args

Uniforms in school

I will not argue that uniforms can be cheaper, but a smart shopper could pick up clothes for cheap to. Second hand stores and yard sales can have hidden gems for less than a uniform as well. Also some uniforms, thought not all, students might find uncomfortable like ones with ties. Being uncomfortable and sitting for hours a day make for a unsatisfactory learning interment.

School uniforms should be banned

Yes, wearing hair accessories, bracelets, etc is always limited. If there are just a few color that are allowed to be worn at most schools, then that isn’t a uniform, that is a dress code. You are contradicting yourself. About boys wearing hair accessories, I agree that it might be pretty weird. But they sure can wear some sort of chain necklace if they are rebellious or some weird Star Wars bracelet if they like Star Wars. Yes, students that join a club might also be forced to use a uniform. Let’s say a student joins an art club. An art club usually encourages students to express themselves through art. An art club usually makes some sort of art show to expose the student’s art. When that happens, students express themselves through art. Another example is a debate club. If you join a debate club, you express and defend your opinions. Debate clubs usually have small debates within themselves or a serious debate with another school. There, students get to know each other. Clothing does represent style in some ways but style doesn’t only show with clothing. For example, if you see someone running in a different style than the others and he/she appears faster than the others, you could say he/she is in a cross country team and is trained in a special way. *style can also mean the way you dosomething If the school joins everyone together for pick-up, it is hard. But, let’s say you are in the mall or a public place and you are looking for someone. Obviously, they all won’t be wearing uniforms. But it is still hard to find them, right? If parents help students choose what to wear, then the student isn’t really expressing his/her style. He/she is expressing their parents. If the uniform that the student bought the first and/or second time, they can return it to the store and buy the correct one for the same price. Again, in order to look their best, this will take time to choose and outfit, which leads back to my previous argument. (If parents help students choose what to wear, then the student isn’t really expressing his/her style. He/she is expressing their parents.) The only occasion you see people from other schools is outside schools. Outside from schools, students don’t have to wear uniforms, so students from other schools won’t make fun of the school. Unless you tell them. If uniforms are ugly, a group of students could make a petition and convince people to sign it in order for a new design to be created and made. School uniforms do save class time. If teachers check if they are using the uniform, it’s probably quick. All they need to do is look at the students. If she spots one that isn’t wearing the uniform, then it will be easy to spot. This won’t take much time Yes, a school’s purpose is to educate. But if there were no forced conditions, a school would be messed up. Things such as stealing and bullying would happen. They do happen, but people are around to stop it. Yes, attire doesn’t interfere with education; no matter what you are wearing, you will end up learning (if you are paying attention). But, again, if attire took time to decide, then you would lose valuable class time. That interferes with education. Of course, there are other ways to feel part of the school community. Let’s put it this way: If you are part of a soccer team and the way you are officially part of it is being “blessed” with the uniform. If don’t wear your uniform, doesn’t that mean that anyone could be part of that soccer team? “Teachers can not only be impress with school uniform presentation, they can…” You agree. Teachers can be impressed. About the other part, what about kids that don’t dress well? The teachers won’t be so proud. FOCUS If you look at other people’s clothing during class because it’s pretty or it says something interesting, you will get distracted and miss the class. If your school used uniforms, then you have nothing to worry about. NO PRESSURE “When everyone is dressed the same, worrying about what you look like isn't so important. There is no competition about being dressed in the latest trend.”, reports TheGuardian. SOURCES: https://www.theguardian.com... http://www.dictionary.com... Note 2: ¡Gracias otra vez y buena suerte! No sabia que tu sabias español, es uno de los 3 idiomas que yo se. Aunque no podamos argumentar usando español, si tienes que usar una palabra en español yo la entiendo. ¡Buena suerte otra vez!

