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.