Question: Should Pupils Be Required to Don School Uniforms?

The absence of school uniforms should not be encouraged.
"Should schools restrict middle-schoolers from wearing everyday clothes, they would be infringing on the students' right to self-expression." It doesn't necessarily imply that students are forbidden from wearing their own clothes; in certain circumstances, they are permitted to wear alternative attire if there is no uniform or during special events. The decision to wear a uniform is ultimately left to the student. If they choose not to, the teacher will simply remind them to do so. In fact, they have the option to wear their own clothes, but wearing school uniforms is generally preferred. Let me reiterate the points you overlooked. If there were no school uniforms:
. . . It would lead students to wear fashionable or inappropriate clothing. . . School spirit would decline (because of the emblem and uniformity) . . . It would increase the risk of sexual assault or harassment (due to inappropriate attire) . . . Wealthy families might allow their children (or the children themselves decide) to wear expensive clothing, which less fortunate families cannot afford, leading to competition. "Many middle school students would concur with a writer who stated" Please identify that writer. "Some students prefer to express themselves through their clothing" Please provide specific reasons why students should not wear school uniforms. Beyond self-expression. "Therefore, some students prefer to express themselves through their clothing, so they would rather wear everyday attire." There are alternative ways for students to express themselves, not just through their attire. "Too tight or too loose" Then simply adjust the uniform or measure it before the school year begins. "If schools prohibit middle-schoolers from wearing everyday attire, they are taking away the students' freedom to express themselves." Although you are only discussing your own country, what about others? Moreover, even if schools do "take away the freedom to express themselves," that's an understatement. To clarify, it would be "schools take away the freedom to express the APPEARANCE of a student," meaning that it doesn't take away the WHOLE FREEDOM to EXPRESS THEMSELVES as there are MANY OTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, not just through their attire. So what is your point here? It appears that your argument solely revolves around the notion that students can't express themselves, when in fact, they still can, but not through their appearance. There are numerous other ways for students to express themselves. Are you suggesting that students are incapable of expressing themselves in any way other than through their clothing? That's absurd!

Since I said that shcool is not cool, shcool is not cool. Kids should not have to be brutally forced to go to shcool, because it is not cool. Shcool just teaches us about hitler and those darn nazi's. Alos we learn how to spell. And it gets boring because I know how to spell every word in the alphapet. Shcool should be nuked. In other words screw shcool because shcool is not cool.

Style. "Some accessories for girls are considered inappropriate. " - Would you like to list some examples? I knew a girl that always stayed fresh at school even with uniforms. Bracelets, Necklaces, Earrings, Things of that nature. I never heard of a school that somehow restricts accessories (boy or girl) I assume we are from completely different parts of the world. Are you not allowed to wear a scarf? Why wear uniforms? Reiterating point: All comes down to following the rules and teaches you lessons. Pros for uniforms: 1. School uniforms keep students focused on their education, Not their clothes. 2. Uniforms create a level playing field among students, Reducing peer pressure and bullying. 3. Wearing uniforms can enhance school pride, Unity, And community spirit. 4. Uniforms make getting ready for school easier, Which can improve punctuality. 5. Students dressed in uniform are better perceived by teachers and peers. Bullying. I agree with your point on this. There should be a bullying debate on here, That would be interesting. Solution. So you're in a private school I see now. Understood. The high schoolers where you are wear uniforms? Yeah I think we are from completely different places now. "It is not a concern of whether if it gets better or not, I should not have to get better. "It all comes down to stages in life. Yeah during elementary to middle school your freedom may feel limited and it's really strict but as you get older (high school+college) you gain more freedom, Regarding what you wear and the expectations from teachers and professors since they expect different from you as you are older and put you more in a higher standard. Not discrediting younger people who are middle schoolers because I know many such as yourself are very sharp but unfortunately this uniform thing is just so prevalent and hard to control. Sometimes you have to roll with the punches. At the same time, I see where you're coming from.

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.~~ First off i would like to know where you got the fact and percentage of people who get in a fight at school because what there wearing? and i don't know if you know this but clothes are not the only thing about gangs. clothes are not what make up a gang. just because they are not wearing there colors or whatever they are still part of a gang. so i would like to know where you are going with this cause it looks like know were. moving on. ~~Now about your point on the cost. If money is a issue which in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes. ~~ First money is a issue for a lot of people. in some kids it is the school will buy you clothes? that makes no sense but i think i might know what you mean so a will work with it. you stated some so that's not all they time. moving on. ~~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 vase verse. So therefore the issue of money really isn't a problem and neither is the waste of clothes.~~ you are right about the uniform. now that it is clarified. lets use a soccer uniform for example. you have to wear the same shirt short and socks to ever game. now for dress code policies in school. the dress code could be red white or blue polo's with only tan or blue shorts. that is a policy. So i have totally refuted your point. back to what i was saying about saving money. a lot of people are not going to want to wear that during summer or the weekend because they want to me comfortable. thus not having to buy extra clothes parents could save for bills.

While the uniform from Wikimedia *is* duly hilarious, I must voice my opposition for two reasons. (1) First, BMI is a terrible measurement of "underweight" and "overweight" because it does not take into account whether that weight is fat or muscle. (2) Second, and more importantly, I am pro-choice, meaning a man's right to choose. Some men like fat chicks, and we call these men 'chubby chasers.' Some men like anorexic chicks, and these women are called 'spinners.' Sometimes a guy who normally likes normal-sized women wants to venture outside of his comfort zone. Making these "unique" women all wear a silly uniform will stigmatize the men who dig interestingly-shaped chicks. Plus, if we make all the fat women wear the uniform, they will never be able to wow us with their gigantic cleavage. Similarly, medical students will be disappointed when they can no longer see the outline of an anorexic chick's vital organs whenever she is in a swim suit. Diversity is the spice of life, and with that, I negate.

I do think you make good points. == School uniforms keep students focused on their education, Not their clothes. But in the end, Like I said many will find loopholes. Shorter skirts, Fancier accessories, Etc. It still seems as much 'distracting' as normal, Casual clothes do. == Uniforms create a level playing field among students, Reducing peer pressure and bullying. As I stated earlier, The main reason for bullying is not because of the bullied because of the 'builler'. But, Yes I do see that many will not just see it that way, But as I said, There will be loopholes. As for finances, The cost of uniforms is pretty high considering most school I have seen. Although your debate about bullying does sound compelling. ==Regarding what you wear and the expectations from teachers and professors since they expect different from you as you are older and put you more in a higher standard. I think you make a great point. But the earlier we teach certain skills and virtues, The more mature and responsible we become as we get older.

