Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

School Uniforms: A Case for Consistency and Equity

My Arguments:

1. Uniforms ensure equality among students. When all students wear the same attire, they cannot be judged based on their clothing choices, promoting a level playing field. [1]

2. Uniforms make students less self-conscious about their appearance. This can be particularly beneficial for students who might spend significant time worrying about their outfits, especially girls, allowing them to focus more on their studies.

3. Uniforms demonstrate respect and politeness. Wearing a uniform shows respect for the school and its educators, fostering a more professional and disciplined learning environment.

4. Uniforms are cost-effective. With uniforms, students need fewer outfits, reducing the financial burden on parents, especially in low-income areas where uniform policies can help alleviate the pressure to buy fashionable clothing.

5. Uniforms enforce discipline and simplify dress code enforcement for teachers. Uniforms ensure that all students are dressed appropriately, removing the need for teachers to monitor and enforce a complex dress code.

6. Uniforms prepare students for future employment. They teach students the importance of dressing appropriately for work, helping them develop professional habits early on. [2]

7. Uniforms may reduce bullying in schools. When everyone wears the same thing, it's harder to pick on someone based on their appearance or clothing.

8. Uniforms help students concentrate on school work by minimizing distractions related to fashion and reducing the time spent shopping for clothes.

9. Uniforms can contribute to water conservation. With fewer clothes to wash, students can significantly reduce their water usage.

10. Studies suggest that school uniforms might improve attendance and graduation rates. For example, one study reported that schools with uniform policies experienced an 11% increase in graduation rates compared to schools without such policies. [link below]http://www.19actionnews.com...

The Negative Aspects of Uniforms:

I acknowledge that there are some drawbacks to implementing uniforms. Here are a few potential issues and my counterarguments:

1. Students may feel they lack freedom to choose their attire. However, some boundaries are necessary for a structured learning environment, and the benefits of uniforms outweigh this concern.

2. Students might feel unable to express themselves fully. While true, uniforms can still allow for some personalization, such as through accessories, and can lead to more equitable treatment by teachers based on appearance.

In conclusion, school uniforms offer numerous advantages that can enhance the educational experience for students. Although some may view them as restrictive, the evidence supports their positive impact on school environments

If it saves parents money why is the average cost of uniforms is $249. well 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of pants, and shoes are approximately $90 and the don't help as much as teachers say they do and here is proof http://www.statisticbrain.com... I Found it in 30 sec Also uniforms wont stop all bullying. also you chose what you wear so I don't care what you wear. you do you

School uniforms are expensive to some middle and lower class citizens. They are not comfortable to children and can be hard for them to learn. Kids have the right to wear whatever they want, and what is comfortable form them to learn. Having kids all wear the same thing can make a harmful envirement for kids to learn. Every child is different in there own way.

Actually, kids might be too upset because they have to wear uniforms to even focus. If you go to the link I posted above, it shows that uniforms have a negative effect on kids' school work and attendance. And like I said before, if someone wants to shoot someone bad enough, they will shoot them at another time and place if they can't do it at school.

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.

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 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.

This debate is about should schools in the United States (grades K-12) have their students go barefoot and not allowing having any students to have any footwear on school campus would be a helpful tactic for student's education (not including swimming classes or sports activities). For an example, students can't wear any footwear like shoes, socks, and sandals on campus for any reason so a student must go barefoot at the start of the school hours until the end of school hours, even if it rains or snows. I am against this rule for a couple of reasons… First reason is weather conditions. Students can get sick if they go barefoot in an inappropriate weather for a certain length period of time. Schools are usually 6-8 hours a day, a bad weather conditions for going barefoot would make a student sick, most likely with the flu. In the northern part of the United States, they get snowy weather. Students can get frostbite if the students go barefoot in snowy weather. In the Midwest, they can get unexpected tornados while students are in school. If there were an unexpected tornado, then kids would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris. Earthquake can go for that same reason too, students would have to walk barefoot on hazardous debris, especially walking home. Second Reason, students would have a high risk stepping there bare feet onto something hazardous. One of those risks is a sharp object where the student can cut their feet and students can get hookworms on a wound on the feet (http://www.cdc.gov...). Plus kids can step on gum with their bare feet. Third reason is many of the PE activities. Other than swimming, there are may things can go wrong while going barefoot in PE activities. First off that school often have baseball or softball as one of the PE activities. Running on the dirt a little too much would cause kids to have cuts on their feet. Barefoot during PE on the blacktop would also cause barefoot scrapes and injuries on the foot, http://www.flickr.com.... Sometime students take the public city bus to school or to home. These buses have that "No shirt, no shoes and no service" policy. If transportation is out of the question, then the kids would walk barefoot to school or home, and they would have to walk more than a mile towards school or home. Along the way, who knows they will be stepping on with their bare feet. One time, I almost step on a snake. I hope Kleptin accepts my challenge, as I like to take on the best debater with this debate. This is my only second debate so I am beginner debater taking on the master debater with a easy debate.

This is like my sixth or fifth time debating school uniform, but instead of copying my standard argument I will try to use logic to rebut and build up my arguments this time, for challenge and for fun."Discipline: If an adult wore a slobbish outfit to work, they would not have the energy or will to behave professionally. The same goes for students. If a student is wearing whatever they find in their closet, they will not want to try as hard as they normally do."What do you ever mean? Just because you wear casually does not mean you'll work casually and unwell. Perhaps it is because the uniform is TOO professional, that students don't work as well. Think about it. Uniforms don't feel comfortable to everyone. Furthermore, some students feels like it limits and attacks their right to expression. Therefore by feeling uncomfortable in the extremely-professional clothes, they would actually "not want to try as hard as they normally do", as my opponent claims.School Spirit: When all students are wearing the same outfit, they will feel a sense of unity, even if they do not know any other people. Are people really unified if they wear the same thing? Short people can still be ridiculed by tall people. Racist students will bully others on their skin color regardless of the fact that they're all wearing the same things. People with mental disabilities will remain teased. Our modern society's students are too clever and see through everything, they'll find something to disrupt this so-called "unity". Unfortunately, wearing the same thing does not mean being equals in these bullies' minds.Reduce Non-Academic Distractions:Yet at the same time there are distractions. There are clear cases where students complain about their uniforms, one even about a mere emblem! Regardless of whether the student was right or not to complain, this source [http://ic.galegroup.com...] clearly highlights the problem of students being more distracted than ever with the addition of school uniforms. The case here [http://articles.latimes.com...] shows us a complaint from a student's parent about the school motto imprinted on the uniform shirt. Have students complained about needing uniforms?? Nope. But with uniforms, students become distracted from school and worry about their self-image ever so more based on their uniform. It is obvious that we cannot distract these students. We must have the best environment possible, without uniforms' problem."Also, it will prevent guys from ogling over a girl's cleavage, while preventing girls from staring at a guy's butt."What do you mean? Girls and boys can be equally hot in school uniforms. Students still gonna stare at each other in love regardless of what their wear. Less Stress on Parents/Guardians:Not all work requires uniforms. For those that don't require uniforms, using uniforms will decrease the students' abilities to chose their clothing wisely. My opponent has only used one source to justify his reasoning. That is simply not enough. You need the addition of logic, and actual cases plus evidence to prove your points.Back to you, SongGeek324.

