The Instigator
marisaj
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,844 times Debate No: 22754
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

marisaj

Pro

Public schools should require their students to wear uniforms. They would end up saving money for parents, could help stop bullying, and help focus students attention to the lessons that matter. Personal outfits can often be too distracting, revealing, and results in sutdents being bullied for dressing their own way or not being able to fford certain brands of clothing.

The debate will consists of 5 rounds
1. Acceptance
2. Argument/Rebuttal
3. Argument/Rebuttal
4. Argument/Rebuttal
5. Conclusions

There will be an 8,000 character limit and 72 hours to complete each round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
marisaj

Pro

The debate of whether public schools should require uniforms is forever an ongoing, and often a touchy subject. However, I feel it is vital that public school students be required to wear a school uniform.

Especially in this economy, it's important that money be saved wherever and whenever for families struggling to make ends meet. Requiring students to wear uniforms would, in the long run, save parents or guardians a boat load of money. Rather than having to buy their children a plethora of expensive clothing, the parents would simply purchase a few uniforms that the children would wear five days out of the week. The amount of "regular" clothes they would be forced to purchase would significantly decrease, allowing for parents to use that money elsewhere.

Children often desire expensive shoes, shirts, and pants (not to mention accessories). Because their children do indeed need clothing to wear to school, parents are often roped into buying their children over priced clothing. Children want to fit in with the latest craze, often prompting parents to have to shell out thousands on Uggs, Abercrombie and Fitch, and Juicy Couture – for example – when that is just not necessary. If uniforms were enforced in public schools, children wouldn't be as fascinated with the latest crazes, for all of the students would be wearing the same things anyway.

Money would also be saved in the sense that children and students could get multiple years out of the uniforms. For example, I'm a college freshman and still often wear some articles of clothing I wore in the seventh grade. After puberty, most students won't do much growing and could even get most of their high school careers out of the uniforms. Even at the least, students could get two years out of the uniforms, which would cause parents not to have to keep spending money year after year on clothing because the children's clothing from the last year went out of style. Also to be considered is that if the uniforms don't change for multiple years, parents could save the uniforms and give them to younger siblings of the same gender to wear, which would help them save even more money!

The uniforms could also be considered lucrative for the public schools themselves for they can make a small profit from the purchasing of the uniforms and use that money to improve things around the school. Requirng public school students to wear school uniforms is a simple way for public schools to make money, as we all know that is extremely dire in this world today.

Requring public school students to wear school uniforms proves to be quite lucrative for all of those involved. Businesses that make school uniforms would prosper as well, which would help in job creation. Those companies and businesses that students currently wear wouldn't suffer too much damage either, for they often make clothing for all ages, and a small decrease shouldn't hurt much.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Rebuttels~~

R1: Does uniforms save money?

My opponent states that manditory school uniforms would help the parents financialy by saving them money. However this is simply untrue because in after having to manage things like books, sports, building costs, and utilities. The schools would not have enough money to fund uniforms. As a result taxes would have to be raised, and the parents would still be paying the same (if not more) for clothing. These clothing costs plus extra clothes for after school and weekends would end up costing them more. This would hurt the parents escpecially the parents of multiple children. It would be way better to just leave it the parents to buy regular clothes for their children.


R2: Does it help schools?

It probably would help schools a little, however if one thinks for a minute (particularly on my first rebuttel) you will see that it would hurt parents. Now for some of the poorest families in this pretty ruff economy they can barely afford books and supplies. How are they to have the money to buy extra sets of clothes? It would just cause problems for the families of America and do more harm then good.



~~My Arguments~~

C1: Forcing kids to dress alike will only help create more followers than leaders.

My first contention will be about the harm done to students capibilities both during school years and after school years. It really would hurt the students capibilities. I mean think about what it would be like to be told what to do in every aspect of ones life, and then all of the sudden being put into a situation where one has to make ones own discisions. School uniforms set some students up for failure when it comes to making their own decisions about who they are and how they're going to present themselves to the world. It would deminish individual responsability and would foster the attitude that the kids would be drones that would be told what to do in every part of their lives and would ultimately create more followers the leaders.

