Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

School Uniforms Should be Mandatory

Allow me to address the arguments presented earlier and further elucidate my stance on school uniforms. I believe that they should indeed be compulsory, but with room for exceptions when necessary. It is worth noting that the concern about punishment for damaging a uniform is not a common practice in primary or secondary schools, at least from my experience. Life is unpredictable, and schools understand this. If a student accidentally damages their uniform and doesn't have a spare, they can either:

a) Obtain permission through a written note from their parents, excusing them from wearing the uniform until they can replace it or clean the damaged one.

b) Borrow a uniform from the school's second-hand uniform store, which provides free uniforms if needed. All second-hand uniforms are thoroughly cleaned before being issued.

While I agree that liberal disciplines are ideal for adults in choosing work attire, provided it is appropriate, I do not hold the same view for children. Children come from diverse backgrounds and have varying family incomes. A significant issue with not having school uniforms is that it can lead to bullying when a child from a wealthy family wears expensive clothes to school and looks down on those from lower-income families. School uniforms level the playing field, eliminating discrimination based on clothing.

Some might argue that this punishes children from higher-income families, but we must remember that these are children, not adults, and they have not earned their family's wealth. Moreover, children are still developing and may not understand the importance of respecting others regardless of wealth. As such, school uniforms promote equality among students.

Additionally, school uniforms save time, as they eliminate the need to choose clothes for school every day. For some, the freedom to wear different clothes might lead to spending more time picking out outfits. School uniforms also create a sense of unity, making peers more relatable and fostering friendships, especially in younger years when social skills are developing. Uniforms also ensure that students are easily identifiable as part of the school, which can be crucial for safety. In my city, there have been instances where adult sex offenders have tried to enter high schools, but were quickly identified and removed because they were not wearing a uniform.

In conclusion, school uniforms benefit students by promoting equality, unity, a safer environment, and time-saving. They are a practical and necessary component of school life.

The reasons why we shouldn't have school uniforms are the cost doesn't meet the wadges of families trying to make ends meet.Secondly it doesn't diminish bulling.How is this possible let me explain say I have a blue tie and then I give my opponent the same tie sure the ties are the same but we both look different in the same looking ties.Basically my point is everyone can wear the same clothing but how the look in that clothing is an entirely different story.Also con stated on google there are 1 million people don't care about creativity or art that is not alot there are seven billion people world wide and when viewed from that scale that small compared to seven billion. REBUTTAL#1 CONTENTION 1: BULLYING PREVENTION is illogical because I could had out a billion people the same suit and i promise you all of them will look different sure IT IS THE SAME UNIFORM but the people wearing them will look different. REBUTTAL#2 Contention 3: Restricts inapropriate clothing this one is also illogical sure uniforms restrict bad or improper clothing but the one thing is that WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND COMES TO SCHOOL WITH A BIKINI!!!!!We are humans no nianderthals we know right and wrong.We have proper sense.Cons statement is possibly a derogatory slur calling our species inferior and dumb.And if that's not what it meant then what dos it mean we have common sense to dress correct.We have parents that tell us not to wear a bikini to school or wait they don't tell us that why because we have enough sense to correctley dress.

We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.

I think that uniforms are boring and are not helpful

My oppositions: 1) I cannot understand how dress codes can make a more serious school atmosphere. 2) Yes, Dress codes can make students less focused on their wardrobe but they can still be distracted by other objects like fancy pencil cases or friends. Also, You do not necessarily have to keep up with clothing trends in school. There are many other trends like games and toys. 3) Yes, Dress codes will reduce social conflict but it will not stop all conflicts like racism. 4) Even if there were no dress codes, Kids with violent clothing will be turned away. 5) Yes, I agree that dress codes are less strict than uniforms but dress codes do not let kids wear EVERYTHING they want to wear. For example, Let's say you're a girl and you want to wear pants but the dress code says that girls can only wear dresses. That's not exactly freedom. 6) Imagine you have at least two people to live with and they don't care if you wear bad clothing. Impossible Thank you and good game

My opponent has chossen to forfeit his chance to oppose my argument. But I would just like to say that by taking away a persons choice to wear what they want, you also take a little bit of a persons free will along with it. I think that if private schools want to have uniforms that is great! No person attending a public school though should be forced to wear a certain outfit everyday.

Now my opponent basically said two things. The first, that bullying can still be thereSecond, regular clothes still cost moneyFirst, 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 wayAltogether, 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 clothesThus, 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.

Hi, thank you for debate with me. First our topic is "Wearing school uniform at school". My position is pro. Your position is con. We choose this topic because, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students need to wear school uniform at school. What is your opinion about this hot burning issue?

For the purposes of this debate, unless otherwise challenged, "abnormal women" shall mean adult females with an unhealthy body weight, viz. being either underweight or overweight according to the body mass index scale (1) and "unfashionable uniform" shall mean one similar to the garment pictured hereunder: http://upload.wikimedia.org... The fact is, being underweight or overweight can present women with serious medical problems and they should obviously aim to be within the normal weight range in order to remain fit. (2, 3) In addition, women who are not too fat and not too thin are typically more attractive to men and are, therefore, not only the healthiest but also the happiest too. It is the type of female role models such as those normally portrayed in women's fashion magazines and adult male interest periodicals that girls and women need to aspire to because if they achieve this healthy body image they will be both healthier and happier. Furthermore, their husbands will be less tempted to run off with some properly fit Asian babe whilst on a business trip in Hong Kong which will lead to fewer marital breakdowns when his wife later hacks into his personal email account while he is out at work earning the money for her to spend on designer clothes. In conclusion, because women are typically really interested in fashionable clothes, forcing women who are too fat or thin to wear an ugly uniform whilst out in public will be a huge incentive for them to either lose or gain enough weight to be allowed to wear attractive garments of their own choice instead, and I therefore commend this resolution to the House. Thank you. (1)http://www.caloriecounting.co.uk... (2)http://www.womenshealth.gov... (3)http://www.womenshealth.gov...

My group and I believe that School Dress Codes are targeting the female population and are unfair. School"s are beginning to focus on how the students dress rather than their education. For example, pulling a female out of class until she can change and taking her away from the education. Many cases have been reported of females being pulled out of class for minor infractions like straps being visible, or more than 3 inches of the thigh showing. Instead of letting the student know they're breaking dress code and let them off with a warning or letting them wait in class, they are pulled out to wait for a change of clothes. I understand there must be a general set of guidelines to avoid making peers feel uncomfortable, but dictating someone's clothing style is disrupting freedom of expression. The reason for a school dress code is to keep males focused on their education. Since when is a males education superior to a females? Pulling a female out of class while the male stays to continue learning without "distraction" is sexist. Men aren't pigs, they can control themselves. Making a dress code so boys stay on task is stereotyping males as pigs. An example - At a Haven Middle School, female students can"t wear shorts, leggings, and/or yoga pants because they might be distracting for boys at their school. This is a common occurrence across America at this day and time, Middle Schools AND High Schools. This not only teaches boys that it is okay to be distracted, it teachers girls that it's their fault if boys stare. This kind of message lands itself squarely on a continuum that blames girls and women for assault by men. It also sends the message to boys that their behaviors are excusable, or understandable given what the girls are wearing. This adds to Rape Culture. Rape Culture is when a citizens is raped and assaulted, it is their fault. It is their fault because of the way they looked, acted, or dressed before the crime was committed. It is saying "boys will be boys", and females will have to adjust themselves to a males perspective. Instead of girls dressing for themselves and feeling good about themselves, they are dressing based off teachers and the male students of the school. School Dress Codes need to stop making young girls feel inferior and feel like targets. A general set of rules is always okay, but when it is so strict it impacts a female, the administration has gone too far.