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.

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.


Question: Should Pupils Be Required To Don School Uniforms?

Students Should Not Be Mandated to Wear Uniforms in Memphis City and Shelby County Schools

Children should be permitted to express themselves through their attire in schools. Restricting self-expression could lead to a more forceful expression later in life. It's crucial to recognize that not everyone fits into the same mold, and we should celebrate our differences. This is the lesson that should be imparted to our children - that diversity should be embraced, not uniformity. I want my children to be who they are, not just carbon copies. Wearing uniforms is not important because it does not prevent bullying or allow for self-expression. They are often seen as a waste of money and do not contribute to a safer school environment or deter crimes or theft. Uniforms are bland and serve no practical purpose. They cost money unnecessarily, and students' behavior does not change based on what they wear.

Uniforms have both advantages and disadvantages, but are they truly necessary? I believe that students deserve some individuality in school. Schools should not dictate a student's identity or assume that uniforms will improve academic performance. Once school is over, students will return to their preferred clothing. Teachers and school boards should focus on education, not clothing. Parents are responsible for their children, not the school. If you agree, make your voice heard! No! Students should be allowed to express themselves with parental guidance. Parents need to be more involved in their child's education and ensure that their child does not wear offensive clothing. It's not the public school's fault for the type of clothing that students wear. Uniforms will not create equality or prevent bullying and gang violence. They give a false sense of security. For instance, a child from a lower socioeconomic background will still feel the same regardless of whether they wear a uniform. Uniforms may even exacerbate feelings of inequality. Besides, there are still other ways to ostracize a student through their clothing. Also, in the real world, we do not wear uniforms for most professions. Then there's also a conflict of who will pay for the students' uniforms - will it be the school or the parents?

Students should not wear school uniforms because they have the right to be individuals. Our government officials do not have the right to dictate what students wear. NO! Students should be able to express themselves, and in the business world, uniforms are not always required. No, students should have their own style and not be forced to wear uniforms that do not represent them. They should be able to express themselves without someone else choosing their

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.

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

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...

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.

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."

First of all, I can confirm that 90% of uniform items are cheaper than standard clothes that a child might wear at a public school. as far as the sticker, why should children (like I said) be able to distract themselves from learning with commodities as such when education is already a problem in our nation, directly shown in the fact that we are forced to export jobs one because it is cheap labor and two we don't have enough local employees to fill high requirement jobs because school is so often disregarded as a child in today's new generations. Why should you care so much about dress-code if you claim to care so much about education. School is not fashion show, rather a learning environment. when we ease to view it as such, we begin to struggle (as we already have). To be fair, it's not really the dress-code's fault for these "rebellions". it is more the staff, because the allow the students to slip by rather than conforming to the rules. the way to solve this is staying conformed to the dress-code. If you teach the students that infractions are intolerable, then they are less likely to spend time in finding ways to slip by. These attempts are also distractions. All in all, a dress code creates a work-friendly environment and eliminates bullying. The end although we still have one more round Accept your defeat..... :I

School uniforms should happen because schools can be identified due to the uniforms Wearing uniforms enhances school pride, unity, and community spirit. A 2007 study from Oxford Brookes University in the United Kingdom found that uniforms "often directly contributed to a feeling of school pride." [45] Christopher P. Clouet, Superintendent of the New London, CT school district, stated that "the wearing of uniforms contributes to school pride." [3] A 2002 study of over 1,000 Texas middle school students found that students in uniform "reported significantly more positive perceptions of belonging in their school community than reported by students in the standard dress group." [33] Arnold Goldstein, PhD, head of the Centre for Research on Aggression at Syracuse University, stated that uniforms help troubled students feel they have the support of a community: "There is a sense of belonging." [31] A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that after uniforms were introduced, "Teachers perceived an increase in the level of respect, caring, and trust... Throughout the school" and said "students are made to feel 'important' and as if they are a part of a team by wearing a uniform." [20] http://school-uniforms.procon.org...

Should we wear uniforms? As a student myself I can say from experience I don't see the point in uniforms. As children our forms of expression based upon personalities are limited, So the way we dress and carry ourselves reflect who we are as a person and if wearing a uniform would generalize us then it should not happen. As for bulling it will still happen. Bulling is not the reflection of the bullied but the bully. Generalizing clothes will not help, And many still will find work around. Shortening skirts, Fancy accessories, Etc. Such uniforms do nothing but add extra burden and financial if not time consuming weight upon a student and family

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.

I must disagree. Teachers give us homework to sharpen our skills with the topic we learned. To help us understand the lesson. That is why they give us homework. Because they do not have time to make sure that they have the lesson well taught and well learned for everyone. With my prior example, the teacher can make sure that everyone understands the material that is being taught. I am not sure what my opponent's point was with trying to learn 4 lessons of physics in around 30 minutes was. If he is being sarcastic I have no idea. Long periods are beneficial to society as well as the education system as a whole. And actually, let us see what happens to bully rates when the school hours increase. I am willing to bet that they will decrease. The answer to that is very simple when you look at the root cause for bullying. Why does it occur? If you increase school hours, and they reduce stress on the bully, he will not need to hurt a kid to express himself from all the stress he is under. I am not saying to increase the amount of time outside of class. I am saying to increase the amount of time in class, so that students can have a better chance of learning the material. Less wearing uniforms? This is not true for all schools. Thus, that is a school topic for a debate, not a nation-wide topic such as the school hours. Thanks for the debate. Good job! You made some good points in the debate. Although, the insults were a little much. And since you like Halo, check out the debate with me on the topic Battlefield takes more skill than Halo! Ill cya round!


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Resolved: State-enforced inoculation of minors is justified.