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.

Thank youEvidence is only to be presented when asked forI will first be presenting my arguments, then refuting my opponent's arguments. First, some definitions. Public School- K-12 Schools run by the US federal government1. Makes people equal in the eyes of others, thus stopping bullyingSome schools when they add uniforms it changes the way the students act, for example on the kimatv news the school system in yakima started to use uniforms. After each school started to use uniforms the bullying rate when down by 50%. People may be poor or rich. Income disparity is a huge problem in today’s public school system. People are bullied and teased based on the type/condition of their clothes. With kids, there would be none of that. No one will tease or bully anyone because everyone is wearing the same uniformThe impact that will come from this discovery will be huge, this is because kids a tormented by name calling and other types of bullying everyday and it ruins their lives. Bullying can cause suicidal and traumatic problems which is detrimental to students. 2. Stops Inappropriate clothes to be worn to schoolCEPI says that uniforms stops gang colors This is good because gangs won’t be able to communicate thus keeping gangs from committing crimesThe Impact is that because gangs won’t communicate, they can’t commit crimes making the world a better place Less people die from gang related crimes, saving lots of lives3. Kids can be readily identified in outside activitiesIn a field Trip, if the whole school is wearing a uniform, then if the kid wanders off, the teacher will recognize him/her in a huge crowd because of his/her clothes. US Department of Education says that the uniforms can help teachers identify their students easier. This will keep the students from getting lost and thus keeping them safe. If the school has uniforms, then the kids will be safe. They cannot wander off and get into trouble or danger. This is especially beneficial for younger kids. Now, to my opponent's arguments My opponent talks about how it violates rights. However, some things, you need to give up for a better life. I would rather feel safe and give up a few rights. In fact, I would rather stay alive instead of dead with the ability to express myself. Obviously, life is much more important than the right to express oneself. Limiting the right to express oneself is not going to kill every child in the US.

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.

This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. My Arguments 1. Uniforms may increase a student’s self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. [1] Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion". [2] By implementing uniforms confidence is boosted and negative peer pressure is eliminated. Over 75% of schools that implemented school uniforms noticed a drop in peer pressure. [3] 2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". [4] This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying; giving a sense of community is beneficial to the mental well being of a student. [5] 4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. This helps to make students feel safer at school. School uniforms may also eliminate gang and clique symbols bringing about a feeling of safety and togetherness. Safety is very important when increasing the amount of students who enroll in a school. 5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. [6]By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved. School uniforms encourage discipline through neatness, order, and equality among students. [6] 6. School uniforms encourage creative forms of self expression. Since students lose the ability to express themselves in certain ways through the clothes they were, they will be more likely to express themselves through things such as their personality, academic performance, clubs, and sports. It pushes students to put themselves out there. 7. School uniforms reduce violence and student behavioral problems. [7] Long Beach, California District School held a study comparing violence and behavioral problem rates among students before and after uniforms were implemented. In the five years following the implementation of school uniforms there was an 86% drop in violent assaults. Vandalism cases dropped from 1409 to 106. [8] The U.S. Department of Education also found that school crime decreased 36%, sexual offenses decreased 74%, and fights between students dropped 51% after school uniforms were implemented.[13] Almost 80% schools that implemented school uniforms noticed an improvement in student discipline. [9] Schools that implemented school uniforms also showed to have a higher graduation rate and attendance rate than schools without school uniforms. [11] [12] School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that “various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. “[10] [1] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [2] http://www.eduguide.org... [3] https://www.dickies.com... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.frenchtoast.com... [6] http://www.parenting.org... [7]http://www.calvaryschoolkc.com... [8] http://www.davidsonacademy.com... [9] http://www.buzzle.com... [10] http://www.unr.edu... [11] http://www.19actionnews.com... [12] http://www.uh.edu... [13] http://www.psmag.com...

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


Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

The concept of school uniforms is a prevalent practice, particularly in private schools, where students are required to wear a uniform for a multitude of reasons. This not only ensures a neat and orderly appearance for the school, but it also benefits the students themselves. By wearing uniforms, children are prepared for the expectations of future professional settings, such as office environments, where casual attire like skinny jeans and offensive t-shirts would be inappropriate. The enforcement of school uniforms also addresses the potential issue of students wearing clothing with inappropriate messages or images, such as undergarments or shirts with explicit language. Schools are not attempting to suppress individuality but rather to guide students towards becoming well-rounded individuals through their dress code.

Well, Ladies and gentlemen! It seems that the instigator has forfeited (how sad), Though how he/she may have had some points, My case still stands. That is because ever since centuries ago, School uniforms has already been implemented. Why change something so historical now when you can invent other things than changing history? "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor" - Sholom Aleichem -

First, I am not sure if you are educated or if you were forced to be, But if you were, It obviously is not being implemented in your life, As evidenced by your atrocious spelling and grammar (this system even has spell check). Of course, If English is not your native language, This is forgivable. Second, What I inferred from your argument was that you feel that third world counties are not as well developed because they don't have compulsory education. This is patently false. Out of the top 5 third world counties according to HDI (nationsonline. Org): In Kenya " primary school is free and compulsory" (epdc. Org) In Sao Tome and Principe "primary school is mandatory. " (borgenproject. Org) Pakistan is dedicated to "provide free and compulsory education for a minimum period" (norric. Org) and "has passed a law on compulsory education (eight years of schooling). " (norric. Org) Bangladesh "recently announced that it will extend free and compulsory primary education to all students through grade 8" (worldbank. Org) This means that 4/5 of the top 3rd world countries provide some form of compulsory education. Their position as "back wards" as you said, Is based upon their cultures, As well as their history of political and military unrest. Third, You are correct in that people with more education are typically payed better, But also pay more taxes. (collegeboard. Org) Therefore it should be easy for people to CHOOSE to get educated, And not be forced into it. Fourth, I would argue that Welfare should be abolished as well, But that is a separate debate, So I will say that those who are forced to be educated now against their will are already prone to fail in seizing the initiative to succeed and will therefore end up on welfare anyway and take more taxpayer money by leaching off of the education system. Fifth, If educated people make more money, Why would blue collar employers not hire more uneducated people who are not in a position to demand more pay? If anything, This would increase their prospects of finding a job, Albeit a menial one. And finally, Me being or not being on drugs has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I am not, Incidentally, But this weak jab at my validity as a debater shows how little you care about building a sound logical (or, In this case, Psychoanalytical) foundation for your assertions.

