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

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?