Should school uniform be abolished?
School uniform
Should school uniform be abolished?
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO This is normally something that is only found out weeks...
School uniform should be abolished
Those professions need a varying degree of professionalism. Take the medical profession. A doctor wears scrubs because if he doesn"t he risks causing infection. Depending on the seriousness of the situation this could end in him/her losing their job permanently. This is very different to a school environment. In school, there is no great danger connected to what you are wearing. No one is going to die because of it. Your point is fundamentally the same as the one that you made about the NBA basketball players. As I said; "First off we are talking about school, not professional sports players. That is a different scenario and in that case, it is essential for them to wear a uniform to avoid confusion. However, going to school is not a public spectacle and will not be viewed on live television." I personally live in an area with both a highly regarded fee paying school and a few state schools. I have friends who go to the fee-paying school who have been chased with knives and had water poured on them. These were all random acts. The two victims had no idea who the attackers were. It was a random attack due to the uniform that they wore. With their school logo on it. Yes, bursaries are given out, but there is still a generalisation. That is something that you can"t change unless you remove the thing that separates them in a social environment before and after school hours. This is the uniform. Taking up student"s free time not only means that they are being dress coded but it also gives students an incentive not to wear inappropriate clothes. Taking up the student"s time means that while they could be away with their friends they have to be held back. I never said that you called them "the popular," "the sporty," and "the geeks" that is what I called them. In the first week of school do the rich spoilt kids walk around shouting that they have more money than everyone else? No. This is normally something that is only found out weeks after the term begins. This gives the students a window of opportunity to make friends with these kids. Without this uniform, there is not only a conversation started but, also something that students can have in common. Unfortunately, I can"t cite my sources for my first point as I wrote this when I was 9 years old. I wanted to see if it would stand up to the level of scrutiny on this website. So far I think it has done rather well. I"m also not the one with an issue with this. I don"t mind either way. YOU brought this up in the first place.
-
PRO Well if you look at the percentage of people in school...
Dress Code Policies in School
For starters: how it can be beneficial. Well if you look at the percentage of people in school that get into fights at Well if you look at the percentage of people in school that get into fights at school because this guy is wearing these types of clothes compared to a school with a dress code the school with a dress code has a lower percentage. Also, a dress code can prevent segregation of different gangs. In any normal persons book a school with less relation to gangs is a safer school over all. Now about your point on the cost. If money is a issue which in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes. Now you brought up that people never wear it anywhere else and could use that money for food or utility bills. Now, lets clarify this a bit a dress code is completely different from a uniform. A uniform you are told what shirt is mandatory what socks is mandatory for example white or black, high or low, what color tie to wear etc... Now a dress code is a whole lot more relaxed. I wear clothes that I wear to school all the time and vise versa. So therefore the issue of money really isn't a problem and neither is the waste of clothes.
-
PRO This debate is about whether it is necessary to have a...
Every school must have a uniform
This debate is about whether it is necessary to have a strict school uniform for every student in a school or not. I will be arguing for the motion.
-
PRO Extend all arguments. ... Thank you.
Uniforms For Schools
Extend all arguments. Thank you.
-
PRO Extend all arguments. ... Thank you.
Uniforms For Schools
Extend all arguments. Thank you.
-
PRO They seem to have just given a basic reason for their...
Uniforms For Schools
It doesn't seem that my opponent has made any arguments. They seem to have just given a basic reason for their position. Therefore, I will allow them to make their arguments in round 2. Then, I will refute theirs, and make my own. To my opponent: If the few points in round one where your opening arguments, please say so in round 2, and leave it at that. Thank you for issuing this debate, and good luck.
-
PRO Extend all arguments. ... Thank you.
Uniforms For Schools
Extend all arguments. Thank you.
-
PRO fine if it makes you happy ill vote no
uniforms for kids
fine if it makes you happy ill vote no
-
PRO Not always some kids ware inapropreate clothes to get...
uniforms for kids
Not always some kids ware inapropreate clothes to get people to like them
CON
-
CON My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the...
Changing the school year to all year
"There are 6.2 million teachers..." While I agree it WOULD have an impact on the economy, what I'm arguing is that the impact would be negative. The money to pay these teachers has to come from either the Government or parents. Either way, the economy is worse-off. My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the other negative economical impacts I presented in Round 1. "Sooner or later, the students..." I agree, but I argue that later is better than sooner. School years are for schooling and setting one's life up by getting the best grades possible. They have 60 years after high school with which to learn to manage time between tasks. "I'm sorry that I have no evidence.." That's fine, but it's a point you can't use to make your case. My opponent didn't answer to my suggestion that if SOME teachers can manage the time effectively, ALL should be able to. My opponent has not answered to my evidence that year-long schooling has no impact on student performance.
-
CON If these people don't wish to pay twice, because of a...
School Vouchers are the shizz!!!