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.

You need to be a little less rude and focus on the debate. Yes, I go to a private school and I used my person experience. Actually, as I type this I am wearing my uniform now. We should get rid of uniforms, but keep a dress code because uniforms are ugly and they don't seem to flatter the body. I get a little bullied at school by one person because apparently I look "fat" in it. I always defend myself, but that's beside the point. PS: I would love it if you were a little more respectful toward your opponents. You come across as aggresive and mean and no person should come across like that. Please be a little more respectful.

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

My Arguments 1. Uniforms may increase a student’s self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. [1] Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion". [2] By implementing uniforms confidence is boosted and negative peer pressure is eliminated. Over 75% of schools that implemented school uniforms noticed a drop in peer pressure. [3] 2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the classroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side". [4] This togetherness helps to eliminate division among students at the school and reduces bullying; giving a sense of community is beneficial to the mental well being of a student. [5] 4. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. This helps to make students feel safer at school. School uniforms may also eliminate gang and clique symbols bringing about a feeling of safety and togetherness. Safety is very important when increasing the amount of students who enroll in a school. 5. Bullies like to pick on kids who are lesser than them, and therefore tend to pick on kids who do not wear quality or popular clothes. [6]By implementing school uniforms this problem is solved. School uniforms encourage discipline through neatness, order, and equality among students. [6] 6. School uniforms encourage creative forms of self expression. Since students lose the ability to express themselves in certain ways through the clothes they were, they will be more likely to express themselves through things such as their personality, academic performance, clubs, and sports. It pushes students to put themselves out there. 7. School uniforms reduce violence and student behavioral problems. [7] Long Beach, California District School held a study comparing violence and behavioral problem rates among students before and after uniforms were implemented. In the five years following the implementation of school uniforms there was an 86% drop in violent assaults. Vandalism cases dropped from 1409 to 106. [8] The U.S. Department of Education also found that school crime decreased 36%, sexual offenses decreased 74%, and fights between students dropped 51% after school uniforms were implemented.[13] Almost 80% schools that implemented school uniforms noticed an improvement in student discipline. [9] Schools that implemented school uniforms also showed to have a higher graduation rate and attendance rate than schools without school uniforms. [11] [12] School uniforms have helped improve schools, as emphasized by one study that finds that “various benefits to wearing uniforms were reported, including decreases in discipline, gang involvement and bullying; and increases in safety, eases of going to school, confidence and self-esteem. Additionally, school police data showed a 63 percent reduction in police log reports during the first year of implementation. Other decreases were noted in reports of gang-related activities and student fights, along with graffiti, property damage, battery and administrative assist. “[10] [1] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... [2] http://www.eduguide.org... [3] https://www.dickies.com... [4]http://www.greatschools.org... [5]http://www.frenchtoast.com... [6] http://www.parenting.org... [7]http://www.calvaryschoolkc.com... [8] http://www.davidsonacademy.com... [9] http://www.buzzle.com... [10] http://www.unr.edu... [11] http://www.19actionnews.com... [12] http://www.uh.edu... [13] http://www.psmag.com...

Before I delve into my argument, I will post two definitions. School: An institution for educating children. Schooling: Education or training received, especially at school. Education: The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. Schooling and education are distinct concepts, and not explicitly congruent, but very closely related. Based on the definitions posted above, education may or may not take place in a school setting, but schools are intended to be places of education. Education may not explicitly mean that every human must "go to school" in order to be successful, but school is arguably the best source for education. Public schools provide education in language arts, mathematics, sciences, social studies, and arts. This is a tremendous resource in education that is far more accessible than attempting to find these lessons in the real world. Outside of school, you are typically forced to focus on job-specific learning, rather than true, mind expanding education. To suggest that education is nothing more than a reference of trivial facts is to confuse education with some sort of memory game. For example, keeping with Pro's Twain reference: if I ask you "what does The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn mean to you?" First, if you are not in a school program, this book will likely be unfamiliar. The only people who will have interest in this book are those who have specifically been introduced to it at some point. Second, if education is to be an "encyclopedia of dry facts," then you may as well look up the book's meaning on Google and repeat it as your own. However, being that this is not what the book means to you, the response is dishonest and void. Education is about understanding, rather than simply remembering. Being that I do not know which particular period of school Pro intends to be debating, I will focus on both high school and college education. According to the National Dropout Prevention Center, high school dropouts face exponentially more adversity than those who finish their high school education. High school dropouts are four times as likely to be unemployed as those who have completed four or more years of college. Alternatively, graduates earn $143 more per week than high school dropouts. Dropouts are also more likely to be dependent on public assistance than graduates of high school. Finally, about 75% of America's State prison inmates, almost 59% of Federal inmates, and 69% of local jail inmates did not complete high school (Harlow, 2003). All of this, in addition to having less opportunity to pursue legitimate and meaningful education. Finally, a survey was taken by an organization known as Career Connections. This survey revealed that 74 percent of high school dropouts wish they would have stayed in school, and 76 percent admit that they would happily re-enroll if they were able. Moving on to the college level, I first am compelled to tell you that, if you are hoping for real mind expanding education, then college is far more interesting than high school. College allows you to pursue your interests and choose classes that you will genuinely enjoy. However, in order to reach college education, you have to make it through high school so that you can earn the opportunity to attend. That being said, entering the job market without a wealth of experience or a college degree is simply suicidal in this current economy. Employers are only looking for the best candidates for each position, and the employee market has already saturated most positions with applicant after applicant. Because of this, college degrees, especially reputable degrees, are absolutely critical to being successful in the current economy, and to suggest otherwise is deeply misleading to future generations; this misleading concept has arguably ruined millions of potentially successful lives. This isn't difficult to believe when we consider that college graduates earn $336 more per week than high school graduates ($479 more per week than high school dropouts), totaling a difference of $17,472 per year. If the average person works from age 24/25 until retirement at this steady pay rate, then you will make roughly $700,000 dollars more in a lifetime than someone who did not attend college. School may not always be the most effective form of education, but I refuse to believe that school is a factory of facts, as you portray it to be. A school's intent should be to encourage education and productive discussion, not to cater to every interest. If your "thinking outside of the box" has legitimate educational merit, and is beneficial to the group as a whole, then teachers generally will accept and encourage it. If it is disruptive or disrespectful, then teachers have cause to shy away from it. With a group setting, and the high regulations that force schools to cram more and more into each lessons plan, school classes have little time to explore unnecessary matters. And at the end of the day, unless "thinking outside of the box" is a revolutionary approach to a tired concept, than it is unnecessary. School isn't trying to make you "just good enough for the next level." Schools attempt to provide you with a rounded base so that you are not at any disadvantage once you reach the next level. If I may ask a rhetorical question: when is the last time that you fell asleep in class? The followup that I will ask is whether this is because of the teacher, or your own lack of attention. The statistic that you posted about a student dropping out every 9 seconds is actually every 29 seconds according to Do Something. You suggest that this is because students find school irrelevant and uninteresting. I would argue that this is just as much the fault of the student as it is the teacher's. Teachers have anywhere from 20 to 400 students at any given time, and schools do not have the luxury of tailoring their lessons to each students. If teachers have a responsibility to provide students with real educational content, than students have an equal responsibility to respond with both attention and enthusiasm. Real teachers, will always attempt to engage their students in discussion, and many of those students do not lose interest, either because they make a sincere effort, or because they have no interest in the first place. Some students fail to engage themselves in any substantial learning or thought, because they do not want to have to put effort into understanding text, or precedent, or the intricacies of a subject. Rather than force themselves to participate in a class that seems difficult or uninteresting, these students would rather blame the school for not holding their interest. It is an unfortunate reality, but hard-effort is necessary in school and exponentially more-so in unschooled education. If Pro truly loves education, then my only resolution can be to endure school. The junior and senior years are both educationally and socially fulfilling, and then college is a unique educational experience altogether. If Pro's response is that education can be obtained outside of school settings, then I propose that unschooled education is exponentially more difficult and less profitable than schooled education. Finally, if Pro's position is that school is irrelevant, uninteresting, and, for lack of a better word, boring; then I will close with a few quotes which I hope will accentuate my points. He who opens a school door, closes a prison. - Victor Hugo A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad. - President Theodore Roosevelt I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.

