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

Remember that in proposing an idea, it is a good idea to throw out the idea if there is something flawed with its core. Exceptions that might clash with the general proposal are minor things that can be tweaked. My opponent is searching through the most improbable and ridiculous situations to fool the audience into thinking that there is something wrong with this proposal. However, my opponent has mentioned absolutely NO problem with the idea in general! The only thing he has, are the exceptions. He has offered no evidence for his position, only criticized mine. Furthermore, I have pointed out many fatal errors in his arguments that he did not have the courage to admit he was wrong to, and he has opted instead to pretend that his errors have never happened. For example: The complete and total lie that going barefoot causes diabetes. What next? That it causes cancer? Abortion? Not only has my opponent refused to own up to his misleading statements, my opponent has decided that instead of challenging all the information that I have brought forth in this debate about the health benefits of spending more time barefoot, he wants to spend his last post continuing his efforts in pointing out nitpicky and irrelevant exceptions. This was his choice as a debater, even though I feel it was a bad choice. He has chosen to make his entire argument about defending weak exceptions, so I will finish by finally resolving those issues. 1. Students who need to eat at the cafeteria outside the school building or who need to go outside to another building for class may be exposed to problems. In that case, students should be scheduled to have all of their classes in one building on one day and another building on another day. In addition, a cafe/canteen/food dispensing area should be installed at each building, or they should also mandate that students bring their own lunch. There are many things that can be done that will both improve school life and make the barefoot policy work. 2. Heaters are machines and machines break, and schools don't have enough money to fix them, so on the offchance that the heaters break, your proposal should not be accepted. Then the schools should get more funding. This nitpicking is so far divided from the actual subject that it borders on absurd. If the heaters break during winter, it's insignificant compared to the length of time which the students are barefoot the whole year round. That's like saying that people should never cross the street because sometimes, the light is red. 3. Football, baseball, and basketball are good activities and since they are good activities that involve shoe use, then your proposal should not be accepted. I'm not saying that they aren't good, I'm saying that they aren't any better. Kids who focus on the game may build better skills, but the goal of PE should not be to build physical skills anymore, because those skills are specialized. Sports like track, aerobics, yoga, tai-chi, and gymnastics are far more focused on improving health and vitality instead of focusing on hitting a ball better, or kicking a ball better. We need to have kids active in ways that aren't completely useless and trivial. I would rather have kids be less obese and not have high blood pressure than to have them be skilled at throwing round things into other round things. However, that's besides the point. All of those sports can be offered after school if they so choose. While in school, they don't need to play those sports and they don't need shoes. 4. Tornadoes and Earthquakes My opponent essentially wastes a huge chunk of space with irrelevant sources about irrelevant things. Yes, we are aware that earthquakes occur. Yes, we are aware that disasters happen. However, my opponent is saying that we should abandon a year-round program because a disaster that occurs once every 50 years or so MIGHT occur. In that case, I guess every student in america should have a parachute on at all times in case terrorists fly planes into their school buildings and they need to jump out the window to escape. I hope that neither the audience nor my opponent will take offense to the fact that I do not feel that it is necessary for me to address that point, I am sure that everyone understands why I find these nitpicky exceptions not to be worth the audience's time. 5. Saliva and the Toilet Again, I'm not even going to address this. It's insulting to me as a debater and it is insulting to the intelligence of the audience. I respect my opponent's desire to harp on these insignificant points, but I also hope he respects my decision not to comment on them. I have already made my point many times about how these trivial matters are meaningless. 6. Chemical spills Apparently, my opponent did not read my post. I am aware that these chemicals are used. I am saying that they should not be. There is nothing that you can learn from grades K-12 in a public highschool that you cannot learn from watching the instructor. The danger is not necessary, so my opponent's point is null. I am going to conclude in a very frank way. My opponent has said absolutely nothing in this debate. He, as the instigator, had a burden to fulfill. He was required to show that there is something inherently wrong with the concept of the proposal. Instead, he spent all his time and my time harping on nonsensical and irrelevant exceptions. His hope was to list as many improbable situations as possible, that a barefoot policy might be bad for. The fact of the matter is, my opponent is too desperate. My opponent has no objection to the proposal, my opponent has no response to all the data I have supporting the health benefits of having children spend more time without footwear. My opponent has nothing to say and the only thing he has been doing the entire debate, is bringing up *possible exceptions*. They aren't even *exceptions*, but just *possible exceptions*. As I said before, no plan is perfect, there will always be instances in which a plan cannot satisfy everyone and everything 100%. My opponent would have us believe that every school in America is made up of several buildings, separated by 2 miles of broken glass, where it rains and hails and snows all the time (of course, when Earthquakes and tornadoes aren't hitting the school, which is every day), and of course, the cafeteria for the school is 2 miles of broken glass in the opposite direction. Furthermore, my opponent suggests that every school in America has wooden floors filled with splinters and gum, broken heaters, and bathrooms that are drenched in urine. Audience, ask yourself: Is this the correct representation of the normal American school? Obviously not. I have debunked all of my opponent's arguments. I have presented data for my proposal that has gone uncontested. My opponent's last defense, a huge string of useless nitpicking, has also been debunked. He has not met the resolution, I have, thus, I urge a PRO vote. Thank you to the audience, and to my opponent.