Resolved: School Uniforms should be Enforced

1477

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

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

08.19.2020 12:13AM

Pro

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)

3. Sense of unity and belonging , improve school spirit, most feel like the school/district image are improved as result

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.

08.19.2020 01:03AM

Con

Rebuttals

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

08.19.2020 01:23AM

Pro

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.

08.19.2020 01:35AM

Con

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

08.19.2020 02:57PM

Pro

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.

08.19.2020 07:52PM

Con

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.

08.21.2020 08:01PM

#19

-->

@Pattern

I know lol

08.21.2020 07:46PM

#18

-->

@Speedrace

"Con also didn't respond to multiple arguments."

1000 characters limit lol. I did my best.

08.21.2020 05:33PM

#17

-->

@seldiora

Why oh no when I'm helping you

08.21.2020 05:33PM

#16

-->

@seldiora

lol

08.21.2020 05:31PM

#15

-->

@Speedrace

o no

08.20.2020 07:31PM

#14

-->

@Intelligence_06

Mmm.... Thanks for the vote... Truths...

08.20.2020 07:13PM

#13

-->

@Intelligence_06

ahhh... *best* solution! That's how I defeat the pro side of the argument.

08.20.2020 07:07PM

#12

Overall Con's arguments are more clear and to-the-point and explains more issues than Pro.

Args to Con.

The sources sufficiently explain their issues.

Sources tied.

Both arguments presentable and readable.

S&G tied.

Both debaters showed good conduct, no forfeits and respectful play.

Conduct tied.

Overall, I give the win to Con.

08.20.2020 07:05PM

#11

-->

@Barney

@seldiora

@Pattern

RFD: BoP on Pro

Pro r1:
1. School uniforms will reduce informal activities
2. School uniforms cost less
3. School uniforms will give students a sense of community
4. School uniforms will increase attendance rates

Con r1:
1. Student uniforms aren't necessary, and thus should not be enforced (Refutes Pro1 1, 3)
2. Student uniforms are still indeed costly (Refutes Pro1 2)
3. Students need to attend class regardless if there is uniform or not (Refutes Pro1 4)

Pro r2:
1. Uniforms solve the problem(Doesn't Refute Con1 1, due to that Pro needs to prove Uniforms should be mandatory, not just useful)
2. Uniforms are cheaper than normal clothes(Refutes Con1 2)
3. School image(Ideally dropped by Con, but still doesn't prove that it is necessary)
4. Academic improvement and normalization(Refutes Con1 3, consider other things are improved along with attendance)

Con r2:
1. There are indeed other solutions(Refutes Pro2 1,4)
2. School uniforms are still costly(Refutes Pro2 2)
3. Education is more important than imagery, and school uniform is not the most effective doing so(Refutes Pro2 3)

Pro r3:
1. It works(Doesn't refute Con2 1,3,4 due to that Pro needs to prove that it is THE BEST SOLUTION)
2. School gives uniforms(Doesn't refute Con2 2, due to that someone still has to spend the money)

Con r3
1. A variety of uniforms is hard to manage(Refutes Pro3 1)
2. Someone gotta spend that money(Refutes Pro3 2)
3. It is not the only solution that works, if it works(Refutes Pro3 1)

08.19.2020 07:42PM

#10

-->

@Barney

Mmmmm tasty truths, thankyou.

08.19.2020 04:41PM

Pro's argument is basically that if the rich do a type of drug for pure entertainment, then that type of drug must be endorsed consider it will make yo rich.

Barney

08.19.2020 06:00AM

-->

@Pattern

Welcome to the site.

And yeah, low character counts become an exercise in learning to be concise. I would not always want to restrictions in place, but sometimes I look back on an old argument and realize some of my points drifted off topic and probably should have been pruned.

08.19.2020 01:03AM

Didn't realize the character limit was so low. This will be boring.

BearMan

08.18.2020 09:23PM

Enforced where? The public school system of where?

BearMan

08.18.2020 09:23PM

Enforced where? The public school system of where?

08.18.2020 08:54PM

-->

@seldiora

It does. If not, then con will interpret it whatever he likes, which would lose you.

08.18.2020 08:48PM

-->

@MisterChris

does it matter?

MisterChris

08.18.2020 07:53PM

-->

@seldiora

Do you mean that school uniforms should be federal/international law? Is this just in the US, or worldwide?

08.18.2020 07:44PM

So this IS 9spaceking

08.21.2020 02:56PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro's claims:
Uniforms enforce security, prevent gang colors, decrease crime, decrease bullying, saves money, prepares for jobs, provides a sense of unity and belonging, improve school spirit, and improve discipline and attendance.
Con only rebuts the claim that uniforms save money by showing that they are very expensive. He attempts to counter the point of improving school spirit by saying that kids do not go to school for that goal, but that fails to prove that improving school spirit either does not happen or that it is actually a bad thing, leaving it as an advantage for Pro's side. He says that uniforms are not required for improving discipline and attendance, but again that concedes that uniforms do raise discipline and attendance.

Con also didn't respond to multiple arguments. Because the description defines "should" as the positives outweighing the negative, and Con only provided one negative while Pro provided 8 positives, Pro therefore wins the debate.

For sources, Pro's arguments were completely substantiated by sources, such as this one: https://thegreyhoundnews.com/1621/op-ed/studies-find-that-uniforms-decrease-crime/

Without them, my decision might have been different, but Pro was able to provide foundation for their claims with it. Con only provides a few sources, only one of which, https://education.costhelper.com/school-uniforms.html, actually works to prove a negative of school uniforms. Con's other sources were irrelevant. Therefore, Pro gets sources.