The Instigator
Kohaku
Con (against)
Losing
61 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
68 Points

Students going barefoot to school as a school rule would a good idea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 20 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,087 times Debate No: 9685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (20)

 

Kohaku

Con

This debate is about should schools in the United States (grades K-12) have their students go barefoot and not allowing having any students to have any footwear on school campus would be a helpful tactic for student's education (not including swimming classes or sports activities). For an example, students can't wear any footwear like shoes, socks, and sandals on campus for any reason so a student must go barefoot at the start of the school hours until the end of school hours, even if it rains or snows.

I am against this rule for a couple of reasons…

First reason is weather conditions. Students can get sick if they go barefoot in an inappropriate weather for a certain length period of time. Schools are usually 6-8 hours a day, a bad weather conditions for going barefoot would make a student sick, most likely with the flu. In the northern part of the United States, they get snowy weather. Students can get frostbite if the students go barefoot in snowy weather. In the Midwest, they can get unexpected tornados while students are in school. If there were an unexpected tornado, then kids would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris. Earthquake can go for that same reason too, students would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris, especially walking home.

Second Reason, students would have a high risk stepping there bare feet onto something hazardous. One of those risks is a sharp object where the student can cut their feet and students can get hookworms on a wound on the feet (http://www.cdc.gov...). Plus kids can step on gum with their bare feet.

Third reason is many of the PE activities. Other than swimming, there are may things can go wrong while going barefoot in PE activities. First off that school often have baseball or softball as one of the PE activities. Running on the dirt a little too much would cause kids to have cuts on their feet. Barefoot during PE on the blacktop would also cause barefoot scrapes and injuries on the foot, http://www.flickr.com....

Sometime students take the public city bus to school or to home. These buses have that "No shirt, no shoes and no service" policy. If transportation is out of the question, then the kids would walk barefoot to school or home, and they would have to walk more than a mile towards school or home. Along the way, who knows they will be stepping on with their bare feet. One time, I almost step on a snake.

I hope Kleptin accepts my challenge, as I like to take on the best debater with this debate. This is my only second debate so I am beginner debater taking on the master debater with a easy debate.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and I look forward to a stimulating exchange.

My opponent is setting forth a proof, and attempting to show that it is a bad idea for schools to implement a rule banning footwear. However, before I begin, I must make several things clear:

1. We are not talking about the plausibility of passing the rule. My opponent has set forth a proposition and neither of us will argue that it is absurd, a violation of student rights, or any such thing. This debate will be based solely on the standards that my opponent has set forth in his opening argument.

2. My opponent states in his opening round "a helpful tactic for student's education". However, all three of my opponent's opening arguments revolve specifically around a student's safety, and not particularly their education. Thus, we MUST assume that this resolution involves making the school a safe place for education, not improve the education directly.

3. My opponent is the instigator and I am the contender. He is trying to prove a point and I am trying to negate it. I need not conclusively prove that this proposal is a bad idea, I need only negate my opponent's argument that this is a BAD idea. However, I will still do my best to show that this is indeed, a good idea.

Now that we have that settled, let us begin.

First, I would like to summarize my opponent's key points:

1. Forcing students to go to school and go back home barefoot is unreasonable because there are environmental conditions that make this hazardous for student health.

2. Students may step on something sharp or otherwise dangerous, or just step on something annoying, like gum.

3. Physical Education classes can get dangerous if there is no protective footwear.

4. Shoelessness will exclude students from public transportation, and forcing students to walk home will be dangerous without footwear as well.

Having done that, let us now examine two parts of my opponent's resolution:

"not allowing having any students to have any footwear ****on school campus****"

"student must go barefoot at the ****start of the school hours until the end of school hours****, even if it rains or snows."

I hope the audience has caught the same thing that I have caught. At very first sight, we can completely throw out 2 out of 4 of my opponent's arguments.

My opponent has specfically stated that this rule would only take place within the school campus, and only from the start to the end of school hours.

This means that before class starts and after class ends, students may wear their shoes. Furthermore, if a student has to leave school in the middle of the day, he can just wear his shoes as long as he is out of school grounds. Thus, there is no worry about transportation, environmental concerns, hazards of the road, bad weather, etc.

Thus, arguments #1 and #4 can be thrown out.

