args

School uniforms ought to be worn in primary and secondary schools.

My opponent's first paragraph consists entirely of arguments that I have already adequately refuted, so I will not be responding to it in detail. "The robe is considered a reminder of the law and a symbol of neutrality." Maybe so. But my core argument still applies: a judge is not an appropriate analogy to a student. Students do not require the same sort of differentiation. Students are not meant to be faceless upholders of the law: each student is a unique individual, and school uniforms spit in the face of individuality. "Con argues that if special apparel enhances judicial thinking, then it should be applied to juries as well." Yes, and special apparel does not necessarily enhance judicial thinking in the case of a jury. "As in the Old West, law enforcement can be identified by those wearing a badge and carrying a gun." And indeed, police frequently wear only a badge and a gun as recognizable characteristics. But as a means of identification, this is far slower and more difficult, and inadequate in many situations. "The military battle dress uniforms are camouflaged, making the soldier harder to identify, not easier." This argument is self-refuting. Soldiers do not wear camouflage because it is a symbol of their position; they wear camouflage so that the enemy cannot see them. "Many have no need to be identified by the public at all, like airline pilots and chefs." A pilot's uniform is somewhat simpler, and more akin to a suit. It is used as a simple recognition of job status. Chefs wear uniforms for various reasons: they are authority figures, they are the center of the kitchen, or they do not want to get food on a nice suit or even a normal outfit. "[T]he five top countries in eighth grade math are [...] Taiwan, Singapore, S. Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan; all having school uniforms." This is mere correlation. It is possible that high performance led to the implementation of school uniforms or that some third factor, such as cultural ideals, led to both. I see both of these as more sensical than that school uniforms caused an increase in performance. For instance, Japanese schools last 240 days of the year as opposed to a mere 180 days [2]. This is a credible cause for increased performance. "Con argues that having uniforms would encourage competition among schools. That is desirable, because it provides additional motivation for students to excel." I happen to disagree. But to accept my opponent's standpoint raises the question, Why is it not desirable for students to compete on a more individual level? Schools are really more about individualism, and no student is ultimately responsible for another student's success. Individual-level competition, by my opponent's standpoint, is more desirable. "The main factor [in educational performance] is focus and discipline." Focus is most likely important. But why discipline? Only a relatively small fraction of students have real difficulty with authority. For others, relatively minor discipline is adequate, which means that school uniforms as a means of discipline are unnecessary. Additionally, this claim seems contradictory with the claim that school uniforms promote identity. Discipline is usually disliked. (What student wants to be restricted and punished?) Further enforcement of discipline would lead to dislike of and separatism from one's school, which is the very opposite of identity. I completely fail to see how school uniforms will increase focus. "[T]he before-and-after experience in Long Beach and Baltimore shows that in less disciplined public schools they are an important factor." This is an important point, and it is therefore worth mentioning that I refuted it in round 2. "We therefore expect that uniforms will have the greatest impact in schools that lack focus, and the least impact in schools that achieve focus through parental involvement. The methodology of Brunsma and Rockquemore was to compare Catholic schools having and not having uniforms to show that uniforms were not the decisive factor". -I fail to see why that is what we expect. -Brunsma and Rockquemore did have a large sample of Catholic schools, but they also included many other schools in their study. {quote} (3) Con argues, "The concept of fashion trends being distracting is pure fiction. Distractions occur due to boring material or boring teachers, and school uniforms don't fix that." So are we to conclude that eighth grade mathematics in Taiwan and Japan is much more exciting than it is in the United States? An that the excitement is intensified by having much larger classes with less student-teacher interaction?{/quote} No, we are not to conclude that. My opponent has put forth a false dichotomy. The increase in test scores can be attributed to many factors more feasible than school uniforms: longer school hours, a higher cultural value on scholastic success, etc. "The less of [fashion trends], the better." Maybe, maybe not. But requiring that students wear uniforms will do very little, if anything, to curtail students' desire for fashionableness. "(4) Con suggests that the rich be taxed to pay for the school uniforms of poor students. That sounds good to me. Agreed." So that contention is conceded? This still leaves the problem that school uniforms cost more, all things considered. "Requiring uniforms takes one expensive item off the agenda for discussion and compromise." Why? Buying a uniform in no way reduces a student's desire to be fashionable. The uniform is only an added expense. "Con argues that uniforms limit self-expression. This is admitting it is a distraction from education." It is a large leap to go from self-expression to distraction. This leap requires justification. "In school, the focus should be on school as a profession." It is true that the primary purpose of school is to provide an education. But it need not be stifling. In fact, if a school is more enjoyable and less stifling, learning is made easier and more comfortable. "School uniforms do limit diversity, just as do police uniforms, military uniforms, and judicial robes." Did my opponent not state that "the judge represents and embodies the court as a whole, not the individual person any longer"? When individuality is removed, diversity is removed. "If expressing oneself through clothing is not allowed, that only leaves intellectual, academic, and social mechanisms for creativity." This is another false dichotomy. It also leaves means that can be harmful, such as inappropriate behavior or violence as means of expression. School uniforms, as I have shown, limit diversity, stifle individuality and cause far more harm than good. [1] http://www.gate.net... [2] http://sitemaker.umich.edu...