The Instigator
porkbunlover
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
asiansarentnerdy
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Whether crocs are good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,736 times Debate No: 7885
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

porkbunlover

Pro

Melissa, I created a debate just as you asked. I couldn't think of anything so the topic is a bit boring. Accept!!! We'll start debating after you reply. Looking foward to it.
asiansarentnerdy

Con

Okay, we will begin debating the next round. And what is up with your profile picture?
Debate Round No. 1
porkbunlover

Pro

Haha it's me,can't you tell? Anyway, lets just debate this without a specific format, just for fun. (:

Crocs benefit your physical health and mental health in many ways.

In the era of 6 inch heels and new, barely there shoes, your feet have been put to much strain. Crocs, invented in 2002 by three Colorado natives, were first invented as the "perfect" boating shoe. They turned out to be much more. Everyone, from schoolteachers to chefs wear crocs; they're both fashionable and comfortable, something all shoes strive to be. These shoes have built- in arch support, along with circulation nubs and an orthopedic heel cup to support and protect the heel. They are slip and marking resistant made with a material neither plastic nor rubber. The material is closed-cell in nature and anti-microbial, which virtually eliminates all odor. It is non- slip and waterproof, deeming its name the "perfect" boating shoe correct. These shoes not only eliminate plantar pain and achy feet but are also useful in many ways. They are ideal for any type of work that requires standing up for extended periods of time, such as a teacher of sales clerk, and above all helps drastically for people with foot pain or injured feet. The PCCR (proprietary Closed Cell Resin) actually becomes softer as your feet become warmer, bonding to your skin. There are many types of crocs, each suiting your own personal needs; for example, Crocs make a closed sandal called Aspen for medical personnel for the risk of getting fluids onto your toes.

"nchoward", on epinions.com wrote "My new Crocs were on my packing list to the Sierras where I completed 100 of the 230 miles of the John Muir Trail in Crocs. You read that correctly. I walked over 100 miles in Crocs. I crossed streams, walked passes over 11,000 feet, climbed most of Mount Whitney (to about 12,500 feet), and even traversed snow along the trail." That person hiked over 100 miles in a pair of $30 crocs, proving it's sturdiness and usefulness. Further into the review, he/she wrote " I walked blister free at day 3 and at 60 miles into the trip" This proves its comfort and original design work well with your feet.

Now, this can't get any better, right? Nope, check out the cost! [wow, this is beginning to sound like an advertisement] 30 dollars for a shoe used for everything from doing rounds at a hospital to hiking across a desert Both affordable and useful, this shoe can drastically improve your quality of life.

Wearing a comfortable shoe, all the while knowing that it is both fashionable and good for your feet leads to better mental health. It's kind of like calorie- free chocolate with the same taste. You can gorge all you want, but wont gain any weight. Same with the croc. You can wear it all day long, and not fear you have damaged your feet. Each time a person uses their crocs, I would believe it makes them feel a bit happier, and everyone knows happiness is contagious. Building on the happiness statement, Crocs, Inc. recently launched a new recycling program, SolesUnited, for people to donate used crocs do they can be remodeled and donated to people in need of shoes around the world.

Wish you the best of luck (: This will be interesting!

sources:
1)http://www.crocs.fi...
2)http://diabetes.webmd.com...
3)http://www.epinions.com...
asiansarentnerdy

Con

I would like to start off my arguments by refuting my opponent's customer testimony about the Crocs. First off, this story does not seem plausible, because I have owned and worn Crocs before. Even when I would go to the beach in them, sand would seep through into the Crocs because off the ill-fashioned design with the many holes around the shoes. My shoes would be filled with sand after every few steps. Seeing how this is, how can it be possible for a person to hike 30 miles in Crocs and not get sand, dirt, grass and other deposits into his/her Crocs? Secondly, I mean this in no offense to anyone, but what kind of sane person would choose Crocs as the suitable footwear for hiking? A pair of Nikes or hiking boots deems plausible for such a situation. And this customer probably got ripped off, as I know of no one that would spend $30 for a pair of plastic shoes with holes in them. $30 is well enough to buy you a pair of nice tennis shoes, which is obviously the most suitable choice for hiking.

Also, to prove my opponent wrong about her information about how Crocs are good for you, in many cases, Crocs have proven to be detrimental to people of young age. In fact, the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (a consumer safety group) have reported over 40 cases in when young children have been injured because of the Crocs. One such example of this is a young five year old girl who broke her toe as a result of wearing the Crocs to ride up an escalator. Additionally, there are obviously many shoes out there specially designed to eliminate all plantar pain and there are even pads you can insert into your tennis shoes to eliminate odor and sweat, among other things. Seeing as there are other alternatives, why would you choose the unfashionable Crocs?

When my opponent stated that Crocs made people happier and therefore their happiness spreads, do you really think this is the case? We go through many different events each day and experience many wonderful emotions, and does the miniscule amount of happiness created by Crocs, if any at all, really compare to the other things that make us happy each and every day? The answer is no.