While the debate continues, some fundamental points need to be considered. Governments ought not to have the authority to meddle in the medical choices that parents make for their offspring. According to a 2010 University of Michigan study, 31% of parents assert that they should have the liberty to decline mandatory vaccinations for their children before they can attend school. Many parents have religious convictions that are opposed to vaccination. Compelling these parents to inoculate their children would contravene the 1st Amendment, which safeguards the freedom of religion for all citizens.

Vaccinations are frequently superfluous in scenarios where the risk of death from the disease is minimal. In the early 19th century, the mortality rate for childhood diseases such as whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever plummeted considerably before immunization became available. This decline in mortality can be attributed to advancements in personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and improved food hygiene and nutrition.

Vaccinations disrupt the natural order and God's design for humanity. Disease is a natural phenomenon, and humans should not interfere with its course. Common childhood vaccinations may trigger rare but severe reactions, including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering that most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life-threatening.

Vaccinations can trigger autoimmune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and other conditions. Vaccinations can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy), leading to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental issues. Furthermore, the vaccine additive thimerosal, found in most pre-1999 vaccines, has been linked to the development of autism and is still present in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines, including the H1N1 vaccine.

Vaccinations can clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients in vaccines), potentially leading to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children develop and strengthen their immune systems by fighting off infections and building natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections.

Children should not be required to receive

Thank you for your argument, and for a great debate. I would first like to rebut some of my opponents points, and then I will end with a conclusion. Why is it morally wrong to teach a child to accept one religion? How is it wrong for you to not accept all religions. I accept all religions but I only FOLLOW Christianity. It should not be morally wrong to accept one religion nor to follow or practice one. Even when children are told not to touch a hot stove, they often do. This demonstrates that children are not even as close to dumb as you think they are, and are more then able to think for themselves to a certain extent. Since this blind trust is, as I have proved, not there then you cannot manipulate a child based on blind trust. One example of this is my friend, brought up a Catholic and sent to catholic school, who is now an atheist. Even though she was forced and only taught one religion she still turned out as an Aethiest, so this just shows that you can follow whatever religion you like, even though you were only taught one. Now I agree that the decision to follow a certain religion is individualistic, but it is not the RIGHT nor the RESPONSIBILITY for the parents to take their child to all places of worship, in order for my 6 year old son, to think he knows about all religions, so that he can go to the mousque while I go to my church, and have one of us take him. NO! He will go to church with me, until he is no longer in my house. (This is a hypothetical situation, I am a student) If young children cannot make this decision, why should it not be made for them until they can decide for themselves. Contracts are like this. Is religion not a little like a contract? ! As long as it is not harmful and deemed for the minors benefit, church and religion is a good thing! I would like to point out, due to the new T. V. Shows and other things on television and that we see in society, it is not the greatest way to gain a morale code. I would now like to unprofessionally scream at your last point. "Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the judgement of the parent". SAY WHAT NOW! ? So now, I cannot raise my child the way I want him to be raised, because why? Not really a reason, just people think that I am not fit to raise my own child. That nobody is fit to raise their child. If nobody raises the child then does the child not get raised? Will we have 50 year old babies as the population of the world, with no religion, and no thought? I say NAY! I should teach my hypothetical child any religion and morale code I like, as his/her upbringing is left for me to decide! In conclusion, I as side con must firmly state that I would encourage a con winning vote because every parent should have the right and responsibility to freely bring up their child in any way they like, allowing them to practice the religion with the parent, until they can practice what they wish!

you are a government lying hack or simply a young foolish idiot who thinks hes smart because hes taken a couple years of pre-med. proof I will simply quote your profile first Joined: January 17, 2008 Online: Right Now City: Mong Kok (lie) State: ---Miscellaneous--- (lie) Country: Hong Kong Gender: male (true) Age: 118 Years (lie) Sign: Virgo (?) Education: Some College (prob true) Ethnicity: Asian Salary: Less Than $25,000 Orientation: Heterosexual Profession: Student Faith: Agnostic Now lets look at your lies in the arguments 1. "First and foremost, I hereby nullify my opponent's first round in its entirety because the amount of thimerosal used as a preservative has not only been reduced over the past 70 years, it has been foregone entirely." "I repeat: There is no more thimerosal in vaccines for childhood viruses." the Truth : Thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative has NOT been completely removed. it is still present, along with many other DANGEROUS preservatives, many of which are NOT regualted and approved by the FDA, in vaccines More importantly , the ISSUE IS NOT VACCINES! the issue at hand is the INJECTING OF VERY YOUNG INFANTS WITH TONS OF FOREIGN DNA AND OVERHWLEMING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. This commonly causes severe reactions , including encephalthic reactions, swwlling , irritation and seizures. most of the time these are NOT BLAMED onthe vaccinations the government is LYING AND COVERING UP this information this is for two reasons (1) they are do gooders from hell - and will continue to err even after contrary evidence comes forth (2) profits- Vaccines are a $ 15 BILLION dollar a year industry- and they are trying to introdcuce tons more! YOUR NEXT LIE my quote "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" your quote "Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. ANSWER : you are repeating the government HACK lies question: why did the government just SETTLE the FIRST of 4900 + CASES ? AND try and keep it HUSH HUSH QUIET HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? YOUR NEXT LIE "SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against" THIS IS A BOLD FACED LIE SIDS IS CAUSED BY THE POOR BABY BEING OVERWHELMED BY THE FOREIGN DNA, GOING INTO SHOCK AND DYING THE LYING BASTARDS FROM HELL IN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE SAID FOR YEARS "WE DONT KNOW WHAT CAUSES SIDS (AND AUTISM AND ITP) YOUR NEXT LIE i SAID "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" YOU SAID Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. OH REALLY? SAYS YOU ??????? WHAT KIND OF EXPERT ARE YOU MR 118 YEAR OLD LIAR? I DONT TRUST YOU AS FAR AS I CAN SPIT YOUR NEXT LIE i SAID "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? YOU HAVE TOLD MANY , AS EVIDENCED HERE I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant SO HOW CAN YOU BE 118 THEN, LIAR? SO NOW YOU ARE JUST A KID WITH SOME BACKGROUND AND YOU ARE GOING TO WEIGH IN AS AN EXPERT ON THESE SUBJECTS WITH YOU OPINION? YOUR NEXT LIE You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. YOU DONT KNOW ME AT ALL AND I AM A SUPERHERO Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. PRIVATE CORPORATIONS MAKE BILLIONS They lose money off vaccines. BOLD FACED LIE Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. THE GOVERNMENT FORCES THE ISSUE AND CONVINCES ALL NEW PARENTS TO FALL IN LINE IT IS PURE EVIL FROM THE DO GOODERS FROM HELL YOUR FINAL STATEMENT "Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping." Here are plenty of references http://www.know-vaccines.org... http://www.nap.edu... U.S. Government Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism Monday, March 3, 2008 9:36 AM http://www.newsmax.com... The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency that oversees the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently conceded the first vaccine-autism case. This case was filed in the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as part of the Autism Omnibus proceedings in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims. It was one of the first three cases chosen that alleged Thimerosal in childhood vaccines significantly contributed to a child developing autism. Clifford Shoemaker, of Shoemaker and Associates of Vienna, Virginia, is the attorney of record in the Hanna Poling v. Secretary of HHS (case: 02-1466V). Experts filing on behalf of the petitioner, Hanna Poling, included pediatric neurologist, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins University, and Maryland geneticist and epidemiologist, Dr. Mark Geier of the Genetic Centers of America. This concession shows the dishonesty of the continual media spin coming from public health officials and others who maintain there is no evidence that Thimerosal, or any other part of any vaccine, has ever caused autism or, for that matter, has harmed anyone in any way. The facts are that the Vaccine Compensation Act has already compensated over 2,000 individuals who proved that they were harmed by vaccines, resulting in settlements of nearly two billion dollars. Additionally, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific/medical articles from some the world's best universities have long implicated Thimerosal in vaccines as a causal factor in neurodevelopmental disorders including autism. Furthermore, in 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee, after a 3.5-year investigation, concluded that Thimerosal caused the autism epidemic and that the FDA and health authorities were guilty of "institutional malfeasance" in covering it up. Evidence supporting the connection between mercury and autism include: 1. Published studies from the US and France showing that urinary porphyrins, a biomarker for body-burden of mercury, are elevated in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org...). 2. A published study by researchers at Harvard University that found twice as much mercury and oxidative stress in the brains of those with an autism diagnosis as found in the brains of those who were normal. 3. A study from the US showing a significant relationship between increasing blood mercury levels and an increased risk of a diagnosis of an autistic disorder. 4. Numerous papers by independent researchers showing a link between increasing mercury exposure from childhood vaccines

