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

So in my opponent's argument he mentions how wearing the flip flop correctly means no toe scrunching. How about cleaning you shoes correctly to kill the infection? (1) That may also reduce the risk of bacterial infection yet still give the people the right to wear them! Yes, the bacteria will develop however, bacteria also develops in nature that can be harmful to humans. Shall we ban nature as well? I mean, during the flu season, millions catch the flu. Should we ban people so other's do not catch the flu? You see, my opponent's argument in regards to bacteria literally has no valid justification, We should ban everything that have dangerous bacteria! Lets ban kids because kids enter the house with bacteria! (2) Keep in mind that my opponent has not mentioned any of my govenment points, therefore flip flops should not be mandotory. However, I will continue with my argument It appears to be that my opponent wants be to argue about running. Very well. . . Running can trigger this affect known as "Runner's high" that rush of feel-good hormones known as endocannabinoids. In a 2006 study published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers found that even a single bout of exercise"30 minutes of walking on a treadmill"could instantly lift the mood of someone suffering from a major depressive order. related bone loss. But chances are, you"ve had family, friends, and strangers warn you that "running is bad for your knees." Well, science has proven that it"s not. In fact, studies show that running improves knee health, according to Boston University researcher David Felson "We know from many long-term studies that running doesn"t appear to cause much damage to the knees," Felson said. "When we look at people with knee arthritis, we don"t find much of a previous history of running, and when we look at runners and follow them over time, we don"t find that their risk of developing osteoarthritis is any more than expected" (3) Yes, running has some risk if you run a marathon. That is why, you should not do it all the time as it can be bad for you then. However my opponent never specified at what distance running can be harmful. So running 2 ft is harmful and should be discouraged? Not quite. Running steady distances of your ability is good for you My opponent also mentions how it is easier to clean flip flops than shoes. You can still clean shoes, and there is still a minuscule amount of deaths(?) ( My opponent never stated any deaths made my shoes or boots) My opponent then goes on about how running into someone can result in broken bones. That is a great reason why cars should be banned. But, I never saw my opponent throw cars in there. Conclusion: My opponent brings up how bacterial infection can form in shoes or boots, but never shows valid justification. Bacterial infection can form in houses and nature whereas it can impact humans. Using my opponent's logic it is justified to ban houses and nature. It is impractical to do so, however he never rebutted that. He dropped my government point, which shows that shoes/boots should not be banned. Sources: 1.http://www.howtocleanstuff.net... 2.http://www.quackwatch.com... 3.http://www.runnersworld.com...