Argument #2 states that students might step on something sharp or dangerous. Why would any school allow sharp and dangerous things to be littering the floor in the first place? Even in schools where shoes are allowed, broken glass and other things are cleaned up immediately because school regulations require a certain level of protection for the students. There should not be anything hazardous on the ground in the first place. There is also no problem with gum. While it may be a little irritating, gum is not allowed in most schools anyway, and in those that do allow gum, it is certainly not school policy to allow students to spit gum on the floor. Even so, it is far more annoying to get gum unstuck from a sneaker than to get gum unstuck from the sole of your foot.

My opponent's complaint about hookworms is misleading. Anyone who reads the source that he posted can see why:

http://www.cdc.gov...

This source clearly states that hookworms are endemic "in areas with warm, moist climates". This does not describe the floor of a typical school building.

Furthermore, the method of transmission is as follows: "You can become infected by direct contact with contaminated soil"

Again, tile floors are not soil. The source states that hookworms can only thrive when eggs are lain into stool, which mixes in with the soil, and the eggs only hatch in soil that has met the conditions of moisture, warmth, and protection from light. Thus, it is impossible for students to get hookworms in schools, even barefoot.

Thus, argument #2 can be discarded as well.

Finally, my opponent mentions PE activities. Let me first point out that my opponent stated "(not including swimming classes or sports activities)" in the resolution. I find it unfair that I may not offer any evidence regarding sports activities, whereas my opponent is free to offer arguments based on sports activities. As such, I will ignore this restriction until my opponent clarifies.

Many American schools have limited room, and their physical activities are limited to indoor gymnasiums, not wide outdoor fields. If such is the case, we need not worry about scrapes and cuts, because the floors would be tiled or better yet, padded.

In addition, the schools that adopt this shoe policy need not play physical education games like football, basketball, or baseball. They could instead opt for Taekwondo, Kung Fu, Judo, Yoga, Tai-Chi, Gymnastics, Aerobics, and countless other sports that are easier to engage in shoeless. In fact, all of these sports are far superior in terms of burning calories and encouraging exercise and physical activity than the traditional sports.

I have countered all of my opponent's arguments. Now, I shall submit my own:

There are actually an enormous number of health benefits related to walking barefoot, and as our school system is responsible for the growth and health of children from ages 5 to 17, it should support lifestyles that lead to greater health and well-being.

It is no secret that our ancestors went barefoot, even through the scorching savanna and the infested rainforests, our ancestors trodded shoeless for millions of years. Yet curiously, there have been no historical records of foot problems until the era of the Renaissance, when human society had become accustomed to the concept of footwear.

http://www.sixwise.com...

The implementation of footwear had actually had a huge impact on health. Our bodies have evolved to walk barefoot, and the change in gait and posture by footwear actually changes our biomechanics, putting emphasis on the wrong muscles and incorrect force on the bones. This leads to unnatural fatigue and premature foot problems.

http://www.post-gazette.com...
http://lifehacker.com...

These scientific studies also show that going barefoot inherently leads to fewer acute and chronic foot injuries and uses less energy and effort in foot activities.

http://www.sportsci.org...

Furthermore, going barefoot also eliminates the chances of spreading foot fungus, which is actually incubated by footwear and contrary to popular belief, is not the simply the result of catching something while barefoot.

The only thing that stands in the way of all these health benefits are the possible environmental dangers. However, on top of the fact that the sole of the foot actually strengthens massively upon usage, the school environment is very safe compared to the outside world, if maintained properly. If anything, school is the perfect place to implement a barefoot policy, because it is where kids from 5-17 spend the majority of their day.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Kohaku

Con

There are schools that have recess and lunch that involved outdoors. Even there is a cafeteria at some of these schools; some of these students must walk outside of their classroom and to the cafeteria in some of these schools. What would happen if some of these kids have to walk from their classroom to the cafeteria and back in rainy and snowy weather, outdoors? Some of these students must walk classroom to classroom between periods and must walk outdoors to do so, mostly the San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix area. What would happen if there were a rainy or snowy weather?

When I gone to school, I have to walk outdoors when I have to transfer classroom to classroom, sometimes there is rainy weather. Many San Jose schools have their students walk outside when walking classroom to classroom. Even during the winters of the fully indoor schools that might have heaters, what would happen if the heater breaks down during very cold weather?