And as for the Crocs themselves, get over them. Crocs may have been the "thing" some time, but now, it is all just a silly little fad. Are they really "fashionable?" Do you think shoes with holes all over them are fashionable? This, again, is just a silly fad, and if you seriously love and adore Crocs, then they should only be worn at home and not in public.

For all the reasons listed above, this is why Crocs are bad. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
porkbunlover

Pro

1) Your arguement " Even when I would go to the beach in them, sand would seep through into the Crocs because off the ill-fashioned design with the many holes around the shoes. My shoes would be filled with sand after every few steps. Seeing how this is, how can it be possible for a person to hike 30 miles in Crocs and not get sand, dirt, grass and other deposits into his/her Crocs?" is false because the people simply wore socks... A pair of Nikes would cause foot irritation and have poor or none ventilation, and compared to the easily ventilated Crocs, which would be the better choice? Also, your statement " And this customer probably got ripped off, as I know of no one that would spend $30 for a pair of plastic shoes with holes in them" is again proved false, one because the customer enjoyed these shoes, recommended these shoes, and would wear them again. How does that prove they get ripped off?

And secondly, please get your facts right; these shoes aren't plastic. As I mentioned earlier, the are made out of an material called PCCR, which bonds to your feet and allows maximum ventilation and no stinky odor.

2)"$30 is well enough to buy you a pair of nice tennis shoes, which is obviously the most suitable choice for hiking."

Well, I suppose 30$ COULD afford you a nice pair of tennis shoes, but the overall point is clear. Crocs are useful. Whether its housework or hiking, crocs fit your needs. Think about doing laundry in a pair of tennis shoes.. not so appetizing, eh? (:

3) " In fact, the National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (a consumer safety group) have reported over 40 cases in when young children have been injured because of the Crocs."

In comparison to the millions of people and kids who wear crocs, 40 that are injured isn't so bad. Compared to other shoes, as you suggested, it is actually one of the lowest numbers. at http://www.collegenet.com..., it tells several stories about severe injuries wearing flip flops. One person got into a severe car crash as the result of his flip flop getting stuck under the mat. He had to have extensive surgery and "his whole face looked different". Compare that to a broken toe. Every product comes with hazards, and the Croc is one of them. Crocs have been out for over 6 years, and 40 cases? That's pretty good. Since safety is not a big issue, my next point is the alternatives. If you yourself said that Crocs were unfashionable, yet wore them to the beach, what does that say?

Also, what alternatives are there? This argument is not about plantar pain, or other things, its about whether or not Crocs are good overall.

We all know little things in life make us a bit happier, and why not have happiness and physical health all in one package?

My last point is in response to your last argument: "This, again, is just a silly fad, and if you seriously love and adore Crocs, then they should only be worn at home and not in public."

Ummmm, if the person adores Crocs, why wouldn't they be worn outside??

Anyway, don't ask what I think is fashionable, look at yourself and millions of other Croc buyers. If you wore the Crocs, outside, to the BEACH, wouldn't you consider it the least bit fashionable? And if it is a silly little fad, fads are contagious, no matter how little or how silly. For example, the checkered Vans shoes. In China, they wear them all the time. Once they brang them here, it became a "silly little fad" and they made millions. Again, "silly little fads" are the basis of teenage life. If one kid has one, the other has to get one.

For these reasons, my arguments are superior. Vote Pro.

Look forward to hearing your reply. (:
asiansarentnerdy

Con

Just as my opponent has done, I will make my responses to her arguments in accordance with the numbers.

1) Why would any sane person wear shoes with a quality similar to plastic to go hiking? And this "better" ventilation that my opponent mentions in the Crocs actually prove detrimental if a person is crazy enough to wear them to go hiking. The holes in the Crocs let sand and other deposits seep through into the shoe, so that when you are finished hiking, you end up with a shoe full of sand, dirt, and whatnot. To my opponent- ask yourself this: why don't you see people going hiking in Crocs everyday? Why do people wear Nikes when going hiking? It's because it's the better choice, those shoes were made for the outdoors, whereas Crocs are something like flip-flops and are not made for the outdoors.

And the money issue had no similarity to the customer satisfaction. I could buy an amazing TV for $100,000, enjoy it, but still feel like I got ripped off nevertheless. Moreover, this is one customer. If I brought a failed product and boasted its quality, would that make the product good again? Point is, the Crocs aren't worth their quality. With a quality similar to a mix of rubber and plastic, they aren't worth the $30 you pay for them.

2)As I stated above, Crocs are ill-fitted to use for hiking. My opponent has failed to prove this point otherwise. Crocs are not worth the money you pay for them. And secondly, my opponent's second point can be used against her. Why would you do laundry in hard Crocs? Why not do them in soft slippers designed to be worn at times like doing the laundry?

3) I must agree to the comparison rate that my opponent pointed out. But other shoes like Nikes or Converse have even lower injury rates. Why not go with the shoes the have no injury rates at all?