More than half of pregnancies are unintended. (http://www.guttmacher.org...) These classes do provide some valuable information. I stated this in my first round when advocating everyone learn basic child health care and first aid. These classes should be voluntary instead of mandatory. In the U.S. some states require parenting classes for a divorce to proceed. Such a law requiring parenting classes would be unenforceable on ethical grounds. If the punishment should fit the crime what would the punishment be for failing to attend a class when the biology of the matter will still produce a child. Do we as a society take the baby away until such a class is completed? Surely not the punishment would be to harsh for the non-attendance. The requirement is enforceable in situations of divorce because the legal proceedings can be postponed until compliance is met. Our rights as citizens are being eroded away by big government. The right to rear my children as I see fit ((in the scope of not performing an illegal action)) are protected by the 14th amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I would see such a requirement in and of itself as a violation of supreme court ruling protecting the parental rights. Again how could it be enforced while preserving these rights. (http://www.kids-right.org...) "Parents have comparable interests under our state constitutional protections of liberty and privacy rights. "The right to the custody and control of one's child is a fiercely guarded right in our society and in our law. It is a right that should be infringed upon only under the most compelling circumstances." Brooks v. Parkerson Georgia Supreme Court (1995) I see no compelling circumstance to require the classes. Additional education is not compelling. In no more that Driver Education classes are not required prior to applying for a drivers license. Certainly a lot of good information is in such courses and potentially could prevent many accidents. I argue driving kills more people than people having babies. The right to vote is applied to all adults naturalized or born in the U.S. If we review the many court cases and amendments to protect this right, we see the court so the potential abuse of government if voters were subjected to voting tests. The same slippery slope is analogous to government requiring such parenting classes. Where would the funds for mandatory classes come from. funds would be needed for materials and class worker. Consider the national birth rate just for the U.S. (http://www.babycenter.com...) 88 births for 1000 women in Utah. Combine this with 35 births a day. A classroom would have a steady supply of students and need full time support. I could not find any facts to support how much this would cost but given the history of government ran programs I can surmise it would not be cheap. To pass this cost onto the parents would be an exuberant charge for a biological fact of life. What about parents already unable to pay for basic care, Britain just released a news article that a 12 year old gave birth (http://www.independent.co.uk...). Do the tax payers pay for these incidents? The case for requiring parenting classes is unenforceable, unsustainable financially, encroaches on parental rights and is a slippery slope for government control. To those that choose to pay the cost the additional education is worth the price. But this should be voluntary for the masses.

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

With the expansion and globalization of modern society, learning to communicate with others is crucial, especially in a diverse country like the United States. I feel that the current method of language learning courses in high schools is not enough and students should be immersed into more methods of language learning, especially early in childhood development so that by the end of high school, students would either be fluent, or at least at an intermediate level of fluency in a second language (or third if they already speak a foreign language at home). If necessary, parents should also encourage their child to learn more languages at home as well. 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. If you disagree with my suggestion, please explain why exactly you do. Your argument must be logical and if necessary, please provide evidence to support your claims.

While I do agree the cost of health care in the US is too high and we must act to reduce the cost, I vehemently disagree with mandatory health insurance participation. I find the notion of forcing citizens into health insurance to be almost as un-American as the Universal Healthcare proposals of liberal Democrats. I agree the best approach is a market based approach to make health insurance more affordable for all citizens regardless of income. Its all well and good to support all Americans having health insurance, but your argument is absent of ideas and proposals to make health insurance more affordable. Just simply saying health insurance should be affordable for all does not necessarily make it so. I am curious to hear your ideas on how to make health insurance more affordable. I suppose the biggest reason I oppose mandatory health insurance is because there are many unanswered questions and assumptions with this proposal. Are you going to use the power of the federal government to force private companies to provide more affordable insurance? If not, what incentives will you use to get private companies on your side in making the insurance more affordable? Also just because someone has health insurance does not mean they will use it when they need it. If many families are scraping by just to pay for insurance, will they be able to afford whats left over that the insurance does not cover? If not, who will be liable to pay the difference? Clearly you have identified a problem, however I do not see any arguments or empirical data to support your proposition. At this point I will yield and wait for your responses to the questions I posed. Thanks, and good luck.