While your statement about your own P.E class may be true, how exactly are teachers supposed to accurately measure how much energy you are exerting? How much is a lot? How do they know that you are not faking exertion? My point is, grading children on how much energy the teachers THINK the students are exerting is not accurate and it is not fair to the student. With class sizes of 30 people, a teacher may take one glance at a child that may be quickly resting and mark him as being lazy and not exerting himself because he/she has to grade the others as well. The whole concept is flawed. Furthermore, there is nothing other than Fitness-Gram's recommendation (which does not have to be followed) that says that Fitness-gram cannot be used for grading. Since they are required by the state, what's to stop teachers from putting the scores into the grade book? Teachers often think that since they are doing the tests anyway, they may as well make them assessments. Can you image failing P.E because you cannot run 20 sprints? This may not be the case at your school, but it is at many others, some of which I have experienced. Same thing with the team captain system. Your P.E teacher may not do this, but others may. As for the clothes, I am sure that even you will agree that the experience of changing in a locker room or practicing basic hygiene with many other people in a musty, oftentimes small locker room is not pleasant. Also, the P.E. uniforms are oftentimes not what people want to wear while exercising. You are basically being forced to pay 20 dollars for a branded shorts and a shirt. As for your argument about teacher not liking athletic kids who have a bad attitude, I completely agree. But what about the ones that have a good attitude. All other factors being equal, a P.E. teacher will most likely prefer an athletic kid over one who is not, because that kid will appear to be doing better. Once again, the issue comes down to measuring exertion. Because there is no practical way to do this, many teachers resort to grading performance. Even if they do not intend to, it may happen subconsciously. The fundamental problem here is that the flaws of P.E. are very numerous, even if some vary from school to school, and the benefits are nonexistent. As I said before, P.E. on its own does not provide enough exercise, and it fails and sometimes even backfires in encouraging kids to exercise outside of school. It also sucks an enormous amount of money. Equipment, gym space, repair, and uniforms are just some of the special things P.E. needs. Not to mention the staff cost. This money could be used in a whole variety of uses in school. More technology, better activities, giving teachers a raise, etc. It could even be invested back into high school sports. Extracurricular sports like baseball provide much more enjoyment, fair competition, and most importantly, physical activity. These programs do provide enough exercise to make a difference, unlike P.E. In conclusion, P.E simply has no purpose in schools. It does not provide nor encourage significant physical activity, and has a host of adverse effects. It is just not worth it.

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.

