args

Students should be required to wear school uniform.

Thank you very much, Westernguy2. Rebuttal to your 1st counter argument, on the freedom and expression: Yes, having expression will not create a disruptive environment, but however, but with uniforms there will be a better environment. There is no harm for freedom of expression, but there is benefits for uniforms. After all, another meaning of the word "uniform" means organized. So while the neg argues that there will be no harm, I argue that there will be no harm AND benefits. Yes, students have the right of expression, but again, uniforms are already used by much of the private schools in our country. If students have to have freedom of expression, then why don't we ban uniforms in those schools? Obviously this does not violate the 1st amendment as much schools already use uniforms, so his counterargument is void, and my 1st contention still stands true. Rebuttal to your 2nd counterargument, on the popularity argument: Agreed. Hairstyles can be expressed for popularity, I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, although enforcing uniform-wearing does not COMPLETELY reduce popularity, it reduces a good portion of it, as most people look at the clothes. And that is still good, and is still a benefit. There is no disadvantage to it. Also, the reason why clothes are the main factors while other details are minor ones is because clothes have brand names. People want to look for good brands, and it tells people if the wearer is rich or not. Hairstyles do not have brands, it is really not considered much. As long as you are wearing Hollister or Nike no one pays much attention to your hairstyle. So, the neg wants completely or nothing. He wants the popularity system to remain, or to be completely destroyed. However, this is a bad attitude, as we are reducing, say, 80% of it, which is much better than not doing it at all. Therefore my second contention is still standing. Rebuttal to 3rd argument, taxes: Actually, this is not true. You say that more taxes are generated with regular clothes. Yes, of course it does! However, this is not a choose-one option. It's not like you have to ONLY buy the uniform and never buy regular clothes again. You can buy both! You can wear normal clothes outside of school, which is actually more than the time inside of school (per week). So basically buying uniforms is an add-on which helps generate revenue alongside regular clothes. Your take is too extreme; people will obviously continue to buy regular clothes. Let's say regular clothes generate x revenue. Uniforms generate y revenue. He says generating x is better than generating y. I say that we generate both x and y. Therefore this contention is still standing. To refute your arguments which you strengthened: 1st contention: A popularity hierarchy is obviously harmful! No one wants to be left out just because they wear ratty clothes. Isn't it better if everyone is on the same level, without rankings based on clothes? Yes, lower people can learn. However, it is not about learning, but the mental damage he/she takes from always being the last one called in kickball, etc. And mental damage does hurt learning. If you are a loner at school because you wear bad clothes, then in a group project you will have no teammates, since no one wants to be with you. Therefore you have to do it all yourself, which is not a good learning way. For your part on hairstyle, I have already refuted above, so your 1st contention is refuted. 2nd contention: You say girls are not rich. Maybe. But girls DO love shopping, and DO love buying. At an immature age they do not know how to save money and will carelessly spend money regardless of how much money they have. And since you are saying girls do not buy too much clothing, you are hurting your own argument/refutation that more taxes will be generated if people buy regular clothes. And you say students can outgrow. Isn't this good, as it generates more revenue? Sure, this may harm the family, but no family is too poor to buy a mere uniform. They spend a lot on school supplies. And your estimate on how much it takes to buy uniforms from k-12 is too extreme. They will outgrow, but probably only in two or three year intervals, not every year. And while it may cause some damage, uniform prices vary, from 20$-249$ (the most extreme). They won't buy uniforms all priced at 249$. And if the family has more than one kid then the older kid can give his old uniform to the younger. Families aren't too rich to buy the most expensive uniforms, every year, for each of their kids. Therefore this contention is refuted. I do not know which contention this is, but you said that more tax is generated with regular clothes. You basically restated your previous statement, and I already refuted that above. Therefore this is refuted. For schools paying for needy families, this is already used in action. It is even used in my school. Therefore this is also refuted. 3rd contention: They wear regular clothes outside of school, obviously. Once school ends, then they wear the uniform until they get home and change. For your joke, haha. And this contention is very illogical as bullies will not just bully people just because they are from a different school. Besides, schools wouldn't be so close that people from both schools can meet on their way home. Again, people will not bully strangers that they do not know. For your personal example, as you have yourself witnessed it, I will not deny it, but keep in mind that your two schools is two out of a million schools in the nation. What may be true for your school may not be true to the millions of thousands of schools out there. As I have rebutted all your counterarguments, I have completely polished all my contentions and they are still standing. I have refuted all your contentions, so they are all void. And not only due to the amount of contentions still unrefuted, or the refutations made, the factor of the winning person should be focused on the reasoning and logic behind their arguments, am I right? Thank you Westernguy2 for having this nice debate with me.