When I meant "other than swimming and other activities", I meant the sports not including that are known that people go barefoot, like martial arts, swimming and gymnastics. But football, baseball and basketball are the common sports for PE activities and these activities involved outdoors.

Baseball is required mostly outdoors. Kids would have to run on the dirt of the infield and they can cut their feet onto the dirt, there are small sharp rocks on those baseball fields. Football is also outdoors and the kids run on the grass and who knows what would lie on a grass, mostly garbage. It goes with soccer. If baseball plays in a gym, then a homerun wouldn't be a homerun because of the ceiling unless the baseball hits a window and replace a $200 glass. Street hockey is also required as an outdoor sport; you have to scrape your feet on the blacktop to make immediate stops. Plus those pucks fly more than 20 mph (sometimes 70 mph) and there are times you have to stop the puck when your goalie, those pucks hurt at the correct speed, even plastic pucks. Have you ever been hit by a golf ball?

Basketball, sometimes they might play indoors but the schools that don't have a gym (sometimes elementary schools) must play basketball on the blacktop. On blacktops they have some of those sharp rocks sticking in the ground and a kid scraping their feet on the blacktop for an immediate stop would cut their feet.

Sometimes the students do PE activities on the blacktop or grass after the rain stops, but the blacktop would still be wet and full of puddles. Putting your bare feet on a cold wet surface would make a person sick.

When I meant when I said "not allowing having any students to have any footwear on school campus," means that students can't even bring footwear for any reason. A parent must bring their shoes after school if they can. Just like when schools said, "You can't play your MP3 player". Well, I played my MP3 player outside of campus (few feet off of campus) and I still get in trouble by the principle. So they would have to walk barefoot from school to school and back. Even they can put their shoes in their locker, then what would happen if there a natural disaster strikes? Like in the Midwest where they get tornados. What would happen if an unexpected tornado hits school and a student must get somewhere else to safety? Every second counts and if that tornado hits, then that student won't own those shoes again. Earthquake can happen unexpectedly and the shoes would be buried under all the rubble.

"No gum on campus" rule is often been broken by a lot of students and I still see gum on the ground. If the student doesn't watch out, then they have someone else's saliva on their foot. When the students go to the bathroom, sometimes they miss the toilet. The students would have to put their bare feet on someone else's (beep).

Reports say that going barefoot outside can get you diabetes and other issues.

http://www.newsmax.com...

http://www.dentalplans.com...

http://mykidsfootdoc.blogspot.com...

The science building has chemicals that might be hazardous to the skin, mostly the chemistry classes. No shoes mean any protection for the feet from the hazardous chemicals. Some of those chemicals can turn to acid and cause some damage to the skin if not property protected. I burned my hand on a chemical once.

Some schools have wooden surfaces that the students have to walk on to get to their classroom. One word for a barefoot on a wooden surface, ‘slivers'.

Most of all, why would be a good idea to have students to go barefoot to school? If an American school thought it would be a good or reasonable idea, then it would have happened already.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and I will offer my counterarguments.

My opponent's post above was made up of many points. However, each and every single one of these responses can be thrown out almost immediately.

Before I start, I need to mention a violation. At the start of this debate, I have said that we are not questioning the plausibility or irrationality of the proposal.

"1. We are not talking about the plausibility of passing the rule. My opponent has set forth a proposition and neither of us will argue that it is absurd, a violation of student rights, or any such thing. This debate will be based solely on the standards that my opponent has set forth in his opening argument."

I did not come up with this idea, my opponent did, and I am the contender, not the instigator. We are both supposed to be taking this issue seriously without accusing it of absurdity. My opponent has VIOLATED this understanding with his last point about how this rule is irrational because it would have been implemented if it were not. This argument can be discarded from the get-go.

I will address each point in depth, however, I must make something clear to both my opponent and the audience.

Please do not forget who the instigator is, and who the contender is. My opponent is trying to show that this idea is a bad idea, and I am simply responsible for showing the flaws in my opponent's assertion. I go above and beyond my requirements when I discuss why this *is* a good idea.

My opponent's last round were all nitpicky exceptions, and from the looks of it, you would think that HE is the contender and not I. Do not be mislead. I do not bear the burden of proposing a foolproof plan, therefore, the fact that my opponent's arguments are made up ONLY of nitpicky exceptions is detrimental to his case.

