args

School uniforms should be banned.

Temmo you fail to realize that the topic is suppose to say school uniforms should not be banned.Regardless if you refute my points you yourself have failed to state any points.If you were as intelligent as you seemed you would have put points.Now the win is mine. (Note: Temmo you say assasination is creative only in the eyes of a killer.You again fail at stating the point.) Freedom of speech regardless you got off point how do you know most people dont like creativity.And if they dont then at least the do not have to wear the exact same thing everyday.My point about bulling is that weather you have ripped jeans or silk trousers you will still be made fun of about the following: the way your face looks,your hair looks,your look (in general),or a yo mama joke.My point is that bullies will always find something to make fun of weather its your clothes of not.Am I right I am creative and analytical but I still dont want to wear the same thing everyday.

Uniforms

I do believe certain schools do go too far with the uniforms. The schools that I have seen in my area for example, start using uniforms as early as Pre K- 3. That, in my opinion, is an exaggeration. However, at some point in their lives, children need to start using uniforms in order to get accustomed to their adult lives. We can not just say, "Let them worry about that when they are adults", because even as adults some people just can not get used to it. I run into this situation all the time in both of my workplaces. Also, in response to the financial burden that uniforms impose, I would have to disagree with you. Uniforms impose less of a burden than not using one. For example, I work for an employer where my uniform consists of a gray polo style shirt, and black pants. Currently, as far as clothes for work, I have two shirts. and two pants. Now, just imagine using only the same two shirts and two pants for school every day, for months in a non-uniform setting. There would be so much potential for ridicule by the other peers. Especially in their teen years when peer acceptance is so strongly desired. Choices then would be either (A) risk ridicule or (B) buy more clothes than many parents can afford. As far as your statistics go, the numbers you mentioned are only going to get bigger. The declining middle class, and the increased awareness of bullying, and perhaps pseudo- bullying, are going to make uniforms for of a necessity.

Should STEAM magnet schools wear school uniforms

Tsk, tsk. So biased, yuriy, being so foolish and saying that it makes us look like nerds. It truly shows your inner side; A stupid, biased hater of It truly shows your inner side; A stupid, biased hater of school uniforms because they look like 'cheep nerd cloths'

Uniforms In Schools K-12

I am proposing an argument based on the necessity for school uniforms. The debate over whether or not school uniforms should be mandatory has been a long standing issue for school administrators, students, and parents alike. The pros and cons for each side have resulted in a split decision in which some schools adamantly enforce the uniform policy while others employ lighter dress codes. However, with the implementation of a dress code, as opposed to a uniform policy, students retain the freedom to dress as they choose within their means. While there are benefits to this freedom, there are unfair burdens that accompany this kind of liberty. Public schools should enforce a mandated uniform policy because, in doing so, they have the ability to minimize inequalities among students. In this debate, all I ask is that my opponent use the bullet system (as opposed to paragraph) when stating his/her arguments. *Policy Proposition: I advocate that students in K-12 public schools should be required to wear a mandated school uniform. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defining key terms: Mandate: –verb (used with object) (1) to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law. (2) to order or require; make mandatory: to mandate sweeping changes in the election process. **Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... School Uniform- (1) A set of standardized clothes—worn primarily for an educational institution (2) Traditionally, school uniforms have tended to be subdued and professional. **Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Examples- (1) Males: "Navy straight legged pants, no larger than one size bigger at the waist and one inch off the ground. The shirts are white with a mandatory collar and have to be tucked in." (2) Females: "Navy jumpers, skirts, walking shorts, slacks with a white blouse tucked in." **Source: http://findarticles.com... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Grounds: 1. School uniforms make getting dressed easier and less time consuming for both parents (who dress their children) and students (those who dress themselves). 2. Uniforms are less expensive than current clothing trends, thus they are more economical. 3. Uniforms would eliminate students being ostracized based on what they wear. 4. Uniforms provide a level of safety in schools - they make identifying those who do not belong at the school easy, in addition gang affiliations are eliminated. *Warrant: Because school uniforms are time efficient, economically beneficial, create appearance neutrality, and maximize school safety, K-12 students should be required to wear mandated school uniforms.

