args

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

On the Long Beach Study: My reason for questioning the Long Beach study is not merely because I "don't see it", but is because there is no evidence that school uniforms are responsible for the change in behavior. The study only took two data samples which were six years apart, so it is irrational to jump to the conclusion that school uniforms caused the miraculous change. The change is more likely due to an increase in school security or education school programs [1] [2]. It is worth noting that a possible cause of the changes is the "educational reforms" my opponent refers to in round 1. My opponent dismisses this: "If dramatic improvement could be achieved effortlessly, the 'reforms' would surely be adopted universally, which they were not." This logic is flawed for several reasons. 1. The same logic can be applied to school uniforms: if school uniforms really caused the dramatic improvement, they would be adopted universally, which they were not. Since school uniforms were not adopted universally, then by my opponent's own logic they are not beneficial and my opponent's entire case is shattered. 2. It is possible that the LBUSD was not aware that the educational reforms had caused the improvement; they clearly believe that it was due to the uniform policy. There are several possible causes of this, notably a bias caused by the great parental support of school uniforms. Regardless of whether there was a bias, it is highly likely that the LBUSD misattributed school uniforms as the cause, causing most people to ignore any other possibility. While it is true that I did not offer rebuttal evidence, I do not need any, as my opponent has failed to show the causation between school uniforms and increased performance. He asks that his claim be accepted without any proof of causation, and this request is absolutely ridiculous. ====== On the Baltimore Study: All references to the Baltimore Study should be discarded due to lack of supporting evidence. ====== On the Brunsma and Rockquemore Study: My opponent claims that the study is biased; however, this is unwarranted. My opponent's only reason for claiming that they were biased is that B&R thought that in Long Beach, "educational reforms" were more likely responsible for the change than school uniforms. But I already refuted this point in "On the Long Beach Study". My opponent's rebuttal is inadequate, merely reiterating points which I have already refuted. B&R shall be accepted as valid evidence. ====== On East Asia: As I have previously stated, the high educational performance in countries such as Japan and Taiwan should not be attributed to school uniforms, and are more likely due to cultural paradigms. See my explanation in round 3. East Asians place great emphasis on discipline and conformity. Americans place emphasis on individuality; every student is pushed to succeed. These vast cultural differences are probably responsible for the difference in performance; it takes a leap of faith to attribute performance to mere uniforms. ====== On Student Desire for Uniforms: My opponent argues that students do not always know what is in their own best interest. He makes a fair case, but of course I never argued that students' desires were important. It is a weak argument, and of course my opponent was able to refute it. ====== On Diversity/Self-Expression: Limitations on diversity lead to students feeling oppressed, even if it is only in dress. Oppression leads to disorder, struggle and rebellion. "[I]f a student wants his school to do well. . . " Forced limitations of self-expression lead to a desire to distance oneself from one's school, not to a sense of school spirit. "I did not propose a dichotomy. I [said] that the academic benefit of diversity is in intellectual considerations, not traditional costumes." That is not what my opponent said: "If expressing oneself through clothing is not allowed, that only leaves intellectual, academic, and social mechanisms for creativity." In response to his new point, of course I agree. But he is limiting his scope to academic benefit. Students must not be stifled, or they will suffer. This will indirectly but inevitably lead to a decline in performance. ====== On School Cooperation: My opponent makes some interesting points on the detriments of individual competition. However, they are not advantages for group competition; they are merely disadvantages for individual competition. Schoolwide cooperation is useful, as my opponent has shown. And I agree that competition between schools can lead to cooperation within schools; but there are harmful side effects of inter-school competition, and there are other ways to promote cooperation. School competition can lead to problems, as seen in competition between sports teams; people supporting sports teams sometimes get aggressive towards the opposing team, and in rare cases even kill them [3]. But cooperation can be encouraged in a safer way. For example, there could be some schoolwide goal which must be met. Or there could be an attempt to score better than the previous year. These means enjoy the benefits of competition without the negative side effects. ====== On Discipline: My opponent has put forth no evidence that school uniforms lead to an increase in discipline. His only evidence is that East Asian schools are more disciplined and they use school uniforms, but I destroyed the possibility of causation in my East Asia section. "Members of highly disciplined professions like police and the military take pride in their uniforms because they recognize that their professions benefit from." At first, this claim sounds convincing. But we should remember that my opponent has brought forward zero evidence to support this claim. "Are the children of parents who impose little discipline in fact happier than those who receive reasonable discipline? They are not." Once again, my opponent lacks evidence. But even with evidence, there is still no causal link between school uniforms and "reasonable discipline". ====== On Costs: "They may desire to be fashionable, but the ability to express the desire will be significantly limited by disallowing it at school." It does not, however, limit their desire nor their ability to purchase fashionable clothing, so expenses remain the same. "Baltimore parents paid for poor students uniforms and [it] lowered their overall costs." This claim is unsupported. In the end, my opponent's arguments about uniforms reducing costs are silly. First, there is no logical way that buying additional material can reduce costs. Second, the matter is trivial. The cost of uniforms was never a major contention for either side. ====== Conclusion My opponent's arguments against my case rely on leaps of faith, and severely lack evidence. My opponent repeats points that I have already refuted; his entire first paragraph is an example of this. He claims "evidence of experience", despite the fact that he has consistently failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. The Long Beach study unjustifiably makes the leap from correlation to causation, and my opponent has not discussed the Baltimore study at all. In essence, my opponent's case has fallen out from under him, despite his attempts to support it with pretty words and made-up evidence. My case still stands: school uniforms stifle self-expression; the Brunsma and Rockquemore study showed minimal correlation between uniforms and performance; and, of course, thou shalt not create unnecessary entities. After the fall of my opponent's case, the school uniform is an unnecessary entity. Resolution negated.