Dude. I literally went through your argument PIECE BY PIECE and debated it part by part. You STILL do not show ANY evidence for what you state. For all I and ANYBODY who sees this knows, you are LYING about everything. Now, I do not THINK you are, but you don't have ANY research from RELIABLE sources other than your own words. You NEED sources especially when you give SO MUCH data and stats! Here is the rest of the argument I never got to put WITH SOURCES: School uniforms create equality.At school it doesn't matter which type of family one comes from.Everyone is equal.I think those who say they should be banned want to show off how rich they are and bully other people Bullies exist despite uniforms. Ask anyone. Uniforms have NO guarantee. "If they want a school of only rich kids ,let them go and create their own school!So imagine being bullied for clothes.How would you feel?" 1. Not only rich kids are bullies. Some schools don"t have any rich kids. 2. Again, teach not to bully about ANYTHING, not just clothing! "Moreover ,research has shown that school uniforms increase focus on learning.If everyone is wearing uniforms ,all students will look at one another's clothing." WHAT research. SHOW it. Here is mine: https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.newyorker.com... http://www.spiked-online.com... http://theconversation.com... http://wh-magazine.com... http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca... https://www.creditdonkey.com... "It is also said that school uniforms make schools a safe place.Did you know?In some non uniform schools students have been killing each other over expensive clothing."


Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

Private educational institutions should enforce a uniform dress code for their students.

My Arguments:

1. Uniforms can enhance a student's self-confidence by eliminating the pressure to outdress their peers. [1] Many students feel discouraged when they cannot afford trendy clothing. Uniforms ensure that all students are on the same level, reducing stress for those who cannot afford the latest fashions. [2] By introducing uniforms, self-assurance is bolstered and negative peer pressure is mitigated, with over 75% of schools observing a decrease in peer pressure upon uniform implementation. [3]

2. Uniforms improve learning by minimizing distractions caused by clothing. In the classroom, attire can be a major distraction, particularly if students are bored. Children are always curious about what others are wearing and may judge classmates based on their clothing. Uniforms address this issue by helping students stay focused in class.

3. Uniforms signify unity among students, demonstrating that everyone is part of the same school team. This fosters school spirit and a sense of belonging, which can reduce bullying and divisions among students, promoting mental well-being. [4] This sense of community is crucial for student welfare. [5]

4. Uniforms assist school staff in identifying students, enhancing campus safety by keeping strangers and potential threats at bay. This also contributes to a safer learning environment by eliminating gang and clique symbols. Safety is paramount in attracting more students to the school.

5. Bullies often target those who are less well-dressed, and implementing school uniforms can help solve this issue. Uniforms promote discipline, neatness, and equality among students. [6]

6. School uniforms encourage creative self-expression in ways other than clothing, such as through personality, academic achievements, extracurricular activities, and sports. It pushes students to engage more actively in their environment.

7. Uniforms have been linked to reduced violence and improved student behavior. [7] A study in Long Beach, California, revealed an 86% drop in violent assaults and a significant reduction in vandalism after uniform implementation. [8] The U.S. Department of Education found that school crime decreased by 36%, sexual offenses by 74%, and fights by 51% after the introduction of uniforms. [13] Almost 80% of schools noted enhanced student discipline. [9] Schools with uniforms also showed higher graduation and attendance rates. [11] [12]

Contentions:

Controllable Factors vs. Uncontrollable Factors: Critics argue

1) In a crowd it would be easier for officials to find a child if he is wearing a school uniform as the child will stand out among others due to the distinct uniform. 2)" Schools these days are encouraging an appreciation of diversity" but can you surely say that there is no discrimination at all between teachers and students? It is still being "encouraged", discrimination and partiality has not yet been eradicated and if all students can not be made equal economically at least they can be deemed as an equal by common clothing. All students are not equally capable which makes teachers partial, there is no need to enhance this partiality by allowing students to wear clothing of choice. I have first hand experience of how the under privileged children are treated by teachers in schools. 3) Burden of Proof missing 4) A school uniform is of sentimental value to alumnis of the particular school. It is something that all children deserve to have as a memoir of being a part of their school

Now my last opinion... I think school uniform is most beautiful than civilian clothes. It is just my comment. and school uniform is maybe easy to work than civilian clothes. So my mind is we need a wearing school uniform at school.

REMINDER! Next round, you are not permitted to write any new argument, or post anything new. You are only permitted to write "thanks for the debate". This allows us to have an equal amount of rounds to debate. Breaking this rule shall result in a 7 point deduction. Do not ask for the rule to be revoked if you break it, because you have been warned.REBUTTALS Before beggining, I would like to point something out. Pro only states down sides of uniforms. This itself is not good enough to state a valid reason to ban them. For example, pizza can be unhealthy, does that meen we should ban pizza? No! Just because it has downsides doesn't mean it should be banned."The reasons why we shouldn't have school uniforms are the cost doesn't meet the wadges of families trying to make ends meet." The thing is, with uniforms you aren't immediatly required to pay. You can pay for them at any given time in the year. So, it does meet the wages of these families, and in fact as proven earlier, they cost much less than the average amount you would pay for your child's clothing. "Secondly it doesn't diminish bulling.How is this possible let me explain say I have a blue tie and then I give my opponent the same tie sure the ties are the same but we both look different in the same looking ties.Basically my point is everyone can wear the same clothing but how the look in that clothing is an entirely different story." Once again, you fail to properly read my argument. I stated that it diminishes bullying. This occurs because sometimes children get bullied because their clothing isn't "cool". Now with uniforms, no one has cool clothes, so people can't get bullied for their clothing, regardless of how they look in it. So, even though bullying still occurs, it is at least slightly diminished. Also, this still isn't a valid reason to which why we should ban uniforms."Also con stated on google there are 1 million people don't care about creativity or art that is not alot there are seven billion people world wide and when viewed from that scale that small compared to seven billion." Perhaps there are various who care, but there are definitly more who don't care. First of all, a 7th of the population is a huge number. Second of all, more than half of the world is in poverty. They have no time to care about creativity. And so, more people don't care about creativity than those who do."BULLYING PREVENTION is illogical because I could had out a billion people the same suit and i promise you all of them will look different sure IT IS THE SAME UNIFORM but the people wearing them will look different." Refer to previous rebuttal."Restricts inapropriate clothing this one is also illogical sure uniforms restrict bad or improper clothing but the one thing is that WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND COMES TO SCHOOL WITH A BIKINI!!!!!We are humans no nianderthals we know right and wrong.We have proper sense.Cons statement is possibly a derogatory slur calling our species inferior and dumb.And if that's not what it meant then what dos it mean we have common sense to dress correct.We have parents that tell us not to wear a bikini to school or wait they don't tell us that why because we have enough sense to correctley dress." This is where you are wrong. Since this is a long contention, I shall have a long rebuttal. First of all, regardless if it's a bikini or mini skirt, it is innapropriate. Also, regardless of proper sense, people still wear innapropriat clothing to school. I did not imply our species is dumb, I am implying we make mistakes. And your comment about parents, you honestly have no idea about children and parents in general. First of all, children are very smart, they can easily sneak inapropriate clothing in their bags and change at school. In doing so, parents can't stop them. Here is a little story I found of a fellow parent who experianced I similar dilema. "My husband and I and are the parents of three wonderful children, but we've been having some issues lately with our 15 year old, our middle child. She continues to wear skirts that are much too short for her, including to school" "We both have to leave for work early in the morning and rely on our kids to get ready to go to school by themselves in the mornings, and we are unable to verify our children's attire; in fact, we first found out our daughter was wearing miniskirts was when the school called to tell us. " "I explained to her that when I was growing up, we were in a strict religious community where modesty was a big deal and we were expected to wear skirts that were almost ankle length" [1] As you can now see, people have jobs. They don't always have time to check on their kids. Also, you can now see kids are good at sneaking things, their parents only found out after the school called them! You also notice that the lady writing this article somewhat had a uniform aswell, and she learned a variety of lessons in doing so, such as respect and modesty.Parents aren't always around, and so kids can easily break rules. However, with uniforms, these rule breaking children will experiance severe consequences, preventing them from breaking it and wearing innapropriate clothing.-------------------------------------------- At this point, ending our debate, my opponent presents no valid argument whatsoever to which why uniforms should be banned. He/she also drops various of my arguments. Also, he/she has failed to meet any of his/her BoP at all! This is pretty much an automatic loss. I now continue with my final contentions. CONTENTION 4: OVERALL IMPROVEMENT Studies show that children overall improve due to uniforms. They tend to not be troublesome out side of school, because due to their uniforms, they can easily be identified. Also, girls enjoy it due to the fact that male counterparts do not offend her, preventing harrasement. [2]CONTENTION 5: MORE SLEEP A variety of people choose what they wan't to wear in the morning. This makes them wake up early. With uniforms, this isn't an issue, and so people get more sleep. Sleep is important for a growing body.CONCLUSION There is no valid reason to ban uniforms. They have endless benefit, from preventing bullying to improving studies and overall behaviour. They also prevent inapropriate clothing, save money and induce more sleep. It does not go against the first amendament, and does not take away freedom of expression. Banning it is the same as banning pizza. My opponent has no valid reason whatsoever on why they should be banned, he/she only states the down sides of uniforms in general. They also make false accusations, such as me " calling our species inferior and dumb." and claiming uniforms go against the first amendament. In addition, they fail to meet any of their BoP, and lack any source of proof whatsoever. I on the other hand have a variety of sources, and BoP isn't even on me. I explained a variety of reasons why uniforms are beneficial, and proved all my opponent's arguments wrong, whereas they dropped the majority of mine. Thanks for the debate overall however!Sources:[1]http://parenting.stackexchange.com...[2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...------------------------ And just to warn you once more because I am nice:REMINDER! Next round, you are not permitted to write any new argument, or post anything new. You are only permitted to write "thanks for the debate". This allows us to have an equal amount of rounds to debate. Breaking this rule shall result in a 7 point deduction. Do not ask for the rule to be revoked if you break it, because you have been warned.

