The Instigator
Impact94
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The government should make it a legal requirement to wear flip-flops.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 68467
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Impact94

Pro

It's obvious that the government should make people wear flip flops.

60 minutes to argue your position, no prerequirements.
Commondebator

Con

Flip flops: A type of loose rubber sandal

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Requirement: something that is needed or that must be done

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

People have rights to wear what they want, and other types of footwear (shoes, boots) do not harm the public. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to mandate someone to wear something despite the fact nothing beneficial will occur. In fact, in cold weathers it may be uncomfortable to wear flip flops. Or, when you are running, the flip flops may fall out your foot. In harsh conditions, many areas have a requirement of no flip flops

There is no logical reason to have flip flops a legal requirement. In fact, "requiring" the person to wear flip flops is a contradiction to the term itself.
Debate Round No. 1
Impact94

Pro

1. Public Safety

It may be a constitutional right to express oneself, but there is no constitutional right to put other people or yourself in danger.

Enclosed shoes have the potential to create a breeding ground for bacterial infections of the foot. People typically wear only one pair of shoes for years at a time without ever cleaning them, making enclosed shoes even more of a health hazard. Taking off these shoes inside of the home of a neighbor's house also exposes that neighbor and that neighbor's children to whatever bacteria or fungi may be festering inside of the enclosed shoe. This is incredibly irresponsible of the person wearing the enclosed shoe to begin with.

This is your foot on enclosed shoes; which is what can happen when the foot is exposed to copious amounts of bacteria:

foot gangrene

Furthermore, enclosed shoes encourage running, while flip flops discourage running. Running is also dangerous to both the runner and others around the runner.

In a recent study, running has been shown to possibly cause irreversable heart damage.[1]

That's not all, there is also this story:
"There was that tense moment last November when Ryan Hall faced the press after his magnificent victory in the USA Men's Olympic Marathon Trials in Central Park. "This was a dream come true for me, but first I want to offer my thoughts and prayers to Ryan Shay's family," he said. Moments later New York Road Runners CEO Mary Wittenberg stepped to the microphone, her face pale: "We have absolutely tragic news-Ryan Shay passed away this morning." Shay, just 28, was the first world-class marathoner to die from a heart attack while competing."[2]

Furthermore, running in public spaces presents a hazard to other passersby and children in the event that the runner is not looking and runs into them. The impact of the runner plus the fall itself can cause serious physical damage and could cause fractures.
Traditional enclosed shoes designed for running allow runners to get away with this not only in biohazardous apparel, but also, while running comfortably in light shoes providing arch support. If these people were wearing flip flops, things would be different.
Flip flops would discourage running as a result of their design. According to fixflatfeet.com, "a study [found that] people walking in flip flops take shorter steps and strike the ground with less vertical force." In this way, flip flops could discourage running.

Only a heartless person could possibly desire people to suffer from public safety hazards. There are children in this society. We need to be thinking about the safety precautions we can take to preserve the public health, and the well being of those younger, littler americans.

2. Safely improves foot health.

People could walk barefoot in order to improve their health, but this would also be unsafe. Without flip flops, one would be subject to litter, broken glass, and nails which might be found on the ground. These can cause cuts, abrasions, and serious injury to the foot, which can lead to disease that can spread up the leg and to the body.

With flip flops, the foot is protected from these foreign objects while still applying a flat surface so that the foot is capable of being excersized the way it should be, naturally.

There are plenty of health benefits to wearing flip flops. One of which found that children wearing flip flops were significantly less likely to suffer from fallen arches, which damages the skeletal structure and disalign the body's joints[3][4].

"With a fallen arch, your tendons and ligaments weaken and cause intense pain throughout your feet, ankles, and lower leg muscles, especially in the region of your arch and heel. Flat feet can also cause a weakened posture and discomfort through your hips and lower back."[4]

Just imagine children being forced to live like this - in this country. It's as if this is third world africa or something. With flip flops, the children would be less exposed to the dangers of skeletal damage and dislocated joints.

The wearing of flip flops may even be therepeutic to arthritis [5], and inferredly even prevent it.

3. A Government's Responsibility

Public health and safety is the government's responsibility. The government needs to enforce legislation making it a legal requirement to wear flip flops because the government has the power and the resources to do this. We need to make change now for the good of the public, and only the government can create change the fastest.

[1] - http://www.outsideonline.com...
[2] - http://www.runnersworld.com...
[3] - http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk...
[4] - http://www.footsmart.com...
[5] - http://throughthesole.blogspot.com...

Commondebator

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate.

R & C.1. The government cannot ban something that does not impact the lives of others. The “dangers” of shoes, boots, etc. . . are too miniscule for flip flops to be mandatory
This one should be pretty obvious. You cannot ban something that has almost no impact on society. Looking over my opponent’s arguments, he gives no data if shoe/boot wearing people will impact the economy or population largely enough to be banned. In fact, my opponent’s logic implies that everything with a potential threat should be banned.

