The Instigator
starmaster
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Hats should be banned in high schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
fire_wings
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 94805
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

starmaster

Con

I don't understand why there are some schools that ban hats. Its got to be one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard.
fire_wings

Pro

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
starmaster

Con

If you're going to ban hats, ban everything else too or else it's not fair. By everything else I'm mean ban religious head wear too. Whatever reason you can think of to ban hats can be applied to religious head wear too. If you're going to argue that hats are a distraction well don't because if you think that then we should ban literally everything that can pose as a distraction, yes this include pencils because they can be distracting. Paper especially because you can make a paper airplane out of it and who knows what. What if my shirt is distracting? Then I should take it off and put it on the teacher's desk, then my abs are distracting then I should sit in the hall. "Ban hats because we want to ready students for the workplace because some places don't allow employees to wear hats". If you're coming from that angle than students should wear suites to school if they're in accounting or some business course. How hard is it to adjust from wearing hats to not as an adult? Let kids live their childhood (teens are still kids) and when they become "adults" and get a job that doesn't allow hats then they won't wear hats.
fire_wings

Pro

Ave

I will make my arguments this round. Only 3000 characters, very short.


There are a quite a lot of reasons to ban hats.


Arguments


First of all, taking hats off in schools are a form of respect [1]. That is one of the reasons. If you wear you hat in a building it's rude. So we take off hats when we come in the buildings. Secondly,
Sometimes in school, students will knock off each other's hats, and cause fights, and can easily move towards bullying [1]. To prevent fighting a bullying, we should ban hats. There are also theft of hats, when there are around 50$, and the students complain about it to the teachers, when the teachers cannot do anything. The main reason why we ban hats is because some students hide behind their hats to make it difficult or impossible for eye contact [1] ". "[Hats] can block a person's view, hide one's eyes from eye contact, and are often taken off and put back on repeatedly or played with [2]." This will distract the students from listening to the teacher because they play with their hats, and can't listen to what the teacher is talking about, because they are focused on playing with their hats. The teacher's lecture might be very important. If the teachers says for example to Bob which is playing with his hat, "Bob, what is the answer to hgndjfjnggjgj?" Bob will not know the answer, because he was playing with his hat. He will get in trouble. To prevent him to get in trouble, we should ban hats. Also, the students will hide one's eye contact when wearing hats. First of all, the students will not keep eye contact with the teachers, so the teachers will probably not ask a question to him, or the person with the hat, and probably forgot about him, or the one with the hat. Also, the students might cheat by not getting the teacher's eye contact, and looking at other's tests, and copying the other's tests. That is why we should BAN hats in schools. Vote for Pro in the debate.


Conclusion


I have shown in the debate that we should ban hats in schools because it is rude if we wear hats, it is distracting, they will play with the hats, no eye contact, prevent fighting and stealing. I have successfully shown why we should ban hats, so please vote for Pro in the debate. The resoltuion is affirmed, Thank you. I will make my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments in the next round.

Sources

[1] https://sites.google.com...

[2] http://www.teachnet.com...

Vote for PRO!!! Thank you. Off to my opponent in the debate now.


Vale
Debate Round No. 2
starmaster

Con

Before I continue I wanted to make one thing clear: I agree that hats should be removed during the playing of a national anthem and where else appropriate. However I'd like to know what exactly it is I'm disrespecting when I wear my hat in school. It is allowed in my school and I passed all my classes and didn't get in to any fights. In fact a lot of my friends wear their hats at my school and we all get along and pass our courses. As I've stated before: in reality anything can be distracting yes even hats but pencils can be distracting too. One time in science my friend who happened to be wearing a hat was playing with paper and making paper airplanes out of it, he got in trouble and almost failed the course but it wasn't because of his hat but rather paper. Does that mean we should ban paper? I know a lot of people that wear hats in school but one thing they all have in common is that they don't get distracted by their hats.

In Conclusion:

Banning hats will not end bullying. I find this very similar in ways to the gun argument. We need to have more discipline on the bullies, not hats. They will just find other means to torture the kid they're bullying that could be even worse. In my experience in high school I found the people that get bullied is often based on appearance or the way they act not what they wear.