As you mentioned their creativity and burning ambition of being modern can be shown in other directions, however school is an educational institution. There must be some frames and rules in order to control children in some degree. Also uniform is a saving of time. One more time, their freedom is not limited with school uniform.

What do u think should students wear school uniforms

I accept, and will be arguing that there should be school uniforms for... This seems to be undefined. I will argue that there should be school uniforms for sports teams.

My oppositions: 1) I cannot understand how dress codes can make a more serious school atmosphere. 2) Yes, Dress codes can make students less focused on their wardrobe but they can still be distracted by other objects like fancy pencil cases or friends. Also, You do not necessarily have to keep up with clothing trends in school. There are many other trends like games and toys. 3) Yes, Dress codes will reduce social conflict but it will not stop all conflicts like racism. 4) Even if there were no dress codes, Kids with violent clothing will be turned away. 5) Yes, I agree that dress codes are less strict than uniforms but dress codes do not let kids wear EVERYTHING they want to wear. For example, Let's say you're a girl and you want to wear pants but the dress code says that girls can only wear dresses. That's not exactly freedom. 6) Imagine you have at least two people to live with and they don't care if you wear bad clothing. Impossible Thank you and good game

Nobody has told me nice shirt because I usually wear the same kind of clothes. It cuts down on my stress level and makes it easier for me to get ready in the morning. With Uniforms they can be changed yearly or every half a year. If people are getting bored of the same old uniform they can put a petition together to change it. Not only does it make everybody look like a team it also saves money on clothe expenses for the parents of the child. Its a win-win all around. Parents save money, school saves from innapropriate clothes, and teens save on bullying

Your opinion is right, But I've got another comment. I want uniforms in school. The reason why I want uniforms is because they save money. Also, you don't have to worry about finding an outfit for the next day. This is my third opinion

Again, EXTRA money has to be spent for said uniforms! Why not let a family have their kid wear what they ALREADY HAVE? If I had a kid and a school suddenly said uniforms are mandatory, I would be mad as hell as would others because NOW, MORE money has to be spent! You CAN make kids not bully. It IS possible. Have rules and discipline in place. It is that simple. Also, I am sorry, but your sources are awful. That was what seems to be an opinion of a random charter school. That has NO research backing ANY of what it stated. The second source is a shopping website for uniforms. I may as well send you THESE links. https://www.tccd.edu... http://www.hottopic.com... One is a school website for a COLLEGE. Which when kids join, there is usually NO uniforms at all. The other is a clothes website. Do these prove ANYTHING to you? SO WHAT if a kid goes to school dressing like the family can't afford that good of clothing! Teach kids to STFU about it and accept it. Don't make it WORSE by telling this poor, tight budgeted family that they must make their budget TIGHTER because of uniforms! As for identification, nametags! Hats! Special shirts for the occasion! Bracelets! It isn't hard to come up with other ways. GET RID of the pressure to wear stylish clothing. Teach kids it's not worth it! It's all overrated BS. Eliminate the SOURCE of the problem! The source isn't what people wear, but rather peoples' attitudes. As for kids that arrange clothes before they sleep, now, like they will in college, they have a CHOICE of what to wear. And they can choose. If they are taught not to care or be picky about their clothing, then NO, it won't take that long.


Question: Should Pupils Be Required to Don School Uniforms?

Is the implementation of school uniforms beneficial or detrimental? On one hand, school uniforms can create a more uniform and less distracting environment, which can be advantageous. They eliminate the flashy and attention-grabbing outfits that could potentially divert students' focus. Furthermore, uniforms significantly reduce instances of bullying, as all students are dressed identically. If someone mocks another's outfit, they inadvertently mock their own as well. Additionally, enforcing a dress code becomes much simpler, ensuring that no inappropriate attire, such as sheer tops without a bra, is worn. Lastly, the decision of what to wear to school becomes effortless, potentially lowering stress levels among teenagers.

Should we wear uniforms? Yes. Why wear uniforms? What's the point? It teaches you the way of life and to follow the rules, Even though it may suck and it may be something that you don't want to do, That's life. Let's be real here, Who enjoys uniforms? They are annoying -- it just teaches you to follow rules. When you start a job and you're working, You can't wear anything you want. You must wear your work clothes that are assigned from your boss. In the long run, It's more of a good thing than a burden. Another thing is students can be easily identified which will increase their safety. Bullying. Bullying occurs whether students are wearing uniforms or not, But uniforms can reduce bullying. By students wearing the same generalizing clothes, It will help. Of course it won't help the bullying entirely but most likely, They will not make fun of your clothes since they are wearing the same thing. Style. You can make uniforms look good, I. E many accessories, Watches, Good looking shoes and things of that nature. Every person has their own unique sense of style. Uniforms may limit it, But it's good to make the most out of it so you don't feel unfree. Solution. The good thing is once you reach high school + college, You won't have to wear uniforms. You can wear whatever you want and express yourself much better and be more comfortable.