"School uniforms indeed encourage different ways of expression--but this nevertheless clashes against the uniform's goal at unifying everyone." Kids wearing the same styles or colors of certain articles of clothing, such as shirts, pants, socks, ties, ect., unifies them. Wearingg different articles at different times separates them. Take these pictures for example: These two girls are unified by wearing the same colors, but show self expression. The girl on the left is wearing a navy and white cross-tie, white blouse, and navy skirt. The girl on the right is wearing a white long sleeved shirt with a collar, underneath a navy dresss. All of these uniforms look diverse, yet would work for a school whose colors are red and yellow. No two uniforms match, yet it is evident that they would all be from the same school. Also, this argument depends on your definition of unify. According to http://www.merriam-webster.com... , unify means "to cause (people or things) to be joined or brought together". An example of this is "two very different people unified by a common belief". Uniforms can unify people by using the same colors or styles, while self-expression allows variation within these boundaries. You can unify a group of people without forcing them to give up their individuality. Boy Scouts wear the same uniform, but due to their different badges, patches, pins, and beads, they are allowed to show their personal achievements and preferences. Letterman jackets also allow people in schools to be unified while showing personal achievements. http://www.wisegeek.org... explains what Letterman jackets are and how kids personalize it, while keeping the school pride. "My opponent concedes that uniforms does not necessarily halt bullying. Even experts say that uniforms won't stop bullying." I have already addressed this. See previous arguments. "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." I do agree that changing this policy would require all of these things- initially. After initial cost, and time, is settled, uniforms are greatly inexpensive and durable. It is not the school's responsibility to provide uniforms, but to provide a path to obtaining school approved uniforms through resources such as magazines, websites, and catalogs. If parents could not provide uniforms to start with, then schools could provide interest-free loans to help offset the cost. Unless public schools wanted to completely take the whole burden of the cost, which they could do through fundraisers, they would not need to collect money for uniforms. Besides that, uniforms and their costs are as diverse as the school districts they will be representing. In other words, each school district will have to decide for themselves the economic situation of their student body and decide how costly a uniform can be to represent them. Each school would have to choose a uniform that falls within the student body's economic range. Through the implementation of small uniform swap stores, parents wouldn't need to "buy uniforms every year for new students in the school". The uniforms would be turned in and exchanged for uniforms of a different size or for cash. "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." Uniforms will not solve the problem of looking fat. Uniforms, will however, solve the problem of kids becoming obsessed over whether or not they have a certain style of clothing. By looking the same, I in no way meant that they would become identical in stature or weight. My opponent twisted my argument of not having to worry about not looking good in name-brand clothes. Allowing free-dress also is not the solution to kids being self-conscious about how they look. Allowing kids to dress however they please will not only put down the kids who can't afford designer clothing, but will also make the kids who don't look good in clothing made for smaller kids self-conscious. "In addition, poor people will be unable to afford the uniforms at once." I refuted that in my argument about interest-free loans and swap stores. "Ah, see? School uniforms are so restricting even my opponent thinks that they shouldn't be required all the time." This was not the argument that we were having. My opponent claimed in the second round that "Not all work requires uniforms. For those that don't require uniforms, using uniforms will decrease the students' abilities to chose their clothing wisely." Due to this argument, I conceded that to have practice choosing clothing wisely, free dress days once monthly would be sufficient, in addition to weekends. I do not believe that uniforms are restricting whatsoever, but in order to gain favor with children that are opposed to uniforms, I see the point in opening up dress once monthly. "My opponent gives us two statistic websites, yet do not tell us what they show and why they are credible." I do apologize for giving statistic sites and not explaining what they mean. I will now explain them. http://www.statisticbrain.com... shows how many percent of parents marked "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" on the following questions survey asked the Survey was taken after the implementation of uniforms. The questions are stated below. Survey Question Parents Teachers Policy has hindered self expression and creativity 34 % 5 % Policy has hindered individual student’s personal liberty 36 % 0 % Has promoted a sense of security 41 % 86 % Has increased school pride and has created a sense of community 42 % 80 % The school uniform has been financially beneficial for my household 49 % 86 % Has addressed the peer pressure issue of "fitting in" by wearing specific brands 47 % 90 % Has promoted positive student behavior 37 % 95 % Policy has minimized disruption and distractions 38 % 81 % Has eliminated competition among students 36 % 52 % School uniforms have improved the learning environment 35 % 81 % The Board should extend the school uniform policy indefinitely 42 % 81 % http://kids.lovetoknow.com... gives specific advantages in why uniforms are beneficial in the areas of academia, behavior, and emotion. It also shows the financial effects being primarily the same. Back to you.


Question: Should Pupils Be Required to Don School Uniforms?

Should school uniforms be mandatory in educational institutions? Just because students are dressed in school uniforms, it doesn't guarantee that they won't face bullying over their appearance. They can still be targeted for their glasses, hair, shoes, or their socioeconomic status. Uniforms merely address one issue, but bullying can manifest in various forms. Additionally, children may experience rapid growth, and their parents might not be financially capable of purchasing new uniforms or handling frequent washing.

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

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.

Once again all points stated are false. Since you are so persistant, I will make arguments underlining the benefits of school uniforms, but first I shall refute.REFUTATIONS"1st again like I said before it is against the first amendment." 1st I would like to point out you still fail to meet your BoP. You show no evidence that it goes against the first amendment. Before even explaining how it doesn't go agains the first amendment I would like to point the most obvious thing. Uniforms aren't only in America. Uniforms are worn all over the world, and not every country has the same amendament as America. In fact, few other countries even have amendaments. Now to continue on to the 1st amendament. Since you failed to meet your BoP, which is already pretty much a loss, I will share mine.The first amendament is the following:"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. " [1] It guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly and the right to petition. It forbids congress for stopping religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression. In the first amendament, when they speak of freedom of expression, they mean the right to speach. Not expressing yourself through clothing and money. You can tell they speak solely of speach when they say "restricting the press or right of individuals to speak freely". So as you can see, making people wear uniforms is not against the first amendament."2nd I am not saying that everyone has to wear clothes different everyday.3rd Just the choice of individuality." Neither are valid reasons to prohibit uniforms. Both are biased answers. You need not clothing to express your individuality, you can do so through a variety of other ways such as art and dancing.------------------------ Since you are so persistant, I will now list reasons why uniforms are beneficial, and shouldn't be removed. CONTENTION 1: BULLYING PREVENTION As the source I posted in previous rounds, people are bullied due to their apperance. This not only concernes their physical natural bodies, however the clothes they wear as well. With uniforms, everyone wears the same clothing, and so bullying someone for their clothes is no longer an option. So, one way that people are bullied is completly abolished. So, though it doesn't stop bullying, it weakens it in a way.CONTENTION 2: MONEY SAVING An average uniform for everything cost about 200$. [2] The average amount of clothes a household spends on clothing is roughly 2000$. Dividing this into a family of four would result in about 500$ a year. With uniforms, since the majority of the time you wear your uniform, the amount of clothes you buy becomes much less. This will end up costing less money per child so that low income families could afford clothing. Contention 3: Restricts inapropriate clothing Yes, there are already school dress codes to prevent this, however the consequences are suddel. However, uniforms are much more serious. Not wearing them could end up in suspension. So, since the consequences are severe, inapropriate clothing will be worn much less.------------------------------------ As you can see, there is no valid reason to prohibit uniforms. They aid people in saving money, prevent bullying and even inapropriate clothing. Banning uniforms, you are irrationally banning benefits.Sources:[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2]http://www.statisticbrain.com...[3]http://money.howstuffworks.com...;

While most kids are getting bullied for what their wearing,school uniforms are not going to solve any bullying problems. Some kids don't want to wear the same thing as their bully or their friend or maybe the meanest girl in school. This goes for all the students that agree with me.

