return no profit at all, so nobody would possibly invest.

In conclusion, my opponent wishes to force a species perfectly adapted to trees to live on the ground, with no real reason as to why they're better off on the ground, wasting significant manpower and resources that nobody would supply, altogether infringing upon the sloths' liberty and making them easier to kill.

A sloth wearing sunglasses cannot change that fact.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
frenchmoose

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

1,My opponent has stated "Natural selection has already determined how much time sloth's should spend in trees, and sloth's follow those rules instinctively". --To this I would have to argue that the sloth's would adapt to having the shoes on them.. It may take time but eventually they would adapt.

2, "However, that would merely make them easy targets for predators, as sloth's are not designed to wear shoes".
--Sloth's (If faced with opposition) have claws as a natural defense to hold off predators. Also [1]"A sloth's main forms of protection are its camouflage (greatly increased by the coating of algae growing on its fur) and its very slow movement." This being said sloth's can learn and adapt to their new lifestyle on the ground. We could even make it so that the front shoes have spaces for their claws to get through for self defense.

3,"My opponent claims that sloth's can be taught how to use shoes. However, this would be an extreme waste of manpower, and it's quite likely that sloth's cannot put on shoes, tie said shoes, or take off shoes".
--This point I can agree with you on.. but in replacement of shoes that require the sloth's to have matanence over, we could use shoes that only require being put on once and stay on them. Thus saving "manpower" and time.

4,"Finally, I'd like to know who's going to fund shoes for the sloth's. This would be rather expensive, and would return no profit at all, so nobody would possibly invest".
-- The same people who fund for keeping them in zoos and shelters. As for it being expensive.. they don't need to have high end shoes that could normally be sold for possibly 100$, we could keep it simple. Return no profit you say? If we had to give them shoes then maybe they would be unable to be hunted because of the investment put into putting shoes on them, Thus people will stop buying the tools neccecery to hunt them. This would result in companies no longer producing the tools for hunting them, resulting in no money spent on making said tools. (it would pay for itself)

5, "A sloth wearing sunglasses cannot change that fact".... Debatable....

I have brought forth and gave valid reason/answer to each and every point my opponent had stated.
I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.

[1]http://www.animalcorner.co.uk...
mongeese

Con

Thank you for responding.

1. Why force the sloths to adapt to wearing shoes when they can just adapt to living in trees even better? Shoes would only force them to have to adapt to the ground, when the trees are better for sloths, even if they adapt to the ground.

2. Sloths should not be forced to use their claws to fight any more than need be. Camouflage with algae is only useful in trees, and moving slowly on the ground makes sloths sitting ducks. This still does not justify forcing sloths to wear shoes.

3. If the sloths can't take off their shoes, their liberty is being horribly obstructed.

4. People who fund zoos and shelters do it in the name of animal freedom [1]. They would not agree to spend their money to restrict the freedom of sloths. There is no way they'd consent to having their money wasted in such a way. My opponent that sloths could not be hunted while they wear shoes (unfounded). However, this would only result in an entire section of the economy (sloth hunting) collapsing, and this money would not just go to the sloths, as the would-be hunters would rather kill the sloths than give them sloths, and the forced redirection of a man's wealth is tyranny.

5. My opponent calls the idea that a picture can change a fact "debatable." However, this means that he should actually put forth an argument for debate.

I have refuted all of my opponent's answers.

I look forward to my opponent's responses.

1. http://www.animalshelter.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frenchmoose

Pro

I thank my opponent for his swift response.

1, "Why force the sloths to adapt to wearing shoes when they can just adapt to living in trees even better?"
-- We have no way of knowing whether it sloths would do better in trees then they would on the floor. Also hanging from the trees can make sloths even more visible targets for hunters then a algae covered sloth inching his way through the forest.--

1.1, "Shoes would only force them to have to adapt to the ground"
-- Exactly... this could help them adapt to a possibly better lifestyle then being hunted in the trees where they are more clear targets for poachers.--