Vote against the banning! Who knows what will be banned next!
fire_wings

Pro

Ave

Rebuttals/ Defense

My opponent says that we should ban religious head wear also. Yeah, we should ban it. The good things about pencils outweigh the bad things, when there is no reason to wear hats inside, which means there are no benefits. There are bad things, distraction for instance, and it automatically outweighs nothing, so we shouldn't wear hats in schools.

Paper outweighs it also. And you need shirts, but you don't neccesarly need hats in school. My opponent says that children should get a job where they don't allow hats, and don't wear hats. In school it isn't allowed also, so we shouldn't wear them, according to my opponent's logic.

My opponent says he wants to know why it is disrespecting. You know when you just say like "Hi dude" to a president its rude? Same thing here, it's just rude. My opponent doesn't rebut this argument. I never said that all people will be distracted. I said some people might be distracted. It's not about the *number* of how many people are distracted only if they *are* distracted or not distracted. And some people are, and some people cheat, so we should ban hats.

My opponent makes an example of paper, and we should ban paper. As I said, the good things about paper outweigh the bad things. And paper airplanes should be banned, not paper itself. Just because *one* person doesn't get in trouble doesn't mean we shouldn't ban it. It is important if someone *gets* in trouble, or doesn't. I showed that some people do, so we should ban hats. I know quite a few people who were in trouble by hats, so in the next year, the school banned hats.

My opponent doesn't refute any of my arguments, and I refute all his. Also, why would you even wear a hat insides? There is no reason. I have shown that hats bad things in schools outweigh the good things, which is *nothing*, so vote for Pro. The resolution is affirmed.

Conclusion/ Things to vote for

Conduct: Both had good conduct, tie.
S&G: Both had okay S&G, tied.
Convincing arg.: Me, as I refuted all my opponent's arguments, and show that the harms outweigh the benefits, and my opponent doesn't rebut any of my arguments
Sources: Goes to me, as I am the only one who made sources.

The winner is easily me, as I refuted my opponent's arguments, and I was the only one with sources. Therefore, please vote for PRO. Thank you for the debate, and please vote for affirmative, or Pro.

Two choices to vote

1. Affirmative
2. Pro

That decides the clear winner.

Vale
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: warren42// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially made two arguments: 1. Banning hats is a slippery slope and 2. Hats are not always bad. Pro refuted both of these. The first was refuted by Pro's analysis of other "distracting" things (paper, pencil, etc.) and either stated they were okay to ban or had inherent usefulness that outweighed potential distraction. When it came to hats, Pro pointed out that hats had literally no usefulness, which is consistent with Con's side of the debate. Con never said why hats may be good, only that they were not bad. Therefore, Pro's statement that any harm from hats outweighs the zero benefits rings true. I am forced to vote this way because Pro provided usefulness as the way to analyze hats, while Con didn't provide anything else to use as a weighing mechanism.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter specifically analyzes arguments made by both sides and explains how they inform his decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BackCommander// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: "You know when you just say like "Hi dude" to a president its rude? Same thing here, it's just rude" "My opponent says that children should get a job where they don't allow hats, and don't wear hats" Pro repeatedly shows that they are most likely skimming Con's argument as opposed to actually reading it. Pro repeatedly makes vague claims without evidence. In light of these facts, Pro's condescension and assurance that they've made a good argument, even though they've failed to adequately counter Con's points, loses them the conduct vote. Con did well to build a strong foundation for his argument. Pro used many "what if" arguments including bullying and theft of hats with nothing to back up their statements. Pro used opinions and guesses as facts, Con wins the convincing argument vote. Though Pro was the only one to use sources they were poor ones. One was a student ran news site, hardly reliable. The second was an article about an Australian school, which was almost all opinion.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Conduct may only be awarded in instances where one side insults someone, where there is plagiarism, or where one side forfeits. A lack of coverage on points or perceived skimming is insufficient reason to award conduct. If condescension occurred within the debate to the point that it was insulting, then the voter needs to cite that as a reason for awarding this point. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides, and in this case fails to do so for both sides. Generalizing to "what if" statements made by Pro is not sufficient analysis, nor is stating that Con built "a strong foundation for his argument."
*******************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: JimShady// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: My vote is tied, but ultimately, the more important issues (agreeing before and after) go to starmaster. His "ban everything that poses a distraction" argument is very good, but refuted by fire_wings. To me, banning hats shouldn't happen right away. Kids should be allowed to have one, and when it starts to affect their learning, you take it away? Does this sound similar to cell phones in school? People are allowed to have phones, but they can't get distracted by them, or they are confiscated (at leas at my school). I think this system is fair enough. Pro wins for his sources, and overall he's just a better debater. However, he is arguing for the wrong side. Grammar and conduct are even. Most of fire_wings arguments, even though they are presented well, are not too good. A cap being the source of bullying... what about hair? Shirt brand? A cap being easily stolen... well, so can wallets, book bags, phones... A cap is not to big of a problem, and therefore they should not be bann

