The Instigator
XStrikeX
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,558 times Debate No: 11693
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

XStrikeX

Pro

Hello, I am XStrikeX, debating the Con side for the motion,"There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass."
Short, short background:
Signs that say, "Please do not walk on the grass," are sometimes put on fields of grass. One reason for this is because walking on the grass supposedly harms it.

As Pro, I am saying that signs that prohibit grass-walking should be eliminated.

Contention 1
Football players and soccer players walk and play on grass. Are you going to tell them to get off the grass because it hurts the grass?

Contention 2
People put up these signs because they don't want their grass to be ruined. Grass really isn't that pretty. No one walks by grass and says,"Man, look at that grass today. It's so green and lustrous!" And walking on grass won't reduce it to a dry, arid desert.

Contention 3
It's simply too hard to enforce such a rule. People will walk on grass no matter what you put there. Monitoring grass-walkers with cameras is a waste of money and time.

For these reasons, there should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.
Sigh, I have way too much free time...
Freeman

Con

Hello XStrikeX, and thanks for creating this debate. I must admit that this is a bit of an unusual topic. Hopefully we can come to some kind of a consensus towards the end of the debate.

Contention 1:

Red Herring

Contention 2:

My opponent points out that walking on grass won't reduce it to a "dry, arid desert". However, walking on grass does wear it out over time. This occurs often when lots of people travel on it every day in one specific pattern. Yes, this is a very minor consequence of walking on grass, but it still reduces the aesthetic quality of the grass itself. Moreover, wearing out large patches of grass by having lots of people continually walk over it isn't a very nice thing to do to the poor groundskeepers that have to fix it.

Contention 3:

My opponent points out that rules regarding walking on grass are, in practice, hard to enforce. However, there are all sorts of rules that are difficult to enforce in practice. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of Stop signs in the United States. And it would be nearly impossible to put a police cruiser at every one of them so that people don't drive straight through them. However, the mere fact that they are there helps people conform to driving safety standards –for good reason I might add. Likewise, the fact that there are signs discouraging people from walking on grass is a good way to get them to conform to such standards. Moreover, rules don't always need to be enforced for them to be effective.

::Conclusion::

In summary, grass signs represent an easy means to encourage people not to walk on grass. By doing this, these signs promote the aesthetic value of college campuses and other public venues. Additionally, these signs help make life easier for the groundskeepers that have to repair damaged grass that has been worn out by lots of people walking on it. In total, the signs are a good idea, and they should remain with us.
Debate Round No. 1
XStrikeX

Pro

I'd like to thank Freeman for accepting this debate! I certainly agree that this is an unusual topic... hopefully it'll be fun though. :D

Refutation
1. Uh, red herring? Could you clarify, please...?

2. How does walking on grass reduce the aesthetic quality of the grass to make it so noticeable by the public? As I previously stated, no one looks at the grass and finds it beautiful. There's no such thing as grass sight-seeing. My opponent has said that groundskeepers have to fix the grass. Well, that's what their job is. They have to take care of their grass! That's what their job is paid to do.

3. My opponent has connected stop signs to no walking on grass signs. He has said that people accept safe driving standards because the stop signs are there. This is completely false. Just putting a sign there WILL NOT prevent someone from breaking a law. Just because you're told not to do something, doesn't mean you won't do it! That's why crimes like murder, rape, and robbery happen! My opponent even admits that rules preventing walking on grass are hard to enforce.

For these reasons, prohibiting walking on grass is not effective and it is useless.
I'd like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate... it's been fun!
Freeman

Con

Let me thank XStrikeX for what has been a somewhat strange and yet enjoyable debate.

Voters take notice, this debate is not about whether or not walking on grass should be prohibited or punished by law. The resolution states that, "There should be no signs that prohibit walking of grass." We are only debating whether or not there should be signs which state that grass walking is prohibited. As such, much of what my opponent has written about legal prohibitions of walking on grass is simply orthogonal to the issue at hand.

Contention 1:

My opponent's first contention is completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate.

Contention 2:

My opponent asked:

"How does walking on grass reduce the aesthetic quality of the grass to make it so noticeable by the public?"

Grass that continually gets walked on ends up dying and often times gets replaced by dirt tracks.

"My opponent has said that groundskeepers have to fix the grass. Well, that's what their job is. They have to take care of their grass! That's what their job is paid to do."

I don't see the strength of this rejoinder. The fact that it's the groundkeeper's job to keep up the grass doesn't make it acceptable to mess up grass. It's simply mean-spirited to make people's jobs harder by creating more problems for then. Consider, for example, the logical conclusion that could be drawn from my opponent's own argument. By my opponents own logic, it would be acceptable to go into grocery stores and spill gallons of soda on the floor since it's the janitors job to clean up spills. Clearly, my opponent's argument is misguided.

Contention 3:

"Just putting a sign there WILL NOT prevent someone from breaking a law."

Sure, I will admit that signs don't always discourage people from doing something. However, they do at least some of the time, and this is the whole point. As I have stated earlier, people's conformity to norms is very influential on the way other people behave, and lots of evidence bears this out. [1]

If some people don't walk on grass because of signs that are in place, other people will likely follow their example. Simply put, grass signs are a relatively effective and cheap way to prevent people from walking on grass. Therefore, they should remain with us.

::Conclusion::

My opponent claimed that grass has no aesthetic value, but I don't see how he can conclude this. A lush green lawn is more aesthetically pleasing than a lawn that has wear tracks on it. Moreover, walking on grass in certain areas makes the lives of groundskeepers more difficult. For these reasons, I encourage everyone to vote against the motion.

(References)
1.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by arethusa668 7 years ago
arethusa668
XStrikeXFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vigrant 7 years ago
Vigrant
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 7 years ago
XStrikeX
XStrikeXFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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 cactusbin 7 years ago
cactusbin
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
XStrikeXFreemanTied
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