1. School uniforms should be required 2. The Godfather is Not the best movie of all time 3. Wikipedia is Not a Credible source 4. The Lego Movie is a better movie than Aladdin 5. Smoking should Not be Banned 6. Mongols are Not the most powerful Type of People in History 7. Presidents should be allowed to run more than two terms 8. Dancing by itself is a Sport (Not competitive dancing, JUST dancing) 9. Facebook should keep its age-restriction rule 10. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is Not the best show ever

http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent fails to realize that the vast majority of private schools are operated by religious organizations. The government imposing such rules upon these private schools would be breaking the same rule it would to give these schools funding; the establishment clause of the first amendment. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I also ask the reader to look at how easily my opponent is willing to change the constitution. Hasty decisions like that should not be made, especially with the facts I've presented in this first round along with future rounds. 1. ) That's true, many students do not want to go to school at all, or learn certain subjects, or do homework. However, all of those things are imposed because they are proven to help students learn better and become better along with more intelligent members of society. The difference between this and school uniforms is school uniforms are unproven in proving such things. My opponent named some things that students can do to help each other to succeed in education are nice, but school uniforms are not needed to implement such concepts. It's ironic my opponent brings up the debate team as I am a current member of my own high school's debate team for the last three years. However, my opponent fails to mention that when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom. The things my opponent name all occur outside of class or are already class rules such as providing a respectful participatory learning environment for others. Creativity is certainly suppressed when students are not allowed to dress the way they want within certain school dress codes (that do not include school uniforms). Discipline is more focused on in Military schools, not public school where education and becoming well rounded students through learning are #1. My opponent fails to realize that school uniforms hinder maturity because it doesn't force the student to dress correctly by their own means in a manner that is okay under the guidelines for public schools. Whether or not American Schools are over-disciplined or should be moved in that direction is an entirely different debate in general and school uniforms are unproven in helping in a positive manner. 2. ) Again, school uniforms are unproven in helping keep rules in line. School uniforms will not change the differences between who has more money, race, physical looks, religion, political views, and which music is better that most if not all bullying is over. My opponent also fails to state that a courtroom is a formal environment in which people including the judge should be dressed up. Which is the reasons why clients, lawyers and any witnesses should and usually dress in formal attire. Comparing public schools to the courtroom is comparing apple and oranges. 3. ) Social pressure would encourage bullying, which my opponent just stated school uniforms would help stop. So which is it my opponent? Once again, students rarely argue and have competitions over expensive fashion fads. The larger point is that if the schools cannot enforce the rules such as keeping a neat school uniform, then why have them? 4. ) School Uniforms do not help in doing the best job of teaching or learning possible. Students being bullied due to their personality and actions only hinders that student's learning ability. 5. ) I do not need to give reasons to support that because it's simply true. No student wants to be forced into doing something. Which is one of the main reasons that students hate school in the first place because they impose things such as school uniforms onto students that is both unneeded and unnecessary. My opponent is now arguing over a strict environment in this point, not school uniforms themselves. Schools being stricter or not is once again an entirely different debate. The common theme in those schools are work ethic, working longer days and more days along with better use of funding. As I will later explain, school uniforms are not a good use of funding. School uniforms also do not impose a focused environment, as shown through the point that it makes students uncomfortable. One cannot focus on their work if they are uncomfortable due to the uniform. 6. ) If my opponent has problems with students wearing gang colors or being in a gang, they could simply ship the student out of the school or tell the student to change his/her clothing. Wearing outfits that provoke violence are against most school's set of rules, including my own school. Uniforms do not solve the problem of gangs, race, or other problems that are related to youth and violence. My opponent failed to refute my whole point about how rival schools will find it much easier to fight with being able to identify one another better due to school uniforms. 7. ) There is a reason neither my opponent or I have touched upon until now; Cost. Simply put, school uniforms are expensive, cheaply made, and are usually out of place for certain if not all seasons. Poor schools could not afford uniforms if they wanted as they have neither the funds or the parents with such funds. School uniforms would put a burden on the students, the school, and the parents that is unneeded. Especially if the schools require more then one uniform. Spending thousands if not millions of tax dollars on school uniforms would be a huge waste of taxpayers funds. My opponent also has failed to refute that the current uniforms I have as a example are highly uncomfortable and affect the student's learning. 8. ) School administration cannot be in every room at everytime. Classes in Japan and elsewhere deliver better education for reasons I listed in round 1. 9. ) I decided to wait until you my opponent posted any evidence. My opponent gives the example of the LBU school district. Here is the study published by David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore on School Uniforms and their effects on the things my opponent talks about. . http://www.geocities.com... As it says at the top: "In one sentence, this study showed that uniforms did NOT lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement. " This study in fact refutes my opponent's main evidence of The Long Beach Unified School District study. Along with refutes the myth that School Uniforms have a positive effect on the things my opponent has talked about through this debate. This study alone would be good enough to destroy the core basis of my opponent's argument. From my opponent's own second link about the school in Baltimore: "While it is impossible to calculate the direct effect of uniforms. " One other link on a study by Darlene Williams that concerns school uniforms: . http://www.gate.net... To quote the findings: "All empirical research in existence shows, beyond question that uniforms are ineffective as the magic bullet proponents claim them to be. " My opponent also fails to state that private and parochial give their students more work, have higher funding being a private school along with using funding better, and in the case of private schools in the US have less students to a classroom. These reasons go along with the ones I stated in the first round when it came to schools outside the country such as Japan. My brother's charter school has at the most 13 students to a classroom, the reason their school scores higher then my public school is because teachers can sit down with students and spend more time helping them with their work rather there being 30 students to a classroom. Not because of school uniforms because neither school has uniforms. These experiments given by my opponent give school uniforms credit where credit is surely not due as I've proven.

They limit rights Yes the good old constitution the foundation of america and this debate Some opponents claim that uniforms are not a fix-all for the problems that plague schools, but instead, violate a student's right to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a school in california, 73% of the students claim that their first ammendment rights were violated. After they signed a pettition the school went back to the old ways. The case Tinker v. Des Moines decided that students in a public school have a constitutional right to use their clothing, in this case black armbands, to express their opinions on controversial topics http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...

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?