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

My opponent's first paragraph consists entirely of arguments that I have already adequately refuted, so I will not be responding to it in detail. "The robe is considered a reminder of the law and a symbol of neutrality." Maybe so. But my core argument still applies: a judge is not an appropriate analogy to a student. Students do not require the same sort of differentiation. Students are not meant to be faceless upholders of the law: each student is a unique individual, and school uniforms spit in the face of individuality. "Con argues that if special apparel enhances judicial thinking, then it should be applied to juries as well." Yes, and special apparel does not necessarily enhance judicial thinking in the case of a jury. "As in the Old West, law enforcement can be identified by those wearing a badge and carrying a gun." And indeed, police frequently wear only a badge and a gun as recognizable characteristics. But as a means of identification, this is far slower and more difficult, and inadequate in many situations. "The military battle dress uniforms are camouflaged, making the soldier harder to identify, not easier." This argument is self-refuting. Soldiers do not wear camouflage because it is a symbol of their position; they wear camouflage so that the enemy cannot see them. "Many have no need to be identified by the public at all, like airline pilots and chefs." A pilot's uniform is somewhat simpler, and more akin to a suit. It is used as a simple recognition of job status. Chefs wear uniforms for various reasons: they are authority figures, they are the center of the kitchen, or they do not want to get food on a nice suit or even a normal outfit. "[T]he five top countries in eighth grade math are [...] Taiwan, Singapore, S. Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan; all having school uniforms." This is mere correlation. It is possible that high performance led to the implementation of school uniforms or that some third factor, such as cultural ideals, led to both. I see both of these as more sensical than that school uniforms caused an increase in performance. For instance, Japanese schools last 240 days of the year as opposed to a mere 180 days [2]. This is a credible cause for increased performance. "Con argues that having uniforms would encourage competition among schools. That is desirable, because it provides additional motivation for students to excel." I happen to disagree. But to accept my opponent's standpoint raises the question, Why is it not desirable for students to compete on a more individual level? Schools are really more about individualism, and no student is ultimately responsible for another student's success. Individual-level competition, by my opponent's standpoint, is more desirable. "The main factor [in educational performance] is focus and discipline." Focus is most likely important. But why discipline? Only a relatively small fraction of students have real difficulty with authority. For others, relatively minor discipline is adequate, which means that school uniforms as a means of discipline are unnecessary. Additionally, this claim seems contradictory with the claim that school uniforms promote identity. Discipline is usually disliked. (What student wants to be restricted and punished?) Further enforcement of discipline would lead to dislike of and separatism from one's school, which is the very opposite of identity. I completely fail to see how school uniforms will increase focus. "[T]he before-and-after experience in Long Beach and Baltimore shows that in less disciplined public schools they are an important factor." This is an important point, and it is therefore worth mentioning that I refuted it in round 2. "We therefore expect that uniforms will have the greatest impact in schools that lack focus, and the least impact in schools that achieve focus through parental involvement. The methodology of Brunsma and Rockquemore was to compare Catholic schools having and not having uniforms to show that uniforms were not the decisive factor". -I fail to see why that is what we expect. -Brunsma and Rockquemore did have a large sample of Catholic schools, but they also included many other schools in their study. {quote} (3) Con argues, "The concept of fashion trends being distracting is pure fiction. Distractions occur due to boring material or boring teachers, and school uniforms don't fix that." So are we to conclude that eighth grade mathematics in Taiwan and Japan is much more exciting than it is in the United States? An that the excitement is intensified by having much larger classes with less student-teacher interaction?{/quote} No, we are not to conclude that. My opponent has put forth a false dichotomy. The increase in test scores can be attributed to many factors more feasible than school uniforms: longer school hours, a higher cultural value on scholastic success, etc. "The less of [fashion trends], the better." Maybe, maybe not. But requiring that students wear uniforms will do very little, if anything, to curtail students' desire for fashionableness. "(4) Con suggests that the rich be taxed to pay for the school uniforms of poor students. That sounds good to me. Agreed." So that contention is conceded? This still leaves the problem that school uniforms cost more, all things considered. "Requiring uniforms takes one expensive item off the agenda for discussion and compromise." Why? Buying a uniform in no way reduces a student's desire to be fashionable. The uniform is only an added expense. "Con argues that uniforms limit self-expression. This is admitting it is a distraction from education." It is a large leap to go from self-expression to distraction. This leap requires justification. "In school, the focus should be on school as a profession." It is true that the primary purpose of school is to provide an education. But it need not be stifling. In fact, if a school is more enjoyable and less stifling, learning is made easier and more comfortable. "School uniforms do limit diversity, just as do police uniforms, military uniforms, and judicial robes." Did my opponent not state that "the judge represents and embodies the court as a whole, not the individual person any longer"? When individuality is removed, diversity is removed. "If expressing oneself through clothing is not allowed, that only leaves intellectual, academic, and social mechanisms for creativity." This is another false dichotomy. It also leaves means that can be harmful, such as inappropriate behavior or violence as means of expression. School uniforms, as I have shown, limit diversity, stifle individuality and cause far more harm than good. [1] http://www.gate.net... [2] http://sitemaker.umich.edu...