Now, on to my counterarguments of the nitpicky exceptions:

1. Some schools have recess and lunch and of those schools, some schools have it outdoors. In addition, some schools have cafeterias that are in different buildings. Also, for some schools, some students may have some classes that involve walking from one building to another.

In this case, recess and lunch would count as "off hours". If they don't have classes in session, and they are leaving the building, then they can wear their shoes if they wish. Before they enter another school building of course, they will have to remove their shoes. If class is in session an they need to walk from one building to another, then it still counts as "off time".

2. Even when indoors, in some schools, sometimes, the heater might be broken in the winter.

A nitpicky exception. Then I suggest that all schools fix their heaters. Schools are not supposed to have broken heaters in the first place, I suggest that my opponent not try to harp on points that are as irrelevant as this. The next thing you know, my opponent is going to say "Oh, well what happens if there is a foot-eating virus on the school floors? What then?".

3. Going barefoot for some sports might be good, but some sports like football, baseball, and basketball may possibly take place outdoors, and if some schools decide to play these particular sports, then it won't be good.

Another nitpicky exception. It is not mandatory for all schools to offer those sports. Schools should stop offering football, baseball, and basketball for PE class and offer them as afterschool activities. If anything, I think that all PE classes should be limited to cardiovascular workouts, track, yoga, gymnastics, and Tai-chi. As I have said before, all of these sports are far superior to the silly games that PE makes their kids play. Too much time is wasted on points and rules and arbitrary things, while the nation keeps getting fatter and less healthy. PE class should focus on helping kids keep in shape and stay healthy and active.

4. I did not mean that students are not allowed to have footwear, but they are not allowed to even BRING footwear.

I personally don't care what he meant to have said. If my opponent "meant" to say something, then he should have said that instead. My opponent clearly stated: "students can't wear any footwear like shoes, socks, and sandals". He mentioned nothing about bringing shoes. Just as long as they aren't worn. My opponent's anecdote is irrelevant here. The fact that he got punished is too bad for him, but the principal was wrong.

5. If some natural disaster strikes and kids need to evacuate, they should have their shoes.

Again, this is absurd. The exact same thing as the "foot-eating virus". If an Earthquake was happening, or if a tornado was going to hit, why would kids be in school in the first place? And if it was an unpredictable disaster, who would care about some missing shoes or one or two scratches on the foot?

6. Sometimes, some students will disobey the rules and spit gum on the floor, and sometimes, some students will miss the toilet and students will have to walk on pee.

Again, like I said, my opponent is harping on nitpicky and irrelevant possibilities. "What if?" "What if?" What if there were a foot eating virus loose in every school in America? I understand that my opponent would very much like to win the debate, but we must bind ourselves to reason while debating. Students aren't *supposed* to spit gum on the floor, and students aren't *supposed* to pee on the bathroom floor. The school can simply increase janitorial services, or convert a urinal into a foot-washing sink. Saliva and urine won't destroy your foot.

7. Some schools might have wooden surfaces

Then those schools should lay out plastic padding or carpeting, or at the very least, sand down the wood and give it a nice glossy sheen.

8. They might encounter problems in chem lab

All chemical spills are supposed to be reported and neutralized. Again, my opponent is nitpicking on unlikely situations. K-12 Students should not be given dangerous chemicals to use in the first place, and all laboratory experiments that require dangerous equipment will be handled by the instructor or teaching assistants.

And of course, the worst for last:

9. Going barefoot can cause diabetes.

I feel insulted that my opponent would cite two sources and not even read them. There is no correlation between going barefoot and developing diabetes. It mentions nothing of the sort in any of the three sources my opponent listed. All three sources and this argument can be completely thrown out. As a medical student, I know that students who already have diabetes need to be especially aware of foot wounds, but that is only in the case of a wound. In actuality, going barefoot as a diabetic will actually be beneficial if you are in a safe environment. It relieves constricted blood flow, which is the major cause of foot amputations among diabetics.

To conclude: My opponent has spent his entire argument trying to desperately come up with nitpicky exceptions. I was not aware that this debate was about attempting to trap me into an impossible argument, I thought this debate was about reason and logic. My opponent has offered absolutely no evidence for his statement that it is a bad idea in general, absolutely none. Every idea has problems, no idea is perfect. You don't throw a good idea away because of the exceptions, especially if you have absolutely no general reason to reject the idea whatsoever.