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. There's little actual assessment of the arguments given based on points made in the debate. Instead, the voter appears to present their own arguments to explain why they found some of Pro's statements problematic, but never assesses Con's arguments to any degree beyond saythat it was "very good, but refuted". It should be clear why the argument failed, and where and how Pro's argument succeeded. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even if only one side presented sources, as is the case here, the voter is still required to explain why the sources presented were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate) in order to award these points.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheBenC 6 months ago
TheBenC
Hats were a huge fashion statement in the 90s. You don't know what you're talking about. Almost every guy wore a hat, even when playing basketball. That was the time of backwards hats being cool, a trend that pathetically lives on. Then some wore them sideways. Hell, some wore 2 hats at once, one forward and one backward or sideways.

If I went to an accountant who was wearing a hat, I would not hire him. I would be more likely to hire the professionally dress one instead of the one that doesn't care about being disrespectful.

When you get into the real world you will see why hats are dumb. They are fine in social settings but not in professional settings. Look at any professional setting and you will see 0 hats on anyone. Hats are for McDonalds employees, not for accountants. Wearing a hat in a professional environment is similar to wearing shorts. You can do it but damn, it's not professional looking.

I wouldn't hire an accountant who takes business meetings while wearing shorts.

If you want to hire a guy who has a hat and shorts on then go ahead. I will go with the more professional looking guy.
Posted by BackCommander 6 months ago
BackCommander
TheBenC, in your time hats were utility only, nowadays they're also for appearance. A hat is no different than an over-shirt or a pair of non monochrome shoes. Your generation and the ones before you are the only ones who have the opinion that it's dumb to wear a hat without it being for some form of protection. No logical person cares if their accountant wears a hat, no one thinks of hats like an umbrella for a person's head. Some hats are ridiculous and don't always fit in everywhere, that's true. Hats are banned in school because your generation has more opinions about hats than we, as a society, need. I personally think anyone who wouldn't hire a good (let's say the best) accountant or contractor because they like to wear hats is a ridiculous, unintelligent, child.
Posted by JimShady 6 months ago
JimShady
Still not entirely sure how this 7 point voting system works, and it cast 5 of my points to the Pro... Just to let you know, though, I'm in favor of the Con completely.
Posted by TheBenC 6 months ago
TheBenC
Hats are not banned because it is a distraction. They are banned because you are indoors and it is dumb to wear a hat. Again, when you see someone wearing some stupid hat you automatically have less respect for them (and kids wear stupid hats, not something costly and sophisticated).

This is similar to why schools should not allow someone to have an open umbrella over them all day. It is stupid.
Posted by TheBenC 6 months ago
TheBenC
It is done because school is trying to set you up to succeed in real life. Men do not wear hats when they work unless it is part of the job. If you were trying to find an accountant and the first guy you went to was wearing some stupid had, you would walk out and find someone who dresses like a professional. You would never hire a contractor to fix your roof if he had some dumba$$ hat on.

The real question is....why would you want to wear a hat indoors?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 6 months ago
warren42
starmasterfire_wingsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially made two arguments: 1. Banning hats is a slippery slope and 2. Hats are not always bad. Pro refuted both of these. The first was refuted by Pro's analysis of other "distracting" things (paper, pencil, etc.) and either stated they were okay to ban or had inherent usefulness that outweighed potential distraction. When it came to hats, Pro pointed out that hats had literally no usefulness, which is consistent with Con's side of the debate. Con never said why hats may be good, only that they were not bad. Therefore, Pro's statement that any harm from hats outweighs the zero benefits rings true. I am forced to vote this way because Pro provided usefulness as the way to analyze hats, while Con didn't provide anything else to use as a weighing mechanism.