You don't need to explain to me what schools are, I know they exist to 'enhance learning' and to 'help them get a better education' as you put it. And believe it or not, I know teachers are their to help the children understand something they may not of understood previously. But even with this insight, I don't believe this is being done well by any means. If schools are good for children, like you say, what about the 40% of them that don't achieve 5 GCSE's grade A to C? What has school done for them that couldn't of been done by something else? 40% is huge, its almost half for gods sake! If you had a factory that made 40% of its products faulty, it would be shut down! So yer, school might be good for those kids who typically would of done alright anyways (because of their socio-economic class), but what about all those who fail? School does not encourage learning. Those who are interested may continue to be interested but few, if any, are brought to this mentality purely by schooling. From my experience I have found very few people my own age (and I mean like 2 people) that are interested in anything but man made things. For example football, cars, tv shows, music, celebrities and other shallow things such as, for men at least, women (but purely from a sexual perspective). Things like science, nature, history, politics, the universe, our bodies and biology are 'nerdy' or too an older person simply 'boring'. Funny how these things are the things we are forced to learn against our will throughout our entire childhood. Rule number 1: if you want a child to hate something; make them do it all the time against their will. This is Rule number 1 for human behaviour: that we want what we carnt have, and we don't want to do what we have to do, and we spoil ourselves with what we have. Also the hole process of learning is outdated and frankly boring. I mean, look at David attenbourgh's nature documentaries: if I saw that in school I would be hooked. There are also many documentaries and video's online that just make science wonderful, despite all this however, we still insist children sit in a class room at 9 o'clock in the morning (a time which is proven to be bad for learning for children as they are not meant to be awake at this time) and be force fed information about a subject they have no interest in. To learn something, you must first WANT too. Schools do not do this for children, it expects them to learn things in fear of a result of a test. Also once a child fails a test he/she loses their confidence and can become disengaged further, lowering their self-esteem. Also school only recognizes what we call academic intelligence, anyone who is expert at something that doesn't fit under this category is deemed 'stupid'. I know all the political correctness and all that but at the end of the day, this is the effect it has on the child's perception of themselves. Indeed, the child may not even know they have these talents as the system that is designed to enhance them, fails to notice. Even more worrying, is that even if a child is gifted at something regarded as academic, they can be squandered. Good examples of this include Einstein. School regarded him as a failure and failed him, he went to university through contacts and they thought him usless too. Had it not been for a friend and a string of chance situation, Einstien would have remained a lowly clerk and we would not know his name now. Another example is the Beatles; one particular MUSIC teacher had half the Beetles in his class and recognized no musical talent. Another example includes particular dancer and founder of an extremely successful dance school, she was thought to be disruptive and could of been diagnosed as having ADHD, but because of a fluke incident and an intelligent psychologist, she was discovered to be a natural dancer. She went to a dance school instead of normal school and ended up becoming a millionaire and brought joy to millions. So how many other potential geniuses has school overlooked? what are we now missing because of the school system squandering talents. It is my view that we are all potential geniuses, that intelligence is unique to the individual and that we can all be geniuses in our own way and in our own area of knowledge. There is enough knowledge and work to be uncovered and done for everybody and every different kind of talent is needed. School is uniform, it makes all children jump through the same hoops and feel a failure if the don't adhere to the schools narrow view of intelligence. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its whole life it is a failure. So to wrap it up, 40% of people 'fail'. Forcing people to learn (if you actually want them to learn, which I believe the system doesn't) is clearly ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about human psychology. We judge intelligence in one way, and this is key to what is wrong with the system. Finally, our method of teaching (classroom, tests, early starts and long days) is frankly no good. I could write a book on this last point so I am trying to not get carried away. Also I would like to add that my personal experience of school was terrible, even though I am more 'academic' than anyone I have ever met !

My opponent first arguement is… "In this case, recess and lunch would count as "off hours". If they don't have classes in session, and they are leaving the building, then they can wear their shoes if they wish. Before they enter another school building of course, they will have to remove their shoes. If class is in session a they need to walk from one building to another, then it still counts as "off time"" Well school campus is school campus, including the recess grounds and I did say beginning of school hours to the end of school hours, not class session hours. All school rules apply as the start of school hours until the end of school hours. Just like you can't wear gang related clothes, you can't wear them during class, between periods and recess and lunch hours. Can't bring shoes to school or even can't wear shoes to school and you must go barefoot during school hours means during class, between periods and during recess and lunch periods. There is no such thing as ‘off hours' during school hours or otherwise the students are allowed to wear gang related clothes during those ‘off hours' without getting into trouble. Gang related clothes are no different than wearing shoes to school when you can't wear them to school. My opponent second arguement is… "A nitpicky exception. Then I suggest that all schools fix their heaters. Schools are not supposed to have broken heaters in the first place; I suggest that my opponent not try to harp on points that are as irrelevant as this. The next thing you know, my opponent is going to say "Oh, well what happens if there is a foot-eating virus on the school floors? What then? " Well heaters are machines and machines are known to break down very often. Heaters take hours or even days to repair because of the schools low budget, especially the budget issues in California. My opponent's third argument is… "Going barefoot for some sports might be good, but some sports like football, baseball, and basketball may possibly take place outdoors, and if some schools decide to play these particular sports, then it won't be good. " Another nitpicky exception. It is not mandatory for all schools to offer those sports. Schools should stop offering football, baseball, and basketball for PE class and offer them as after school activities. If anything, I think that all PE classes should be limited to cardiovascular workouts, track, yoga, gymnastics, and Tai-chi. As I have said before, all of these sports are far superior to the silly games that PE makes their kids play. Too much time is wasted on points and rules and arbitrary things, while the nation keeps getting fatter and less healthy. PE class should focus on helping kids keep in shape and stay healthy and active. Football, baseball and basketball also involves running and staying alert when the ball comes, so should it consider a PE activity to have students to stay healthy and active? "Four obvious activities come to mind when thinking of outdoor PE units, including tennis, soccer, baseball (for boys) and softball (for girls). Quick serve tennis is fast-paced and introduces the fundamentals of tennis, especially on the pace and placement of players. Switch soccer teaches students how to work the soccer field, but the objective is to play keep away as opposed to getting a goal. Once they get the concept down, focus them on kicking one soccer ball into another, then have them switch sides of the field. Track and field is the most basic outdoor activity in play. Students learn each event involved (high jump, javelin, shot-put, hurdles and sprints). Some PE teachers blend all of the events, while others specify an individual day for each event. Students are generally assessed not by how well they perform the event, but rather how hard they try and how many reps are attempted. " . http://www.ehow.com... My opponent fifth argument is. .. "Again, this is absurd. The exact same thing as the "foot-eating virus". If an Earthquake was happening, or if a tornado was going to hit, why would kids be in school in the first place? And if it was an unpredictable disaster, who would care about some missing shoes or one or two scratches on the foot? " Earthquakes and tornados can happened when school is in session. Missing shoes means they have to walk home barefoot with the risk walking on rubble and debris from these disasters. As experience with both tornados and earthquakes that both tornadoes and big earthquakes can take out power lines and cause terrible traffic jams. A student would have to walk home to school after a tornado or a big earthquake strikes because the parents would take a long time to get their child's school because of traffic jams. Then the students would have to walk home and avoiding the rubble from the destroyed buildings. In case of earthquakes, downtown would have a lot of rubble of fallen buildings. Like what happened with the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906 and 1989. . http://www.sfgov.org... If a student must walk home with that kind of rubble through the city and they can't get to their shoes or their parents, then the risk of a student having a cut feet would be great. Number two that earthquakes can destroy their home where they can't get their other shoes. They would be barefoot for a very long while. But at the meantime, the students stepping on a sharp debris while going barefoot. This picture can happen to a school when a big earthquake hits. . http://seismo.berkeley.edu... Or when a tornado hits a town. . http://www.drjudywood.com... Honestly, would want or even safe to go barefoot in that kind of mess if you lost your shoes to these disasters? Ouch. Again that parents might take a long time to get to the students school because of jammed traffic so it would take hours to wait for their parents and cell phone might not work too. My opponent sixth's arguement is… "Again, like I said, my opponent is harping on nitpicky and irrelevant possibilities. "What if? " "What if? " What if there was a foot-eating virus loose in every school in America? I understand that my opponent would very much like to win the debate, but we must bind ourselves to reason while debating. Students aren't *supposed* to spit gum on the floor, and students aren't *supposed* to pee on the bathroom floor. The school can simply increase janitorial services, or convert a urinal into a foot-washing sink. Saliva and urine won't destroy your foot. " Some times there are bird (beep) on the ground. Reality is that students are not suppose to chew gum or miss the toilet while going restroom but they do it anyway. Mostly the boys miss the toilet. But honestly, do you want someone else's saliva or urine on your feet? Some states like California have low budget issues, so janitorial services maybe out of the question because of a low budget of a state. My opponent's eighth argument is… "All chemical spills are supposed to be reported and neutralized. Again, my opponent is nitpicking on unlikely situations. K-12 Students should not be given dangerous chemicals to use in the first place, and all laboratory experiments that require dangerous equipment will be handled by the instructor or teaching assistants. " There are chemistry classes mostly in junior high and high school and these chemistry classes use chemicals can irritate or damage the skin. These schools do have dangerous equipments in these chemistry classes like the wickless alcohol lamp and stand, hot liquid in the beakers and bunsen burners and all of them have the student to use. So the school would give up a lot JUST to have their students to go barefoot to school?