My opponent has provided no data in regards to the number of deaths shoes/boots cause. In fact using my opponent’s logic, cars, trucks, knives, forks, clothes, houses, sofas, chairs, and humans should be banned. Logical inconsistency here? I think so. . .

I mean, even flip flops should be banned because they possess some degree of threat! A baby could suck on the flip flop and harm himself!

R & C.2. Flip flops are no better than shoes
Here is a picture to show what harms flip flops can do

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com...

Unlike sturdy shoes, flip-flops aren't good for extensive walking because they offer no arch support, heel cushioning, or shock absorption, according to the American Podiatric Medical Association (APMA). Wearers can suffer foot pain due to lack of arch support, tendinitis, and even sprained ankles if they trip. (1)

The Auburn team videotaped 39 flip-flop-wearing volunteers and noticed how they scrunched their toes to keep the flip-flip on the foot while the heel lifted in the air. This motion stretches the plantar fascia, the connective tissue that runs from heel to toe, causing inflammation, pain along the sole, heel spurs and tired feet in general. (2)

R.3 Running is irrelevant
Running is in fact a whole another story. Most of my opponent’s argument revolves around running which is irrelevant to flip flops. Yes, you would probably wear shoes when you run, however everyone wearing shoes does not mean everyone runs. Every shoe wearing person does not run.

If my opponent would like to go more into running, I would be happy to do so. However, it is best if that is for another debate.

However the point that i was trying to make is that people who like to run would wear shoes. That is another reason why flip flops should not be mandatory. So, I assume according to my opponent running should be banned as well. (Despite its numerous beneficial outcomes 3)

Sources:
1.http://www.webmd.com...
2.http://www.livescience.com...
3.http://www.runnersworld.com...




Debate Round No. 2
Impact94

Pro

R1 Response:

I believe that what I have shown depicts that enclosed shoes do indeed create a significant risk.

As previoiusly stated, the hazards of enclosed shoes are, in sum:

-Increased bacterial hazard. I thought this was common sense, but my opponent evidently feels otherwise; bacteria found in worn shoes includes E. Coli, meningitis, diarrheal disease, and fecal bacteria such as klebsiella pneumonia bacteria, wound/bloodstream infections, and Serratia ficaria. According to a study, this bacteria lasts longer inside of enclosed shoes than in any other environment.[1][2] If you are wearing enclosed shoes and you take those shoes into other peoples' homes, you are putting them in danger of E. Coli, klebsiella pneumonia, serratia ficarria, and meningitis, putting those neighbors and their children - who have young and vulnerable immune systems - in danger. Otherwise, if you are allowing your enclosed shoes to remain inside of your house, then you are continually infecting your own home with these bacteria. This is irresponsible and dangerous.

-Encourages running. Yes, running is not the topic of this debate, and banning running is not the topic either. However, the discouragement of running for long periods does coincide with public safety by inconveniencing long distance runners in the same way indoor smoking bans inconvenience smokers. According to runnersworld.com, "Many deaths appear to occur near the end of the marathons or half-marathons."[4]Safe running can be performed and encouraged in government-approved gyms with medical teams on standby in case the runner in question has an unknown heart problem or some other unknown health condition.

-Enclosed shoes cause arch collapse. Arch collapse has numerous negative side effects to your health, including skeletal damage and the displacement of the joints, as mentioned in Round 1. If the person is not wearing flip flops, he or she is at an increased risk of arch collapse, which can lead to serious skeletal and joint problems.

I would like to point out that my opponent failed to mention either of these hazards in his/her rebuttal. Instead, my opponent committed a tu quoque fallacy by essentially saying that flip flops can pick up bacteria too, while conveniently forgetting to mention that it is significantly easier to clean flip flops of contaminants than it is to clean enclosed shoes. My opponent then continued to execute the runaway train fallacy by essentially pointing out why we should not stop at banning just flip flops, but many other things as well; this is a red herring and has nothing to do with the legal requirement of wearing flip flops.

R2 Response:

Furthermore, the risks of flip flops are overexaggerated. Walking without arch support is natural and prevents the risk of arch collapse, as already previously mentioned.

According to fixflatfeet.com:
-Properly fitting flip flops do not cause toe scrunching, and the health problems associated.
-there is no identifiable research behind the connection between flip flops and bone fractures.
-bacteria is not a problem because of easy cleanability [in contrast to enclosed shoes].
-a 2010 study showed that flip flops put less stress on the knee than stability shoes or clogs.
-there is actually no known cause for plantar faciitis and overpronation.[3]

R3 Response:

Running is in fact relevant because enclosed shoes encourage running. Rather than outdoor running, it should be encouraged to run in a safe, controlled environment with a medical team on standby. What if the runner has an unknown heart condition, or some other unknown health problem? My opponent would allow this runner to die of a heart attack rather than to take certain safety precautions.
My opponent also failed to address the hazard of running in public areas, where not watching where you are going can lead to running into people or other foreign objects, which is another public safety issue. Again, being run into by a reckless runner can result in falling over and being inflicted with fractures or broken bones. Such a scenario could prove fatal for elderly persons. My opponent would seemingly encourage a reckless jerk to haphazardly run into a senior citizen and cause that victim to be inflicted with serious physical harm.