The link you asked for: http://www.slate.com... You keep stating that religion is not true, and there is no solid proof that religion is true. I disagree. How do you explain things like the bible? Did someone just write that in their free time. Your point saying that religion isn't real is invalid, due to you have nothing that says religion and god isn't real. I'm also finding it a little sketchy that you're basing my arguments off of my political views. Yes, I am about as conservative as it gets, and I dislike the idea of abortion, but parents under United States law have the right to commit that act. So therefore just because I am con on abortion, doesn't mean I can't use it as an example. On your next point, "General Physician." I'm assuming that either a. you are atheist or b. you had some traumatic experience with religion. You say time and time again that these other things are more important than religion. In some cases I agree with you. I wasn't saying that a General Physician and Education were more or less important than religion. This all boils down to my point about a parents right to choose. A parent can choose to send their kid to school, or take them to a general physician. That boils down to their choice. They have the choice up until their child turns 18 or is emancipated from them, to make these decisions for their children. A parent ought to have the right to make the decision with religion. Not allowing them to is wrong, when we allow them to make other huge decisions for their children. You stated that children needed to think critically and analytically on a spiritual level. According to this: http://www.bbc.com... , Children are not able to function and make decisions such as these until they're 16. Therefore your statement saying that young children need to be able to think for themselves on a spiritual level is wrong. Another statement that you brought up that is incorrect as well, is the statement that those 34% of extremists cause violence. I disagree. Close to 1% of those extremists cause violence. Therefore, a statement such as yours is a lot wrong and I think you failed to look up the actual information. You can not prove that religion is a hypothetical thing. Thanks.

I will be debating on the side that vaccines do not cause autism. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that vaccines DO cause autism.

Amnesity international is a global group that fights to protect people against violated justice, freedom, and human dignity. They also claim we have the rights to our body without fear of coercion. It is for this reason and the following points I stand in the firm affirmation of the resolution that states "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for this debate will be that of autonomy and the value criterion I shall use will be that of hedonism. Autonomy: Immanuel Kant defines it as the right to govern oneself without unwanted outside interference Hedonism: the oxford english dictionary defines it as the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life Adolescents: Merriam Webster defines it as a young person who is becoming an adult Rights: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as rights to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done Ought: The philosopher Hume defines it as "should we" instead of "can we" Contention 1: Past violations. USnews.com published a story on 1/22/2015. It states, "Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state's supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes. This court case was decided on January 8th. The girl was identified on court papers only as Cassandra C." I want to emphasis on the words against her wishes. This goes against her autonomy and this does not give Cassandra pleasure. This is why we need my value and criterion. Contention 2: Teens should control the medicine they take. Kidshealth.com is a website I recently visited. It is a website with a group of expert doctors and physicians. They try to help people of all ages with their problems and here is what they have to say. "Time flies. Before you know it, your 13 year old is driving with you 16 year old off to college. With adulthood just around the corner there is no time like the present to begin encouraging teens to take on the leadership roles in all aspects of everyday life." Contention 3: Who this affects. Teens. The University of Washington School of Medicine has a few things to say. I will keep it brief. Basically if a child disagrees with a parent they should take things seriously. The child is the main focus here. In conclusion I leave you with this. "A man is born alone and dies alone; he experiences the good and bad karma of his consequences alone; and he alone goes to hell or the supreme adobe." -Chenyaka

Since the vaccine schedule was increased in the 1990's autism rates and other learning disorders have sky rocketed. Thousands of parents all have the same story of their kid's receiving the MMR vaccine and their kids falling into autism shortly after. When a doctor suggested that he may have found a link between autism and vaccines and published a paper in a journal, all hell broke loose. This doctor has been discredited, and anyone who suggests that he was on to something is vilified. Why was this the reaction of the medical community and governments? Why did they not look into the claims and spend money doing the research? Why can they not explain the sudden jump in autism rates? Should parents be expected to trust government and vaccine companies? Why did they remove the ingredient Thermosal from most vaccines? If the ingredient was safe, why did they take it out? Does it make sense too give babies do many vaccines? With aluminum, formaldehyde, and other toxic ingredients? There are many medical professionals who believe vaccines are damaging children. It may be a case of too much of a "good" thing. Why does Dr. Oz not get his children vaccinated for the flu? Anyone who bring up the subject is labeled a anti vaccer and said to be a nut. I will show how the government, media, and medical profession are in the process of the biggest cover up in history, and how the truth about vaccines is being suppressed. http://www.cdc.gov...


Question: Should Certain Vaccines Be Mandated for Children?

There ought not to be compulsory vaccinations. The notion that vaccines lead to autism is a misconception and shouldn't be taken as truth. I recognize that you're among those who hold this belief, regrettably. Vaccines can indeed be beneficial for the body; they have eradicated smallpox, curbed measles, and other severe illnesses. I'm curious about what your rebuttal might be.

Haha, glad to know, I was surprised anyone could be dumb enough to seriously oppose vaccines.

Yes, you just agreed with me! You really need to read your argument more closely. I'll break it up into small bits. > Thanks for the comment. <> See? You're agreeing with me. < > Again, you're agreeing. <, I know many schools in my area that actually don't have a healthy menu , I also know there are schools where the food tastes very bad. >> erm okay good for you < > Thanks for the comments again! I'm glad I got you to agree with me.

1. If pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating pedophiles instead of incarcerating them. 2. Treatment centers would be good. 3. The treatment centers would be less costly than incarcerating pedophiles in prisons. 4. If pedophiles were incarcerated, then children would be protected from malicious acts committed by pedophiles. 5. Incarcerating pedophiles would be costly but good. 6. Incarcerating pedophiles would protect both the child and the offender. 7. If only incarcerating a pedophile, then we are no longer punishing them for their wrong doing. 8. Not punishing the pedophile would be bad. 9. Punishing the convicted offender would acknowledge the fact they had committed a crime. Teach them not to commit this crime again. 10. Pedophiles should be incarcerated and not treated but incarcerated with punishments to prevent them from recommitting and understanding that committing acts of pedophilia is wrong.

I will be arguing that homeschooling should not be allowed in America, and that children should be made to go to a public or private school. Pro will be arguing for allowing homeschooling. Definitions: Homeschooling - to teach school subjects to one's children at home instead of sending them to school (public or private) Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance only 2. No trolling or semantics 3. No forfeits 4.