"1. You failed to define what “require” means." Why would I have to redefine a word that has already been defined?Definition of the term "require" Require (verb) - to demand; impose obligation: to do as the law requires. In my previous argument I clarified the specifications in regards to the overall possibility of my proposal which I must say was pretty much self-explanatory. If you would like me to repeat it, I will do so. By "require" I meant that school systems should be obliged to make bilingual education apart of the necessary curriculum of each student. "2. You should have explained the steps or mechanism on how your proposal is possible, not simply focusing on the benefits of learning new language, because no one in this planet will say that it is harmful. Regarding this, you should focus more on the practicability not on the advantages." I already have. Again you chose to overlook it. The overall purpose of my debate was to argue whether or not students should be required to learn new languages in early childhood development. My argument was not specifically based on the benefits associated with my proposal, but they were a key part in supporting my side of the debate. Your job as the the Con in this debate, was to argue against my proposal and to list the disadvantages associated with my proposal. You started this by saying "It was not possible" and I responded by using the various real world examples supporting the possibility of implementing bilingual education in early childhood education. "3. You assume that because other institutions in the United States teach other language that it is already feasible to the entire educational institutions throughout the country, and worst that you even require all students. I don’t think that’s possible to apply to the entire country." You don't think? Well if you consider the fact that almost every educational institution in the U.S. has some sort of mathematics, reading and science course in pretty much every school, I have to disagree. To say that it's not possible at all is very closed minded. You have failed to consider the circumstances. Every year, there are about 40% fewer jobs for qualified educators nationally, especially in the areas of language (more specifically those with a major pertaining to French and Spanish). With the implementation of more language courses in schools, the government will have significantly decreased the unemployment rate while also introducing bilingual education in schools. http://www.theguardian.com... "4. You cited countries like Philippines where people can speak many languages- English, Spanish, and Filipino. But the Philippines does not have a policy requiring schools and parents to teach all students other language..."Despite the fact that the Philippines was colonized by Spain, the official language of the country is no longer Spanish. Spanish was the original official language of the country for more than three centuries, and became the "LLingua Franca" (also called a working language, bridge language, vehicular language or unifying language) of the Philippines in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in the Spanish language. However, it was only spoken by a total of 60% of the population in the early 20th century as a first, second or third language. Under occupation by the United States, by the year 1901, public education used English as the medium of instruction. Around 600 educators (called Thomasites) replaced U.S. soldiers who also took the place bilingual educators. The 1935 Constitution added English as an official language alongside Spanish but eventually the Spanish language was removed by the first half of the 20th century. As of now, Spanish is mainly taught in public schools, private schools and Universities due to it's importance in Filipino history, but it is not used as a national language. Most people in the Philippines who speak Spanish fluently are either Hispanic immigrants, people from very few islands of the country where Spanish is the dominant language or learned the language in schools. Most Spanish speaking Filipinos who speak it as a second, third or fourth language. The main official languages of the country are English and Filipino (also known as Tagalog) which is the national language. According to the most recent statistics, only about 65% of the entire population of the Philippines can speak fluent English as a second language. http://www.ncca.gov.ph...http://en.wikipedia.org... "5. You did not even clarify what language should be taught to students. This is where everything will fail because you cannot just any language you think is popular because that would create bias against other languages." Actually I did... I stated in the introduction of my debate, "From a global perspective Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic and Chinese are the most important spoken languages in the world for children to learn other than English." More specifically Spanish and French since those are the most important commonly spoken languages in the Americas besides English. And because of their similarities to the English language, those are the easiest languages to learn for native English speakers. For example, Why would a child learn Latin if it's of no use and rarely spoken? Whereas Spanish is spoken by over 400 million people. This isn't bias, it's just practical. Again, you chose to overlook it. You see, the problem I have with your argument is that you failed to even argue against mine from a logical standpoint. You repeated claim "It's not possible" despite the fact that I provided multiple examples that prove that it is in fact possible. You overlook the evidence I provided and then proceed to attack my argument without any evidence to support your side. For example... You claim, "You used words, “require” and “all students” in this debate, thus you should present how can this be possible." after I did MULTIPLE times. "When a child starts school, there should be language courses on campus to introduce a new language aside from the one the child already speaks (which would most likely be English) in order to introduce bilingualism early on in childhood development. Throughout their educational career, children would be introduced to a new level of difficulty in the area of language they study as they move forward in grade level, much like schools currently do with mathematics and reading courses..."Remember this? You then claim... "I would rather encourage students to learn new language on their own, without requiring the schools and parents to do it because it just so hassle and impossible." If it is impossible, why has it already happened in many countries INCLUDING many educational systems in the United States with success. Why would it be more logical to simply allow young children to learn new languages on their own? THAT is impossible. Children cannot just go out and teach themselves how to speak a new language. Learning a new language requires the proper resources, consistent study and more importantly, the involvement of an adult. Saying you would rather encourage student to learn new languages on their own is like saying "I would rather encourage student to learn how to read on their own" and that will get you nowhere. If we did that, children would be illiterate.I am not the one who failed to properly follow the parameters of this debate. I patiently await your response.

On average a mid-class school uniform would be around $85. Plus an additional one. How can a child feel special and different if every other kid is wearing the same thing. It can very much effect the child social and learning environment. And when you said that 'what if there was a major accident and a kid was lost? How would you identify him?' i completely agree with that statement. If a child is lost how easy will it be to identify one kid if hundreds of other kids are wearing the exactly same attire. And you very much need to express yourself through clothing. Its a right and helps develop fundamental social skills. In what way would you have the uneducated conclusion that it can prevent bullying. Explain.

Pertaining to his arguments that if parents were to be liable for their kid's actions during school, they'd be over them at all times, society doesn't function that way. A person is held accountable for the actions of their pet(s), and no one is with their pet 24/7. It is the responsibility of the owner, or in this case, a parent, to teach the pet (kid) how to behave in the world and to keep the pet on the proper leash. If a pet destroys another person's property, it is the responsibility of the owner to repair and restore the property. The legal system is essentially based on children being extensions of their parents. School systems are not the ones with legal authority and responsibility over the kids when other kids are harrassing them or misbehaving. Legal offenses are handled in the criminal justice system.When my opponent says that schools should teach children to behave, he is not entirely in opposition to my case. Yes, schools can have a part in teaching children to behave. However, resolutionally, it is not compliant or relevant. The resolution asks for enforcement of punishment and policy, not just for teaching, which isn't the responsibility of the school. A school's function within society is to teach, and the criminal justice system's responsibility is to punish those committing criminal offenses. And my opponent then talks about the person in my analogy who we did not expect to risk his life to save someone from fire when that was not their function in society. My opponent says the person should call the police, a point I stressed in my initial case, that it is the responsibility of the police to handle criminal offenses, not the school. This strengthens my case, as it shows that the responsibility falls on police to handle situations as severe as my opponent cited.Finally, my opponent provides that there should be more teachers on patrol at recess and more supervision to prevent rapes and fights. Then my opponent goes on to say that in the real world, when you get in a fight, you go to jail. The same thing should happen in a school as well. Just because it happens in a school doesn't make it exempt from societal punishments and standards, and those sorts of things are handled by the police.This is why I conclude this argument with the statement that it is not the responsibility of the schools to enforce severe punishment.

i prefer college uniform should be mandatory. although it increases priority,but children wear school uniform from their child hood. they get bored of this uniforms. but it is necessary to wear a uniform its reduces the burden of buying costly dresses.

Hats are not worn in schools for a similar reason that you wear pants. It is societal norm to not wear hats indoors, it is a societal norm to wear pants in public. It’s a part of basic etiquette. [1] Why should we care about etiquette? It sounds Victorian. Regardless of the potential unhip nature of some rule of etiquette, etiquette is essential to any civilization. The basic behavior that is accepted in social situations can mean the difference between success and failure in almost every aspect of life. Pushing norms of society, being avant garde, can be described as a positive attempt to express yourself. Wearing a hat may express some facet of your personality, or some artistic expression. What separates Andy Warhol’s sometimes anti-social behavior and a student wearing baseball cap other than arrogance? Even Andy Warhol knew when to wear pants.