I have given an exorbitant amount of information on why it would be beneficial to go barefoot. My opponent has not countered a single thing. He has not even addressed or responded to it. His focus is clearly not on evaluating the idea, he can't come up with any objections besides "Oh, it's not perfect, therefore, you lose".

This is regretful for him. I hope that his concluding round will be more productive and not so focused on irrational exceptions.

Thank you to my opponent and the audience.
Debate Round No. 2
Kohaku

Con

Thank you for my opponent for his arguments and response.

My opponent first arguement is…
"In this case, recess and lunch would count as "off hours". If they don't have classes in session, and they are leaving the building, then they can wear their shoes if they wish. Before they enter another school building of course, they will have to remove their shoes. If class is in session a they need to walk from one building to another, then it still counts as "off time""

Well school campus is school campus, including the recess grounds and I did say beginning of school hours to the end of school hours, not class session hours. All school rules apply as the start of school hours until the end of school hours. Just like you can't wear gang related clothes, you can't wear them during class, between periods and recess and lunch hours. Can't bring shoes to school or even can't wear shoes to school and you must go barefoot during school hours means during class, between periods and during recess and lunch periods. There is no such thing as ‘off hours' during school hours or otherwise the students are allowed to wear gang related clothes during those ‘off hours' without getting into trouble. Gang related clothes are no different than wearing shoes to school when you can't wear them to school.

My opponent second arguement is…
"A nitpicky exception. Then I suggest that all schools fix their heaters. Schools are not supposed to have broken heaters in the first place; I suggest that my opponent not try to harp on points that are as irrelevant as this. The next thing you know, my opponent is going to say "Oh, well what happens if there is a foot-eating virus on the school floors? What then?"

Well heaters are machines and machines are known to break down very often. Heaters take hours or even days to repair because of the schools low budget, especially the budget issues in California.

My opponent's third argument is…
"Going barefoot for some sports might be good, but some sports like football, baseball, and basketball may possibly take place outdoors, and if some schools decide to play these particular sports, then it won't be good."

Another nitpicky exception. It is not mandatory for all schools to offer those sports. Schools should stop offering football, baseball, and basketball for PE class and offer them as after school activities. If anything, I think that all PE classes should be limited to cardiovascular workouts, track, yoga, gymnastics, and Tai-chi. As I have said before, all of these sports are far superior to the silly games that PE makes their kids play. Too much time is wasted on points and rules and arbitrary things, while the nation keeps getting fatter and less healthy. PE class should focus on helping kids keep in shape and stay healthy and active.

Football, baseball and basketball also involves running and staying alert when the ball comes, so should it consider a PE activity to have students to stay healthy and active?

"Four obvious activities come to mind when thinking of outdoor PE units, including tennis, soccer, baseball (for boys) and softball (for girls). Quick serve tennis is fast-paced and introduces the fundamentals of tennis, especially on the pace and placement of players. Switch soccer teaches students how to work the soccer field, but the objective is to play keep away as opposed to getting a goal. Once they get the concept down, focus them on kicking one soccer ball into another, then have them switch sides of the field. Track and field is the most basic outdoor activity in play. Students learn each event involved (high jump, javelin, shot-put, hurdles and sprints). Some PE teachers blend all of the events, while others specify an individual day for each event. Students are generally assessed not by how well they perform the event, but rather how hard they try and how many reps are attempted."

http://www.ehow.com...

My opponent fifth argument is...
"Again, this is absurd. The exact same thing as the "foot-eating virus". If an Earthquake was happening, or if a tornado was going to hit, why would kids be in school in the first place? And if it was an unpredictable disaster, who would care about some missing shoes or one or two scratches on the foot?"

Earthquakes and tornados can happened when school is in session.

Missing shoes means they have to walk home barefoot with the risk walking on rubble and debris from these disasters.

As experience with both tornados and earthquakes that both tornadoes and big earthquakes can take out power lines and cause terrible traffic jams. A student would have to walk home to school after a tornado or a big earthquake strikes because the parents would take a long time to get their child's school because of traffic jams. Then the students would have to walk home and avoiding the rubble from the destroyed buildings. In case of earthquakes, downtown would have a lot of rubble of fallen buildings. Like what happened with the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906 and 1989.

http://www.sfgov.org...