[1] - http://www.post-gazette.com...
[2] - http://www.shoes.com...
[3] - http://www.fixflatfeet.com...
[4] - http://www.runnersworld.com...



Commondebator

Con

So in my opponent's argument he mentions how wearing the flip flop correctly means no toe scrunching.

How about cleaning you shoes correctly to kill the infection? (1) That may also reduce the risk of bacterial infection yet still give the people the right to wear them! Yes, the bacteria will develop however, bacteria also develops in nature that can be harmful to humans. Shall we ban nature as well? I mean, during the flu season, millions catch the flu. Should we ban people so other's do not catch the flu?

You see, my opponent's argument in regards to bacteria literally has no valid justification, We should ban everything that have dangerous bacteria! Lets ban kids because kids enter the house with bacteria! (2)

Keep in mind that my opponent has not mentioned any of my govenment points, therefore flip flops should not be mandotory. However, I will continue with my argument

It appears to be that my opponent wants be to argue about running. Very well. . .

Running can trigger this affect known as "Runner's high" that rush of feel-good hormones known as endocannabinoids. In a 2006 study published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers found that even a single bout of exercise"30 minutes of walking on a treadmill"could instantly lift the mood of someone suffering from a major depressive order.

related bone loss. But chances are, you"ve had family, friends, and strangers warn you that "running is bad for your knees." Well, science has proven that it"s not. In fact, studies show that running improves knee health, according to Boston University researcher David Felson

"We know from many long-term studies that running doesn"t appear to cause much damage to the knees," Felson said. "When we look at people with knee arthritis, we don"t find much of a previous history of running, and when we look at runners and follow them over time, we don"t find that their risk of developing osteoarthritis is any more than expected"

(3)

Yes, running has some risk if you run a marathon. That is why, you should not do it all the time as it can be bad for you then. However my opponent never specified at what distance running can be harmful. So running 2 ft is harmful and should be discouraged? Not quite. Running steady distances of your ability is good for you

My opponent also mentions how it is easier to clean flip flops than shoes. You can still clean shoes, and there is still a minuscule amount of deaths(?) ( My opponent never stated any deaths made my shoes or boots)

My opponent then goes on about how running into someone can result in broken bones. That is a great reason why cars should be banned. But, I never saw my opponent throw cars in there.

Conclusion:

My opponent brings up how bacterial infection can form in shoes or boots, but never shows valid justification. Bacterial infection can form in houses and nature whereas it can impact humans. Using my opponent's logic it is justified to ban houses and nature. It is impractical to do so, however he never rebutted that. He dropped my government point, which shows that shoes/boots should not be banned.

Sources:
1.http://www.howtocleanstuff.net...
2.http://www.quackwatch.com...
3.http://www.runnersworld.com...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
It really feels like this debate needs a context.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
As being stated by Con in round 1 that it is a human right to wear whatever shoes or boots in their own comfort. I hope Con can elaborate and put more effort on this point. Also, Con shows that wearing the suitable shoes in the right condition is beneficial and no harm in that round too. For example, during cold weather, running and many more. As for Pro, he is spinning around the point that running wearing shoes are dangerous and thus running shall be discouraged in his round 2. Pro shows that running wearing other shoes are more dangerous than flip-flop. I don"t feel how the exercise of running can cause harm. Using the right techniques and do some medical check-ups before it can prevent the people from suffering heart problems. In Con"s last round, he addressed that cleaning shoes is the good way to at least get rid of the bacteria. In order for Pro to win this debate, he must shows that in certain condition you must wear flip-flop. Overall, Pro has purposely dropped the point that in cold weather and during running, flip-flop is not advisable to be worn by human. Thus, it is a clear win for Con.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
lol it couldnt have been of coarse

but I mean it was easy to argue against so. . . ...... . . . .. . . .. . . .......

XD
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
you thought it was legit? xD
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
lol shouldve specified in resolution
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
This was possibly one of the most draconian parody debates I've ever had so far
Posted by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
@Mike_10-4 This is kind of a parody of that oligarchy; I absolutely see what you're saying.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Our Unalienable Rights gives humanity the freedom to "ware flip-flops," however, the oligarch in DC could incarcerate you over your "flip-flops", or spoil your day, or freeze your bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day.
http://www.amazon.com...
http://blogs.loc.gov...

As Lavrenti Beria, chief of Josef Stalin"s secret police, once stated, "You bring me the man, I"ll find you the crime."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Impact94CommondebatorTied
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: con shows people should have the right to decide what kind of shoe that want to wear. He also proved the impracticality of being forced to wear flip-flops, especially in running situations.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Impact94CommondebatorTied
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: see my comments on this debate.