args

Mandatory School Uniforms are a violation of free expression

Nice response. The Majority of my Opening Statement is Relevant to the Resolution The central argument in my opponent's first two paragraphs is this: the majority of MaestroEvans's argument is irrelevant to the resolution. It seems that he has misunderstood my intentions with three-fourths of my argument, so I will now explain the significance of three-fourths of my opening statement. I explained how clothing has been regarded and is still regarded as a popular means of expression. Irrelevant? Absolutely not; the significance of clothing as a means of expression is essential to define in order to debate the resolution. The argument that school uniforms violate free expression, specifically free expression through clothing, requires the significance of clothing as a means of expression to be established in the first place. Otherwise, what grounds would my argument have? No ground whatsoever; if clothing was not a means of expression, let alone a popular means of expression, no statement arguing that school uniforms violate free expression through clothing could be made. I then went on to argue that "because uniforms offer (I would say 'restrict students to') a limited range of clothes, it represses [the students' abilities] to freely express [themselves]." My opponent attempted to refute that argument, but none of his rebuttals were effective in contesting my argument. I will tell you why in the following refutations. My Opponent's "First" Rebuttal My opponent basically argued that [students] still have (he implies that, yes, clothing is restricted by school uniforms; he undermined his own position) ways to express themselves through makeup, shoe brands, and anything else not restricted by school uniform policies. Here is an analogy that illustrates the basis of his argument. A class of writers can write whatever they want. They just can't use the letter "e." Can they really write whatever they want? The answer, of course, is no; try to think up as many words as you can in the English language that contains the letter "e." There goes the ability to write in the past-tense, among other things. Now, ask yourself this: how can you freely express yourself if you cannot freely wear the clothes you want? My Opponent's "Second" Rebuttal "Even if we don't have control over anything that we wear or how we appear in any aspect (doubtful in itself), we still control how we act." So? In a school that operates under a school uniform policy, the right to express one's self through the articles of clothing touched by the school uniform policy is nonexistent. "Our actions function as our ability to express ourselves far better than any clothing can, due to the fact that clothing are unable to truly express us without our actions and personality affecting what we wear." Try telling that to the adolescents who love to dress up however they want, like the majority of the kids in source "1." My opponent's "Third" Rebuttal "Even the courts, the people who have decided on the freedom of speech and expression and the like, ruled that school uniforms don't violate our freedom of expression." Pay attention to the wording: "The Clark County School District's policies were not intended to squelch free speech, but instead were aimed at 'creating an educational environment free from the distractions, dangers and disagreements that result when student clothing choices are left unrestricted,' Judge Michael Hawkins said in the majority opinion." [2] That is precisely the goal of a school uniform policy. However, even though the school uniform policy is not intended to infringe upon the students' rights to wear whatever they want, it still violates their right to freely express themselves indirectly. Synopsis My opponent completely ignored the significance of clothing as a means of expression My opponent merely presented other ways that students can express themselves The resolution stands affirmed. 2/8/2013 Sources 1) http://pbskids.org... 2) http://www.freerepublic.com...