args

School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools

1)Rebuttal: Argument 1: "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all." My opponent has stated that "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all." however; he later goes on to say, "Yes, by having everyone dress the same it may reduce some bullying"" This indicates that my opponent is slightly contradictive, no fault of his own. Argument 2: Expression of one"s true self: My opponent has stated that in order to express one"s self, you must have the right to dress how one might feel; however, he also stated that: "most common reason people get bullied is their body size or how they act." This alludes to my statement of, "As my opponent has stated, school uniforms do remove the expression threw clothes; however, children find many other forms of expression: threw gestures, action, and voice." Thus, school uniforms do not remove any such freedom of expression that children cannot replace by some other form of articulation. Argument 3: Identification: My opponent has brought up a very valid point: "In the events of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed children." In the event of such an event, parents would be incapable of coming to the aid of their child. It is up to the teachers, or administration, (the adult in charge) to provide the necessary amount of super-vision to insure the children"s safety. Often times parents are at work so would be incapable of materializing at the scene of the disaster, to help their child any way, thus my opponent"s argument is rendered invalid. Argument 4: "And kids that are forced to wear Argument 3: Identification: My opponent has brought up a very valid point: "In the events of natural disasters or emergencies, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, fires or terrorist attacks, it would be really hard for parents to identify their child from the midst of a milieu of similarly clothed children." In the event of such an event, parents would be incapable of coming to the aid of their child. It is up to the teachers, or administration, (the adult in charge) to provide the necessary amount of super-vision to insure the children"s safety. Often times parents are at work so would be incapable of materializing at the scene of the disaster, to help their child any way, thus my opponent"s argument is rendered invalid. Argument 4: "And kids that are forced to wear uniforms will just be bullied by kids in other schools for having to wear uniforms." If a doctrine of mandatory school uniforms for all public schools was enforced, then this would not be an issue"all students would be warning them, besides those who are home-schooled; thus, this would not be an issue. Rebuttal-over "You said that $30-40 isn't that much. But for some families that is just way too much money. And we are entitled to a free education. They can still have dress codes because those do well, but telling students exactly what to wear is just too far." I did state that $30-40 really would be a minimal impact, compared to the amount of money that students in "free, public education" currently have to pay. As a senior in high school, taking three advance placement courses, and participating in three clubs, I have already had to pay $800.00 in fees. In addition, my little sister who is a freshman, and is taking no honors or advance placement classes but is partaking in a sport, has already had to pay $500.00 in fees. Compared to $1300, thirty to forty dollars is insignificant. My mother makes less than $30000 per year, so I can understand the argument of "That could be just too much on some people." It is rare in my house hold that we are able to have meals every night, but even when my sister had to wear uniforms for her school, we managed. As for the second half of your statement, what is the difference between a dress code and school uniforms? The dress code is a doctrine that dictates exactly what you can ware, by outlining parameters of what you may not ware"hats, belts, flip-flops, etc. are all examples of things that have made the list, here in the Washoe county of Nevada. School uniforms provide several advantages"no longer will students have to worry about whether or not their clothing will be confiscated by the school because of indecent or "violation of the dress code," protection of their skin in scientific environments will be insured"lack of open-toed shoes, long pants to provide against acid burns to legs, etc."protection during physical education, the list goes on. Where it is true to a degree that cleaks will still exist no matter if there are uniforms or not, the effect of bullying can still be decreased when considering the aspect of clothing. My opponent has stated that bullying is bad, but it is ok"people often times live, learn, and cope"but what about those who have not "lived," or "learned?" Bullying starts in schools, and spreads to work places. If one is bullied, and survives, that person often times caries resentment on threw life, returning the bullying favor to those around them. The original bully continues to do so, and no one learns. For some key examples of when bullying went too far, and could have been avoided"we only need to look to Amanda Todd, or the incident at Virginia tech. Due to lack of time, further arguments will come in round 3. Thank you.