Hello sy, In most schools, the issue of makeup falls in the school's dress code. Whether or not makeup should be banned is decided by the school's administration. That being said, I do not see any reasons for makeup to be disallowed entirely. While outlandish uses and outrageous amounts of makeup should be banned on the basis of disturbing the learning environment, I do not believe makeup should be outlawed. Makeup does not usually cause any major issues in school, and most students use it with common sense. In fact, clothing is a much bigger cause of problems than makeup. This is why schools often have a mandatory dress code, but adopt much more liberal views towards makeup. Also, makeup is a way of students to express themselves. This should also be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to ban makeup entirely. An ideal compromise would be for schools to moderate the use of makeup. For example, schools could disallow outlandish uses of makeup, but they should allow students to use a reasonable amount. What each school sets as reasonable amount is dependent upon their administration. The allowance of makeup can be a privilege, and the school may take it away at any time if a makeup becomes a problematic issue. In short, my points are that: 1. Makeup is usually not an issue in schools and therefore should not be banned entirely. 2. Many students use makeup responsibly and with common sense (therefore it is not an issue). 3. Makeup is a way for students to creatively express themselves. This should be considered when deciding to ban it. 4. As a compromise, schools can make makeup a privilege and remove it from students who abuse it. Thank you for taking the time to start this debate. I am awaiting your reply.

For starters: how it can be beneficial. 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.


Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

Regarding school uniforms, it is argued that students should not be compelled to wear them, as this policy leaves them with no opportunity to express their individuality, and it is often reported that students have a strong dislike for uniforms.

Dude. I literally went through your argument PIECE BY PIECE and debated it part by part. You STILL do not show ANY evidence for what you state. For all I and ANYBODY who sees this knows, you are LYING about everything. Now, I do not THINK you are, but you don't have ANY research from RELIABLE sources other than your own words. You NEED sources especially when you give SO MUCH data and stats! Here is the rest of the argument I never got to put WITH SOURCES: School uniforms create equality.At school it doesn't matter which type of family one comes from.Everyone is equal.I think those who say they should be banned want to show off how rich they are and bully other people Bullies exist despite uniforms. Ask anyone. Uniforms have NO guarantee. "If they want a school of only rich kids ,let them go and create their own school!So imagine being bullied for clothes.How would you feel?" 1. Not only rich kids are bullies. Some schools don"t have any rich kids. 2. Again, teach not to bully about ANYTHING, not just clothing! "Moreover ,research has shown that school uniforms increase focus on learning.If everyone is wearing uniforms ,all students will look at one another's clothing." WHAT research. SHOW it. Here is mine: https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.newyorker.com... http://www.spiked-online.com... http://theconversation.com... http://wh-magazine.com... http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca... https://www.creditdonkey.com... "It is also said that school uniforms make schools a safe place.Did you know?In some non uniform schools students have been killing each other over expensive clothing."

Right to expression:" Students can express themselves through bows, hairstyles, jewelry (necklaces, bracelets, ect.) headbands, and styles of ties...." School uniforms indeed encourage different ways of expression--but this nevertheless clashes against the uniform's goal at unifying everyone. People can still look to be economically different, some wearing more jewelry than other, some wearing more fancy ties than other. By limiting the self-expression, school uniforms defeats its own equality purpose.Bullies:My opponent concedes that uniforms does not necessarily halt bullying.Even experts say that uniforms won't stop bullying. [http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca...]. Thus, why must we go through the effort to change all the schools to require uniforms? It is too much effort. Only 16.5% of the public schools in US require a uniform. [http://www.infoplease.com...] Changing this policy would require meetings, discussing, agreement, and lots of money to buy all the uniforms from the school. While private schools may earn money, most public schools are free. Therefore there not only remains the problem of time and process needed to change this no-uniform policy, public schools would have problem garnering up enough money for buying uniforms every year for new students in the school.Distraction:" By implementing uniforms, kids will look the same...." Opponent contradicts himself. Uniforms do not change the students' physique. They will still be worried about looking fat. Uniforms do not solve the problem my opponent proposes. In addition, poor people will be unable to afford the uniforms at once. At the very least, uniforms cost way up to 100 pounds within Europe. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk...]. Keep in mind that my news article even sources the parents having to pay TWICE, meaning they had to pay a massive 200 pounds for the uniforms! The average cost of uniforms goes way up to $249 in America. [http://greatergreatereducation.org...] Thus those without uniforms cannot attend the school, or wear a slightly cheaper, different uniform, or even wear their usual clothes, yet still standing out within the crowd ever so more, destroying my opponent's "look the same" purpose yet again. Equally hot uniforms: "I do understand that."People still gonna "Stare" at each other as you said, regardless of what they wear. "Also, it is possible to have free dress days once a month."Ah, see? School uniforms are so restricting even my opponent thinks that they shouldn't be required all the time. My opponent gives us two statistic websites, yet do not tell us what they show and why they are credible. I expect my opponent to be the person telling us WHAT these websites show and WHY they are important, contribute to his arguments, and are trustworthy. You cannot merely say "oh, here's some statistics to show uniforms are good", and expect us to come to conclusions. In addition, causation does not show correlation, and neither vice versa. Just because violence happened to drop and school performance increased, does not attribute merely to school uniforms. We don't know if JUST the school uniforms caused these statistics. There are many other variables involved. Maybe the school added cameras? Security guards? Hired better teachers? Contacted the police more? Or maybe it's just because the school themselves are good and they are naturally improving? We don't know if the experimental data my opponent has shown is trustworthy or not. Who knows whether long-beach schools with uniforms improve on their own and our public schools just doesn't have the support to improve their security? There are too much questions and doubt within my opponent's statistics. Without outright explaining why the sources help his case and why they are credible, his statistics are moot.Back to you, my opponent.

To win this debate, I must successfully rebut my opponent's arguments. I will assume that Con holds the burden of proof because there is only one round and not enough room for me to make my own arguments and for either to be responded to. The 2,000 character limit only allows enough room for me to rebut Con's arguments anyway.Re: Freedom of ExpressionAlthough it may be true that student's will not be able to express themselves the way they want, that is probably a good thing because gang colors and insignia will not be worn at school. If we allow students to express themselves so freely, it may lead to the showing of gang-related attire which is what the typical community is against. Also, what students express on their clothing could be offensive to other students, such as shirts with offensive or crude language written on them or inapropriate pictures. It would be overall better if students just went with apropriate uniforms.Re: Not FittingUniforms can be fitted to each student's size so that they don't have an issue with their clothing. If they have a problem, they can see the person who is in charge of fitting uniforms and get them adjusting so that they are no longer a problem. Each student would actually concentrate better on their schoolwork because they would worry less about how they look and fitting in.Re: ExpensesA national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 77% of those surveyed estimated the average annual cost of school uniforms per child to be $150 or less and 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel"[1]. Parents seem to prefer uniforms to miscellaneous clothing cost-wise, so expenses are actually less of a problem than they are with normal clothing. Con's argument therefore holds no merit.Con's case is negated. Vote Pro. (I've reached the limit)Source1. http://www.naesp.org...

I think school uniform shouldn't be worn as it is a waste of money and is too strict in style. It takes ages to iron and because we all have "normal" clothes anyway, there is no point in getting new clothes. School uniform doesn't suit everyone and you cant show off your style. Uniforms attract bullies because of the way you wear them. Also, any stranger will be able to see what school you go to and it might be a way of them tracking who you are. And no one likes them. so do you want to be uncomfortable in a stuffy school or have fun showing YOUR personality and being yourself. check: listland.com/top-10-reasons-school-uniforms-should-be-banned http://learningin21.edublogs.org...

School uniforms, in general, seem to stretch the notion of assertion over students. There may be advantages with respect to fashion conservation, but it still destroys the concept of independence and art. In reality, wearing such uniforms brings a relatively stable nation like America, more like that of Syria, where uniforms are required by students, as well as longer class days (everyculture.com). If there is not a decrease in student morality, then certainly there can be one in their artistic flare. As the sun-sentinel.com suggests, wearing “uniforms stifle creativity” implying that to be creative proposes to not wear them in the first place (material conditional then modus tollens). While they may have their benefits, they harm far more.