If a student must walk home with that kind of rubble through the city and they can't get to their shoes or their parents, then the risk of a student having a cut feet would be great. Number two that earthquakes can destroy their home where they can't get their other shoes. They would be barefoot for a very long while. But at the meantime, the students stepping on a sharp debris while going barefoot.

This picture can happen to a school when a big earthquake hits.

http://seismo.berkeley.edu...

Or when a tornado hits a town.

http://www.drjudywood.com...

Honestly, would want or even safe to go barefoot in that kind of mess if you lost your shoes to these disasters? Ouch. Again that parents might take a long time to get to the students school because of jammed traffic so it would take hours to wait for their parents and cell phone might not work too.

My opponent sixth's arguement is…

"Again, like I said, my opponent is harping on nitpicky and irrelevant possibilities. "What if?" "What if?" What if there was a foot-eating virus loose in every school in America? I understand that my opponent would very much like to win the debate, but we must bind ourselves to reason while debating. Students aren't *supposed* to spit gum on the floor, and students aren't *supposed* to pee on the bathroom floor. The school can simply increase janitorial services, or convert a urinal into a foot-washing sink. Saliva and urine won't destroy your foot." Some times there are bird (beep) on the ground.

Reality is that students are not suppose to chew gum or miss the toilet while going restroom but they do it anyway. Mostly the boys miss the toilet. But honestly, do you want someone else's saliva or urine on your feet? Some states like California have low budget issues, so janitorial services maybe out of the question because of a low budget of a state.

My opponent's eighth argument is…

"All chemical spills are supposed to be reported and neutralized. Again, my opponent is nitpicking on unlikely situations. K-12 Students should not be given dangerous chemicals to use in the first place, and all laboratory experiments that require dangerous equipment will be handled by the instructor or teaching assistants."

There are chemistry classes mostly in junior high and high school and these chemistry classes use chemicals can irritate or damage the skin. These schools do have dangerous equipments in these chemistry classes like the wickless alcohol lamp and stand, hot liquid in the beakers and bunsen burners and all of them have the student to use.

So the school would give up a lot JUST to have their students to go barefoot to school?

Thank you to my opponent for this debat
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and will now conclude.

Remember that in proposing an idea, it is a good idea to throw out the idea if there is something flawed with its core. Exceptions that might clash with the general proposal are minor things that can be tweaked. My opponent is searching through the most improbable and ridiculous situations to fool the audience into thinking that there is something wrong with this proposal.

However, my opponent has mentioned absolutely NO problem with the idea in general! The only thing he has, are the exceptions. He has offered no evidence for his position, only criticized mine. Furthermore, I have pointed out many fatal errors in his arguments that he did not have the courage to admit he was wrong to, and he has opted instead to pretend that his errors have never happened. For example: The complete and total lie that going barefoot causes diabetes. What next? That it causes cancer? Abortion?

Not only has my opponent refused to own up to his misleading statements, my opponent has decided that instead of challenging all the information that I have brought forth in this debate about the health benefits of spending more time barefoot, he wants to spend his last post continuing his efforts in pointing out nitpicky and irrelevant exceptions.

This was his choice as a debater, even though I feel it was a bad choice. He has chosen to make his entire argument about defending weak exceptions, so I will finish by finally resolving those issues.

1. Students who need to eat at the cafeteria outside the school building or who need to go outside to another building for class may be exposed to problems.

In that case, students should be scheduled to have all of their classes in one building on one day and another building on another day. In addition, a cafe/canteen/food dispensing area should be installed at each building, or they should also mandate that students bring their own lunch. There are many things that can be done that will both improve school life and make the barefoot policy work.

2. Heaters are machines and machines break, and schools don't have enough money to fix them, so on the offchance that the heaters break, your proposal should not be accepted.

Then the schools should get more funding. This nitpicking is so far divided from the actual subject that it borders on absurd. If the heaters break during winter, it's insignificant compared to the length of time which the students are barefoot the whole year round. That's like saying that people should never cross the street because sometimes, the light is red.

3. Football, baseball, and basketball are good activities and since they are good activities that involve shoe use, then your proposal should not be accepted.