C2: Uniforms are unconstitutional.

Since public schools are owned and ran by the government then they are subject to the same laws that govern the governmnet that owns and funds them. The right to free expression is a first amendment right and also a fundemental right that the government can't take away at anytime [1]. By inforcing manditory uniforms the governmnet would be trouncing on the constitutional rights of students everywhere and that would be wrong.

I will now await my opponent's response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
marisaj

Pro

Over time the uniforms would indeed help save money for parents and prove to be lucrative for schools. Over time. Nothing can happen overnight. When kids can get away with wearing the same uniforms for upwards of three years, parents won't have to buy them school clothes. Yes, they'll still have to buy them some regular, expensive clothes, but not as much as they would if the schools permitted students to wear their own clothes. There will of course be an initial price the school must have to pay, but the same can be said for any investment. The uniforms would be an investment that would over time prove to be lucrative.

The struggling parents would have to buy their children clothes either way. These uniforms would take care of clothing five days out of the week. Parents are going to have to spend a plethora of money of their children's attire no matter what, but school uniforms would help reduce this cost, for parents wouldn't have to be fishing for money as their children pick of the latest trend of expensive Ugg boots.

Children are by nature expressive creatures. Think about how many jobs require a set of standards one can dress by – it's almost the same thing. Men will wear suits. Women will wear dress pants, skirts, etc. There isn't much room for expressing oneself in the future, either. Catholic schools almost always require uniforms, and there have never been reports of those students being less able to make decisions or simply being followers. In fact, maybe uniforms are part of the reason why catholic schools tend to encompass students with higher scores. Children are expressive, no matter what, they can and will be able to find ways to express themselves.

There is also a constitutional right of free speech, but that doesn't mean students can run around threatening and cursing off faculty, would you also say that breeches free speech? There will always be repercussions. Because these schools are run by the government, there are limits to what can be allowed and what is appropriate.

Nowadays, children are subject to bullying in so many ways (i.e, in person and through the computer). Children are ruthless. Requiring school uniforms can help cut these tragic bullying numbers down for children won't be able to make fun of one another for what they're wearing. It may seem silly, but children can be incredibly sensitive and bullying about their attire can really affect them even later in life. If everyone is wearing the same thing, no one can be bullied for what they wear.

Children also won't have to fear being left out because their parents can't afford to shell out hundreds on the newest fashion craze every other month. They won't be teased for wearing out of style clothing as readily as they would if regular clothing was permitted.

School uniforms in public schools would help keep students safe.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

R1: Does uniforms save money?

First off, I would like to point out that my opponent has no evidence stating that what she has said is true. If she said something happens as a result of something. Then she has the burrden of proof. She must prove that what she says is true. However, I would like to point out that students can save ordanary clothes from a year to year bases, and that idea is not just subject to uniforms. Also, the only reason for having schools is to teach kids, not save or make money.

R2: Does it help schools?

It may help schools a little bit however, they do not need more money. The average school can afford to spend $12,979 per student per year (every year) [1]. Extra money would barely help the average public school in America. Also, students hate uniforms. In many cases students have went up in protest over not being able to have the liberty to choose what they want to wear [2,3,4]. In most cases uniforms are a 'hot button' for students. If students are mad over what they wear and everytime they look at themselves in the mirror are reminded of the anger they have uniforms, then this will create a huge destraction from their studies. It can also
errupt into huge protests (like the links up above). The cons outway they pros in this issue.

R3: Bullying and other stuff my opponnet said...

Dr. David L. Brunsma an assistant sociology professor at the University of Missouri. Conducted research that last 8 years long on the subject of School Uniforms and there effects on grades and bullying. In his concluding report he stated that he found no statistically significant differences in school climate supporting a school uniform policy. In addition, the data do not support an improvement in academic achievement. In fact, there was a slightly negative impact at the 10th grade level in reading. There was also no significant change in school attendance that could be credited to school uniforms [5]. So this basically rules out everything else my opponent stated after the lucrative part of her arguments.