School Dress Code should be abolished To note for this debate, we are talking about the complete abolishment of the entire school dress code. This more or less implies the idea that schools uniforms should serve to be completely non-existent. Of course, I am against this given resolution, and without further ado, I will begin with my arguments: C1: Serves as an identity Sub-point 1: School recognition By implementing the already existing school uniform for students to wear, it helps identify children/students from which school they are. It presents them in a way that they can proudly say “I am from _____ school” or “I am from _____ High school/Secondary school/Primary school” etc. A school with a uniform forms the basis of their public reputation from the uniform that they enforce their students to wear. If a public member sees a student walking to school with high heels and a straw-made hat, their reputation tumbles drastically, regardless of the education system within the school itself. It also marks part of their identity from their exterior appearance to where they have been educated for a large portion of their pre-adulthood stages of life. Sub-point 2: Student recognition This point is slightly different to the actually “school recognition”, but is still important to note. For example, when a group of students are out on an excursion, which option would clearly be better? A school with uniform or a school where students have the freedom of choice with the clothes that they are allowed to wear? Scenario 1: Bob is in Debate Dot Org High School and is attending the inter-school debating competition. His entire school wears a simple uniform, with a crest on the polo shirt. Unfortunately, on his way to the debating competition venue, he gets lost. He instantly finds a classmate due to the uniform, catches up with him, and gets to the venue on time. Scenario 2: Mr. I-HATE-UNIFORM is in No Uniform High School and is attending an excursion to learn about wave currents at a beach. Unfortunately for him, he becomes lost and is unable to find out where to go. His entire school does not have a school uniform, and has massive difficulty trying to locate the precise location of his classmate’s whereabouts. From the two scenarios given, it is clear that school uniforms gives a much clearer way to identify one person from their exterior appearance. C2: Smarter look For a student to appear in fashionable clothes that are suitable for odd fashion shows and competitions when attending something that relates to education is nonsensical. School uniforms are supposed to make the student look smart, educated, and willing to learn. This point has already been covered in the previous contention. A student who actually follows the school rules of wearing the correlating school uniform shows the following characteristics from the exterior appearance: 1. They are part of that school 2. They are disciplined (willing to follow the rules with wearing the uniform) 3. They look like they are smart (smarter than someone where casual clothes) 4. They look more formal than someone who is wearing casual clothes to school C3: No discrimination and/or judgement on clothing Most teenage students who are in school typically have the all-out hype on the latest fashion related to clothes and other clothing appeals, such as shoes, hats, bracelets, etc. The media strongly manipulates the way teenagers think of what is right and what is wrong, as well as what is apparently “better looking”, “More new” and other ridiculous concepts that should: 1. Not be part of schooling as it does not relate to the education of students 2. Not alter the child’s natural way of judgement If students have free reign over what type of clothing they are permitted to wear when attending school, most students (females in particular) will be subjected to being judged by their peers, based on what they wear. Students who are living within poorer families are unable to maintain the “Up-to-date-fashion” hype. Through these given contentions, I hope I have proved to the audience that the idea of the abolishment of the school dress code is not the idea of choice. Through these arguments, I aim to prove that the advantages of school uniforms outweigh the abolishment of the school uniforms. Looking forward to my opponent’s rebuttals in the next round.

Your argument is completely off topic and irrelevant. The debate topic was whether it SHOULD be required not if it could be required. And I do believe there are many government imposed things on state regulations for schools. The government comes up with what they want in all schools ( common core, NCLB, "healthier" lunches, etc.) and then they offer the state money. Yeah, some states refuse the money so that they can dictate what is to be taught in their schools, but most are desperate for the money and take it at any cost. So your argument had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but hopefully next round you can come up with something relative to the topic.

No, I do think there should be a dress code. No mistake. But a uniform would mean all the male teachers dressed the same, and vice versa for the female teachers. These are professionals, so they absolutely should maintain an air of professionalism, but uniforms wouldn't be in any way helpful. As far as for students, if a teacher is judging them on their fashion choices, that is a whole separate issue. But some sort of dress code should apply. Like, no ripped clothes, no underwear showing, etc.

This would create atmosphere we do not want. As if school doesn't put enough pressure and raise the intenisy on kids. To make the school enviroment more serious, formal, and tense is not something we want. Try to leave the school atmosphere relaxing and laid-back as possible. I think teahcers should have to be called by using those remarks but i think it is only so to keep and ceertain order and give teachers a lil respect. As far as teachers using the remarks for kids may seem unfair but it will certainly not be good for the educational enviroment.

We didn't, and currently this country's schools don't have uniforms for students and doing great! So apparently not needed, at all, at least here. K?


Question: Should Pupils be Required to Don School Uniforms?

Private educational institutions should mandate uniforms for their students.

My arguments are as follows:

1. Uniforms can boost a student’s self-esteem as they no longer have to compete with their peers to dress better. [1] Many students feel discouraged when they cannot afford the same clothing as their classmates. Uniforms place all students on an equal footing, reducing stress for those who cannot keep up with fashion trends. [2] Uniforms also enhance confidence and eliminate negative peer pressure, with over 75% of schools reporting a decline in peer pressure after introducing uniforms. [3]

2. Uniforms enhance learning by minimizing distractions caused by clothing. When students are bored, they often become preoccupied with what others are wearing, leading to judgment and comparison. Uniforms eliminate this issue, helping students stay focused in class. [4]

3. Uniforms create a sense of unity, as everyone in the school is dressed identically, promoting a team spirit and school pride. This fosters a sense of community among students, reducing divisions and bullying, which is beneficial for their mental health. [5]

4. Uniforms assist school staff in quickly identifying students, enhancing safety by keeping strangers and potentially dangerous individuals off campus. Uniforms also eliminate gang and clique symbols, promoting a safe and cohesive environment. Safety is crucial for increasing student enrollment. [6]

5. Uniforms help prevent bullying based on clothing, as bullies often target students who do not wear fashionable or high-quality clothing. [7] Uniforms promote discipline through neatness, order, and equality among students. [7]

6. Uniforms encourage creative self-expression in alternative ways, such as through personality, academic performance, clubs, and sports, as students cannot express themselves through clothing. [8]

7. Uniforms reduce violence and behavioral problems. A study in Long Beach, California, found an 86% decrease in violent assaults and a significant reduction in vandalism after implementing uniforms. [9] The U.S. Department of Education also reported a 36% decrease in school crime, a 74% drop in sexual offenses, and a 51% reduction in student fights. [13] Almost 80% of schools saw an improvement in student discipline after introducing uniforms. [10] Schools with uniforms also had higher graduation and attendance rates. [11] [12]

A study found that uniforms have various benefits, including reduced discipline issues, gang involvement, and bullying; increased safety, ease of attending school, confidence, and

School, in this time, is bad. It squanders kids attitude towards themselves, it disengages them from learning and causes them to be disinterested, it weeds out the goody-two-shoes and overlooks real intelligence and talent, it causes students to become uniform and judge themselves by one measure (a bad one at that) and thus makes people feel inadequate. Also it encourages bullying, opposes individuality, and squanders the talents of children whom may, or may not, even know they have. 'if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will think its a failure its whole life'

You said, "if you were to go to school without a uniform then anyone could easily walk in a do anything! " However, I disagree with the exclusiveness of this applying to only schools without unifroms. Anyone with enough money for a school uniform could go buy one, then walk in. The same thing happens in Boy Scouts. Last summer, when we went to Scout Camp, they made us check in for wristbands, as well as wear the uniform, so they knew A) we were scouts, and B) we had checked into a campsite that was reserved. So obviously, the unifrom doesn't actually prove you are a student. A student I. D. would be more effective. For your second argument, "i mean it would also cause alot of groups/gangs because you could tell who is gothic, neddy, ect. .. " I believe you meant that it would NOT cause the gangs/groups you mentioned. i disagree, for the following reason: if you want to do something, and you are prohibited, will you not try to find a loophole to try and get around that hole? If a gang wants to make itself seperate, they will give themself a different marker than baggy jeans, like bracelets, necklaces, rings, etc. A point I would like to bring up is that of actual education. You may not think that a school uniform can interfere with an education, but consider this: in America,there are an average of 180 school days a year (according to . http://ask.yahoo.com...), if you spend even only 20 minutes inspecting a class of thirty students to make sure their uniforms are all being worn correctly, assuming it takes about forty seconds per student, then you have wasted, on average, 2 hours per class the students are inspected in. Now some schools may only do the aforementioned inspection during the first class. Others may do it for all eight periods, adding up to 16 hours. People already complain that education money is being wasted, what will they say when so much time is being wasted on inspection. It doesn't contribute to your education in the slightest. I await my opponents next argument.