2, "Sloths should not be forced to use their claws to fight any more than need be"
-- This could be said for almost every animal with a way to defend itself, Also [1]"The main predators of sloths are the jaguar, the harpy eagle, and humans". Each of these are capable of reaching a sloth whilst they are in trees. If we had shoes on the sloth they would have to be on the floor giving them a better chance to defend themselves from these predators.
--Ex: If a sloth is caught in a tree by the eye of a hungry jaguar or harpy eagle would it have a better chance of defending itself in a tree? where its claws are used to hold itself up? Or, would it be a better chance to fight them off when they are on the floor and have full use of there claws through there claw-cut shoes? Of course the use of its claws would be more useful then to slowly attempt to crawl to safety.--

3, "If the sloths can't take off their shoes, their liberty is being horribly obstructed"
--If we put shoes on the sloths then they would be on the floor more. Would this not give them more roaming room then if they were to live there lives in the restricted space of trees?--
--Also lets not forget that they would have "claw-cut shoes" that their claws could get through so they could still (with more effort) climb a tree. Since it would take (more effort) they would be less inclined to do so. Thus the sloths would have to adapt to life anew on the forest floor. If anything this increases there range of mobility.--

4,"People who fund zoos and shelters do it in the name of animal freedom"
--Sure, If there definition of freedom is to put once free animals into a cage. If they truly wished for them to be free they would not constrict them to the confines of a cage, just for the entertainment of families. There are a few definitions to the word "freedom" though I find this one to be most suitable for this statement. [2]"In Philosophy is the right or ability to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others". Putting sloths in a cage does not give them freedom, it restricts them even more then if we had put shoes on them. At least if we had put shoes on them they would have more space to roam because they would move to the floor because of the extra effort they would need to put out to stay on trees with shoes.--

4.1, "They would not agree to spend their money to restrict the freedom of sloths."
--Again, putting them in cages is restricting them of there freedom.--

4.2, "My opponent that sloths could not be hunted while they wear shoes (unfounded)."
--If we had invested into putting the shoes on them then why would we let hunters hunt for them anymore? we have made hunting other animals illigel, why not sloths? [3]There is only 6 species of them left so why hunt them?

4.3, "However, this would only result in an entire section of the economy (sloth hunting) collapsing, and this money would not just go to the sloths, as the would-be hunters would rather kill the sloths than give them sloths, and the forced redirection of a man's wealth is tyranny"
--If hunting sloths did infact become illegal after the act of investing money into putting shoes on them, then of course hunters would stop buying sloth hunting accessories. This would make companies stop making slot hunting items, thus saving money.

5, "My opponent calls the idea that a picture can change a fact"
--Sunglasses on a sloth would be epic.--

Again I have given reason/answer all of which were valid toward how and why putting shoes on sloths would benefit the sloths as a whole. [Vote Pro]

[1]+[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for responding.

1. Natural selection has already told us that sloths should be in trees, not on the ground. Additionally, sloths are camouflaged in trees (green), but not on the ground (brown), where hunters could just step on them, and they'd be dead. On the ground, sloths are sitting ducks.

1.1. My opponent hopes that sloths would do better on the ground than in trees. However, nature has alraedy put sloths in trees, and they'd probably go extinct before they fully adapted to the ground.

2. Every animal should defend itself in whatever way necessary. My opponent wishes to ground sloths to force them to fight where they typically avoid fighting (I wonder why...? Maybe because they'd die?), and jaguars would rip them to shreds. Additionally, what if a sloth would be unable to survive a fight, but could possibly climb away? The shoes would prevent this entirely, and the sloth would DIE.
As for my opponent's example, the sloths have chosen the trees, and they know more about their own lifestyle than my opponent. The sloths have probably adapted their fighting to the trees along with the rest of themselves, and would therefore rather fight in the trees. Remember, the jaguar is also limited once it reaches trees, but the sloth would not be as limited, being used to living in trees his entire life.

3. Sloths currently have the option to roam wherever they want, but they prefer the trees, for obvious safety reasons. My opponent wishes to force them to venture out where they'd likely be killed or driven out by more adapted animals. The freedom of mobility is better than being forced to have mobility. Additionally, why force sloths to use more energy climbing trees? This would require them to eat more, thus making them eat more leaves, thus leaving less sunlight for the trees, thus stunting their growth, thus making the area have less wood, and we'd have less of the valuable resource we call paper [1].

4. Animals with families are generally safer than animals out in the wild, and also receive more care. Although, my argument is not that zoos are justified, but that forced shoe-wearing is not. My opponent again advocates "giving" sloths more space by forcing them to abandon the trees, but this restricts their freedom to stay in the trees.