I'm not saying that they aren't good, I'm saying that they aren't any better. Kids who focus on the game may build better skills, but the goal of PE should not be to build physical skills anymore, because those skills are specialized. Sports like track, aerobics, yoga, tai-chi, and gymnastics are far more focused on improving health and vitality instead of focusing on hitting a ball better, or kicking a ball better. We need to have kids active in ways that aren't completely useless and trivial. I would rather have kids be less obese and not have high blood pressure than to have them be skilled at throwing round things into other round things. However, that's besides the point. All of those sports can be offered after school if they so choose. While in school, they don't need to play those sports and they don't need shoes.

4. Tornadoes and Earthquakes

My opponent essentially wastes a huge chunk of space with irrelevant sources about irrelevant things. Yes, we are aware that earthquakes occur. Yes, we are aware that disasters happen. However, my opponent is saying that we should abandon a year-round program because a disaster that occurs once every 50 years or so MIGHT occur. In that case, I guess every student in america should have a parachute on at all times in case terrorists fly planes into their school buildings and they need to jump out the window to escape.

I hope that neither the audience nor my opponent will take offense to the fact that I do not feel that it is necessary for me to address that point, I am sure that everyone understands why I find these nitpicky exceptions not to be worth the audience's time.

5. Saliva and the Toilet

Again, I'm not even going to address this. It's insulting to me as a debater and it is insulting to the intelligence of the audience. I respect my opponent's desire to harp on these insignificant points, but I also hope he respects my decision not to comment on them. I have already made my point many times about how these trivial matters are meaningless.

6. Chemical spills

Apparently, my opponent did not read my post. I am aware that these chemicals are used. I am saying that they should not be. There is nothing that you can learn from grades K-12 in a public highschool that you cannot learn from watching the instructor. The danger is not necessary, so my opponent's point is null.

I am going to conclude in a very frank way.

My opponent has said absolutely nothing in this debate. He, as the instigator, had a burden to fulfill. He was required to show that there is something inherently wrong with the concept of the proposal. Instead, he spent all his time and my time harping on nonsensical and irrelevant exceptions. His hope was to list as many improbable situations as possible, that a barefoot policy might be bad for.

The fact of the matter is, my opponent is too desperate. My opponent has no objection to the proposal, my opponent has no response to all the data I have supporting the health benefits of having children spend more time without footwear. My opponent has nothing to say and the only thing he has been doing the entire debate, is bringing up *possible exceptions*. They aren't even *exceptions*, but just *possible exceptions*. As I said before, no plan is perfect, there will always be instances in which a plan cannot satisfy everyone and everything 100%.

My opponent would have us believe that every school in America is made up of several buildings, separated by 2 miles of broken glass, where it rains and hails and snows all the time (of course, when Earthquakes and tornadoes aren't hitting the school, which is every day), and of course, the cafeteria for the school is 2 miles of broken glass in the opposite direction. Furthermore, my opponent suggests that every school in America has wooden floors filled with splinters and gum, broken heaters, and bathrooms that are drenched in urine.

Audience, ask yourself: Is this the correct representation of the normal American school?

Obviously not.

I have debunked all of my opponent's arguments. I have presented data for my proposal that has gone uncontested. My opponent's last defense, a huge string of useless nitpicking, has also been debunked. He has not met the resolution, I have, thus, I urge a PRO vote.

Thank you to the audience, and to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HuskyFastpitch1998 1 year ago
HuskyFastpitch1998
What would the school do if parents started suing them cause their kids were getting sick from dirty floors.. Ect??
Posted by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
Thanks RL :)

"A long list of unsupported claims can be dismissed by just listing them as unsupported"

Hm. I guess I should have gone with questioning his data then. Oh well, maybe next time.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Keptin, Nope. Both sides have an equal amount of space. that means that there as much space to refute an argument as there was in proposing. If an argument is nitpicking, then it ought to be able to be properly refuted by presenting a proper argument that the claim was insuffienly supported, statistically insignificantly, or whatever. Taking valuable space to give your opinion characterizing the argument, rather than refuting it, is both unconvincing and poor conduct. You are answering an argument with an insult.

A long list of unsupported claims can be dismissed by just listing them as unsupported. In this case, your opponent generally made good argument in support of his claims.

