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

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...