Uniforms In Schools K-12

Your first argument is a transfer fallacy of composition. In other words, it relies on the assumption that what is true of the part (a student with 4 uniforms) is also true of the whole (students with more or less uniforms). By saying that a student "essentially could not attend school" because of unavailable uniform pieces is a bit of an exaggeration. Most schools have a supply of appropriate attire for students to borrow in emergencies. In addition, students who have as many regular clothes as they do uniforms would do the same amount of laundry; therefore making the time spent washing clothes equivalent. The problems you state could just as easily apply to regular clothing. We cannot assume that students who do not wear uniforms have an excess of clothes that are appropriate for school. To argue my claim that school uniforms make getting dressed easier and less time consuming, I propose that we consider other elements of time conservation. 1. Time spent shopping for regular clothes is more time consuming than ordering or picking up a designated uniform. 2. For parents of young children who do not dress themselves, uniforms provide an easy, hassle-free formula for getting dressed in the morning. 3. Those who do not wear uniforms will spend more time picking out what to wear than those who wear uniforms. 2. True, there are situations in which buying/making regular clothes are more economical, and taxpayers may experience an increase. However, whether or not the student wants to wear the uniforms is insignificant (plenty of taxpayer dollars go to things they/others do not want). Thus: 1. Taking into consideration that these uniforms would be used for public schools, the selection of uniforms mandated would probably be priced lower than those of private schools or the more expensive uniforms 2. Uniforms can be bought at places such as Walmart/thrift stores. In these cases buyers would not experience much change in price or quality of clothing. 3. Students who cannot afford uniforms have the option to receive free/reduced priced uniforms that have been donated. 3. You have some good points. There are many things to tease a student over besides the shirt they come to school in. But with the implementation of mandated uniforms: 1)I think we can both agree with one student's account, "The fact is, it really did eliminate clothing as one more thing to obsess about, or pick on people for. It didn't eliminate all teasing or bullying by any means, but it was still an improvement…" **Source: http://www.americasdebate.com... 2) As a veteran teacher, Cecilia Hall writes, "I have taught 40 years and have seen increased PRESSURE in the area of fitting in… plus the clothing industry has taken us WAY OVER the line in sexualizing our young people." **Source: same as above 3) School uniforms would decrease the amount of anxiety students experience, and reinstate a level of appropriateness in educational settings. 4. School uniforms would provide a level of safety in that: 1. People who do not belong at that school can be quickly/easily identified. This is undeniably one element that schools without uniforms must face. 2. Reducing violence stemming from socio-economic status, i.e., conflicts stemming from comments and personal attacks about who has better clothing and so on. **Source: http://www.schoolsecurity.org... 3. One major case study of the effects of adopting school uniforms in Long Beach, CA which appeared in Psychology Today, reported the following effects from the switch to uniforms: * Overall, the crime rate dropped by 91% * School suspensions dropped by 90% * Sex offenses were reduced by 96% * Incidents of vandalism went down 69% These results show a significant change in behavior when students wear school uniforms. Yes, there are cases of violence in schools with uniforms but the overall violence decreased. **Source: http://www.edu...

Mandatory School Uniforms are a violation of free expression

Nice response. The Majority of my Opening Statement is Relevant to the Resolution The central argument in my opponent's first two paragraphs is this: the majority of MaestroEvans's argument is irrelevant to the resolution. It seems that he has misunderstood my intentions with three-fourths of my argument, so I will now explain the significance of three-fourths of my opening statement. I explained how clothing has been regarded and is still regarded as a popular means of expression. Irrelevant? Absolutely not; the significance of clothing as a means of expression is essential to define in order to debate the resolution. The argument that school uniforms violate free expression, specifically free expression through clothing, requires the significance of clothing as a means of expression to be established in the first place. Otherwise, what grounds would my argument have? No ground whatsoever; if clothing was not a means of expression, let alone a popular means of expression, no statement arguing that school uniforms violate free expression through clothing could be made. I then went on to argue that "because uniforms offer (I would say 'restrict students to') a limited range of clothes, it represses [the students' abilities] to freely express [themselves]." My opponent attempted to refute that argument, but none of his rebuttals were effective in contesting my argument. I will tell you why in the following refutations. My Opponent's "First" Rebuttal My opponent basically argued that [students] still have (he implies that, yes, clothing is restricted by school uniforms; he undermined his own position) ways to express themselves through makeup, shoe brands, and anything else not restricted by school uniform policies. Here is an analogy that illustrates the basis of his argument. A class of writers can write whatever they want. They just can't use the letter "e." Can they really write whatever they want? The answer, of course, is no; try to think up as many words as you can in the English language that contains the letter "e." There goes the ability to write in the past-tense, among other things. Now, ask yourself this: how can you freely express yourself if you cannot freely wear the clothes you want? My Opponent's "Second" Rebuttal "Even if we don't have control over anything that we wear or how we appear in any aspect (doubtful in itself), we still control how we act." So? In a school that operates under a school uniform policy, the right to express one's self through the articles of clothing touched by the school uniform policy is nonexistent. "Our actions function as our ability to express ourselves far better than any clothing can, due to the fact that clothing are unable to truly express us without our actions and personality affecting what we wear." Try telling that to the adolescents who love to dress up however they want, like the majority of the kids in source "1." My opponent's "Third" Rebuttal "Even the courts, the people who have decided on the freedom of speech and expression and the like, ruled that school uniforms don't violate our freedom of expression." Pay attention to the wording: "The Clark County School District's policies were not intended to squelch free speech, but instead were aimed at 'creating an educational environment free from the distractions, dangers and disagreements that result when student clothing choices are left unrestricted,' Judge Michael Hawkins said in the majority opinion." [2] That is precisely the goal of a school uniform policy. However, even though the school uniform policy is not intended to infringe upon the students' rights to wear whatever they want, it still violates their right to freely express themselves indirectly. Synopsis My opponent completely ignored the significance of clothing as a means of expression My opponent merely presented other ways that students can express themselves The resolution stands affirmed. 2/8/2013 Sources 1) http://pbskids.org... 2) http://www.freerepublic.com...

Public School Students should wear School Uniforms

Thank You First, I want to thank my opponent for a great debate Second, I will be summarizing my opponent's refutations. Now my opponent basically said two things. The first, that bullying can still be there Second, regular clothes still cost money First, a mjority of the bullying comes from clothing. There may be other bullying factors, but stopping a majority is one step closer to stopping bullying, which is a great benefit. They next talk about money. Lets put it this way Altogether, lets say without uniforms, you need $5 per day of the week for clothes average. Thats $35. Uniforms, average lets say cost $20 altogether for 5 days. Then, only $10 for the weekend's regular clothes Thus, only $30 for the week. My opponent has not given a number of how much uniforms will cost families more, therefore, you have to vote CON. Lastly, to summarize all the arguments. All these arguments, cost and bullying is nothing compared to HUMAN LIVES. Without uniforms, kids could be lost or kidnapped. Without proper oversight by teachers, children could DIE. You have to vote CON because we stop bullying, save money, and SAVE LIVES.