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

school uniforms keep students focused on their studies, not their clothes. A publishing stated that if all students are wearing the same outfit, they are not worried about how they look and how they fit in with their peers, so that keeps them focused in their education


Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

The imposition of school uniforms should be reconsidered and potentially prohibited. Even when students are permitted to wear hair accessories or bracelets, their options are often limited to a select few colors, and these accessories are typically only allowed for girls, as boys wearing such items might be perceived as unusual. This lack of freedom to accessorize beyond the uniform can be frustrating for boys who wish to express themselves through fashion. Although students may join clubs with alternative dress codes, the visibility of these outfits is limited to club members, and some clubs require specific attire, such as sports teams which mandate a particular T-shirt. Clothing serves not only as a form of personal expression but also as a reflection of one's style, which can be better communicated visually than through words. While schools can establish dress codes with certain restrictions (e.g., no flip-flops, crocs, or open shoes; short sleeves must extend 5cm below the arm in hot weather; shorts should not be too short; for cold weather, non-exaggerated coats are permitted; no more than two jackets or bags; colors should coordinate; for girls, skirts or dresses cannot be more than 3 fingers above the knee), the uniformity of school uniforms can hinder individuality. When all students wear the same uniform, especially when classes are held in the same location, it becomes difficult for parents to locate their children, particularly if students do not carry cell phones to school, as some schools only permit cell phone use in secondary education. If students are unsure what to wear, parents can assist them, but if a student cannot find a uniform that fits properly, they may be forced to wear a smaller or larger size, compromising their image and self-esteem. While there are other methods to boost self-esteem, appearance is crucial for many individuals. Bullying is a persistent issue, but it can be reduced without resorting to uniforms, which can actually increase rivalry as they make it easier for others to identify and mock a student's school. Many students find their uniforms unappealing and are compelled to wear them. Experts investigating the effects of school uniforms, such as Milan Kundera, have quoted against them, stating that uniforms "are that which we do not choose, that which is assigned to us; it is the certitude of the universal against the precariousness of the individual." Uniforms do not save class time, as teachers must still enforce the uniform code, which can be checked during the first 15 minutes of tutor time. The primary function of schools is education, not the imposition of

When mentioning Long beach, California, I wasn't contrasting it from other states. I was simply explaining the impact that school uniforms potentially had on a neighborhood. Secondly, abuse and discipline are two different things. Although some people may argue that it is a form of discipline, abuse does not necessarily correspond with it. As you stated, "depression and PTSD are some of the long term effects when discipline becomes abuse", shows that abuse is the reason of the depression and not the discipline itself. Ask yourself, would you discipline your children? Or would you let them tell you what they want to wear because their friends are all wearing it. If you think about it they wear a uniform whether it's identical or not.

I think that uniforms are boring and are not helpful

" If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away. " It doesn't necessarily mean that students CAN'T wear their own attire, In some cases they are allowed to wear other attires if they have no uniform or there is an event, The student themselves decides whether or not they should wear uniform. If they don't then the teacher will just remind the student to wear uniform, They can in fact, Wear their own attire, It's just that wearing school uniforms are better. Now let me restate everything that you didn't answer. If there was no school uniform. . . . . . It would push students to wear trendy clothes or which are inappropriate. . . . School spirit would decrease (because of emblem and equality) . . . It will increase the likelihood of rape or sexual harassment (because of inappropriate clothing) . . . Rich families will make their children (or the children themselves decides) to wear expensive clothing, Which the financially challenged families can't, Causing competition. "Many middle school students will agree with a writer who said" Tell me who that writer was. "Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear" Tell me your specifics why students shouldn't wear school uniform. Not only self-expression. "Therefore, Some students would like to express their feelings in what they wear so students would rather wear everyday attire. " There are other ways students can express themselves, Not only through their own attire. "Too tight or too loose" Then just re-adjust the uniform or measure it before the school even starts. "If schools don't let middle-schoolers wear everyday attire they are taking students the freedom to express themselves away" Though you are only talking about your own country, How about others? And anyways, Even if they do "take the freedom to express themselves", That's understatement, To restate that would be "schools take the freedom to express the APPEARANCE of a student", Which would mean that it doesn't take the WHOLE FREEDOM to EXPRESS THEMSELVES as there are MANY OTHER WAYS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, Not just through their attire. So what is your point here? It seems that your point here only sticks to the argument that students can't express themselves, Though actually they still can express themselves, But not on their appearance, There are other more ways I can say myself a student can express themselves. You are saying that the students has an incapacity to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want? That's ridiculous! The school isn't taking the right of students to express themselves as a whole just because they can't wear what they want, They are only taking the opportunity that everyone in the school will be equal to each other through appearance. Again, They can express themselves in many other ways, Not just through a simplistic uniform. My case still stands.

'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough and i remember getting hurt and wet and everything and people laughed at me so you havnt even said so there is a club for it if people want to play it you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that'CON states: 'what people dont really want to do it, they dont need to or they dont care. ever thought of that, it isnt violent but it is very rough,' so CON just admitted there is no violent sport, therefore, violent sports shouldn't be banned. CON states: 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. so yes answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that. ' All I have to say is, are you kidding me? I don't have to answer squat, wise guy. You say: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do it when it doesnt help them but why is it in the curriculum. answer that,' and since the resolution is 'Should rugby and other violent sports, wrestling boxing be compulsory in schools,' you are really asking me: 'answer why every kid in the entire country(s) should have to do *play violent sports* when it doesnt help them but why is *violent sports* in the curriculum. answer that. ' Nobody should have to play violent sports because they cannot--violent sports do not exist--and violent sports are not in the curriculum because violent sports don't exist. But I want to point the audience's attention to CON's statement 'you havnt said a thing about why it is compulsory you should of just said why it should be compulsory, my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' That was the stupidest thing I have heard all month. I don't need to say anything about why it should be compulsory because it cannot be compulsory--violent sports do not exist--and then CON said 'my idea of violent meant rough so i got the words wrong. ' Lord help humanity. What was your thought process behind that statement. Oops, I got the words wrong, but its no big deal, just because nobody knows my definition of violent doesn't mean the debate can't continue. If you wanted violent to mean 'rough,' then you should have put your definition in the first round. But, since you didn't, I had every right to make my own.

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.

Hello! Welcome to the debate! I will be for school uniforms. You will be against school uniforms. 1ST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY! Good luck to you!

