Login/Sign Up




Shoes contribute to the degradation of humans as a race and society.
Society

erol
Oct 03, 2007
8 votes
12 debaters
3
2
2
2
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes


erol
Oct 03, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Shoes do indeed contribute to the degradation of humans as a race and society. I will express this through three points. These points are the dependency humans have on shoes, how shoes bring society to develop products which look nice but require regular replacement, and how shoes create a social divide.

Shoes. From your time of birth a large part of us have been dependent on them. We feel that we could not go on without our footwear. This simply proves the point that we have developed a dependency on shoes. Do any other animals strap materials to their feet? I think not. If we never had shoes, our feet would naturally develop protection against the elements. Someone who does not have/wear shoes will have a rougher-skinned foot, which is more resistant to nuisances such as stones and gravel.

In addition to the natural resistance our feet would develop without shoes, a lack of shoes would mean a beneficial difference in how society works. We would create smooth walking surfaces, and keep floors clean. Because we have shoes we have made it so you need shoes, through peer pressure, lack of naturally tough feet, and social dependency

If shoes had never been introduced, we would not need them. We would be more careful with what we put on the ground. We would keep our floors clean. We would have naturally resistant feet. Because of this dependency we have developed on shoes, we have been degraded as a race and society.

Shoes bring people to develop products that are designed to break. Shoes are made so they will fall apart after a certain period of time, which is generally between a few months and a year. Shoe companies do this to ensure that they constantly have the demand for their product. They are not looking out for the well being of society - if they were, they would develop footwear which does not break, in order to save on time and materials. Instead, they go behind the backs of the common person to make a profit. This greatly degrades our society by causing humans to take advantage of others' ignorance.

Finally, shoes create a social divide. Many countries rely on few countries to do work that they do not wish to do, such as making shoes. This can put the entire world at risk - if the countries which produce the majority or shoes decide they don't want to, because of the dependency we have developed towards shoes, we will be thrown into chaos and despair as we try to relocate a whole industry. The two factors of how we are taking advantage of certain countries and how our current system of shoe production puts the world at risk both degrade us as a society, and therefore as a race.

There is also the division between who can afford shoes, and who cannot. The poorer of us cannot afford footwear, and go without. If we didn't have shoes, this division would not exist. The way that shoes divide our society degrades it.

In conclusion, shoes are a degrading factor towards humans. They cause us to depend on them, they bring us to make bad choices, and they divide our world in two. Shoes greatly degrade humans as a race and a society.

 
erol
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

I thank you for your rebuttal, and the opportunity you have provided me to clarify my meaning.

You state that, by my engine of thought, all possessions are degrading. This is simply untrue. Would you please clarify what you mean by this?

A loaf of bread is not a degrading possession. We are necessarily dependent on bread - without it, we would die. Shoes, however, create a dependency which is unnecessary. I find that this contributes to the degredation of humans as a society - what kind of creature depends on something unnecessary? I am not stating that shoes turn us into inhuman monsters, I am simply stating that they degrade us.

You state that you do not wish to live by my engine of thought. This is simply irrelevant - I am saying that shoes degrade humans, not that shoes should no longer be produced. Such a philosophical type of debate doesn't have to directly relate to how you live.

 
erol
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kouunmurasaki Show

I have to disagree. While it is true that some of us have sensitive feet, without the introduction of shoes to the human species, very few or no people would have sensitive feet. As well, if we did not have shoes to protect us, we would be more careful about what we put on the ground, resulting in an overall safer and cleaner society.

 
cbart95
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

The dreaded "Degradation" here is silly stuff like this. This form of moronic subject matter degrades the quality of this forum to such a point that serious people will ignore and shun participation of the site.

Not every subject needs to be stolid plodding dreary issues, but pure idiocy has no berth here either.

 
jonjax71
Oct 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Clothing as a whole is a detriment to society. If we were all nude it would mark the end of deciet.



 
erol
Oct 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kouunmurasaki Show

Is there a problem with having a relaxed philosophical debate? You are twisting my words. I never said that shoes should be gotten rid of. I am debating that they _contribute_ to the _degradation_ of humans. Not that they are non-beneficial. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of what you are saying.

 
erol
Oct 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Thank you very, very much. I'm just getting used to post-based debating, and debating in general, and you've taught me the importance of looking at cause and effect, which I have failed to do.

