Hats should be banned in high schools
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept the debate.
I will make my arguments this round. Only 3000 characters, very short.
There are a quite a lot of reasons to ban hats.
First of all, taking hats off in schools are a form of respect . 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 . 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  ". "[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 ." 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.
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.
Vote for PRO!!! Thank you. Off to my opponent in the debate now.
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!
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
That decides the clear winner.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.