I suppose that means you want me to begin. I'd like to establish at first that freedom of choice is good by its own virtue. Allowing students the opportunity to choose their clothing is therefore also good. Secondly, the money spent on making school uniforms is money that parents could spend better, i.e. towards tutoring. Finally, I'd like to point out that it is possible to institute dress codes in schools to prevent inappropriate clothing from vein worn, without completely limiting the choice of the students.

We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.

oh, my friend, we are not living in the Sovet Union, not in ancient times. I repeat it is modern time. if we want to develop our country and take a place in the modern countries. Uniform has bad influences on our youth, because KZ youth want to be like American. So, it is useful, if we give our youth children, and it helps them to be more confident, creatively and more free. we cannot take youth's rights from their young age. To sum up, we shouldn't take uniforms as necessity.

Topic to argue: The school dress code should be abolished No semantics or trolling. Definitions: Dress code: School uniform Abolished: Completely removed Structure of debate: 1st round: Acceptance, rules, topic, positions 2nd round: Opening arguments only 3rd round: Rebuttals only 4th round: Final rebuttals, defence and conclusion Any failure to follow these rules for this debate automatically results in the loss of conduct point. I am taking the CON position to the following resolution, therefore negating it. BOP is shared of course. Good Luck!

My opponent has made several contentions: (1) I am a student, (2) I know uniformed students - I hate them, and (3) uniformed students become so repressed they party too hard when they let loose. My opponent's arguments represent, respectively:(1) an appeal to authority. While my opponent may be a student, he is not necessarily every student, nor does his status as a student confer upon him any special abilities to discern the advantages and disadvantages of uniforms; and(2) & (3) sampling bias. My opponent has not provided carefully scrutinized statistics but rather his own selective sample of a group of uniformed hooligans. These hooligans may not be representative of the entirety of students who wear uniforms. In addition, the earlier mentioned problem with regards to the elimination of raucous parties appears to be no problem at all if the elimination of such parties preserves the safety of the students. I am sure there are some nice uniform-wearing students in the world, Con. You just need to meet them. Perhaps you could don a uniform and approach them in disguise. If they accept you, the uniforms must be working. As an aside, I went to a school that had a uniform and a school that had a dress code (elementary and high school, respectively). I don't know about all of the students, but I was an okay enough individual. Methinks uniforms might not be the cause of the issues of which you complain.

It will stop bullying to a certain point, and the clothes don't cost that much unless you go to a private school,public schools don't charge that much. And did you read all the way or only skim because I found all this. Whichproves that uniforms have more of a purpose than only being bland and awful for students.Long Beach, CA implemented uniforms in 1995 and reported the following resultsLong Beach Uniform Statistics DataOverall, the crime rate dropped by 91 %School suspensions dropped by 90 %Sex offenses were reduced by 96 %Incidents of vandalism went down 69 %Assaults in grades K-8 decreased by 85 %Norfolk, VA implemented uniforms in 1995 and reported the following resultsLong Beach Uniform Statistics DataLeaving class without permission dropped by 47 %Throwing objects dropped by 68 %Fighting dropped by 38 %

Okay, 9spaceking. Here goes my logic. "Furthermore some students feel like it limits and attacks their right to expression." Seeing as this is a constitutional right, this is very important to address. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court sided with Tinker. This is because the school attempted to deny their right to expression when they were wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Uniforms, however, do not attack a students right to self expression. Students can express themselves through bows, hairstyles, jewelry (necklaces, bracelets, ect.) headbands, and styles of ties, as the Supreme Court made clear to be allowed, so long as it didn't hinder the educational process. They can also express themselves in the classroom by how they answer, who they talk to, what they research, and how they go about presentations. Clothing is not the only way to self-expression. Also, your first source states, "Indeed, as the Daily News reported last Monday [April 2002], more and more public schools are requiring or encouraging students to wear clothing of standardized colors and styles-uniforms, basically-and there's been nary a peep of protest." Kids who have been wearing uniforms for their whole schooling experience do not have a problem with it. "Unfortunately, wearing the same thing does not mean being equals in these bullies' minds." I did explain how just because you are wearing the same thing does not mean that you won't get bullied. I do understand that kids will find something to put someone down over. I believe that school uniforms will give students one less thing to be bullied over. Bullying will not end. Ever. Nothing will change that. Not even my amazing uniforms. *Haha* My friend was bullied because she was uncomfortable wearing spandex shorts to play volleyball in. This goes against the school dress code, yet it was a uniform. The school does not regulate the dress code at all. Due to bullying by the team and coaches, she felt forced to quit. "But with uniforms, students become distracted from school and worry about their self-image ever so more based on their uniform." This is exactly the opposite. Kids with less money, or not an appealing body type, don't have to worry about how they can't afford or fit into the most popular styles of clothing. Uniforms level the playing field of clothes. Besides, "More than 90 percent of girls -15 to 17 years- want to change at least one aspect of their physical appearance, with body weight ranking the highest." (http://www.heartofleadership.org...) "80% of children who are 10 years old are afraid of being fat." (http://www.pbs.org...). The list continues on and on with how many students feel pressured to be in the "in" crowd, while students that aren't popular feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment and dissatisfaction with themselves. Clothing is one of the biggest factors of peer pressure that I, personally, see. By implementing uniforms, kids will look the same and not be pressured to buy the biggest brand names. "Girls and boys can be equally hot in school uniforms. Students still gonna stare at each other in love regardless of what their wear." I do understand that. I do believe, however, that it is unacceptable to wear shorts that barely cover your underwear, sometimes not even, and see through shirts, as is the case in my school, so uniforms will help with the provocations. "Not all work requires uniforms. For those that don't require uniforms, using uniforms will decrease the students' abilities to chose their clothing wisely." I do believe that uniforms will allow kids to understand what is acceptable in the professional world. Just because you go to school in a uniform does that mean that you will not get practice on the weekends. We don't give people privileges just because one day they will need to learn how to use them responsibly. Also, it is possible to have free dress days once a month. Other statistics to promote school uniform can be found here: http://www.statisticbrain.com... and http://kids.lovetoknow.com... . I've had a lot of fun debating with you. Good luck on your rebuttal. I hope to hear from you soon.

To win this debate, I must successfully rebut my opponent's arguments. I will assume that Con holds the burden of proof because there is only one round and not enough room for me to make my own arguments and for either to be responded to. The 2,000 character limit only allows enough room for me to rebut Con's arguments anyway.Re: Freedom of ExpressionAlthough it may be true that student's will not be able to express themselves the way they want, that is probably a good thing because gang colors and insignia will not be worn at school. If we allow students to express themselves so freely, it may lead to the showing of gang-related attire which is what the typical community is against. Also, what students express on their clothing could be offensive to other students, such as shirts with offensive or crude language written on them or inapropriate pictures. It would be overall better if students just went with apropriate uniforms.Re: Not FittingUniforms can be fitted to each student's size so that they don't have an issue with their clothing. If they have a problem, they can see the person who is in charge of fitting uniforms and get them adjusting so that they are no longer a problem. Each student would actually concentrate better on their schoolwork because they would worry less about how they look and fitting in.Re: ExpensesA national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 77% of those surveyed estimated the average annual cost of school uniforms per child to be $150 or less and 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel"[1]. Parents seem to prefer uniforms to miscellaneous clothing cost-wise, so expenses are actually less of a problem than they are with normal clothing. Con's argument therefore holds no merit.Con's case is negated. Vote Pro. (I've reached the limit)Source1. http://www.naesp.org...