Pro has reminded me that our debate is on whether vaccinations are beneficial for humanity, not vaccination is humanity's only saviour. Pro forgets that in Round 2 he himself claimed that "Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future". Therefore Con requests Pro to read the topic of the debate properly and to think carefully before arguing. Copied from TIME Health dated 29/11/2012: "Protection from Whooping Cough Vaccine Wanes Over Time" "Vaccines are by far the best defense against pertussis, or whooping cough. But protection among kids dwindles with every year since the last dose of vaccine, a new CDC study finds" "Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) report in the Journal of the American Medical Association that while vaccines do work well in protecting against childhood infection with the pertussis bacterium, or whooping cough, that the strongest immunization occurred among kids in the year after their last shot than among those who finished their full immunization series more than five years ago. This is the first-ever study to test the long-term effectiveness of current pertussis vaccines, which contain snippets of the pertussis bacterium and were introduced in the 1990s. The newer shots trigger fewer adverse reactions than previous versions, which contained whole pertussis bacterial cells, but public health officials had been concerned that the effectiveness of the shots weakened over time. The findings are significant in light of the major pertussis outbreaks in the U.S. over the past few years, which have caused illness in tens of thousands nationwide. Earlier this year, the CDC recommended that adults over age 19 also receive another dose of the older, whole cell pertussis vaccine to maintain immunity against the bacterium. Pertussis is highly contagious and sometimes fatal; symptoms including violent, uncontrollable coughing that can lead to breathing problems, pneumonia and convulsions" Therefore it is right to say to say that the immunity provided by the whooping cough vaccine is not 'total' and does fade away with time. Con wishes to say that vaccinations can be beneficial in some cases, without any doubt , but it not enough to label all vaccines as safe. In your given example of polio, it is evident from the graph that polio rates had already dropped sharply before vaccines were created. The fall in polio rates can be attributed more to better hygiene, nutrition and sanitation than the polio vaccines. If these vaccines do not actually work then how can we possibly say that they are beneficial for humanity? If there is no evidence that it has attributed to the elimination of epidemics, then how can one possibly claim that vaccines are good for us? Vaccines also contain a lot of toxins. Metals like mercury and aluminium are commonplace in vaccines. Plus drugs like Formaldehyde and 2-phenoxyethanol are known to have adverse effects on children like the depression of the nerve system and dehydration. The insert for the DPT vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur warns that, "A review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) found evidence for a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and both brachial neuritis and Guillain-Barr" syndrome [pain and loss of nerve and motor function]." Are we really willing to take that gamble with human life? Are we willing to give our children these harmful vaccines thinking that its benefits are going to be worth it? Are we going to pretend that we are doing something for the greater good? There is clear cut evidence that vaccines contain toxins and everytime we vaccinate a child, we are making him a potential victim of the effects of these toxins. We should all stop for a moment and think "Is this all necessary?". Is putting a child through all this danger really necessary? No it is not. And how can we say that children need these vaccines when ,in many cases, they have been proven not to work? Are we not doing this all for nothing? Risking a child's life for medication that does not even work. We all really need to think about this once. Citations: http://thepeopleschemist.com... http://healthland.time.com...

I'll first be going over standards, then neg, followed finally by aff. Standards: As far as Values go... 1.) First and foremost, my proposed value of justice is really what's being weighed in this debate, per the resolution. Is compulsory immunization JUSTIFIED (implying the value of justice). 2.) Second, my value of Justice pretty much subsumes the value of Natural Rights, as the right to life, liberty, property, and safety of person are all elements of a just society. Furthermore, natural rights is my CRITERION, the mechanism in which I achieve justice! 3.) For clarification as to our natural rights... they are all rights guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights... how is that unclear? For convenience, I will provide a link to the actual document to prevent further confusion: http://www.un.org... I refrained from listing all of them originally because there are over 50, well over my character allotment :) 4.) As my opponent states... "Since I am arguing that what is "due" to people is their natural rights, we are both essentially striving for the same end goal in our standards. Hence, whoever can preserve those natural rights the best will win this round." I will accept this as fair. But by natural rights, I expect my opponent to uphold all natural rights, as all natural rights are due to people, not just the few listed by my opponent. On the Criterion side of things: Seeing as I can achieve both my opponent's value and my own, my criterion of the protection of natural individual rights is clearly the preferred. There is no way I can possibly achieve herd immunity, and therefor my opponent's criterion is also abusive. Aff Contention 1: 1.) Basically what my opponent is saying is that anyone who is sick is automatically violating the principles of liberty! This is absurd and hyp. Not only are there alternatives to vaccination (like "staying home sick", or basically separating yourself from others until you get better), but hyperbolic. In addition, cross-apply subpoint A of Contention 1 (on neg), which explains how taking away the right to practice one's own religion undermines liberty. More importantly, cross apply my second contention. When an individual is forced by his/her superior to essentially take a suicide capsule to the arm, the superior (or in other words, the government) is threatening the rights of the individual-the right to life! This is effectively a turn, in which the government is not upholding the principle of liberty, and therefor compulsory immunization undermines the principle of liberty. 2.) When medical doctors and nurses are killed as a result of forced inoculation (as in example one), there is no one left to treat citizens with the disease, therefore violating the 3rd article of the UNDHR which grants all the right to life. This is effectively a turn as well. Cross apply the aforementioned rebuttals to subpoints A, B, and C, as the responses are all relevant. Aff Contention 2: Subpoint A and B: GENERAL populations is the key here. As my opponent does not deny that people HAVE indeed died from getting vaccinated, this statement in no way supports her value of Natural Rights, or mine of Justice. Just by killing one person from a vaccine, you are taking away their natural right to life- one of the main rights my opponent is trying to PROTECT! Contention 1 tag: Even if compulsory immunization could prevent an epi/pandemic, this is only protecting the majority of life, not EVERY life. The government, by not enforcing compulsory immunization, is not killing any individual. However, by enforcing compulsory immunization with no guarantee of epi/pandemic prevention, the government is actively killing people. Onto the Negation... Contention 1: My opponents first response to contention 1 tagline really doesn't address the fundamental issue! She is advocating upholding natural human rights, but a huge natural right- probably the most conflicted in history- is the right to practice religion. By not upholding this natural right, you are not upholding natural rights as a whole. Feel free to link this back to (4.) ) on the value standards debate ;) Unfortunately, I can find no definition for "auxiliary rights" so cannot answer adequately. Auxiliary, most commonly defined as "assisting", makes very little sense in this context so I must ask my opponent to specify to avoid confusion and allow for an accurate response. On her third rebuttal, my opponent forgets that those infected can easily choose for themselves to get vaccinated and therefor protect human life. Freedom of choice allows us to make this decision. Freedom of choice also allows us to practice religion. As you can see, without freedom of choice much of whats good in life no longer has meaning. Contention 1:A: My opponent completely misinterprets my contention! Traffic laws are not arbitrary in the least, and for obvious reasons. Allow me to clarify for you. I simply mean that, keeping the philosophic framework of my value and criterion in mind, the more autonomous a society, the more legitimate the system of government. By affirming compulsory immunization, you are decreasing the autonomy of society, because, as proved in contention 1 and 2, compulsory immunization is illogical. Autonomy, by definition, is immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. I do not contend that traffic laws are arbitrary :) Cross apply all my responses to my opponent's contention 1, as she is essentially saying the same thing as her contention. I shall not bore you by restating my arguments. In response to her slightly new response of static vs non-static rights, what makes religious freedom any less important, or non-static, than any other right? If you care to note, many people have sacrificed their lives to protect this freedom. Obviously, these people valued the right to freely practice their religion as important or even more important to the right to life. Furthermore, people also devote their entire lives to the practice of religion, and denying them of this right (the right to religion), you are essentially denying them of their lives. Contention 1, B: My opponent's first response is logically flawed. Religion does have a right to practice all of its doctrine in the first place. Who says which religious practices are okay and which aren't? Provide some reasons to support your argument please, as I can simply state that you're wrong and we will still be on the same level (providing a conclusion with no warranted premises). Again, I wish to ask, should the major body of religious persons more important than the minority? Are Caucasians more important than African Americans or Asians, for example? Yes, you are correct, I AM saying that forcing people to be vaccinated when they religiously object is wrong. Thanks for paying attention. BUT, my opponent has this vain idea that by my logic I'm also objecting to health and well being project around the world. However, my opponent conveniently leaves out the fact that you are harming people through compulsory immunization, whether religiously or physically! If these "well-being" projects end up harming people, or violating their natural rights, then yes, I do not support them. 1, C: The upheaval within society is the result of constant revolution. The constant revolution has led to pressure economically and educationally. This excessive economic/educational pressure, while benefiting the country as a whole, has also adversely resulted in increased suicide rates. Regarding her second response, keep in mind that disease is not the cause of societal upheaval in this example, but oppressive government control and reform. Meaning another mandate from the government would empirically lead to more societal upheaval, and in turn increased suicide rates.

