Sloths should be forced to wear shoes

1. Natural selection has already told us that sloths should be in trees, not on the ground. Additionally, sloths are camouflaged in trees (green), but not on the ground (brown), where hunters could just step on them, and they'd be dead. On the ground, sloths are sitting ducks. 1.1. My opponent hopes that sloths would do better on the ground than in trees. However, nature has alraedy put sloths in trees, and they'd probably go extinct before they fully adapted to the ground. 2. Every animal should defend itself in whatever way necessary. My opponent wishes to ground sloths to force them to fight where they typically avoid fighting (I wonder why. .. ? Maybe because they'd die? ), and jaguars would rip them to shreds. Additionally, what if a sloth would be unable to survive a fight, but could possibly climb away? The shoes would prevent this entirely, and the sloth would DIE. As for my opponent's example, the sloths have chosen the trees, and they know more about their own lifestyle than my opponent. The sloths have probably adapted their fighting to the trees along with the rest of themselves, and would therefore rather fight in the trees. Remember, the jaguar is also limited once it reaches trees, but the sloth would not be as limited, being used to living in trees his entire life. 3. Sloths currently have the option to roam wherever they want, but they prefer the trees, for obvious safety reasons. My opponent wishes to force them to venture out where they'd likely be killed or driven out by more adapted animals. The freedom of mobility is better than being forced to have mobility. Additionally, why force sloths to use more energy climbing trees? This would require them to eat more, thus making them eat more leaves, thus leaving less sunlight for the trees, thus stunting their growth, thus making the area have less wood, and we'd have less of the valuable resource we call paper [1]. 4. Animals with families are generally safer than animals out in the wild, and also receive more care. Although, my argument is not that zoos are justified, but that forced shoe-wearing is not. My opponent again advocates "giving" sloths more space by forcing them to abandon the trees, but this restricts their freedom to stay in the trees. 4.1 Again, I am not advocating zoos, but fighting the waste of resources called forced shoe-ing. 4.2 My opponent relies on the investment to make us want to protect the sloths. However, why not just illegalize hunting sloths without wasting so many resources. Shoes aren't going to dissuade hunters. That's just saying, "free shoes with every kill! " 4.3 My opponent ignores the fact that when the company stops producing sloth-hunting accessories (or at least cuts production, as sloth-hunting accessories work for most any animal), then the company lays off workers. Additionally, there's still no reason to have to use this "surplus" of money for shoes. 5. Epic or not, a sloth with sunglasses cannot change facts. In conclusion, I have refuted my opponent's answers. The sloths would overall be harmed by the restrictive nature of shoes, forcing them to abandon their homes, the trees, likely to be brutally murdered by jaguars. Vote CON. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...