D1: Forcing kids to dress alike will only help create more followers than leaders.

Due to the research of Dr. David L. Brunsma, my opponnet's statement on Catholic schools is refutted. As for the rest of what she said about the future work place. That is the whole point of my contention. In the future the people would not be able to establish their individuality and who they are, which is why they must do it while they are young. If they don't it would have disasterous effects on students in the future.

D2: Uniforms are unconstitutional.

The point of limits on free speach in public schools are not equal to that of freedom expression. The point of rules against cursing is to mantain respect for peers and teachers alike, as opposed to freedom of expression has barley any that could mean harm to other students. For example: you can't compare me insulting the teacher or any of my peers to me wearing a simple t-shirt and jeans. One must have a very good reason to place limits on anothers constitutional rights and quite frankly saving or earning an extra buck is not a good reason!

I will now wait for my opponnet's response.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2]http://wcfcourier.com...

[3]http://www.metro.co.uk...

[4]http://www.ehow.com...

[5]http://www.gate.net...



Debate Round No. 3
marisaj

Pro

Schools need to acquire money to survive. If they don't, they are subject to cutting teachers, classes, and programs. Yes, the intention of a school is to teach students, but it needs money to do so. If the schools provide the means for the uniforms, they can make a profit enough that could be considerable enough to save a teacher or class.

Yes, kids could reuse their regular outfits, but trends for students change basically over night. Parents would have to continue buying new brands of shirts, shoes and pants more frequently than they would have to purchase uniforms.

A little goes a long way. The public schools in America are greatly suffering, and money at all could help them prosper a bit more.

Some students may protest, yes, but tat can not be said for every student. One boy wearing a skirt to school to protest uniforms isn't enough to suggest students as a whole hate the idea of school uniforms. I'm sure students who are picked on for their clothing wouldn't mind uniforms, for they would be wearing the same clothing as the people who pick on them.

One researchers findings isn't enough to rule out every single case of school uniforms. "In Reno, Nevada, school uniforms have made the life of one autistic student much easier while helping him advance in his cognitive development at school. With the help of intensive therapy and the CLS program at Roy Gomm, he now can do most things a typical developing student can do, including putting on his school uniform." Saying one researchers findings completely rules out any chance of the opposite is ludicrous. Ask a white racist male how they feel about other races, is their answer enough to rule out a another white male's opinion? Until Brunsma studies every single school to use school uniforms, there is no saying that any claims made otherwise are ruled out.

In a survey conducted at Roy Gumm 80% of parents liked the school uniform requirements.

One can express themselves while their young through other avenues such as the music they listen to, the films and television programs they watch, their hair, and jewlery. Having students wear uniforms doesn't completely strip them of individuality. In the same respect, adults can do the same.

Actually, students can wear offensive clothing, whether depicting an offensive act, or even it being too revealing. THeir clothing can be just as offensive as words can be. At Warren Hills Regional High School one student wore a shirt with the offensive term "redneck" on it, while another wore a shirt with the confederate flag. The students could've been targeting a particular student with their choice of attire - there's no way to know. Clothing can caused just as many problems as words can.

http://www.mynews4.com...
http://www.cir-usa.org...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con


R1 & R2 & R3

The Department of Education recieves $58,556,223,831 [1]. This is distributed according to the need of each school. There is enough funds to pay $12,979 per student per year [2]. The rest is for utilities. Funding for public education is at a all-time high [3]. They do not need more funds; they already have enough.

My opponnet states the following:

'kids could reuse their regular outfits, but trends for students change basically over night. Parents would have to continue buying new brands of shirts, shoes and pants more frequently than they would have to purchase uniforms.'

While this is probably true, it is not the job of the schools to clothe children; it is the job of the parents. Clothing differences are going to be the way in their future, and the sooner they learn that the better.

