Instigator / Pro

Resolved: School Uniforms should be Enforced


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

School Uniform: a uniform worn by students primarily for a school or otherwise educational institution.

enforce: compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).

"Should": the positives outweigh the negatives

let's see if good old School Uniform Forfeit Curse gets to anyone this time!

Round 1
since I did not specify where, I will be generous and try to prove that school uniforms will have more positive than negative in most places around the world. 

1. Enforce security, preventing gang colors from hampering school performance, decrease crime (due to label of belonging to school), decrease bullying (due to wearing same clothing)
2. Saves money (set of clothing all year round), prepare for jobs (most require at least a dress code, which uniforms generate good practice for)
4. improve discipline and attendance. The military wears uniform precisely to instill a strong sense of being able to focus your mind on one thing at a time and not be distracted. This works for schools too.

My opp. probably thinks uniforms might be against freedom of expression in more free countries, but accessories and variety still allow this in a form. 

1. I don't see why Uniforms are the only answer. Schools can and should enforce rules dis-allowing gang related outfits. Also what constitutes gang colors is debatable and could be mis-understood. A dress code or style the teachers don't understand or aren't familiar could be construed to mean something different. One article demonstrates how students were punished for wearing things that were wrongly interpreted by teachers as gang related. There are also numerous way psychologists recommend to reduce bullying statistics that don't require mandatory uniforms. 

2. School uniforms are on the contrary quite costly to the average parent juggling multiple kids, with uniforms ranging anywhere from 150-600 dollars in some cases.

3. Sense of unity and belonging is a grey area, and varies among individuals.

4. Military is a paid job, school attendance a required one. When working you agree to wear a uniform for a paycheck. There are plenty of jobs that don't require one though.

Round 2
1. Uniforms actually solve this problem entirely and students don't have to worry about not following dress code. Con doesn't refute the idea that uniforms may even further help reduce bullying.

2. You can see here on average per kid normal clothing already costs about $700 per year. $150~600 is cheap by comparison.

3. the idea that school image is improved is dropped.

4. He dropped the idea that discipline and attendance are improved. Furthermore, I can find decent studies [like this] with wide range of selection of schools that show it helps improve performance in academic too

Con has only refuted my case and has not provided a case of his own. Why *shouldn't* Schools implement uniforms? In Japanese culture, this is already the norm and status quo. Con should have to come up with his ideas to support his side.
Please ignore pro's comments about starting my own case, there is a 1000 character limit. I barely had enough room to 'lightly' brush his case with rebuttals let alone make my own case.

1. Pro's solution to solving one problem creates more problems; I provided other ways to reduce violence in statistics besides uniform. Why reduce a students freedom of expression (and speech to an extent) to solve a problem when there are better ways to solve said problem?

2. The link my opponent attaches can hardly account for children in all financial situations. Many families who are impoverished but still have to send their child to school will be spending much less than this on school clothes. And clothes from previous years can also be used, whereas school uniform introduces it as an extra cost upon enrollment.

3. Kids don't attend school to increase image, they go to get educated. 

4. School uniforms are not the only things that increase discipline and attendance. That's not my BOP to find. 
Round 3
1. I have already stated that there are other ways to show off freedom of expression (and hence it is not stopped by uniforms), "better" is not truly asserted by con.
2. Many schools understand their neighboring families having little money. The policy "...most poor parents favor, despite the cost of about $30, because their children are less likely to be taunted for wearing outdated styles, ragged clothes and the same outfit day after day." link
3. And my opponent has dropped the improved academic performance argument.
4. My opponent concedes that uniforms may improve discipline and attendance.
1.  My opponent only said you can wear a variety of accessories, preemptively assuming what uniform enforcing schools will allow. He cannot know the standards of which uniforms will be policed. We have no reason to assume students will be allowed that freedom.

2. Schools understanding that neighboring families have little money, doesn't suddenly create money. The parents still got to come up with the money for the uniforms somehow. How does my opponent suggest that is accomplished? He simply doesn't. 

3. Another false accusation of a dropped argument. The intention behind this point was for my opponent to say uniforms increase school image, which I countered by saying it is not most students goals for going to school. They go to be educated.

4. Again, not dropped. I said that uniforms aren't the only things that can increase discipline. Schools have been doing just fine with other programs throughout the years. Uniforms are not required for this.