First of all, Con wishes to say that 2-phenoxyethanol is not MonoSodium Glutamate. The scientific name of MSG is Sodium 2-Aminopentanedioate. 2-phenoxyethanol is present in many diptheria vaccines. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the chemical is toxic to infants via ingestion, and "can depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea". According to the now defunct University of Oxford Department of Chemistry Material Safety Data Sheet, 2-phenoxyethanol is classed as "Very Toxic Material". "May lead to kidney, liver, blood and central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Harmful or fatal if swallowed. Effects include behavioural disorders, drowsiness, vomiting, diarrhoea, visual disturbances, thirst, convulsions, cyanosis, and rapid heart rate, CNS stimulation, depression, cardiopulmonary effects, kidney disorders. May also lead to liver and blood disorders. Produces reproductive and developmental effects in experimental animals. " Therefore is it quite clear that 2-phenoxyethanol harmful to children. Although Pro claims that formaldehyde is harmless, its wikipedia page states that "In view of its widespread use, toxicity and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.[4] In 2011, the US National Toxicology Program described formaldehyde as 'known to be a human carcinogen'" . Its effects, though suppressed, are still harmful to children. One thing we must all think about is why are we vaccinating even when we know there are so many risks associated with it? Why are taking the gamble for diseases which have not occurred yet? Are we vaccinating children so that they might not fall prey to future diseases? Diseases that might not even occur to our children? Are we putting them at risk because of our own exaggerated concerns? The whole logic of our actions is wrong and baseless. We cannot harm a children's life like this. Putting them at severe risk of nervous damage and other harmful diseases. We need to think about this. If the side effects of vaccines can be so easily cured as argued by Pro, so can other diseases that could occur to us. Point is we cannot put others at risk for something that could happen in future. Vaccinations have too many side effects to consider them to be safe for the general population. Therefore they are not beneficial to humanity. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.novaccine.com...

Wow. I only have 5 minutes. Children are property until cognition and should therefore be treated according to the whims of their parents or guardians as long as they are not beaten or killed. The argument that children should not be put on leashes because children are not animals is moot because humans are animals themselves. the only distinction between humans and other animals is that animals never gain cognition. Source: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

I am glad your back, though we are short a response; please do not hold it against PRO. As for the begging for votes, I assumed you forfeited completely. Once again I do not see you making any valid reasons that religion shouldn’t be forced on children in schools. I do not think outrage, discomfort and personal objection are valid arguments, though they are emotionally compelling. Also I don’t care if it’s a man, women, Muslim or Christian, you’re framing the question in a way to try to evoke a personal response to make a point by exception rather than an argument. Also suggesting my bias, which is silly as I was at pride while you were camping, which is a pro gay parade, shows the weakness of your argument. I am not anti-gay, I just find your argument not logical or accurate. Also your argument from not at all, to it should be taught what other believe and not one religion is true, is different and that even if you have slightly shifted your position will eventually end up with the same problem. They can’t be all true, and your imply one or more is false. Why go to the logical conclusion, if there is no proof why believe in a god at all? The best way to educate people is to actually do that, educate them on the facts, logic and reason. It should be forced into the classroom and it should be taught accurately, rather than interpreted falsely as so many people do, to fit their personal or religious view. Why is it important to teach the bible and religion accurately? Because it’s such a big part of society, it shaped our history and inspired our art. So much of the wold is shaped by it, to ignore it is to do education and students a disservice. If you think objection due to discomfort then the holocaust is a non-subject, or white washed subject, because it might offend Christian to hear how is was a Christian movement to kill the Jews. It was important, it was a major moment in history and students should be forced to learn about the holocaust, why it happened and how it came to be. You’re not teaching that the Nazi point of view is true, just why they believed and how it was wrong and what it did to the world. Nor do you invite various hate groups into the class and let them via for students or present interpretations that are easily disproven or false. Why? Because the truth matters. The truth is the truth is the truth is the truth, and your discomfort doesn’t matter. I dont care if you believe 2+2=5 and your believe it should be allowed as legitimate math in the class room (unless to point out why its not true and example of bad math). Just like I don’t care if you feel uncomfortable that the bible teaches you’re going to hell for being gay, it’s what the book says. Offense is not a reason not to teach something. If it’s relevant, if it’s required to operate in the world or it’s relevant to the world once you go out into it, it should be taught. You even suggest this, by going half way to teaching what people believe, but not once did you say teach the facts and that there is no proof for god, and assuming one is illogical. Why? Your original object is Religion should not be forced, is now only teach what they believe even if it’s not true? What would be what next, opt out for people who object to hard math as they do with sex ed in many places, or avoid teaching it all together like evolution in many places? Oh wait, that was the original argument. Again, I say it should be forced into the classroom and taught accurately not preached inaccurate. Thank you This was extremely fun an interesting and I will debate you on other subjects any time as I found your viewpoints challenging and interesting. Seriously thank you. . . Please comments on votes are greatly appreciated as well. . .Thank for reading.