My opponnet goes on to say:

'Some students may protest, yes, but tat can not be said for every student. One boy wearing a skirt to school to protest uniforms isn't enough to suggest students as a whole hate the idea of school uniforms. I'm sure students who are picked on for their clothing wouldn't mind uniforms, for they would be wearing the same clothing as the people who pick on them.'

However, I gave more then just one piece of evidence. I gave numerous proves and events that the majority of students do not want uniforms. I mean since when does one size fit all? Just because a few students can't get the right clothes or are bullied does not mean the government should make everyone that goes to a public school wear the samething whether they want to or not. The majority of students hate the very idea of uniforms. Just because a few are not comfortable does not mean it is right to make the vast majority uncomforable.

My opponent claims:

'In a survey conducted at Roy Gumm 80% of parents liked the school uniform requirements.'

What about the other 20% of the parents and nearly all of the students? It is absolutely wrong to enforce things on the few that do not agree with it.

Also. bear in mind that the researcher was researching for EIGHT YEARS. That usually means it's a more accurate study.

D1: Forcing kids to dress alike will only help create more followers than leaders.

Even minors understand how much outer appearance effects how they are seen by their peers and society as a whole. This is the whole point why the majority of students are opposed to uniforms. They see the only time to wear what they want and express themselves through appearance is in danger of being taken away. To take it away just because of a few extra bucks or a few 'oddballs' is just not right.

D2: Uniforms are unconstitutional.

Yes, because students are going to agree on every single issue, phrase, word, book, etc. (end of sarcasm).

Each student is unique in just about every way. Whether that be in the words they use or the shirt they where. This includes opinions. Just because one or some students find one thing offensive does NOT mean it is just to punish the rest of the students in every single school for that. It is not the job of schools to crack down on divisions, they are only there to teach.

I will now await my opponent's response.


[1]http://wiki.answers.com...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org......

[3]http://www.spokesman.com...
Debate Round No. 4
marisaj

Pro

I concede that it's not the responsibility of the school to clothes its students. However, requiring uniforms would help both parents and the school out, making it a win-win for everyone.

Unfortunately, the money schools receive is not enough. Schools are constantly being faced with budgets cuts and having to cut programs and teachers. While their funds may be at an all time high, it's still not enough to cover each and every expense they are faced with.

In New Jersey particularly, budget cuts have left schools unable a thorough and efficient education for its students.

since when does one size fit all?
I'm sure uniforms would be provided in all shapes to accommodate every kind of student.

Just because a few students can't get the right clothes or are bullied does not mean the government should make everyone that goes to a public school wear the same thing.
While this could be considered true, it's the government's responsibility to protect the well being of its people. When children's lives are threatened (whether by another person or by themselves) it's imperative to take every measure possible to protect them. If the uniforms in place save even just one bullied student's life, I would consider it a success.

In this country especially, majority rules. It's simply the type of voting system in place. 80% vs 20% is an overwhelming majority rule.

I concede that an eight year study would hold accurate results, but the results may not be the same for every public school afflicted.

Children can find other ways to express themselves besides their clothing, such as hair, activities, jewlery, music, etc. Their identities aren't being stripped.

To conclude: Public schools requiring school uniforms is a good idea, and should be practiced. Uniforms can help save parents money in the long run, for they wouldn't have to keep buying their children new, trendy clothes as often as they would if regular outfits were allowed. If the style of uniforms were to stay stagnant, parents could reuse them for their other children. Students would also be able to reuse their uniforms for upwards of three-fours years.

School uniforms would help appease the epidemic of bullying. Children would all be wearing the same thing and would no longer be teased for their outfits and what they can't afford to buy.

Uniforms would ease some distractions in classes (i.e., outfits revealing too much, offensive slogans) and put the focus on learning, rather than fashion.

Uniforms would prepare students for the workplace where there will be strict codes on what they will be able to wear (sort of like uniforms in their own right)

All in all, uniforms would be beneficiary to parents, students, and public schools.

Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your concluding arguments.

http://www.nj.com...
Deathbeforedishonour

Con


Rebuttels & Defense

My opponent has defended her case on helping schools well however, she has failed to state why it should be uniforms in particular that do this. Even if this was to rake in a few extra funds (which it wont and i'll get to that in a few), it still would not be able to bring enough to help the school that much. There are other ways that can be utilized to bring in money to help the schools that are in need. Whether they be car washes, fund raisers, bake sells, etc. There are a massive number of methods that can bring a lot of extra funds to help the school that can increase student creativity and responsability without taking away from the students liberty.

It really wouldn't help parents at all. They would have to pay an increase in taxes every year. Kids and Teens will keep growing till long after they are out of school so they will have to keep getting new ones every single year. Normal clothes from Walmart cost up too 5 to 15 dollars each it is way better then the average uniform that costs between 250 and 270 dollars per uniform [1]. As one can see it would financtially devistate the poorer families. Thus proving uniforms are uneeded in this area and would do more harm then good.

I'm sure uniforms would be provided in all shapes to accommodate every kind of student.

Apparently my opponent didn't get the fact that I was stating a figure of speach when I said this. I was meaning that uniforms might suit the need of a few students but they would over all hurt the others.

My opponent says that uniforms could save lives. Even if this is true (which it isn't) there are better ways of handling this as opposed to uniforms. These methods could be education in why bullying is bad (which is already done), punishing bullies, etc. One does not have to hurt the rest of the kids that didn't bully just because a few punks was being mean.

Uniforms don't even cure bully problems in school. No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgment upon their peers. The clothes are not the root cause of bullying and therefore the bullying will continue, regardless of dress policy. No matter what clothing rules apply, students will always find ways to pass judgment upon each other.

In this country especially, majority rules. It's simply the type of voting system in place. 80% vs 20% is an overwhelming majority rule.

It doesn't matter how many parents want it or not. Parents give up all rights to their children from the moment they drop them off at the public school. This veiw is supported by a number of federal judges and statesmen. The biggest condoner would be Federal Judge Melinda Harmon who ruled it in a number of court cases[2]. So it really doesn't matter at all if 80% of the parents support it or not.

Children can find other ways to express themselves besides their clothing, such as hair, activities, jewlery, music, etc. Their identities aren't being stripped.

Even if there are other ways for kids and teens to express themselves this doesn't take away from the fact that the students would be having the right to express themselves by clothing taken away without probable cause. Therefore, manditory school uniforms in public schools are unconstitutional.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Manitory uniforms in public schools are unconstitutional therefore, it would be illegal for them to that since it would violate their freedom to of expression. They cost too much to help the parents. It doesn't matter what the parents think, because they give up their parental rights as soon as they drop the students off at the public school, and on top of all that uniforms don't even solve bullying and would make the majority of the students mad and as from what the articles I posted tells they could rise in protest and would hurt the over all purpose of schools which is to teach students. Therefore, uniforms are a very bad idea.

[1]http://wiki.answers.com...

[2]http://news.google.com...
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by marisaj 5 years ago
marisaj
that's no problem!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I am sorry for my last severial paragraphs are in bold; I do not know why my computer is doing that. :/
Posted by marisaj 5 years ago
marisaj
i mean it could be considered offensice in certain ways, just like words. i await for your round four response, please.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Yes she does..
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Down here in the south redneck and the confederate flag are symbols of pride, culture and a way of life.

I love the confederate flag and what it stands for (And if anyone says "slavery" imma punch them for ignorance)

You've got a lot to learn girl
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
hell naw! The confederate flag is the best!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Did pro just say that the confederate flag was offensive? This is personal now. D:<
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
marisajDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The thing that really saved the CON in my decision to give him the Arg. vote was his piece of evidence by Brunsma, and since his opponent didn't really provide any strong evidence to contradict that, it gave more validity to the arguments of the CON as well as the more "reliable sources" vote. Therefore, my vote goes to CON.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
marisajDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: i read it a while back, but dont feel like reading it again. CON was winning when I read it a few days ago. I glanced over sources, he had more and he had credible ones too. I hope others vote on this too.