You've convinced me to change my point of view on the subject. You are correct - shoes do not contribute to the degradation of humans, but rather reflect the degradation of humans. The worst of us is brought out in our shoes, which had inclined me to debate that shoes contribute to the worst of us, which you have expressed is not the case.

Thank you.

 
wicked
Oct 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

While it might not be the Root of All Evil (tm), it certainly might be a cause of a specific, limited kind of degradation.

I must agree that I always thought that the Human organism can't survive in the nature without at least SOME artificial construct deserving pity.
What kind of animal are we anyway?

 
+ Add Argument

5
No


dirtpatch
Oct 03, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

wjile feet may grow accustomed to small pebbles and such, i dont think they will start spouting fur to protect from inclement weather.
also, the same degradation you speak of when it comes to people wanting "nicer" shoes, would still hold true, but in reverse. Some jobs require shoes, like construction. carpenters for instance would have a stigma applied, because they had to wear shoes and others didnt,
This argument hasnt been very well framed, as i am drunk, i apologize.

 
thales
Oct 03, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

Your argument is interesting, but I am naturally inclined toward skepticism when anyone points out a root cause of "degradation." In my experience, they generally display a poor grasp of cause and effect.

I went to an elementary school that had used hypodermic needles on its playground on a fairly regular basis, which got me thinking about your claim that "we" would be more careful about what "we" put on the ground if there were no shoes. For better or worse, most modern societies are insufficiently collectivist in nature to ensure that even the homeless drug addicts will abide by that kind of common-sense courtesy.

There are people in this world who rob, rape, cheat, lie, and kill, and since going without shoes is extremely unlikely to make them see the light, and we all share common stretches of ground, I don't think it would be especially safe for any of us to go barefoot.

In other words: first came the "degradation," then the need for shoes.

 
juggernaut
Oct 03, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show


Shoes do not degrade humans. They just provide foot protections.



 
kouunmurasaki
Oct 03, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

shoes dont degrade humans. they help us. some of us have sensitive feet. and without the shoes to protect us we might get hurt.

 
kouunmurasaki
Oct 03, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

OMG! they are just shoes. their good for us. otherwise we'd have
ugly feet. but thats not my point. my point is that i think it is
stupid to get rid of something benefitial to the human race. what
you are saying is that we dont need shoes to survive, and i
agree. but they sure do make our lives so much easier.

 
vancam
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

I disagree. Certain dependancies are bad others aren't. Being dependant on footwear only perpetuates one of many industries that contribute to the global economy.



 
juggernaut
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show


Using your engine of thought, all clothes are degrading, all possessions are degrading.

Do we really want to live by your engine of thought? No.

But I do know that shows are non living objects and do not have the power to degrade anything.

 
thetree
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
they are shoes. just shoes. i dont think they really are of much significance.

 
gogopoet
Oct 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: erol Show

You have failed to prove a cause and effect relationship on any point. It might very well be that we developed shoes because we were already degraded. I think the social divide reflected by our footwear is just that, a reflection, not a cause for the divide. The economic divide may have nothing to do with footwear. One could argue that the availability of natural resources played a part in that.

 
erol
Oct 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

I have to completely disagree with you on this. Perhaps I should have chosen a word other than degradation, it seems to be looked upon badly.

A high quality debate is often a group of people intelligently discussing a serious issue. They bring forth their points concisely, and do not just spurt out whatever first comes to mind, as several posts I have seen.

A high quality debate is also, in my humble opinion, a debate where a group of people are able to take a _seemingly_ ludicrous topic, such as a connection between shoes and society, and show that it can be debated seriously. This takes much more creativity than a run-of-the-mill "gun crimes are bad" debate. It requires a debater to think philosophically, and realize that everything has a connection to everything.

Of course, the subject of the debate does not make the difference between idiocy and intelligence. The difference is made in what the debaters say. If no real points were introduced to this debate, and people simply rambled on about "wtf, this is stupid", or "hehe, shoes are bad", this would be pure idiocy. In my opinion, this debate is not "pure idiocy", as you state. All it is is a little creativity.

 
loyaltubist
Oct 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Since moving to Vietnam a year ago, I really miss wearing shoes in the house. People leave them outside their door. In the building where I live (a high rise apartment complex), there are many shoes stolen every week. If people kept their shoes on there would be less thievery.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world