I affirm, Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. Definitions The only particularly hazy term of the round is "justify," which I will define per Aristotle's definition of "justice," which is giving each his or her due. Therefore, the verb "justify" will revolve primarily around what is entitled to human beings or citizens of a given society. Standards V: Natural Rights. Per the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, natural rights generally consist of the rights to life, liberty, property, and safety of person. Hence, the affirmative will attempt to prove that compulsory immunization is necessary to maximize these rights, which will adequately justify its usage, as all human beings are due natural rights. C: Achieving Herd Immunity. Herd immunity, as will be discussed at length in my second contention, is the epidemiological principle that the more people we immunize against disease, the better protected an entire society is. Because of prohibitive medical conditions and the occasional failed vaccination attempt, 100% immunity within a population cannot be achieved. However, by achieving herd immunity (up to 95% immunized), we not only protect individual citizens against epidemics, but the world community. 1. The principle of liberty, which is a requirement of all just states, requires compulsory immunization. A. The state of liberty does not entail absolute individual freedom. In general, all human beings are entitled to a certain set of natural rights. However, those rights are finite and governed by the principle of liberty, as discussed by John Stuart Mill. He elaborates: "Everything that makes life worth living for anyone depends on restraints being put on the actions of other people... So this is the appropriate region of human liberty…liberty of conscience in the broadest sense…Liberty of tastes and pursuits, of shaping our life to suit our own character, of doing what we like…all this without hindrance from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do doesn't harm them even though they may think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong." To summarize, liberty gives a human being the right to do just about anything he or she feels will increase his or her quality of life, excepting those actions which threaten the rights and safety of other human beings. This is the guiding principle behind compulsory immunizations, as well as a wide variety of other public concern legislation. Since those that I come into contact with (which has vastly increased in the contemporary world) are immediately put into danger if I am a carrier of disease, as well as the exponential number of people exposed after initial contact, I am violating the principle of liberty. It is not just to put fellow citizens in harms way to protect my own sentimentalities. B. Objections other than medical violate the principle of liberty. As stated prior, the balancing point between individual freedom and public governance is the harm to others' rights or person. If we use this weighing mechanism to examine the current objections to vaccinations, those being conscientious, medical, & religious, the only one to pass the acid test would be medical. Obviously, if the state mandates a vaccination that is likely, per expert medical diagnosis, to harm or kill an individual, the exemption is justified as it meets the standards of liberty. However, if there are no sound medical objections to contend with, then the individual's rights to autonomy, including parental autonomy, may and should be subjugated for the protection of the right to life of others. C. Violations of the principle of liberty with regards to immunization lead to unnecessary loss of human life. Alice Park details an outbreak of polio in Nigeria that occurred in 2001. The disastrous effects of the outbreak were caused directly by the violation of this principle of liberty and entirely preventable. She states: "That's what happened in the current measles outbreaks in the western U.S., and that's what happened in Nigeria in 2001, when religious and political leaders convinced parents that polio vaccines were dangerous and their kids should not receive them. Over the next six years, not only did Nigerian infection rates increase 30-fold, but the disease also broke free and ranged out to 10 other countries, many of which had previously been polio-free." The ramifications of respecting the falsely bestowed right of absolute personal autonomy are far too costly to the human race. 2. Immunizations are both medically sound and empirically beneficial to human survival of epidemics and pandemics. A. Vaccinations have been proven medically safe for general populations. Though little evidence is needed to prove this claim, vaccinations have been successfully used in myriad human populations to prevent and even eradicate diseases since the 17th Century. Alice Park states: "In the past century, vaccines against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, measles, mumps and rubella, not to mention the more recent additions of hepatitis B and chicken pox, have wired humans with powerful immune sentries to ward off uninvited invasions. And thanks to state laws requiring vaccinations for youngsters enrolling in kindergarten, the U.S. currently enjoys the highest immunization rate ever; 77% of children embarking on the first day of school are completely up to date on their recommended doses and most of the remaining children are missing just a few shots." Considering that a little over ï¿½ of U.S. schoolchildren alone are multi-vaccinated upon entering schools, the soundness of the vaccine is evident. If it were, droves of U.S. students would be negatively affected by these vaccines, as well as people in every other nation that employs vaccines in any part of its operations. However, a broader perspective is delivered by Dr. Michael Pazos: "To be clear, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe vaccine. Like any other medical treatment, there are side effects and risks involved. In rare cases, live attenuated vaccines could induce the illness they protect against, which could even be spread to those who are not vaccinated. Most of the known risks are rare and relatively minor—most people are familiar with the redness and swelling following a flu shot—and the benefits of vaccination far outweigh them." B. Vaccines' benefits to both the individual and society clearly outweigh any harms, real or perceived. As Dr. Pazos stated previously, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the minor risks. Besides the individual protection that vaccines provide, the real impact of vaccines was discussed previously by Alice Parks and her analysis of the Nigeria polio outbreak. Dr. Pazos continues, discussing the concept of herd immunity: "...vaccines are broadly administered in order to establish what is referred to as "herd immunity." Most infectious diseases require a ready supply of healthy hosts in order to continue spreading. So, if enough people get vaccinated, entire illnesses can go from serious public health threats to occasional isolated incidents. This way the young, the elderly, the sick, and even those who are unsuccessfully vaccinated are protected by the majority. Vaccination rates necessary to establish herd immunity vary by the pathogen, but they can be as high as 95 percent—very little room is left for those who voluntarily choose not to get vaccinated, which is why mandatory vaccinations are widely instituted." If we review the principle of liberty, and consider the populations of people who medically cannot be vaccinated, then herd immunity is a necessary state that we must achieve to maximize the protection of all citizens. Hence, with vaccines presenting no general medical dangers and with people's lives resting on whether herd immunity can be achieved, the only just action is compulsory immunization. Bring it, Ginger. >:)