In most public schools in America, there are not class to teach economics, job application, basic mechanical repair and maintenance, or maintaining a proper budget. These can be easily considered crucial courses that can help you prepare for life outside of school. As with your point on History, though it can be useful for students looking to apply in that field of work, it should not be mandatory, and many of these unnecessary classes require school funding, which can instead be used for more purposeful needs. Though yes, opinion arises often in this debate, debate is a way to provide your and other people's opinions on a subject. Thus, adding opinions, most of which are consistent through the entire country, is almost required. Now, on with 'right'. Your failure to grasp the concept that many words are subject to many meanings is stunning. What I find humorous is in your link, the meaning you used to justify your case just so happened to be under this definition: Right- Morally good, justified, or acceptable This is the exact meaning I've been using, and that you fail to accept by providing faulty reasoning that I'm using the wrong word. Though many things taught in school can be helpful to an extent, it can not be denied they tend to teach what we will not need in an average lifestyle, and not enough on what may help us in our future.

http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent fails to realize that the vast majority of private schools are operated by religious organizations. The government imposing such rules upon these private schools would be breaking the same rule it would to give these schools funding; the establishment clause of the first amendment. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I also ask the reader to look at how easily my opponent is willing to change the constitution. Hasty decisions like that should not be made, especially with the facts I've presented in this first round along with future rounds. 1. ) That's true, many students do not want to go to school at all, or learn certain subjects, or do homework. However, all of those things are imposed because they are proven to help students learn better and become better along with more intelligent members of society. The difference between this and school uniforms is school uniforms are unproven in proving such things. My opponent named some things that students can do to help each other to succeed in education are nice, but school uniforms are not needed to implement such concepts. It's ironic my opponent brings up the debate team as I am a current member of my own high school's debate team for the last three years. However, my opponent fails to mention that when I talk about school being about individualism that it's IN the classroom. The things my opponent name all occur outside of class or are already class rules such as providing a respectful participatory learning environment for others. Creativity is certainly suppressed when students are not allowed to dress the way they want within certain school dress codes (that do not include school uniforms). Discipline is more focused on in Military schools, not public school where education and becoming well rounded students through learning are #1. My opponent fails to realize that school uniforms hinder maturity because it doesn't force the student to dress correctly by their own means in a manner that is okay under the guidelines for public schools. Whether or not American Schools are over-disciplined or should be moved in that direction is an entirely different debate in general and school uniforms are unproven in helping in a positive manner. 2. ) Again, school uniforms are unproven in helping keep rules in line. School uniforms will not change the differences between who has more money, race, physical looks, religion, political views, and which music is better that most if not all bullying is over. My opponent also fails to state that a courtroom is a formal environment in which people including the judge should be dressed up. Which is the reasons why clients, lawyers and any witnesses should and usually dress in formal attire. Comparing public schools to the courtroom is comparing apple and oranges. 3. ) Social pressure would encourage bullying, which my opponent just stated school uniforms would help stop. So which is it my opponent? Once again, students rarely argue and have competitions over expensive fashion fads. The larger point is that if the schools cannot enforce the rules such as keeping a neat school uniform, then why have them? 4. ) School Uniforms do not help in doing the best job of teaching or learning possible. Students being bullied due to their personality and actions only hinders that student's learning ability. 5. ) I do not need to give reasons to support that because it's simply true. No student wants to be forced into doing something. Which is one of the main reasons that students hate school in the first place because they impose things such as school uniforms onto students that is both unneeded and unnecessary. My opponent is now arguing over a strict environment in this point, not school uniforms themselves. Schools being stricter or not is once again an entirely different debate. The common theme in those schools are work ethic, working longer days and more days along with better use of funding. As I will later explain, school uniforms are not a good use of funding. School uniforms also do not impose a focused environment, as shown through the point that it makes students uncomfortable. One cannot focus on their work if they are uncomfortable due to the uniform. 6. ) If my opponent has problems with students wearing gang colors or being in a gang, they could simply ship the student out of the school or tell the student to change his/her clothing. Wearing outfits that provoke violence are against most school's set of rules, including my own school. Uniforms do not solve the problem of gangs, race, or other problems that are related to youth and violence. My opponent failed to refute my whole point about how rival schools will find it much easier to fight with being able to identify one another better due to school uniforms. 7. ) There is a reason neither my opponent or I have touched upon until now; Cost. Simply put, school uniforms are expensive, cheaply made, and are usually out of place for certain if not all seasons. Poor schools could not afford uniforms if they wanted as they have neither the funds or the parents with such funds. School uniforms would put a burden on the students, the school, and the parents that is unneeded. Especially if the schools require more then one uniform. Spending thousands if not millions of tax dollars on school uniforms would be a huge waste of taxpayers funds. My opponent also has failed to refute that the current uniforms I have as a example are highly uncomfortable and affect the student's learning. 8. ) School administration cannot be in every room at everytime. Classes in Japan and elsewhere deliver better education for reasons I listed in round 1. 9. ) I decided to wait until you my opponent posted any evidence. My opponent gives the example of the LBU school district. Here is the study published by David L. Brunsma and Kerry A. Rockquemore on School Uniforms and their effects on the things my opponent talks about. . http://www.geocities.com... As it says at the top: "In one sentence, this study showed that uniforms did NOT lead to an improvement in attendance, behavior, drug use, or academic achievement. " This study in fact refutes my opponent's main evidence of The Long Beach Unified School District study. Along with refutes the myth that School Uniforms have a positive effect on the things my opponent has talked about through this debate. This study alone would be good enough to destroy the core basis of my opponent's argument. From my opponent's own second link about the school in Baltimore: "While it is impossible to calculate the direct effect of uniforms. " One other link on a study by Darlene Williams that concerns school uniforms: . http://www.gate.net... To quote the findings: "All empirical research in existence shows, beyond question that uniforms are ineffective as the magic bullet proponents claim them to be. " My opponent also fails to state that private and parochial give their students more work, have higher funding being a private school along with using funding better, and in the case of private schools in the US have less students to a classroom. These reasons go along with the ones I stated in the first round when it came to schools outside the country such as Japan. My brother's charter school has at the most 13 students to a classroom, the reason their school scores higher then my public school is because teachers can sit down with students and spend more time helping them with their work rather there being 30 students to a classroom. Not because of school uniforms because neither school has uniforms. These experiments given by my opponent give school uniforms credit where credit is surely not due as I've proven.

Finally, also it's my last time for say my opinion about this topic. In general, still i think students don't need to wear school uniform. Nobody can't say "Oh, you have to wear school uniform" or something else. It's their own liberty. So, i think students don't need to wear a school uniform at school.