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.

School Uniforms

I don't think schools should have uniforms because an outfit doesn't help you learn. Teens and kids should have the right to dress the way they want to. Your outfit expresses you and your personality. Uniforms don't help your education AT ALL, so what's the point of wearing them?

School uniforms should not be allowed in schools

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. Now I will give my rebuttal. 1) in relation to my point that "school uniforms save both time and money" you say that there is many types of uniforms that pay a whole lot of money as opposed to normal clothes which are cheaper. You also say that "The family will still buy regular clothes because since the student will probably want to wear something more comfortable in their free time". This is not the case. If you think about it, students wearing normal clothes to school everyday of the week results in a much higher demand for clothes to be washed and ready. This means that sooner or later clothing outfits will be used up and there will be a need to buy more clothes. Whereas with the uniform, it solves the potential problem of constant washing and availability of clothes. Despite it's initial cost, it saves money in the long run there will no demand to buy extra clothing. Also you haven't touched off my second part of the point that uniform also saves time so that still stands. 2) I never once claimed that uniforms will end social class discrimination, I merely said that it fixes the problem of students being embarrassed about their clothes. Therefore the uniform reduces the perceptive division of social class as every student is wearing the same thing. You say "Families who have less money can only afford to pay for a couple complete uniforms options thus making the student wear the same outfit often causing it to get more worn and more used thus causing wear so the outfit may be torn and worn out". I still attend school. I have 1 school jumper, 2 shirts and 2 pairs of trousers that last the whole school year. There is little to no wear or tear on them. If a student is careful with their uniform then it can last for a very long time. And of course if a family is scarce in money then I think we can safely say that in that case a uniform would be taken care of very well. Now of course bullying will always exist, with or without uniforms but nobody is talking about a uniform putting an end to bullying; just potentially reducing it on ONE level. If everyone wears the same clothes then it is harder to delineate social class division in theory. It's not a means to an end but at least it helps as opposed to non-uniform schools where picking out different social classes is much more evident. 3) Again yes there is always going to be a bullying problem but the uniform again reduces it on one aspect. Yes students can bully other students about many other things, but not about there clothes in this case so therefore this is a benefit. A student's own clothes do no such thing in hindering bullying. Yes people can hide weapons or drugs in backpacks but with the uniform it reduces the chance of weapons being on the students physical person which potentially reduces the ability of harming other students. Again a student's own clothes do no such thing. Yes uniforms can be stolen too but what do you think is more likely, that a student steals a uniform or that a student steals clothes that appeal to them such as designer sneakers, jackets etc. It is much more likely that student steals what they don't have than what they do have. Again as previously stated, schools where uniforms are required have seen a 95 percent decrease in crime, 90 percent decrease in suspensions, and vandalism on school property decreased by 69 percent. I would like to point out that my opponent has not shown any such statistics that favour non-uniform schools in his argument or cited source. Also I would like to say to my opponent that stating that bullying will exist anyway, or that uniforms can still be stolen etc. is not really making a case that "school uniforms should not be allowed in schools".

Public school students should wear uniforms

My first argument is this: My school is a title school. This means that a lot of the kids that go to school come from lower income families. Because students have the right to a free education, if the school wanted the kids to wear uniforms then they must pay for it. Now lets look at a school system like mine with about 10,000 students. According to learningin21 "Uniform tops cost $26.99, uniforms bottoms cost $34.99 or $44.99, pullovers cost $39.99 and vest cost $35.99." Now each child will need about 3 outfits. This will cost a public school system greatly. Like I said, because you cannot deny children access to public education, the school system must pay for students who cannot afford these uniforms. Please keep in mind that I am only talking about public schools here. Private schools wearing uniforms is a totally different issue. :)