And the alternatives issue. Just because I wore them to the beach, doesn't make them fashionable. I am no famous idol or celebrity. Why should people look to me to decide whether or not shoes are fashionable? The alternatives I point out are the shoes that do better than the Crocs. It is because Crocs are ugly and ill-designed that we should go with the alternatives in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point?

Lastly, the fad issue. We all know what fads are. And let's face it, the Crocs fad is done and over with. When a fad is in existence, I must agree with my opponent in that everyone must get one, but THE CROCS FAD IS DONE AND OVER WITH. After the fad is dead and non-existent, people seldom return to it. Seriously though, how many people still thinks Crocs are fashionable today?

Take a look at these websites for professional opinion on Crocs, and don't look at me. I'm no fashion expert, I just state what I believe.
http://racked.com...
http://www.boston.com...
http://www.collegian.psu.edu...

For all the reasons listed above, I have my side of the debate on Crocs. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
porkbunlover

Pro

Thanks for replying.

1) As I said before, just wear socks! Also, about the TV, how is this relevant to Crocs? And secondly, if you bought a failed product, why in the world would you boast its quality? It doesn't make sense. And, again, it isn't at all similar to plastic and rubber. You can't say bacteria is similar to humans because they are both living, right?

2)Crocs are not ill fitted for hiking. Take for example the person I mentioned earlier. She walked through streams, snow, and rocks, but ended up with no blisters or stinky shoes. And to answer your question, Crocs are not "hard" as you put them; you are contradicting yourself. Before, you said the Crocs' cushioney material caused injuries; now you are referring to them as hard? And lastly, I was just pointing out the various ways Crocs can be used. The can be used virtually anywhere, unlike soft slippers...

3) Why not go with the shoes with no injury rates at all? Well, first, they are bound to have injuries; every product comes with risks. And secondly, they aren't comfortable doing various things; while the Crocs can be used virtually anywhere.

The alternative issue: I have already refuted your alternative suggestions, and I was only using you as an example because you have been contradicting yourself.

Lastly, if you aren't any fashion expert, then should you really be telling me whether or not Crocs are fashionable?
Also, even if they aren't fashionable, they are better then a lot of shoes.

For all the reasons above, my arguments are superior and the fact my opponent agreed with me on most of the things proves my case is better. Also, she failed to answer many of my questions and contradicts herself.Vote affirmative.

P.S. I checked out your links-- they don't really say how crocs are ugly..., and they are personal opinions- about two of them. There are millions of buyers who like crocs and think they are fashionable-- what does two people have against Crocs?And finally, the last website says how Crocs are plastic. They certainly don't know what they're talking about, so are you using them as a source? It also mentioned how Crocs could be used for gardening. Why, thank you for building my case!
asiansarentnerdy

Con

1) My opponent fails to realize that whether you wear socks or not, the deposits still get in there. Who would willingly hike or continue going about business with a shoe full of dirt/sand? Even if it does not touch your feet, the fact is that it's still very uncomfortable to walk on bunches of dirt. Since my opponent has failed to disprove this fact, we must assume it is true, and no one wants to walk with their shoes full of dirt. And plus, you would get nasty sock stains along with the discomfort.

Secondly, about the boasting of the failed product, that's the whole point. Just because one customer (let's refer to the one my opponent mentioned) boasts of a product's quality and excellence, that does not change the quality nor the product itself. And she has failed to provide me with any other evidence of customer satisfaction besides this one customer versus the, as she stated in her previous argument, nearly millions of other people who wear Crocs.

My TV scenario was an example in reference to the Crocs and how they are not worth their price.

2) Crocs are ill-fitted for hiking. My opponent has failed to rebut my points about the bad choice of Crocs for hiking but keeps repeatedly mentioning this one customer. And I have already proved why that customer is wrong.

There are other choices of shoes that can be used virtually anywhere too. Take sandals for example. Same as the Crocs, but more fashionable, and WAY better in quality.

3) My opponent states, "Why not go with the shoes with no injury rates at all? Well, first, they are bound to have injuries; every product comes with risks.." she contradicts herself twice in this sentence. Additionally, I have already proved that Crocs also have injury rates.

And I am not a fashion expert. That is why I have provided my opponent with a list of other websites to refer to. My opponent has no right to be talking in the fact that I have two people, because at least that is one more than what she has provided me. She keeps boasting of the "millions of people who enjoy Crocs" yet only provided us with evidence of one.

To sum it up, Crocs are a bad fashion choice and a bad shoe overall. They are ill-designed and are not worth the money. I have disproved all of my opponent's points and supported my own side. Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
It wasn't noticeable at all. :)
Posted by porkbunlover 8 years ago
porkbunlover
Melissa, In one of the sentences, I meants to say non- slip, not slip. Sorry, my mistake.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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 trendem 8 years ago
trendem
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by porkbunlover 8 years ago
porkbunlover
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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 studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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 PostInsanity 8 years ago
PostInsanity
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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 untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
porkbunloverasiansarentnerdyTied
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