4.1 Again, I am not advocating zoos, but fighting the waste of resources called forced shoe-ing.

4.2 My opponent relies on the investment to make us want to protect the sloths. However, why not just illegalize hunting sloths without wasting so many resources. Shoes aren't going to dissuade hunters. That's just saying, "free shoes with every kill!"

4.3 My opponent ignores the fact that when the company stops producing sloth-hunting accessories (or at least cuts production, as sloth-hunting accessories work for most any animal), then the company lays off workers. Additionally, there's still no reason to have to use this "surplus" of money for shoes.

5. Epic or not, a sloth with sunglasses cannot change facts.

In conclusion, I have refuted my opponent's answers. The sloths would overall be harmed by the restrictive nature of shoes, forcing them to abandon their homes, the trees, likely to be brutally murdered by jaguars.

Vote CON.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
Yes.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"I'm a complete jerk online..."

And there you have it.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
I never said I'm rude in round. I just don't end all of my speeches with "Thank you for your time, vote ___", when my speech is over, it's over and I sit down. People who do otherwise are wasting time they can be using to generate additional offense/defense. And since you don't debate competitively in the real world, then you really don't know what you're talking about when you claim that Wiki is a fine resource. Usually the references that the wiki articles make are decent resources. Don't be lazy and just take the extra step to cite THOSE instead of the wiki article itself. In real world competitive debate, the instant the judge hears "Wikipedia" their ears turn off. Going back to "etiquette", the only thing debaters really have to do is 1) Dress in formal attire 2) Don't be a complete jerk. I'm a complete jerk online, but in round I'll let you say what you have to say and then in cross-ex I'll vent my anger at you by asking you questions that will make you look like an idiot. And really, being a good debater on this website really means nothing. Lets see how good of a speech you can prep out in 2 minutes in round.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Wow DZL I think you could maybe do with some of the medication on geese's avatar.

Firstly, why do you have a problem with people being polite. Being rude doesn't make you look right, it makes you look ignorant whether in real life or on the internet.

I know nothing about competitive debating in the real world but most of the best debaters here use Wiki regulary. If your trying to make a detailed point then you should probably find multiple reputable sources but if your just giving a basic reference saying "here is an example of x" then it is a great resource.

http://www.debate.org...

Welcome to the site by the way.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
Hmm, didn't see you at TFA state last year. Oops, you weren't good enough were you?
When I debate I debate. I don't feel the judge or my opponents up. Nor do I cite unreliable sources like wikipedia. I've spent too much time on you. Remember, when your coach won't let you step up from being a novice, it's not because of him, it's because you're bad at debate.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
1. Oh, really?
2. With the rest of your general craziness, a rant against Glenn Beck just seemed to fit in.
Let's just see how long Wikipedia will keep your edits.
3. Nobody has ever complained about it except you.
4. Not Wii Tennis, real tennis. I like my option, thank you very much.

As for your etiquette rant, you obviously haven't been on this site very long if you're attacking askbob's summary on etiquette, and you've obviously never attended a debate tournament.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
So I clicked on your link and some of my lunch came back up. Debater's ETIQUETTE? In a debate your job is to build our case, refute your opponent's arguments against your case, attack his, rinse and repeat. If you're spending time during your speech sucking up to the judge, then you don't deserve to break out of prelims in any tournament that you go to.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
@Mongeese

1) I'm most definitely not clicking on that.
2) It's called a sense of humor. You would have one if you left the house once in a while. And no, Wikipedia is not reliable. Especially since I'm editing all of the pages that you're looking at right now.
3) Stop capitalizing it. You're demeaning the judge.
4) Wii tennis doesn't count. Now you're out of options.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
@Pikachu: People fail to respond all too often for the action of responding to go unnoticed.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
@DZL...

1. http://ddofans.com...
2. Everything in the world could have been touched by Glenn Beck. However, Wikipedia is more reliable than most people give it credit for, and PRO used Wikipedia just as often as I did.
3. I've always capitalized PRO and CON. It just seems to look better than Pro and Con.
4. I play tennis almost every day. My skin right now is kind of tan.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Pikachu 7 years ago
Pikachu
frenchmoosemongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
frenchmoosemongeeseTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
frenchmoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
frenchmoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
frenchmoosemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04