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

My opponent's post above was made up of many points. However, each and every single one of these responses can be thrown out almost immediately. Before I start, I need to mention a violation. At the start of this debate, I have said that we are not questioning the plausibility or irrationality of the proposal. "1. We are not talking about the plausibility of passing the rule. My opponent has set forth a proposition and neither of us will argue that it is absurd, a violation of student rights, or any such thing. This debate will be based solely on the standards that my opponent has set forth in his opening argument. " I did not come up with this idea, my opponent did, and I am the contender, not the instigator. We are both supposed to be taking this issue seriously without accusing it of absurdity. My opponent has VIOLATED this understanding with his last point about how this rule is irrational because it would have been implemented if it were not. This argument can be discarded from the get-go. I will address each point in depth, however, I must make something clear to both my opponent and the audience. Please do not forget who the instigator is, and who the contender is. My opponent is trying to show that this idea is a bad idea, and I am simply responsible for showing the flaws in my opponent's assertion. I go above and beyond my requirements when I discuss why this *is* a good idea. My opponent's last round were all nitpicky exceptions, and from the looks of it, you would think that HE is the contender and not I. Do not be mislead. I do not bear the burden of proposing a foolproof plan, therefore, the fact that my opponent's arguments are made up ONLY of nitpicky exceptions is detrimental to his case. Now, on to my counterarguments of the nitpicky exceptions: 1. Some schools have recess and lunch and of those schools, some schools have it outdoors. In addition, some schools have cafeterias that are in different buildings. Also, for some schools, some students may have some classes that involve walking from one building to another. 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 an they need to walk from one building to another, then it still counts as "off time". 2. Even when indoors, in some schools, sometimes, the heater might be broken in the winter. 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? ". 3. 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 afterschool 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. 4. I did not mean that students are not allowed to have footwear, but they are not allowed to even BRING footwear. I personally don't care what he meant to have said. If my opponent "meant" to say something, then he should have said that instead. My opponent clearly stated: "students can't wear any footwear like shoes, socks, and sandals". He mentioned nothing about bringing shoes. Just as long as they aren't worn. My opponent's anecdote is irrelevant here. The fact that he got punished is too bad for him, but the principal was wrong. 5. If some natural disaster strikes and kids need to evacuate, they should have their shoes. 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? 6. Sometimes, some students will disobey the rules and spit gum on the floor, and sometimes, some students will miss the toilet and students will have to walk on pee. Again, like I said, my opponent is harping on nitpicky and irrelevant possibilities. "What if? " "What if? " What if there were 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. 7. Some schools might have wooden surfaces Then those schools should lay out plastic padding or carpeting, or at the very least, sand down the wood and give it a nice glossy sheen. 8. They might encounter problems in chem lab 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. And of course, the worst for last: 9. Going barefoot can cause diabetes. I feel insulted that my opponent would cite two sources and not even read them. There is no correlation between going barefoot and developing diabetes. It mentions nothing of the sort in any of the three sources my opponent listed. All three sources and this argument can be completely thrown out. As a medical student, I know that students who already have diabetes need to be especially aware of foot wounds, but that is only in the case of a wound. In actuality, going barefoot as a diabetic will actually be beneficial if you are in a safe environment. It relieves constricted blood flow, which is the major cause of foot amputations among diabetics. To conclude: My opponent has spent his entire argument trying to desperately come up with nitpicky exceptions. I was not aware that this debate was about attempting to trap me into an impossible argument, I thought this debate was about reason and logic. My opponent has offered absolutely no evidence for his statement that it is a bad idea in general, absolutely none. Every idea has problems, no idea is perfect. You don't throw a good idea away because of the exceptions, especially if you have absolutely no general reason to reject the idea whatsoever. I have given an exorbitant amount of information on why it would be beneficial to go barefoot. My opponent has not countered a single thing. He has not even addressed or responded to it. His focus is clearly not on evaluating the idea, he can't come up with any objections besides "Oh, it's not perfect, therefore, you lose". This is regretful for him. I hope that his concluding round will be more productive and not so focused on irrational exceptions.