args

School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

Rebuttal to my opponent"s rebuttal: Argument #1: My opponent has conceded to the correctness of my assertion, to the inaccuracy of her argument. My opponent has also made a claim""barely any bullies bully people on what they wear.""without any concrete evidence. Argument #2: My opponent has once more, agreed to my statement, that children find many other ways to express themselves, mean while making an assertion: "but most people express themselves the most they dress with the different colors and styles." Without any substantial evidence to enforce her assertion. Argument #3: Logically, a parent would not immediately rush to the rescue of their child, in the case of an extreme natural disaster"even if they were to do so, they would be restricted outside of the danger zone, until paramedics or other such emergency crew extracted all children from the destruction. In that event, recognition of the student would not require clothing, because parent and or guardian would be given permission to identify the wounded or past. I will concede though, that there are some people out there, who will disregard all procedures, and attempt to rush to their child"s defense and rescue; in that case, the clothing would provide a point of approach for the adult"in this case though, more children"s lives would be put at risk, because an untrained person is attempting to extract a body from ruble. Argument #4: My opponent is drawing at straws, this argument is completely unnecessary, and hurts my opponent"s case. End of Rebuttal Conduct: My opponents conduct was rather impressive, considering the amount of scrutiny and rejections to her arguments that I put her threw. I was even impressed by the way she handled my mistake upon her gender. I give her many props for that. SNG: I am mostly blind, from what I could tell (with my screen reader program doing the reading,) her spelling was relatively flawless; however, her sentence stricter did not very much. Over all though, I did not have any problems interpreting what she was trying to say. Arguments: For the most part, her arguments were well put together. There was a few issues, covered in my rebuttals; not, in any way her fault. When there is a bit of biased involved, emotions tend to override what little judgment granted to us as humans. Sources: Her first set of sources were well put together, and when asked for what she had referred to, she provided it for me. I would recommend to my opponent to post at the bottom a link, so the voters in her future debates can look at the credibility of her source. Only one other flaw that I could detect. My opponent brought in a bit of statistics. For anyone who has taken a statistics course at the university or college level, you know that voluntary response poles are completely inaccurate. They lack perfect randomization, and the sample pool is usually relatively low. Not to mention, but the pole would naturally retain a bit of response biased"those who wish to impress their peers"and under coverage biased"not everyone might have been asked: jocks, nerds, geeks, etc. I would strongly advise my opponent to stay away from poles that she self-conducts, unless she is using a stratified sampling process with a random number table. Closing statements: I would like to thank my opponent for the wonderful debate. I would also like to oppologize to my opponent for referring to her by the wrong gender, during round two. I will not advise the voters to vote for either Con, or pro"if you have read each round you will know who to vote for. I wish the best to you all, and now I will bid you adieu