Summary: School vouchers are generally touted as a method by which the poor can opt to send their children to private schools, without paying taxes for public education. Usually persons in favor of this tend to be Catholic, and wish to educate their children as such. What many people disregard is that most legislation that suggests vouchers strongly favors a break for the very rich from paying into public education, and will not support the middle class and poor in their desires to send children to private schools. Nonetheless, none should be exempt from paying into public education. If these people don't wish to pay twice, because of a failing education system, then they have the obligation and responsibility to fix it. Other avenues are also available to the middle class and poor to gain entry into private schools, such as scholarships. In lieu of the fact that vouchers support the rich and seek to destroy public education, then it should be obvious that vouchers are more of a threat than a call to competition for the betterment of education. Refutation of each point: - If these people don't wish to pay twice, because of a failing education system, then they have the obligation and responsibility to fix it. Other avenues are also available to the middle class and poor to gain entry into private schools, such as scholarships. In lieu of the fact that vouchers support the rich and seek to destroy public education, then it should be obvious that vouchers are more of a threat than a call to competition for the betterment of education. Refutation of each point: - School vouchers favor the rich. In fact, most voucher programs favor exorbitantly rich persons, and try to exempt rich persons from paying taxes that support public education. Vouchers for the poor are hardly a factual matter. Most people in favor of vouchers are also in favor or private indoctrination through religion, instead of traditional earning. What is worse No Child Left Behind, or giving precedence to god over learning? - Competition between schools should not come at the expense of public education. Vouchers mean less money is being funneled into public education, thus making it difficult for public schools to compete with ALREADY limited state and federal funds coming their way. We are talking about the future here. Why would we want to compete with something so precious? Get it right or don't do it at all. It isn't worth having losers in a game that involves the future, and will ultimately be detrimental when we realize who the losers were. Everyone has the right to a good education, and playing games to see who can provide the best education is callous morally wrong. All people deserve a good education regardless of which school they can afford. - Private schools get results, because rich kids get precedence over the poor. Vouchers only further the problem. More money should go to public education, instead of letting the rich write themselves off. We have terrible underfunded education systems, because there is not sufficient funding to support the system. Not because they are any less effective that private schools. If you were to input all private schools funds into the same apparatus, then it would succeed in the same manner. The rich care about their children, not other children, and this should not be tolerated. Vouchers are hardly altruistic in their nature, and promote elitism of the highest caliber. As if to say that private education is inherently superior for no good reason, while public education rots when the rich continue to deny further funding to public education. - If you pay twice, then that is your business. If you don't like public education, then change it by protesting for better funding. Just because you decide to spend your money elsewhere for double the education does not mean that public education should suffer the consequences. - Private schools do not increase diversity. Many private schools are religiously based, and consequently rich white kids all going to the rich white school are not really all that diverse. Remember that most people eligible for vouchers will be the rich, at least according to most voucher legislation in effect. - If parents want vouchers on religious grounds, then they need to realize that a secular education is timeless. Secularism in education is an on going tradition. For good reason, 1 + 1 = 2 does not involves god, nor do many other basic education subjects. If parents disagree with some views, then schools can welcome different opinions while remaining neutral. Parents can educate their children according to their beliefs and standards. A secular education teaches nothing but the facts, and should therefore be no worse off than a religious education. I would even say that more could be learned without god interrupting in the learning experience of children. - No Child Left Behind is failing. It is failing because federally mandated tests fail children of varying backgrounds. Why? Mostly because we do not invest enough in state education. Eliminate NCLB, and learn to accept that no population is the same, thus the needs of different students should be met by instating different programs for them. Funding funding funding! It is without a doubt the biggest problem inherent in the system. Vouchers want to take away our dearly needed funds for measures that will surely be detrimental to our educational systems over time.
-
CON A Ministry of Defence spokesman in the UK stated that...
School children are too young to target for military service
School children are not targeted for military service; the intention is to raise awareness about the work that the military do. A Ministry of Defence spokesman in the UK stated that they 'visit about 1,000 schools a year only at the invitation of the school – with the aim of raising the general awareness of their armed forces in society, not to recruit’. Furthermore, children interested in a military career are not instantly signed up, they are granted the time until they turn 18 to decide. In addition, before official enlistment, all potential recruits are sent away on a six-week camp to find out what a career in the army will be like1 1 Goff, H. (2008, March 25). Teachers reject 'Army propaganda'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7311917.stm improve this
-
CON To permit any organization to advertise to schoolchildren...
Young people should hear of the opportunities available in the armed services whilst in school
The armed services have no right to preach to the youth, particularly when they are in a trusting environment like a school. To permit any organization to advertise to schoolchildren about job prospects is misguided at a time when their critical faculties are nascent and they are endowed with the belief that what is taught at school is to be imbibed with little rebuttal. Mandated school activities like the Lord's Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance do serve to promote nationalism, but do not do so in such a way as to threaten the lives or disrupt the career paths of school children. School children must be protected from organizations that have the potential to put pressure on them and guilt trip them into signing away the rest of their young adult life. If their choices are to be respected, they must be left to develop their critical faculties and then permitted to use information available to the general public to make a decision. improve this
-
CON I strongly believe that World's governments should banned...
Soft drinks should be sold at school
School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!
-
CON Unfortunately for now my arguments and rebuttals still...
Should Uniforms be Required in Public Schools
It's a shame really. One more round and my opponent probably could have completely collapsed my arguments. Unfortunately for now my arguments and rebuttals still stand. Vote me.
-
CON I accept.
Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms
I accept.
-
CON My opponent has conceited her final argument and not...
Students should not have to wear uniforms.
My opponent has conceited her final argument and not defended my attacks on her contentions, therefore I urge a Con vote.
-
CON My opponent has forfeited the round, so please extend all...
All schools shouldn't have uniforms
My opponent has forfeited the round, so please extend all arguments.
-
CON I already did post my agrument... ... So come at me bro
Public Schools should have uniforms
I already did post my agrument... So come at me bro