The resolution for this debate is, of course, totally ridiculous and every one of your arguments complete nonsense. However, I don't have any problem with guys having fun however they want. It just incidentally happened upon an interesting point of debate theory in the process.
Posted by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
@simba

Thanks for the post

For any given plan, I can give ten or one hundred times the number of "nitpicky" arguments that my opponent has provided and show them to be even more severe than what he mentioned. Being nitpicky is a brainless exercise. In that case, should we as humans just sit at home and do nothing? Of course not.

There's a difference between finding a fatal flaw with a plan, and just plain nitpicking. Nitpicking can be resolved through compromise, fatal flaws indicate that something is inherently wrong with the plan and that it must be scrapped.

None of my opponent's points were fatal, and I ignored many on that basis. It isn't hard to come up with 10, 20, or 2000 nitpicky arguments. It's harder to show a fatal flaw. Furthermore, neither you nor my opponent tried to counter all of my arguments for the health benefits of the plan. Also, neither you nor my opponent addressed the fact that he made many errors and assumptions in the debate.
Posted by simbaguy2 4 years ago
simbaguy2
I believe that Kleptin's "arguments" are completely irrelevant, not Kohaku. In fact all he did the entire debate was exactly what he had criticized. Whenever his opponent presented a plausible and valuable piece of evidence, Kleptin simply renamed the evidence "nitpickings" and stated that his opponent's arguments were irrelevant and had no value simply because he said so. He clearly shows that the example of how the school works is only HIS perception of the school, he believes that schools have unlimited funding to spend on everything and all the he states "Should" be done. He believes heaters never break, and if the do, they are miracously fixed in a matter of milliseconds, if not less. He believes that every school in the nation is composed of , sterile building, in which every student follows every rule of conduct perfectly, and in which accidents never happen, and spills and dirt are cleaned up instantly. Just as he states that "My opponent would have us believe that every school in America is made up of several buildings, separated by 2 miles of broken glass, where it rains and hails and snows all the time (of course, when Earthquakes and tornadoes aren't hitting the school, which is every day), and of course, the cafeteria for the school is 2 miles of broken glass in the opposite direction. Furthermore, my opponent suggests that every school in America has wooden floors filled with splinters and gum, broken heaters, and bathrooms that are drenched in urine." He would have us think the schools are the complete opposite.
In conclusion, the contender argued this debate with all variables in his favor and belief, and ignored all the reason the instigator provided which are plausible and likely, and the contender also did not provide any point of evidence except stating his critical belief that the instigators evidence were simply "nitpickings". The contender in my opinion, lost this debate and is the one who was desperate.
Posted by Kikematsu 4 years ago
Kikematsu
My school tried to go barefoot to school and it didn't work out very well.
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
I know this is completely random, but I just figured something out.

There are a total of five rounds to any debate. And the first three colors for the rounds are primary colors.

1. Red
2. Blue
3. Yellow

The last two colors are derived by mixing the [1] and [2] for round number 4 and [2] and [3] for round number 5.

4. Red + Blue = Purple
5. Blue + Yellow = Green

I've figured out the pattern.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro loses conduct for statements like, "Again, I'm not even going to address this. It's insulting to me as a debater and it is insulting to the intelligence of the audience."

The strategy of calling valid arguments "nitpicking" is unconvincing.
Posted by Logical-Master 4 years ago
Logical-Master
"The next thing you know, my opponent is going to say "Oh, well what happens if there is a foot-eating virus on the school floors?"

That made me laugh. :D
Posted by silntwaves 4 years ago
silntwaves
omg yall. kleptin you are dominating! everything he said you flushed it down the toilet. i dont even think theirs a way to see him bring himself back up to the top. good job :D
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ReDo 3 years ago
ReDo
KohakuKleptinTied
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 Grape 3 years ago
Grape
KohakuKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 3 years ago
I-am-a-panda
KohakuKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 4 years ago
wmpeebles
KohakuKleptinTied
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:31 
Vote Placed by Officialjake 4 years ago
Officialjake
KohakuKleptinTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Kikematsu 4 years ago
Kikematsu
KohakuKleptinTied
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 philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
KohakuKleptinTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Mixer 4 years ago
Mixer
KohakuKleptinTied
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 kalyse020908 4 years ago
kalyse020908
KohakuKleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
KohakuKleptinTied
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:07